Answer to Maine’s Imagined “Wildlife Management Corruption”: More Taxes

In what can only be recognized as a typical, left wing, nationalist/socialist, totalitarian response to wanting control over Maine’s wildlife management programs, one man proposes levying more taxes on the citizens in order that he can have control. The Bangor Daily News carries the opinion.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, the one organization the haters of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation seem to target, responds to the opinion piece.

The opinion piece carries the worn out talking points laced with nonsense, along with sour grapes and brattiness for not getting one’s way on an issue. Let’s peek at a couple issues mentioned.

First is the reference toward “democracy.” Over my years, I have discovered that people see democracy as a good thing so long as they are not the sheep among wolves voting on what’s for lunch. In this case, the writer is angry because democracy allowed for the election of certain state legislators, as well as members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. With those democratically elected people, laws were passed and/or blocked, as has been the case in American politics since even before the constitution was formulated. However, the author chooses to state that, “Under the guise of democracy, anti-democratic legislation,” passed that he doesn’t like. I fail to see his point.

Democracy stinks! However, it is what has become the way of doing business because it has provided an avenue in which power brokers can morph the system into a nationalist, socialist form of rule. In reality, the writer, while attempting to convince readers that SAM and Maine legislators are disguising their efforts as a form of democracy, it is the writer and his followers who are attempting to disguise their work as democratic, when in fact it more of a leftist approach of levying taxes in order to gain more control over the people and forcing one’s idealistic lifestyle onto the masses. There is a name for that and it’s not democracy.

The writer chooses to use the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey in order to prop up his claim that there are more “wildlife watchers” who spend more money than hunters, fishermen, etc. therefore they deserve to rule over all others. It should be pointed out, and has been shown for several years now, that one of the major problems with this survey, as with all polls and surveys, is the questions and how they are worded and administered.

In this survey, pollsters asked people if they observed wildlife at anytime while traveling about the state. If the answer was “yes” then they are categorized as “wildlife watchers.” It’s a dishonest way of padding the survey to show things that just are not reality. Even in this opinion piece, the writer frames all of these observers of wildlife as some kind of organized entity being left out of all things wildlife.

Twice anti-bear hunting advocates have attempted to put a stop to the practice and twice they have failed. These were the results of democracy in action. Neither referendum was a commentary on whether Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW), nor the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, are corrupt organizations.

If the writer so much loves HIS democracy, then he must surely realize that democracy requires the convincing of a majority of voters to his way of doing things in order to get what he wants. When people use utter nonsense, among ignorant statements that cannot be substantiated, the people catch on quickly, credibility is vanquished and one quickly falls into the loser’s bracket.

For now, the people don’t want non consumptive wildlife management in Maine; a system based on flawed “natural balance.” It just doesn’t work and has proven to create scarcity for all. How is that advantageous to anybody or anything?