August 31, 2015

Maine Trappers Required to Use “Exclusion” Device to Avoid Lynx Capture

According to an article in the Press Herald, Maine trappers will now be required to use an exclusion device that is intended to prevent Canada lynx, a falsely declared “Endangered Species,” from entering a killer-type trap, along with other restrictions on non-lethal restraint devices.

Last December, the department effectively shut down trapping for most above-ground species in the northern half of the state after two lynx were found dead in legally set traps during a two-week period. The lynx died just weeks after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had issued Maine an “incidental take permit” that shields the state from liability for accidental lynx trappings but requires a state response if too many lynx are caught.

I sure would like to hear others begin and/or continue to ask the question as to whether or not the odds are extremely slim that it was a mere coincidence that two lynx were “killed in traps” just shortly AFTER the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) was granted an Incidental Take Permit. Something has always stunk from my perspective of things.

And yet, fascist/totalitarian environmentalists have launched a lawsuit to put a halt to all trapping in order to protect the lynx they say, but their real goal, and always has been, is to end trapping…period. Is this really all just a coincidence? Was there ever a necropsy done on the two lynx that were “killed in traps?” Was there ever any kind of investigation, a real one anyway, in order to rightfully determine the events leading up to and the death of the two lynx. It’s just too bizarre to at least not question.

I suppose when the MDIFW, environmentalists in their own right, deliberately craft, along with the fascists in the corrupt U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a permit that easily sets the stage for this kind of event, how could any of us expect that same department to ask any difficult questions and find any difficult answers?

We operate in a rigged system – one rigged purposefully for the eco-fascist/totalitarian environmentalists, led by a corrupt government. Expect NOTHING to improve so long as the system remains rigged.

 

LynxPhotoRule

Device

DevicePlan

 

 

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Wildlife groups sue to stop Maine’s trapping season to protect Canada lynx

Three nonprofit groups file a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for allowing Maine to issue trapping permits.

Source: Wildlife groups sue to stop Maine’s trapping season to protect Canada lynx – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

California Bans Bobcat Trapping, Despite Evidence

Press Release from the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

With a contentious 3-2 vote, the California Fish and Game Commission approved a statewide ban on trapping of bobcats.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance and its Al Taucher Conservation Coalition partners favored following the science amassed by the state and federal governments.

“Today’s narrow decision by the commission to ban bobcat trapping in California flies in the face of the science made available by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” said Josh Brones, government affairs coordinator of western operations for the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “For the commission to willfully ignore the departments’ recommendations to not implement the ban, indicates an utter lack of regard for the role and value of science and wildlife professionals in resource policy-making decisions.”

In his presentation, Craig Martz, senior environmental scientist for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, provided ample evidence that the bobcat population in California was stable and possibly growing, and as high as 140,000 animals. When the maximum population was estimated to be no more than 72,000 bobcats nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife established a threshold of harvest by hunters and trappers to be 14,400 bobcats. Given the current average annual take of approximately 1,800 bobcats, the department’s staff appropriately summarized their presentation by stating that the trapping of bobcats would have absolutely no impact on the population.

In a disappointing turn of events, newly appointed commissioners Sklar and Williams voted against sportsmen and were the deciding factors in the needless statewide ban, with commission president Jack Baylis joining them. Commissioners Kellogg and Hostler-Carmesin voted against the ban.

“We are very disappointed by the willingness of the new commissioners to cave to the irrational and emotional arguments of the animal-rights community by taking such a radical stance on a very complex topic that has been debated for more than year – especially when their knowledge and experience with the subject matter has been confined to this single meeting,” said Brones.

“When they were appointed by Gov. Brown, we had hoped Williams and Sklar would recognize the environmental and economic importance sportsmen serve in wildlife management. At the very least, we hoped they would take a prudent and thoughtful look at the evidence and recommendation of state and federal scientists,” continued Brones. “Apparently, that was too much to hope for in this hotly debated contest. This glaring disregard for credible science will most assuredly be exploited as we pursue our options to reverse this decision.”

The Upside-Down World That We Live In

DogPerversionIn another act of brilliance, a writer in the Bangor Daily News, still attempting to find a bear for a mate, made the following statement:

Let’s not forget that the bears of our state –if they belong to anyone other than themselves – belong to all of us, and the way they are treated is a powerful statement about the kind of people we are and the values we hold.

Who could argue such a statement? It’s true. The kind of people we really are is reflected in how we treat animals. However, my view of that statement and the guy’s who made it, couldn’t be any further apart from each other.

The author of this statement, in the context of his article, is saying that humans are bad because we hunt animals – in this case the subject is about bears and the way it is being done.

Progressivism has caused the world to turn topsy-turvey. Those of the progressive persuasion believe this to be a good thing. All they need do is convince themselves that what once was bad is now good. At least in this case, it is my opinion that it is not a good thing. The way that American’s treat animals has turned in a very perverse direction. The more humans are convinced, through propaganda and brainwashing, that animals are “just like humans” and have “rights,” the more extreme the perversion becomes.

If we wind our clocks back to the late 1700s, through historic accounts we can learn that while Thomas Jefferson lived and worked for the U.S. Government to find trading partners throughout much of Europe, he used, much like this author, the same principle that people could be judged by how they treated their animals. However, Jefferson believed, as did much of society then, that coddling animals as pets and thinking of them the same as humans, was a mark of poor character and he refused to do business with them. Today, people find such an act as atrocious. I applaud him.

But, to a progressive, what Jefferson did means absolutely nothing. To them the world must change to meet their growing perversion.

Hunting and gathering has been a part of existence since the beginning of time. Through the progression of time and mind manipulation, people have become convinced that it is acceptable to go to the market and buy a slab of steak, but it is wrong to harvest your own slab of steak through hunting.

Is this really the issue when one argues that animals are just like people, that they have rights? If that were true, then I don’t understand why there is opposition to taking the life of a bear, when probably many of the same people who spend their waking minutes protecting bears, see no problem with killing an unborn human. Is this not really more of a reflection of what kind of people we are than how we treat bears?

Turning one’s focus onto placing value on how we treat animals, only distracts from the reality of how we treat our fellow humans and the value of life that is placed on them. Murder, hatred, stealing, lying, drugs, alcohol, and all those things that once were considered terrible things, doesn’t seem to be a reflection on the “kind of people” we have become, yet, hunting wild animals and how we do it, is? This is sick human behavior, but not to the progressive.

Once man knew what was right and what was wrong. That has all changed now and in the statement highlighted above, it becomes clear that we are no longer using a moral compass to guide human behavior and set. Instead, we are now placing animals as equivalent in all aspects to humans in order to convince ourselves of our own worth and treating animals better than we are treating humans.

We all should be ashamed.

Testimony Given in Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment

Senator Paul Davis, Representative Michael Shaw, distinguished members of the committee on Inland Fisheries and wildlife.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Brett Patten and I am here to testify in support of LD753, a proposal that would amend Maine’s Constitution to protect an individual’s right to hunt, and fish. And, in concept, LD703 a proposal that would amend the constitution of Maine to protect the people’s right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.

That being said, I feel here in Maine we pride ourselves on having strong beliefs as well as our own thoughts and ideas. That is why I’m asking you, when these bills go to work session that you make them our own. Make this “Maine’s Constitutional Amendment”, not Idaho’s, not Kentucky’s or any other state in the union, but Maine’s. There is a belief that similar Constitutional Amendments in other states, that are already in place, will work here in Maine, maybe they will, I don’t know. I do know this, in Maine we tend to do things our way, and not the way of others. This may be our best opportunity to do this so I would ask you to make this the best it can be.

Notwithstanding the fact that I am in favor of these bills, I am proposing the following changes in section 26 of the amendment and to the question that would appear on the ballot.
(Changes are in bold type)

Section 26. Right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest game and fish.
The right of the people of this state to hunt, fish, trap and harvest game and fish, including by the use of traditional methods, may not be infringed, subject to reasonable laws enacted by the legislature and reasonable rules adopted by the state agency designated for fish and wildlife management to promote wildlife conservation and management, to maintain natural resources in trust for public use and to preserve the future of hunting, fishing and trapping managing fish and game for surplus harvest. Public hunting, fishing and trapping are preferred means of managing, controlling and perpetuating fish and wildlife. This section may not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent domain, trespass or property rights.

The question on the ballot would read like this:
“Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to provide that the right of the people of this state to hunt, fish, trap and harvest game and fish may not be infringed, subject to reasonable laws and rules, and to provide that public hunting, fishing and trapping are a preferred means of managing, controlling and perpetuating wildlife”?

I have hunted and fished in Maine most of my life and in recent years I’ve found a real love in trapping. I’m very proud to say I’m a registered Maine guide, a member of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, the Maine Professional Guide’s Association and the Maine Trapper’s Association. Last year’s fight against the bear referendum showed me a lot about who we are as Mainer’s. Although I was sickened at the amount of money and resources wasted in last years fight, I’m very grateful that I got to be a part of, and see firsthand, the solidarity and determination it took to defeat the Humane Society of the United States, for the second time in 10 years. For those of you that may not know, the Maine trapper’s Association donated over $117,000.00 towards last years cause along with soliciting thousands more from other fraternal organization’s. Trapping is a valuable part of Maine’s wildlife conservation and has been for hundreds of years. The word “trap” and the word “trapping” deserve to be in this amendment.

Opponents of bills like these say, “A State’s Constitution should guarantee fundamental democratic rights, not provide protection for recreational pastimes.” I say, “Hunting, fishing, and trapping are not recreational pastimes, but they are rights, rights of the people of this great state that should be protected forever!”

I would ask you to please vote “ought to pass” with the few changes I have presented.

I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you all for your time and God bless.

Respectfully submitted,
Brett Patten

At $300 Per Hour, New Hampshire Can Devise a Bobcat Lottery

The State of New Hampshire is considering the possibility of creating a lottery in which to administer a prescribed number of bobcat hunting and/or trapping permits. According to WMUR.com, the New Hampshire fish and game department calculates, “It would require about 54 staff hours or roughly $16,000, including all benefits to get the lottery and hunt off.”

My math tells me that equates to just a couple dollars shy of $300 per hour (which includes benefits). Maybe this better tells us what is wrong with fish and game departments everywhere.

USSA Foundation Joins Lynx Lawsuit to Protect Maine Trappers

Columbus, OH –(Ammoland.com)- On Friday, April 3, 2015, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and the Maine Trappers Association filed to intervene in a lawsuit in Maine brought by the animal rights group, Friends of Animals.

The suit aims to strip the state of Maine of its Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which allows for a limited number of Canada lynx to be caught in traps without the state, or individual trappers, being held liable under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Without this protection, every time a lynx was accidentally caught in a legal trap, the trapper could face federal ESA penalties.

Canada lynx, which are listed as a threatened species in the U.S. due to fragmented populations, are abundant just north of the border in Canada. In fact, there are many who believe that the lynx populations should be removed from the ESA altogether.<<<Read More>>>

In a Rigged System a Bill to Allow Access for Hunting, Fishing

For decades the rigged system many people wrongfully label a democracy or a constitutional republic, has worked at every opportunity to prohibit hunters, trappers and fisherman from as much access to land as can possibly be done. At the same time efforts exist to ban hunting and rob people of their right to keep and bear arms. If they can’t do this outright, they will accomplish the same through what is often called incrementalism or back door regulations to chip away at any and all aspects of hunting, fishing and trapping, including land access.

Then along comes another effort to put an end, at least to some degree, to the continued prohibitions against land access and those who helped to build the rigged system cry foul and claim preferential treatment.

According to Pajamas Media, the Sportsman’s Act of 2015, “builds on previous efforts and adds new provisions to increase access and provide new opportunities for Americans to enjoy our federal lands.”

It appears that in this bill there are provisions that contradict the existing laws surrounding “wilderness” regions – those areas set aside as preferential treatment to only those wishing to see access to federal lands restricted to specific groups or individuals.

And herein we see the hypocrisy and elitist attitudes coming out from those who promote “wilderness” for their own selfish purposes.

“Certain language [in the act] may be interpreted to allow activities in wilderness areas that are not consistent with the Wilderness Act,” Ellis explained.

Leslie Weldon, deputy chief for the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture, expressed concern that the bill seems to give preferential treatment to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. That could prove problematic given the wide range of activities enjoyed on public lands — and the service’s charge to accommodate everyone from bird watchers and hikers to school groups, photographers and, indeed, hunters and fishermen.

Please understand this. As it exists now, within the rigged system developed and designed to eliminate hunting, fishing and trapping, preferential treatment is being promoted by restricting activities by some in order to promote the desires of others in an exclusive use – and they fear such a bill would be preferential to hunters and fishermen.

Also understand that that those who seem to believe they have a right to own and restrict others, lament that such a bill would cause problems because their choice in recreational activities might be infringed upon in order to accommodate others. This is the result of years of brainwashing that hunting, trapping and fishing is bad and shouldn’t be allowed, giving people the false belief that they have exclusive rights to use the land and that right shouldn’t be at all restricted in order to accommodate others. This is the epitome of blind selfishness.

“Egregious” Letter to the Editor

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Portland, Maine newspaper, called hunting practices “egregious.” Egregious is defined as, “outstandingly bad; shocking.” The same can be said for letters to the editor of newspapers that are outstandingly bad at relating facts, exemplifying truth and presenting non emotional realities of real life in the forests and our backyards.

This particular letter states: “the use of dogs and snares, are cruel and unnecessary methods in hunting bear.”

Snares are as humane as it can get. The wildlife managers all across America use snares for capturing bears, and other wildlife, for wildlife research. The reason this is done is because the work and collection of data can be done without harming the animal. Non thinking people project human emotions and human feelings onto animals believing there is no difference between the two species. They have effectively been brainwashed.

I am wondering if this letter writer ever considered how bears, elk, deer, moose and many, many other species “feel” when wild dogs (wolves and coyotes) run these animals to death? Have they ever considered this reality? By their way of not thinking, shouldn’t we then propose a bill to prohibit the chasing of wild animals by wild dogs? After all, it must be inhumane. Animals are just like human beings aren’t they? And if that is so, then why isn’t their a law against inhumane killing of one animal upon another?

It must also be inhumane to allow wildlife, like bears to go untouched; allow nature, the cruel bitch that she can be, provide her “balance” by utilizing disease, starvation and cannibalism to place population densities in severe ups and downs.

The letter also states: “Time and again, any effort to improve the humane treatment of our wildlife has been thwarted by members of the Inland Wildlife and Fisheries Committee…” The author’s perverted ideas of what is “humane treatment of our wildlife” is simply balderdash of emotional nonsense never substantiated by fact.

The insanity that has gripped this nation is actually what is egregious. The very thought that humans are now programmed to go about destroying my right to self determination because of perverted religious quackery of placing human elements on animals is beyond egregious. It can only be described as hatred toward a fellow human being. And we know from whence comes hatred.

And the hatred is so intense that the blindness prohibits the reality that their insane practices results in the destruction of other wildlife as I’ve described above. It also breeds scarcity. Scarcity breeds more hate and greed, sickness, oppression and destitution. The insanity is that the truth cannot be seen and thus their destruction becomes self.

Maine Deer Management: Excuse Du Jour?

I was reading George Smith’s blog this morning about all the deer plans Maine has come up with over the years all aimed at rebuilding a deer herd. Smith points out, and I believe he is factual, that the number one excuse found in the myriad of deer plans as to why deer numbers don’t grow is because of diminishing habitat for the animal. Really?

I won’t deny that losing habitat isn’t a factor – and it might even be a significant factor – to maintaining and growing a deer herd. But I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I am really quite sick and tired of listening to that crap sandwich.

It’s a crap sandwich because of all the things that could be done to increase the deer herd, it’s the least likely something anybody can do about it. It’s not too far from thinking we can control the weather.

First of all, the avoidance continues, with never an answer, as to why if wintering deer habitat is so lacking why are there empty deer yards across the state? But let’s forget that for now – seeing that nobody wants to talk about it.

So Maine has all of these deer plans proposed and proposed and proposed and then along comes another to suggest another working group to come up with a plan, a plan, a plan and guess what? Nothing changes…well, at least nothing any of these people want to talk about.

Let me ask one question. What are Maine deer managers doing to build the deer herd back up? Simple question. Let’s form a list:

1. Form a working group
2. Devise a plan
3. Cry because it’s all about habitat, habitat, habitat, habitat, habitat…excuse me, I just vomited on my computer screen.
4. Ignore the plan
5. Talk about wasting money to collar 40 deer to study whether or not coyotes are killing deer.
6. Form a working group
7. Devise a plan
8. Self committal to an insane asylum.

INSANITY!

Here’s something to think about. The excuse du jour – no habitat – claims that deer can’t be grown because there just isn’t enough habitat so deer can survive the winters. So, Maine has done nothing about that and that’s not surprising. So, they wash their hands of any responsibility and decide to go study moose. Oh, but let’s not forget that token deer collaring program that might happen. That will surely put meat in my freezer.

So, if habitat is the big deal here, then there must be enough wintering habitat to allow for the increase in deer densities following 2 or 3 relatively mild winters. That did happen. I know it did. That’s encouraging so, hold that thought for a minute.

If Maine could maintain the current level of deer wintering areas and build deer up to carrying capacity, would not hunters and others be happy? Or at least happier than they are now? So, let’s work at trying to keep the habitat that exists, without becoming statist, totalitarians, and actually do those things within our easy power to cause deer numbers to go up.

1. Control coyotes/wolves (Sorry that means killing them and it has to be a program, ongoing and forget all the lame excuses as to why it doesn’t work. It does and there’s proof. We don’t need a study group to find out.)
2. Reduce black bear populations. When discussions surround coyote killing to mitigate depredation, we hear how bears kill more deer than coyotes. Fine, go kill some bears. How about a spring season? Oh, wait. Because we live in fear for our lives over fascist animal rights groups we dare not stir the pot and have a spring bear hunt. IT MIGHT OFFEND SOMEBODY. It might offend the farmer losing his livestock too but that doesn’t count? It offends me that I don’t see deer at all while hunting deer in the woods in the Fall. And while we bury our heads in the sand, the deer population works toward extirpation in Maine, while deer to the north of the state, in Canada, are doing okay.
3. Better control and monitor where bobcats and all other predators are having an effect. We don’t have to kill all the bobcat, just reduce numbers in areas where deer need help.
4. Here’s another suggestion. Instead of caving in to the political power brokers to allow them to build trails through the middle of deer wintering yards, maybe that would help save habitat. Oh, what’s that you say? That doesn’t count? That doesn’t matter? That’s too small an amount to have any impact? Okay. I get it. It’s about power and control.

If habitat is so big that nothing else matters, as it sure seems that’s the case, then how do you explain the fact that in Eastern Maine were coyote/wolf control is ongoing, their deer numbers are rebounding nicely? Why? Coincidence? I don’t think so. They are doing something about it. I think they at least understand that while habitat isn’t fully abundant, and let’s face it, it never will be again, they can and are doing somethings that will help.

Now, I know these suggestions require work and it might not be as much fun as tracking radio collars and flying in helicopters counting animals, but one more claim that Maine can’t do anything about the deer herd because of habitat and I will have to vomit on my computer screen again.

Enough already! Rome burns while another working group and deer plan is devised.