March 29, 2015

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.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

“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.

V. Paul Reynolds: Lynx ITP “Doesn’t Pass Straight Face Test”

“If you applied the Florida panther math to the Maine lynx, trappers would be permitted to accidentally take 50 to 100 lynx a year and not impact the population appreciably. And yet, USFWS, in collaboration with Maine’s state wildlife managers, is restricting Maine’s incidental take to .006 percent of the lynx population – not over a year – but over 15 years! Really now, does this pass the straight face test?”<<<Read More>>>

Fur Market Tanking

Five years ago, its pelt would have fetched $50. These days, it will likely yield half that.
Economic forces including market slowdowns in big fur-buying countries like Russia, China and South Korea, as well as a continuing trend toward distaste for fur as a result of animal welfare concerns, make Cogill among a dwindling number of trappers catching fur-bearing beasts in the wild.<<<Read More>>>

On Maine’s Legislative Slate: An Act to Ban Bear Trapping and Hounding

According a tidbit found in the Portland Press Herald, a bill may be proposed in the Maine Legislature that would ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs.

…lawmakers also are gearing up for potentially contentious policy fights over environmental and outdoor issues, including a measure to ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs following the failure of a referendum in November that also sought to ban bear baiting.

I’ve not researched this bill and I don’t even know what the language is contained in the proposal. It would seem that the chances of a passage of a bill of this kind should be slim to none. The people of Maine spoke quiet clearly in November at the polls and let everyone know that they really preferred for wildlife management to be handled by those at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

I am hoping the bill never sees the floor of the Legislature.

Trapping is Cruel? Nah! Reading Drivel From the Clueless is Cruel

Some need to get a life. I’ve overused that saying, attributed to more than one person, including the Bible, that it’s better to keep your mouth shut causing people to wonder if you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or, how about the comment once made by Alice von Hildebrand: “God has set limit’s on man’s intelligence, none on his stupidity.”

A letter to the editor in a Maine newspaper about trapping describes the act as such: “held there struggling in pain and fear until it dies”, “execute it at point blank range”, “an indifference to life”, “condones suffering”.

Since 1980 there have been 1.3 billion unborn babies murdered; “held there struggling in pain and fear”, “executed at point blank range”, and yes, obviously there’s an “indifference to life” and those billions of people “condone suffering.” So where’s the outrage?

Perverse!

Lynx Lawsuit: “Bureaucratic Interests, Emotions and Propaganda Fantasies

In a recent article written by James Beers, he said that one of the difficulties that exists today that seriously hampers the ability to make informed decisions about wildlife management was “a matter of bureaucratic interests, emotions and propaganda fantasies.”

Friend of Animals (FOA), another radical and perverted group that fails to have any comprehension of the realities of wild animal existence and fights with every breath to protect all animals at all costs, even the destruction of other species, having nothing but “emotions and propaganda fantasies” to operate with, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because the Service issued the state of Maine and Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Canada lynx.

FOA, calling those involved in the fur bearing business, “killers involved in this murderous industry,” without providing substantiation claimed that, “Canada lynx are expected to decline by 65 percent in the next two decades.” Much like global warming models predict I would surmise.

It’s all a money making ploy by the radicals who deliberately avoid the truth in the matter as it does little to pad their bank accounts.

The ITP was issued and within two months, administration of the ITP was necessary to mitigate the loss of lynx, subsequently resulting in the closing of trapping in lynx protected habitat in Maine. The only thing not working right here is there’s no money going into the bank accounts and pockets of FOA.

Death Threats Will Not Stop Great Montana Coyote and Wolf Hunt

Death threats from some sick, perverted eco-terrorists will not stop the first annual Great Montana Coyote and Wolf Hunt. Understandably frightened off by these sick subhumans, Idaho for Wildlife has stepped in to help bring the event about. Please help in this effort.

MontanaDerby

Directions for the Destruction of Wolves and Coyotes

April 17, 1907

From: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey – Circular No. 55

By Vernon Bailey – In charge of Geographic Distribution

“The losses from the destruction of stock by wolves and coyotes in the western United States amount to millions of dollars annually and seem to be increasing rather than decreasing. Practical means of preventing these losses are urgently needed. The present circular, based on field work of the Biological Survey, aims to present briefly the best methods of hunting, trapping and poisoning wolves and coyotes, of finding the dens and destroying the young, and of fencing to protect stock. By the methods given herein the numbers of wolves and coyotes may be rapidly diminished and the losses of stock thereby reduced to a minimum.”>>>Read More>>>