March 17, 2018

Deer Management is Such a Tough Job…So What!

In a recent column I published on this website about Maine secretly hiring a new head deer biologist, I finished that piece by saying, “The echo chamber and all their minions will just continue to parrot that MDIFW does such a wonderful job. Perhaps they do but surely there is a lot of room for improvement. Is that taboo with this new scientism-laced wildlife management we are in the midst of?”

Perhaps it’s my imagination or maybe I just am determined to be tough on fish and game departments, but it appears to me that too often fish and game departments are not only given a free pass for poor results but some go out of their way to enable their failings and will make excuses for them.

Why are some so eager to pass off failures in game management as the result of a “tough job?”

Immediately after I published the above linked-to article, I read how biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) “have an extremely tough job regulating Maine’s Deer Population.” The posting was replete with all the usual suspects of excuses; winters, weather, vehicle collisions, starvation, predation, and poaching. If the owner of this writing was finding excuses for poor deer management, he should have included “Climate Change” as it provides the convenient escape for any failure.

In another article I read this morning, deer managers have a “thankless job.” The piece ends with the following statement: “I believe, for the most part, our biologists do a commendable job when it comes to managing wildlife resources. But it’s a difficult and sometimes thankless task, given financial and logistical constraints, the bureaucracy they must wade through, and pressure from supervisors, legislators, lobbyists and special interest groups. Even within the hunting community, there’s sometimes disagreement over how to best manage our deer herd. It’s a balancing act, and the more time and energy biologists must devote to managing people, the less they can direct toward our wildlife resources.”

Does this mean we should all shut up and let the deer managers do as they wish regardless of the outcome? I hope not. I understand the statement. I understand that managing deer (or any other game species) is an “extremely tough job,” and that this job, at times, can be thankless. But what job can’t? Is there something wrong with expecting a better return on your investment? Would you settle for unsatisfactory results from your doctor, lawyer, banker, or school? I think not.

One is entitled to their opinion as to whether any game management establishment does a “commendable job.” That opinion is of one’s value-weighted perspective. I’m sure that even though a person may believe a fish and game department does a “commendable job” there must be room for improvement, and shouldn’t we expect it and even demand it?

If you visited your doctor, who had been treating you for a chest cold for weeks on end, only to discover later you actually suffered from lung cancer, would you just say, “The doctor has a tough and thankless job, full of financial restrictions, political influences and a vocal public that expects too much. Give him a break. Just let him do his job.”

Your banker or stockbroker has a tough and thankless job. If you lost your money, would you expect and demand a better job? Do you think bankers, lawyers, stockbrokers, doctors, teachers, etc. don’t have pressure and regulation all around them making their jobs thankless and tough? They all have to work with the cards they are dealt, sometimes those cards being far less than ideal, and yet don’t we expect that doctors will keep us healthy, lawyers out of trouble, teachers to educate our children, etc.?

There’s nothing wrong with thanking and complimenting those who do jobs that directly and indirectly affect parts of our lives. We don’t have to exclaim their tough and thankless jobs and not still demand a better performance.

Greatness is not grounded on the principle that doing an adequate job is enough. Greatness in an individual or an establishment is the expectation that everything must be the best that it can be, exceeding all expectations, in everything that is done. Settling for mediocrity is accepting failure and what is the future in that?


The Left-Controlled Takeover of Wildlife Management

I have written often about the Leftist Animal Rights’ takeover of wildlife management. I have often reminded readers of the outward display of mostly free-flowing power among these leftists who vowed they would change the way wildlife management was looked at and carried out in this country. And they have.

In these discussions, I have also attempted to articulate to readers how, as part of the takeover, this progressive, leftist disease has oozed into every fabric of our lives, i.e. education, media, politics, etc. at every level of society. We know, for example, that “brainstorming sessions,” “breakout sessions,” “planning meetings,” “leadership seminars and symposiums,” and all other similar events are designed for one purpose and one purpose only – to manipulate and change the way people look at and discuss social issues (wildlife management).

To put these thoughts and known existences into some sort of order that makes sense, is accurate, and spoken in truth, is a difficult thing for me to do. I wish I was better at it.

Today, I found words written by another man that seems to fit the lamentations that I have had about how our wildlife management departments have been taken over by the progressive’s diseases. Mostly I have described that takeover as coming from our departments of education, where the Left dominates, packaging thought-controlled, brainwashed, automatons and readying them for shipment to the next wildlife management department to perpetuate and build on the takeover.

In the article that I read, the author speaks of how human resources departments throughout corporate America have systematically been taken over by the Left. Think for a moment the power and control a human resources department has over who is employed and at what capacity.

The author describes this affair thusly – and you may need a dictionary handy, as I did, to grasp the full impact of what he is saying: “Like a suppurating orifice, the human resource department provides an ideal site for the multiplication of the bacterium politicus correctus. For one thing, such departments are always organized as top-down, unaccountable bureaucracies. HR departments are known for their arbitrariness masquerading under the rubric of “policy,” Wizard-of-Oz-like impersonality, and slavish conformity to faddish diktats promulgated as “best practices,” weenie speak for “do it my way.” In this sense, HR departments are like pseudopods of progressive government bureaucracies grafted onto the pliant stock of corporate timidity. It is not surprising, then, that HR departments tend to attract meddling and astringent personalities whose most cherished delight revolves around lording it over others.”

The next time you wonder just what in hell your favorite fish and game department is doing that is destroying everything wonderful that you learned as a child fishing, hunting, and trapping, just pull out this gem and you’ll have your answer.

You can fight it or jump in bed with it. The choice is yours, although you may not know the difference.


Secretary Zinke signs Secretarial Order to Support Sportsmen & Enhance Wildlife Conservation

Order seeks to expand access on public and private lands and to promote hunting and fishing among youth, veterans, and minority communities


Date: September 15, 2017

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3356, which will support and expand hunting and fishing, enhance conservation stewardship, improve wildlife management, and increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans. Secretarial Order 3356 is an extension of Secretarial Order 3347, issued on Zinke’s first day, March 2, 2017. That order identified a slate of actions for the restoration of the American sportsmen conservation ethic, which was established by President Theodore Roosevelt.

The new order comes days after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a survey that found there are 2.2 million fewer hunters in America now than in 2011. The order seeks to improve wildlife management and conservation, increase access to public lands for hunting, shooting, and fishing, and puts a new and a greater emphasis on recruiting and retaining new sportsmen conservationists, with a focus on engaging youths, veterans, minorities, and other communities that traditionally have low participation in outdoor recreation activities.

“Hunting and fishing is a cornerstone of the American tradition and hunters and fishers of America are the backbone of land and wildlife conservation,” said Secretary Zinke. “The more people we can get outdoors, the better things will be for our public lands. As someone who grew up hunting and fishing on our public lands – packing bologna sandwiches and heading out at 4AM with my dad – I know how important it is to expand access to public lands for future generations. Some of my best memories are hunting deer or reeling in rainbow trout back home in Montana, and I think every American should be able to have that experience.

“Today’s Secretarial Order is the latest example of how the Trump Administration is actively moving to support hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation on public lands. This means finding ways to expand hunting and fishing on public lands, improving access, and taking necessary actions to facilitate the enjoyment of these time-honored activities by any member of our society.”

Secretarial Order 3356 directs bureaus within the department to:

  • Within 120 days produce a plan to expand access for hunting and fishing on BLM, USFWS and NPS land.
  • Amend national monument management plans to ensure the public’s right to hunt, fish and target shoot.
  • Expand educational outreach programs for underrepresented communities such as veterans, minorities, and youth.
  • In a manner that respects the rights and privacy of the owners of non-public lands, identify lands within their purview where access to Department lands, particularly access for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and other forms of outdoor recreation, is currently limited (including areas of Department land that may be impractical or effectively impossible to access via public roads or trails under current conditions, but where there may be an opportunity to gain access through an easement, right-of-way, or acquisition), and provide a report detailing such lands to the Deputy Secretary.
  • Within 365 days, cooperate, coordinate, create, make available, and continuously update online a single “one stop” Department site database of available opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Department lands.
  • Improve wildlife management through collaboration with state, Tribal,? territorial, and conservation partners.

“On behalf of the 5 million hunters, recreational shooters and members of the NRA, we commend Secretary Zinke for continuing to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s sportsman legacy by opening more land and water to hunting and target shooting,” said Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association. “In the past, management plans for federal lands have been put in place to ban hunting and shooting. Sportsmen and women can now breathe a sigh of relief that those days are over. This administration values access to public lands for sportsmen and we commend them for it.”

“For too long, sportsmen’s access to our federal lands has been restricted, with lost opportunity replacing the ability to enjoy many of our best outdoor spaces. This extension to Secretarial Order 3356 will go a long way to reversing that trend and help grow the next generation of hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “I appreciate this new order and am committed to working with Secretary Zinke and my colleagues to do everything we can to expand and enhance access to our federal lands for all Alaskans, and all Americans, so that we can continue our rich sportsmen’s heritage.”

“Restoring wildlife habitat and expanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation will help increase wildlife populations and connect millions of Americans with our nation’s natural treasures,” said Collin O’Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Secretary Zinke’s order demonstrates his commitment to collaborate closely with conservation organizations and state agencies to achieve these critical conservation outcomes. We look forward to working with the Secretary, the Department, and our conservation partners to recover America’s wildlife and connect every American with nature.”

“Secretary Zinke’s action today follows in the great tradition of President Teddy Roosevelt and recognizes the central role that hunters play in conservation and successful wildlife management,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “The National Shooting Sports Foundation is deeply grateful to Secretary Zinke for the historic Secretarial Order that he signed  today. NSSF has worked closely with, and in support of, Interior Department officials on these priorities and other positive steps announced today. Today’s action will serve to benefit current and future generations for years to come.”

“Americans depend on reliable and affordable access to public lands to participate in outdoor sporting and recreational activities,” said Chairman Rob Bishop. “Unfortunately, these lands are not being managed to facilitate consistent, open access. Today’s Secretarial Order to increase these opportunities strengthens the foundation of our country’s hunting and fishing heritage and helps ensure that sportsmen and women continue to enjoy access to our federal lands and waterways.”

“For many Americans, hunting and fishing wouldn’t be possible without public land and the access it provides for these pastimes. Secretarial Order 3356 represents a renewed commitment to working with our nation’s sportsmen and women to ensure that our legacy of hunting and fishing-driven conservation continues to stand the test of time,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “We applaud Secretary Zinke for recognizing the critically important role that expanded federal land access plays in achieving this goal.”

“We support Secretary Zinke’s order to expand opportunities for hunters and anglers on BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service lands as well as on private lands,” said David Allen, President and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. “Access to quality wildlife habitat remains one of the most significant factors impacting hunting and fishing participation throughout the country. This order will help ensure sportsmen and women continue to have opportunities for quality recreational experiences on public lands and potentially private lands.”

“Generations of Idahoans, including me, have passed on their love of hunting, fishing, and shooting sports to their children and grandchildren,” said Senator James Risch, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “I applaud Secretary Zinke’s quick action to protect those fundamental rights and expand access for sportsmen and women across the country.”

On his first day in office, Secretary Zinke reversed an order that would have banned lead ammo and tackle on National Wildlife Refuge lands, and he began the process of expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands across the Department.

In August, the Secretary announced a proposal to expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 10 national wildlife refuges, and he announced the initial stages of a plan to acquire land to make the Bureau of Land Management Sabinoso Wilderness Area accessible for the first time ever to hunters, hikers, and wildlife watchers.

In addition, Secretary Zinke recently made recommendations to President Trump on 27 national monuments that call for changes to some that, while still protecting the land, would also protect and expand public access to that land for citizens who want to hunt, fish, and hike and experience the joy and beauty of these special places.


Making It Up As You Go Along

I was sent a link to Richard Fernandez’s latest article called, “Making it up as You Go Along.” The link was accompanied by a note that remarked that in reading the article he was reminded of how wildlife management and wildlife biologists operate in this post modern area of scientism, i.e. making it up as they go along.


House Passes CRA to Restore Alaskan Sovereignty and Local Management on Federal Wildlife Refuges

Press Release from House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 16, 2017

Today, the House passed H.J. Res. 69 sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R-AK). This joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act will overturn the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule on “Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.”

This rule violates three Congressionally passed statutes that have precedence on this particular issue. Here’s the bottom line: Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife know exactly what they are doing. They know the area. They know the animals. This rule only stops the fish and wildlife system of Alaska from simply doing their job as they know how to do it.” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said during floor debate.There are some people who might think this only deals with Alaska. Technically it does, but the problem is if this happens to Alaska this could also happen in any one of the lower 48 states. We’re simply one lawsuit away.”

From the beginning, I said I would do everything in my power to overturn this illegal jurisdictional power grab by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Today, we’re one step closer to delivering on that commitment and eliminating a wrongful seizure of Alaska’s fish and wildlife management authority,” Chairman Emeritus Young stated.I’m thankful to all those that played a role in moving this important resolution of disapproval, including that countless state and local stakeholders that worked with me to fight a very serious and alarming overreach by the Executive Branch. I look forward to seeing the swift consideration of H.J. Res. 69 in the Senate.”

The Federal Lands subcommittee will spend this Congress working on legislation to restore our public lands from the policy of benign neglect that has plagued our public lands to the point that we are losing our forests in the west and that has strained the relationships between our communities and our federal agencies. The resolution sponsored by Congressman Young is an excellent start,” Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Background Information:

On August, 5, 2016, FWS issued its final rule, which seizes authority away from the State of Alaska to manage fish and wildlife for both recreational and subsistence uses on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska.

The Congressional Review Act empowers Congress to review new federal regulations issued by government agencies. With the passage of a joint resolution and the signature of the president, Congress can overrule a regulation.

Click here for additional information on the rule.


The Maybe, I Think, Could be, Possibly, Might be, I Hope Method of Wildlife Scientism

A bald eagle, a loon and a spotted owl walked into a bar…..

That story might be just as good as the vast majority of nonsensical, Scientism reports we read about in our “Fake News” Mainstream Media – the information readily supplied these echo chambers by fish and game departments, environmentalists, animal rights perverts, as well as our own U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives.

Scientism is really nothing to do with real science and everything to do with fabricated possibilities that conveniently fit agendas. When was the last time you read an article published in any media platform where facts are presented as derived from the real scientific process, that once made real science a viable source of information? Perhaps this Fake News Scientism has been around long enough now that you can’t recognize it.

We live is what is now readily called a “post-normal scientific era.” I say readily, because when the term is used, it is not questioned. Essentially that means that the real scientific process has been abandoned in exchange for emotional clap-trap and outright dishonesty used to promote agendas, fatten wallets, control people, etc.

Here’s how it might work.

Yesterday I was reading an article published by the Associated Press about how bald eagles are becoming so numerous they are now a detriment to other species, including some that are also listed as endangered, and becoming a nuisance to some livestock growers.

None of these negatives seem to matter because the bald eagle is the nation’s official bird and is an icon to those incapable of reasoning anything beyond cute. To better put the bald eagle in perspective, I was once told by a wildlife manager (no, no names or locations) that a bald eagle was nothing more than a lazy, white-headed crow that scavenges for food, just like all the rest. Ben Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird but somehow the eagle won out. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the historic use of the eagle in the banners and emblems for organizations that rule the world. Nah! But that’s neither here nor there is it?

The article is presented as some kind of retelling of what most people would see as a scientific event. If you keep science in the front of your brain, for a second, here’s a list of words used in the article and they are also used by the “scientists” who are quoted in the article.

Here’s that list in no particular order: efforts to preserve; leading to; sometimes; accused of; suspicious; it was possible; almost; will probably; about; only a few; also sometimes; subject of efforts; going to try; I think; can represent; service doesn’t consider; probably.

Surely these a true scientific terms? Of course not. They are never intended to be. These words and others are designed to remove the scientific process from our sources of information and replace it with vague terms, often sounding good, promising the best for the animals and trying not to present the demise of the property of people as anything to be concerned with – especially as it isn’t going to effect the vast majority of ignorant, autonomic readers directly.

This has become so effective that we commonly hear of efforts underway to destroy one species of animal in order to better “protect” another. The spotted owl comes to mind.

Here’s is part of a problem that contributes to the big picture. The last sentence in the linked-to article says: “At some point it [bald eagle] will reach carrying capacity,” he said. “But I think there’s plenty of room for more eagles.” As it turns out, the term “carrying capacity” is a misnomer. People are led to believe that so long as there is enough food and general habitat, the world can be filled to the maximum with any and every kind of animal species, while never once considering the consequences of those actions. This is fallout from the lie spread throughout everywhere of “natural regulation” – the false ideology that if man would just butt out, all these animals would magically limit their numbers, eventually bringing them to “carrying capacity.” Kumbaya!

What is the “carrying capacity” of bad eagles in your neighbor? Nobody knows. It’s a guesstimate. The above scientist was quoted as saying, “I think” there’s room for more eagles. He doesn’t know but he “thinks” and thus are we to accept that his value-weighted perspective is the scientific gospel? How does he get to decide? If we are to fill the forest and fields with the maximum number of eagles it can hold (carrying capacity) do we further risk all the other species of prey in order to embellish one scientist or group of scientists’ pet animal project?

Evidently this is the case.



RMEF Renews Support for Foundation for Wildlife Management

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is providing $25,000 in grant funding to assist the Foundation for Wildlife Management (F4WM) with wolf control efforts in Idaho.

“RMEF strongly supports the North American Wildlife Conservation Model which emphasizes the importance of wildlife management so all populations can thrive and be forever sustained,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “That includes predator management, especially in areas where wolves and other predators have profound impacts on elk and other wildlife.”

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) reported a minimum of 786 wolves at the end of 2015 which is more than 600 percent above original agreed upon minimum recovery goals. Biologists also documented a minimum of 108 packs across the state and an additional 20 packs with territories that overlap into Montana, Washington and Wyoming.

“IDFG has stated time and time again that wolves in several areas have unacceptable impacts on elk and other wildlife. This funding will enhance trapping efforts to assist F4WM in the work,” added Allen.

The F4WM also received $25,000 in RMEF funding in 2016.

RMEF is committed to supporting wolf management and has done so by funding grants in Idaho alone totaling $150,000 since 2013.


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.



My Perspective on Maine Fish and Wildlife’s “Great Achievements”

I think I read someplace that confidence was the expectation of something positive happening. That may be true, but why isn’t the expectation of something negative happening, also confidence?

I’ve also heard other people say that when we wake up in the morning, we have a choice to be either positive or negative. I don’t think so. Making such a choice can remove a person from the realities of life. What is misunderstood in this reality is that realists, who neither “choose” to be positive or negative, are somehow sad, depressed or ignorant people, lacking in good judgement, a clear mind and the ability to accomplish great achievements. One’s perspective isn’t right or wrong. It’s just a perspective.

Marcus Aurelius once wrote: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is perspective, not the truth.” Perhaps, but I don’t think so, at least in its entirety. What I do think is that everything is based on one’s perspective and, as such, we should spend more time learning about what drives, not only our own, but other people’s perspectives.

If confidence is the expectation that something positive is going to happen, I can clearly observe that my perspective on whether something happens, good or bad, can differ tremendously with others. For example.

Yesterday I read V. Paul Reynolds weekly article in which he writes that the future of wildlife management in Maine “is in good hands.” To make this claim depends on a person’s perspective. What then drives the perspective?

Helen Keller once said, “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.” Optimism must drive perspective. If Keller is correct, that “optimism is the faith,” then optimism is not a tangible thing we can grasp but something we choose to cling to in order to influence our perspective. What, then, drives optimism? Perhaps it’s perspective. Or, maybe we have just created a vicious circle that accomplishes nothing but the establishment of feeling good outside the realm of reality. Such talk reminds me of a Human Interaction class conducted by National Training Laboratories – a product of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

We stereotype an ostrich as a creature that sticks its head in the sand – the analogy to man being that what you can’t see won’t hurt you and if you can’t see it, you won’t have to deal with it. Optimism can be a form of “ostrichism” if there’s no reality or practical experience to go along with it. So we are back around to perspective again.

Insanity is said to be doing the same exercise repeatedly, never changing approach but always having “hope and confidence” that the outcome will be different or the one desired. Sanity, therefore tells us that once you’ve observed the same failures (those failures based upon one’s perspective) there leaves little “optimism” (it is the faith) that something positive will happen and a great deal of “confidence” that it won’t. From that perspective, therefore, is the person who operates this way negative? Are they lacking confidence? Are they not optimistic, starving for hope and confidence, void of ostrichism?

I guess the answer to that can only come from your perspective.

Perhaps I have helped you to see how silly much of all this is…oh, darn…at least from the perspective of a realist whose every day is spent searching real truths and not man’s truths.

As a realist, with a perspective that I admit is much different than most, it is difficult to stick my head in the clouds somewhere and hope for good (my perspective) outcomes based on somebody’s perspective that’s different from mine, but foremost a perspective of wishful and whimsical thinking, whose foundation is circulus in probando – circle in proving, or circular thinking/logic.

Where does this all lead?

The other day I thought that, as a treat for some readers, I would make a list of all the good things (my perspective) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) have accomplished in the field of hunting and trapping this year. Please bear in mind that from my perspective I’m looking for accomplishments that go above and beyond the daily routine of what any fish and wildlife department should be doing. Normal, accepted mediocrity is, in itself, another form of “ostrichism,” is it not?

I sat down with paper and pen and began to write. Well, I didn’t really begin to write. I began to think. I even asked for some help. The help I got mostly confirmed about the only good thing (my perspective) I could come up with.

Last year, environmentalists and animal rights perverts laid another voting referendum on the Maine people in an attempt to put an end to bear hunting and trapping. The great thing (my perspective) that MDIFW did was, in recognition that success at the polls to pass such a referendum would strip the department of necessary tools to responsibly manage and care for black bears, members of the department, with the blessings of the Commissioner and Governor, got involved in the process of defeating the proposal.

Even when the environmentalists and animal rights perverts got their undies in a bunch over that participation, the courts said no harm no foul. It was a highlight for me (my perspective) to see the MIDFW take ownership of the job they are entrusted to do and do it without any outward fear of lawsuits and retaliations. This action was above the normal mediocrity and the path of least resistance.

We should see more of it.

So that’s it. I know there are many readers out there who choose to be the eternal optimist (suffering from a touch of “ostrichitis”) and believe (their perspective) that MDIFW does many, many things of great achievement. I disagree. I think they do an adequate job in many things, terrible job in others, and carry out great achievement seldom.

This is intended to be a positive act (my perspective) and so I’ll end it with that.


Maine’s Seemingly Endless Debate on Sunday Hunting

I’ll give George Smith, a writer and sportsman’s activist from Maine, credit for sticking with something he believes in. It appears he is just about the last survivor to advocate for Sunday Hunting in Maine. Smith says we will never hunt on Sundays in Maine, and he probably is correct. As a matter of fact, I’ll take that claim one step further and say the days that we actually will be able to hunt, are numbered. With the continued, unchecked, onslaught by animal rights groups and environmentalists, combined with the influx of newly indoctrinated wildlife biologists, and the myriad of other environmental movements nationwide, hunting will soon be a thing of the past – perhaps in my lifetime.

There are several issues about Sunday Hunting that appear to be stumbling blocks. Let’s address a few.

Religious reasons. I’m going to guess this is another example of the pitfalls of socialistic democracy, in which two wolves and a sheep are discussing what’s for lunch. If the majority of Mainers, who go to church, do so on Sunday and they view that day as somehow “holier” than the others, their socio-democratic power trumps everybody else.

There is a bit more to this as we have seen in the past. I can’t seem to find a link to the story but if my memory isn’t completely shot, I recall, if not in Maine, somewhere, where some who choose to recognize Saturdays as the sabbath, proposed legislation that would allow them to hunt on Sundays. Of course that was shot down. I have serious doubts that very many people would actually not hunt on Sundays because it’s their sabbath. Hypocrisy abounds in that area.

Another aspect would be the fallout that may or may not create less land access. Some land owners have threatened to post their land if Sunday hunting is permitted. Whether and how much that would actually happen, I don’t know. I do know that in some states where much land is posted and/or land is considered closed without owner’s permission, access to hunting lands is difficult at best and in some cases, with the exception of public lands, hunters have to pay, sometimes hefty amounts, to “lease” a portion of private land. Unless you’ve been relegated to that, I don’t think you really want to go there.

The other issue in Sunday hunting is seldom seriously discussed. In Maine, as in many states, hunting is used as a means of “managing” (control) the population of all game species. For deer hunting, the state also uses a permit system that regulates and controls deer populations within Wildlife Management Districts. The bottom line is this: wildlife regulators decide how many of which species should be harvested each year and do what is necessary to achieve those goals…usually.

If we look at deer hunting as one example, game managers have an idea of how many deer will need to be harvested, by different methods, utilizing permits, along with length of season and all other factors that effect the harvest. Some of those factors are not controllable. One that is, is the length of season. In my lifetime, I have seen the deer hunting season in Maine shortened to barely two weeks – the need being a lack of deer and protecting the herd to remain at safe sustainable levels.

So what if Maine added, not just 3 or 4 more days to the annual deer hunt (you can also use this to extrapolate out to all other game species, i.e. turkey, grouse, bear, moose, etc.) but that those added days were on the weekends? We know that the busiest hunting days during the deer season are Saturdays. If Sundays were added, how many more net hunters would there be? How many more hunters would skip a working day in order to hunt on Sundays? How great would hunter participation become?

We have had the claim beaten into our brains for years now that Maine and her economy are suffering because hunters won’t hunt in Maine because there is no Sunday hunting. If that is true, then the question has to be asked, how many more hunters will now hunt Maine, especially on Sundays?

This all adds up to one large question. If Sunday hunting for deer is allowed, how many more deer will be killed? If there is an increase, what is the extent of that increase and will it force the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to shorten the season in order to mitigate the losses of deer due to harvest? If Maine was overrun with deer, this would not be a problem. With or without Sunday hunting, if the state was overrun with deer, the season would be extended and/or the limits may increase to more than one deer per season. Too few deer, and the results are reversed.

I personally, have no interest in angering the landowners. Whether or not a Sunday hunting move would seriously effect land access, is a guess. I will state that I believe in the short term, there will be a knee-jerk reaction to Sunday hunting and land will be posted that wasn’t before. How that trend evolves will really depend on the realities of what takes place on that land, that is different from the present, that would cause more or a continuation of reduced land access.

If an added Sunday hunt resulted in a shortened season, that would mean more hunters in the woods at any one time. I don’t like that idea at all. Safety must also be a concern. Maine has an outstanding track record when it comes to hunter and public safety during the hunting seasons.

I think the bottom line should be deer management. Yes, Maine should consider ways of maximizing the positive influences and effects of hunting seasons, but the bottom line should always remain, what is best for the deer herd and landowner relations.

A final issue that is seldom discussed or is presented in the wrong way, in my opinion, is the rights of landowners. I get a sense from reading Smith’s article about Sunday hunting that every effort to implement some form of Sunday hunting in Maine is a serious loss for hunters and Maine’s community, without consideration of protecting the rights of landowners first and foremost.

I am first a property rights advocate and then a hunter. Yes, I am saddened with each passing year that I see more and more land posted to access, but that is and should be their right. But I also believe that those landowners who post their land, should limit their involvement in hunting issues that involve land access. In other words, there is little credibility in anyone with posted land stating that they didn’t believe a Sunday hunt would have any real effect on land access. Hello?

As Maine citizens, we should be glad the majority of people are looking out for the rights of the landowners. We hear of how wildlife management, which includes hunting and trapping, is beneficial to the landowner. I couldn’t agree more, which makes me tend to emphasize that all the effort that has been expended attempting to promote Sunday hunting, could better be spent educating the landowner to the advantages of the North American Model for Wildlife Management, i.e. managing for surplus harvest, and that leaving their land open has it’s benefits. Landowners should also be taught how they can control the access to their land to meet their wishes and still reap the benefits of wildlife management – hunting and trapping.

Perhaps someday, Maine will have Sunday hunting, but without it, as things currently stand, giving the drums a rest would probably be in the best interest of hunting, while shifting the effort to increasing better landowner relationships.