March 19, 2018

Former Maine IFW Commissioner “DEMANDS” Destruction of Your Inalienable Rights

Repeatedly I have written about the fact that fish and wildlife departments nationwide have gone green and become nothing more than Left-Wing environmentalist that oppose hunting, fishing, and trapping as well as complete predator protection. Going hand in hand with these mental-midget totalitarians is the call to ban guns believing in their progressive empty heads that such an action will somehow, magically stop violent crimes.

If there are any that agree with my assessment of things, they may not realize that this morphing didn’t happen overnight. It did not and here is some proof.

Some may remember former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Bucky Owen. Owen served under Gov. Angus King (oh, that doesn’t surprise you?) in the late 1990s through early 2000s. It’s difficult to wrap your head around the idea that one man in charge of a government agency where once it’s function was fish and game management, which included the North American Model of Wildlife Management (includes hunting), is now “demanding” action to destroy the Second Amendment and your inalienable right to decide how you would prefer to protect yourself and your property.

In a brief Letter to the Editor of a Bangor, Maine newspaper, Owen writes: “…raise the age for gun ownership to 21; require a safety course for all gun owners just as we do for hunters; reduce the legal clip size to that of a traditional hunting rifle; make bump stocks illegal; require universal background checks for the sale of any firearm; outlaw semiautomatic weapons, such as the AR-15; keep weapons away from those who don’t have the mental capacity to use them correctly; and finally; ensure better data gathering and sharing among law enforcement agencies.”

In addition to his misguided empty-headedness on the fact that besides destroying our rights, not one single thing he suggests will do a damned thing to stop gun violence or make schools safer. But the liberal disease knows no deep-end bounds and he shows his real anger, hatred, and ignorance when he writes: “For those who want to play “Rambo,” make these weapons available at a licensed shooting range, and if that isn’t enough, join the Marines, where you can shoot to your heart’s content.”

This person once led the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Difficult to think this man served in a leadership role.

Owen, and many, many, others have encouraged and supported children dictating the social and political structure of this nation. I am reminded of when the Leftists actively sought to bring children into positions of authority sitting on school boards dictating what they wanted their education/brainwashing factories to look like. I ask, how has that turned out. Are we now so stupid that we look to children for our leadership?

With this infectious disease of progressivism/totalitarianism threatening our very existence, is it any wonder our fish and game departments are doomed?



The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!


Coyote Snaring and the Difference Between Fascism and Democracy

An opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News laments any notion that trapping of coyotes by snares should be reinstated. As the old saying goes, it might be a cold day in hell before…..But that doesn’t stop a good opportunity to opine emotional, outdated, clap-trap in hopes of influencing the public opinion poll, and for what purpose?

But this isn’t really about the pros and cons of snaring. It’s about credibility or the lack thereof, and a person’s failure, it appears to understand the difference between living in a democracy and under the ruling of fascist dictatorship.

Some may know that I’m no big fan of democratic rule and am certainly opposed to Fascism. It is always said that democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Fascism, in a similar regard, is one person or government forcing both the wolves and the sheep to eat what they are told to eat.

Another misconception that exists in this post-normal world is the idea that political ideology runs along a straight line, a continuum if you will. I disagree. If you follow extreme Leftism far enough, it ends up in fascism. If you follow the far Right far enough, you’ll run headlong into the Left and fascism.

In the Bangor News opinion piece, the author attempts to make the argument that the money spent killing coyotes for predator control could have been better spent, “…passing laws to protect deer yards.”

For those not intelligent enough to understand this concept, let me explain. Whether you or I like a democracy or not, there are ways to go about promoting your fascist ideals. However, some who understand a democracy realize that it is far less dictatorial to select a method of predator control to salvage a deer herd than to take land and property rights away from private landowners. Those that promote bigger, more centralized government couldn’t care less about your property rights. Those who understand the value of property ownership and property rights see such calls as a direct effort to suppress those rights…far from the democratic rule.

But to a fascist, they want what they want without any care to the private citizen, or soon to be subject-slave should such displays of fascism, promoted by totalitarians selfishly demanding their own way regardless of the cost to others. This book has been written many times throughout history.

To suggest “passing laws to protect deer yards” is to demand that a landowner should be stripped of their rights to their land. Maine has ample (far too many) fascist restrictions placed on landowners now, that it doesn’t need another prohibiting them from doing anything with their land in order to protect the whims of misguided animal perverts and environmentalists who think it’s better to allow the suffering of animals and the waste of good, natural food, because a person fails to understand the realities of taking a life to sustain another. Fascism is the author of waste.

Maine’s landowners have done a damned good job over the years doing all they can voluntarily to protect what land they can for the deer and they should be thanked instead of asked to give more while those asking do nothing but demand more and more. That’s the foundation of Fascism.

History has shown us that fascism is only a mechanism or a tool to bring a nation under the rule of communism.

Every time someone says, “There ought to be a law….” there goes your liberties and here comes their fascism. Fascism is enabled by totalitarians. Eager and ignorant useless eaters, programmed to believe centralized government forced upon everyone equitably is justice, but is but one step away from fascistic domination, forced obedience and complete control over everything.

Think about that before you open your mouth with your emotional Leftist, Progressive nonsense. I guarantee you will not like your servitude.


I’m Not All In With This Man’s “Gun Culture”

I read this article this morning of a man describing his world of “gun culture.” I thought a lot of it was well presented, although I didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, including some of the “feelings” he gets from carrying a concealed weapon, etc.

What I disagreed with the most was what is on display in this country at present. Somehow the “gun culture” has taken the high road, while on the one hand promoting a person’s right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms, and on the other hand assuming the role of a good totalitarian in support of fascist government regulation and control over an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and a person’s choice as to how to do that.

The author writes: “Many gun-rights supporters were appalled to learn after the Sutherland Springs shooting that the military was systematically underreporting disqualifying convictions to the federal background check database. Under pressure, the military has added more than 4,000 new names in just three months. Similarly, law-enforcement failures or background-check failures that preceded, for example, the Virginia Tech, Charleston, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland shootings are spurring serious new consideration of the gun violence restraining order, a move that would allow family members and others close to a potential shooter to get in front of a judge to request that the court direct law enforcement to temporarily seize a dangerous person’s weapons. It gives ordinary citizens a chance to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something.

The intent here is understandable. What is seriously flawed in the circular thinking process is the belief that some Second Amendment restrictions affect only the lawful citizen and others don’t. This action requires that the True Believer fully trusts his government to do the right thing and protect us. How has that worked in the past?

I can’t be a part of this “gun culture.” I don’t like government telling me how, when and with what, I can defend myself.

The author is proud that the military has turned in more names of those now prohibited from buying and owning a gun, with complete faith and trust that each and every one of them was justified…by whose standards I might ask. Seriously, is there any valid reason that we should believe and trust the government to do anything that is right?

The writer has complete faith in his government that a “temporary” taking of a person’s property, deeming them “dangerous” (by whose standards I ask again?) is a good thing. And, I’ll bet this same person is the first to wonder why his inalienable right to protection is being systematically taken away and by piecemeal being ceded over to the Government for administration.

By God don’t we ever learn anything?


Hikers Must Pass Environment Course Before They Can Hike

Just the other day I read where in Utah, a person must take a “free” online “Antler-Gathering Ethics Course.” Think about this for a moment before you laugh at it or, more than likely, laugh at me.

To the totalitarian leaders in state government, carrying out the wishes of the fascist regimes in Washington, the plebs are incapable of doing anything without government say so and control over it. This is ALWAYS followed by the issuance of a tax in order that the fascists can collect their filthy money in order to continue their filthy ways. Unfortunately, but very few see it nor are they interested in Truth, most hunters and outdoor sportsmen, smile while being accosted and pillaged hiding behind the stupid excuse that what government is telling them to do, “is for the good of the Motherland.” If that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, then simply state such laws and restrictions are reasonable.

Most hunters, but not all, if you are capable of understanding, speak that they support the right of a person to keep and bear arms. However, the overwhelming majority will cower and say that “reasonable” restrictions to this right are “good for the Motherland,” failing miserably to understand that in so doing a right is turned into a privilege. A privilege is easily taken away. We fall into our grave and evidently love it.

We don’t even understand the word reasonable. The use of the word reasonable is value-weighted. In other words, it is defined by whoever has enough authority to levy “reasonable” based upon their own perceptions of what the term should mean. In this world of progressive leftism, rooted firmly in immorality and decadent lifestyles, what does reasonable mean today? What will it mean tomorrow? If you can’t see this point, you are a victim of your own progressivism and don’t know it. I’m sorry!

In Utah is a clear example of such. Government has decided that before you can take a walk in the woods to find some antlers that fall off animals, such as deer, elk, and moose, they must tell you how to do it. My guess is the overwhelming majority will think this is a good thing and will protect these animals in the late winter when most sheds drop.

Half of these that support an “ethics course” to shed hunt often openly state that gun control laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. I suppose that to these masters of illusionary ignorance, a law-abiding citizen is one that is smart enough to know what is illegal and respectful enough to abide by those laws. Therefore, all law-abiding gun owners are those that_________________. (I’ll let you kid yourself and fill in the blank.) While you’re at it, fill in this blank. All ________________ who took the mandatory ethics course are law-abiding slaves.

Always bear in mind that you, being a law-abiding citizen (wink-wink), don’t know how to “ethically” pick up shed antlers and you need someone to tell you how. If you agree with this then you must be one who also needs government to tell you how to “ethically” own a gun and how to “ethically” use it. The same must hold true for fishing, archery, boating, hiking, biking, walking, talking, sleeping, eating, and the proper and ethical way to use an outhouse.

Most understand that disturbing an animal that is stressed by the harshness of winter does the animal no good. If it is really that detrimental to the health of the animals, then wouldn’t it make sense to outlaw shed hunting? Probably, but that doesn’t fit well into the narrative of the totalitarians and the fascists who demand that we do everything they want us to.

Don’t deny it! You will shake your head at me and ask yourself what drugs I’m on because I don’t care at all for government and everything they do and stand for. While at present, a “free” online course on the ethics of antler shed hunting sounds so…so…so…, well, how do I put it? Leftist progressive? Grounded in environmentalism? Totalitarian? Fascist? What? Oh, you say it’s a great idea? And will it still be a great idea when for anyone who gives a tinker’s damn, learns nothing has changed by forcing the proletariats to comply with the government and then will come the tax? I predict the majority will be eager to pay “each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

If this is the growing trend, and it certainly appears that everyone is “all aboard” this freight train to hell, line up and let’s make it the same for everybody. No need to pick on just shed hunters…is there?

Before anyone can “hike,” – any good totalitarian, leftist, idealogue can clearly define what is a “hike” – they must complete a course on the ethics of walking while not disturbing flora and fauna; carry in and carry out; how walking the same path causes erosion; how to properly go to the bathroom while in the woods (yes, there is something unethical about taking a dump on somebody’s private land and leaving a giant stack of toilet paper.) But let’s not disturb the animals…never the animals. Kill humans, leave the honorable animals alone.

This list and more can apply to any outdoor activity. Forcing the law-abiding (wink -wink) citizen-serfs to pass a test written by government totalitarian/fascists, will change nothing. But if they have their plans down pat, they can collect a tax and get their law enforcement heroes to arrest and fine anyone caught not following the manifesto. Be careful when one of those heroes approaches you, your hiking stick might just look like a weapon.

Okay! Go ahead and laugh now!

But, by all means…



They Want Us to Eat Their Mass-Produced Poison Instead

*Editor’s Comment* – If, as is repeated in this column, these leaders of world genocide don’t want us to kill living animals for sustenance, then we must learn to do what the other animals do and eat them while they are still alive – truly fresh meat. From videos I have seen, a slowly-eaten prey animal can live a long time. Learning how to carve out steaks, chops, and roasts while ensuring the longest possible life for the animal will allow those of us who don’t want to eat Bill Gates poison he and others have invested heavily in.

Of course, once the animal dies we will have to stop eating it and move on to the next living animal.

Which reminds of a story about the traveling salesman, the farmer, and his pig. The traveling salesman, while driving down a country road, noticed a pig next to a farmer’s barn that had what appeared to be a peg leg. Curiosity was overwhelming and so he stopped to inquire.

Finding the farmer he asked him if his pig had a peg leg and why. He had never seen such a thing before.

The farmer explained to the traveling salesman that one day while working in the field with his tractor, he got trapped under his tractor. The farmer calling desperately for help was greeted by his prize pig. The short of the story is that the pig saved the farmers life.

Still looking puzzled, the traveling salesman asked, “But how did the pig get the peg leg?” The answer was simple (and perhaps a lesson on how to eat meat from a live animal so you don’t have to kill it), “A pig that good can’t be eaten all at once!”

8 Business Leaders Who Are Investing to Close Slaughterhouses for Good

From Silicon Valley tech moguls to business executives and entrepreneurs, these people know that the future of food means not slaughtering animals.<<<Read More>>>


Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?


When Lawmakers Strengthen Laws Against Hunters and Do Worse Crimes and Get Away With It Themselves

George Smith writes to clarify a new anti-baiting law for deer. Under current circumstances, I do not favor hunting deer over bait, although, like bear management, I think the decision should be based on the need to more effectively control the population of deer, of which Maine does not have a problem with, and that decision should be left in the hands of the commissioner. Why in one instance the commissioner knows best and in another he doesn’t?

According to Smith, a new law,  An Act To Increase the Penalties for Hunting Deer over Bait, was passed in the Maine Legislature that upon a second offense of baiting deer a person’s privilege to purchase a hunting license is revoked for the remainder of that person’s life.

Isn’t this just a bit draconian? In what direction is this Maine Legislature headed? We learned recently of the Legislature passing a bill that directs greater punishment against hunters as a group than any other group or individual in Maine. That is unlawful, and yet it passed and appears as though I am the only one who sees the new law for what it is. Maybe that’s why the Legislature gets away with their fascism.

And now we see the liberal, progressive mindset, that believes tougher laws stop criminals…or is it something else? Perhaps this is part of the brainwashing rearing its ugly head of the brainwashed masses targeting hunting simply because they have been taught to dislike and disapprove of the activity and will do what they can, outwardly and covertly to end the practice.

But that’s just one aspect of totalitarianism run amok. When you consider that at least one of the lawmakers, who is part of the whole Maine Legislative body, committed the crime of threatening the president and displayed his true colors as a bigoted, hate-filled, filthy-mouthed pervert, walks away after offering some kind of fake apology. Why doesn’t he lose his privilege to serve his state and country for life? Who wants a filthy hate-monger representing them anyway? But he keeps his job and can vote on and craft draconian laws like the one we see here.

Evidently, Maine is no different than any other state. Lawmakers, like all politicians, realize at some point in their careers that they are above the law and that the laws they make as fascists, to please the totalitarians for their votes, do not pertain to them. And so, Maine, like so many other places, is headed in the wrong direction.

There once was a day when any law was crafted around the seriousness of the crime. In this case it appears that it is more serious to put out some food for a deer than it is to threaten the life of the president. And in the other case, hunters are to receive greater punishment than any other group or individual.

Somebody’s got their heads inserted deeply where the sun doesn’t shine. And evidently we like it!


Socially Acceptable Levels of Nonsense

It’s beyond foolishness that fish and game departments across this totalitarian nation – that thinks it’s a democracy – aim to implement “socially acceptable levels” of wild animals as it pertains to their legislative mandates to “manage” them. Wildlife management is a science – even though more often than not that science is severely fouled through Scientism, outcome-based pseudo science, environmental idealism, Romance Biology, Voo-Doo Science, or just plain political bias. Make way for “socially acceptable levels” of wildlife injected into what once was a scientific process formulated in the best interest of the people, the health of the animals and the desire to utilize a natural resource for the benefit of providing a food source and continuing a heritage that has been a part of human survival since The Great Flood.

In order to be transparent and forthcoming, let me say right up front that if the real, honest, scientific process determined that any and/or all hunting should stop, for the purpose of sustaining a game species, I would support that. I have in the past.

This “social acceptance” nonsense rose to recognition right along with Environmentalism and the perversion of Animal Rights. Much because the American person has been so misguided in their understanding as to what purpose animals have on this planet, that existence has risen to such a psychopathic level that we witness, as a common element within our society, of, not only humans living, eating, bathing, and sleeping with their pets, but offering these animals a perceived right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equal to or greater than those of men. Utter nonsense and far beyond the realm of human intelligence.

Now we are witness to fish and game departments, caving in to the mental illness of equal existence of man and animal, that somehow it has become necessary to bastardize and pervert what was left of honest, scientific, wildlife management in order that people get to express their tolerance levels of wild animals – based on nothing but one’s manipulated perception, formulated on selfishness, greed, laziness and a myriad of other emotional factors and useless, non-redeeming social values.

Perhaps the only half-sensible level of tolerance that should be considered is that of public safety. However, are we to accept the idealism of some city slicker, who has never seen a moose, bear, turkey, deer, or downhill-side-badger, as a legitimate means of managing wildlife? Nobody wants to run the risk of running into a large wild animal with their car and getting hurt, even if they are too stupid to know when to slow down or to slow down at all. Few understand the real risk of confronting large predators due to distorted views allowed to be presented. Aren’t these issues something that should be decided by science and not socially progressive emotional clap-trap?

In what other things in our life are we asked of our “socially acceptable levels?” Please don’t confuse “socially acceptable” with economic tolerances, although in some wildlife management issues, some level of economic tolerance exists.

Does the EPA consult with the people, i.e. sending out surveys and questionnaires to get a sense of how much the public will stand for their fascists dictations?

Does the Department’s of Transportation, actively seek social tolerances with automobile drivers as to how many deaths by vehicular destruction is acceptable? Do they do the same before setting the speed limit, building or repairing roads?

Does the Department of Energy and Defense consult with you and I about our social acceptance of the number of nuclear weapons or the need for war?

Are we consulted with what our tolerances are with the military and U.S. Government spraying chemicals daily in our skies over us?

Even in fake, government shams like “Global Warming,” you and I aren’t consulted with as to what our tolerance level is as to the amount of carbon dioxide we are willing to “suffer” with.

We have been told for decades now that man explored space and landed on the moon. When was the last time you were probed as to your social acceptance of rockets in space and vast amounts of resources, time and money it took to pull this off?

Are we consulted for social acceptance as to how many trees get cut, fields get planted and harvested, or who gets to place their land in Tree Farm status?

This list is endless and yet, science be goddamned, it has become necessary for officials within our fish and game departments to consult with mentally ill animal perverts, even placing them on department committees, in order to figure out how much people can take. Who made that decision? What a joke. And how irresponsible can it be, to pretend to somehow balance sound and responsible wildlife management with the demands of environmentalists and animal perverts?

Maine is in the process of wasting time devising copy and paste game management plans so they can continue to be eligible for Federal funds. The latest laugh comes from plans to decide how many wild turkeys is “socially acceptable” to Maine people.

According to George Smith’s article, the Department wants to have enough turkeys for “viewing”: ““Ensure public satisfaction with the turkey population by providing hunting and viewing opportunity and minimizing conflicts with landowners.””

If you haven’t been to Maine recently, the traffic is extremely heavy with idiots wanting to view wild turkeys. Give me a break! Does anyone have a brain anymore? Are we so stupid as to forego everything sensible because we fear political correctness (censorship)? Cannot they see that this sham of “social tolerance” is nothing more than a guise to rid the world of the things environmentalists don’t like while protecting their own. This is totalitarianism and doesn’t even resemble the next worse thing – democracy.

If fish and game departments haven’t the collective brains to have an understanding of “what the market will bear” (no pun intended), then fire them…or better yet, don’t hire them to begin with. Science is first and foremost. To go out seeking public input about social acceptances within a scientific process is fools folly. They should be able to get a good sample of the real population’s tolerances by listening to the phone ring with complaints.

To pimp the rides of environmentalists is playing their totalitarian games. This nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. It’s a waste of time, energy and money. Fish and game departments should be applying the real scientific process to wildlife and game management, while considering the recreational value of such management, combined with public safety. If they haven’t figure this child’s game out yet, then what good are they? Get rid of all of them and find those who got a clue.



Why Hunting is Doomed for Failure

To many, all things are relative. In other words, they are only capable of seeing the moment for what it is and without any kind of historic compass in which to gauge the direction of the wind, knows not the direction things are headed. I suppose there is something to be said about the eternal optimist, but then again there is a fine line between having a good outlook and burying your head in the sand.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) emailed an announcement yesterday proclaiming that this coming Saturday, October 29, 2016, is opening day, for residents, of the annual deer hunting season. In that report, MDIFW tells readers that they think this year’s deer harvest might surpass last year’s – all because last winter wasn’t as severe as others – which sounds more like a sales pitch than anything scientific in which to hang your professional hat on. In addition, MDIFW appears to be proudly proclaiming that the average deer harvest for the past 8 years has been 20,900, as though that was something to be proud of. It’s dismal and we can expect to find more of the same, and worse, in coming years and I’ll show you exactly why.

Some hunters ask, what’s wrong with game management these days? This can easily be spelled out in a paragraph written by MDIFW in this press release. Perhaps some of you would like to print out a copy and carry it around with you. When, in the process of discussing why there aren’t any deer left to hunt and why in the past 20 years even spotting a white flag waving as it moves away is rare, you can pull out this statement by MDIFW and it answers all the questions as to why.

“The department manages white-tailed deer through regulated hunting, and controls the deer population in parts of the state to limit vehicle crashes, reduce instances of lyme disease and reduce property damage complaints. In other areas of the state, the department manages the deer population to increase opportunities for hunting and viewing.”

Several years ago a deliberate and planned event took place. It was an effort, by environmentalists, to take over fish and game departments nationwide. That is why “fish and game” in most state’s department titles have disappeared and have become, “fish and wildlife,” “natural resources,” etc. Game is not wanted in any titles as it signifies hunting, which in today’s totalitarian society of environmental fascists and animal rights perverts, is not wanted.

One of the leading culprits in this effort is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). What may have begun as an intention to pool resources for the good of state agencies, was soon co-opted by environmentalists who became successful in convincing Congress to give them a share of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise tax money charged to those who purchase certain outdoor equipment, including guns and ammunition. They used this money for programs to end hunting, trapping and fishing. It became the goal of the AFWA to turn all state fish and game departments into managers of giant outdoor pet stores. Departments, complimented by newly brainwashed recruits from our institutes of higher brainwashing, took these environmentalist-trained rookies, and made them mostly view hunting, trapping and fishing as something to be tolerated because it paid their wages and took care of their retirement pensions. Through all of this, for the most part, it was, and still is, the license buyer who foots the bill and invests in a new entity of “natural resource” management, i.e. as is indicated in the paragraph above, everything but hunting, trapping and fishing.

Along with this, the outdoor sportsman has lost any consideration of input into the process of game management. Some believe they still have it, because they are promoters of environmentalism, and become a part of the rigged system actually believing they are contributing to the process of natural resource management and that this will somehow protect hunting, trapping and fishing. They are simply, contributing to the destruction of hunting, trapping and fishing.

I have always advocated for a separation of powers with state departments, including separating game management and administration from conservation. The license buyers will fund game management and the rest of the environmentalist-controlled world can fund “conservation,” thus protecting their piping plovers and ruby-throated cruple-poops anyway they want. This, of course, will never happen. One reason is because of the complete takeover of departments by environmentalists and animal rights perverts. In short, my investment in the process seems to be going everywhere except into deer hunting.

I no longer hold out any hope that this is going to change. There will be many more rounds of lawsuits and ballot initiatives that will result in more a more power granted the environmentalists. With that dismal prospect looming in my future, maybe it’s time for the environmentalists and animal rights perverts to pay up. They demand, and get, pretty much whatever they want, and I have to pay for it. If they don’t get it by directly lobbying our environmentally controlled fish and wildlife departments, because they can easily grab hold of a few million dollars, we (meaning hunters) are forced to spent even more money to fight these insane totalitarians in court or at the ballot box. They pay nothing and yet control fish and game management. I pay everything, and am at a point where there is nothing left for my investment. The price of my license inches upwards, while my opportunity to harvest a deer and fill my freezer continues to drop. And I am supposed to remain quiet and like it?

Nope! Sorry! Ain’t going to happen.

Most cannot, and will not, recognize what is known as incrementalism – that is a diminishing department one tiny bit at a time. They think all is well and good and that people like me are just complainers and should shut up and go away.

I, for one, am sick and tired of footing the bill and paying the way of the animal perverts, preservationists and environmentalists. I know that when the environmentalists are asking to pay up, they will demand more seats on committees and more power to control. They already have that. Recently we saw the MDIFW appoint the person who headed up the effort in Maine to ban bear hunting, to a seat on a committee that makes management decisions. This is insanity! What cost hunters millions of dollars to fight, they were rewarded by watching the leaders of the MDIFW hand over more control to these totalitarians. What’s the point anymore.

I am willing to say that the only reason hunters are tolerated is because they pay the bills. Yes, I know, the wildlife managers certainly don’t act like they know who pays their salaries and pensions, and as long as they don’t care, why should we continue to invest in something that soon will yield no return.

It’s a terrible business proposition with absolutely little future.