The following Op-Ed appeared in the Bangor Daily News yesterday, May 1, 2008. It is written by Nathaniel Richie, who is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering at the University of Maine.

One year after Virginia Tech, the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University serve as a reminder that no meaningful progress has been made to increase safety on college campuses. To date, the “solutions” presented by school officials have been nothing but a rehash of the same failed policies that were in place before the shootings.

Police training and presence has been presented as the best way to protect students in the event of a school shooting. While certainly an important measure, there are problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that public safety response time is measured in minutes, not seconds. The critical time between a 911 dispatcher receiving a call for help and the arrival of law enforcement is time during which shooters have free rein. Police response times were five and eight minutes at NIU and Virginia Tech respectively. Both shootings ended before police were able to respond. <<<Read the rest>>>

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this coming November’s ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.

There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”.

“By allowing these operations, we’re basically bastardizing the hunting heritage,” he said. “I don’t care how they spin it … If you put a deer or elk in an escape-proof fence, that’s not hunting.”

To bastardize something means to corrupt it, reduce its quality or to lower in character. Kaseman says high-fence preserve hunting is doing just that. It’s difficult to argue with his opinion because it is his opinion and that of a handful of others like him. They believe that enclosure hunting is ruining the heritage of hunting. Certainly this group is entitled to their opinions and they have a right in a free society to petition the people to enact new laws. Why pick on a handful of ranchers trying to make a living in their almighty attempt to govern the lands of North Dakota?

If we go back in history and examine hunting, we will find that hunting was a necessary means of survival and a difficult task at that. Man used anything he could get his hands on for a weapon, i.e. rocks, sticks, etc. Since that time we can just as easily say that man has been “bastardizing” hunting heritage by someone’s standards of ethics and definition or ideals of what hunting heritage is supposed to be. Many can argue that when hunting became a sport, hunting heritage became bastardize, after all, true hunting heritage was a necessary part of survival. We reduced the quality of hunting considerably when we made it a sport and not part of survival. By Kaseman’s standards perhaps we should return hunting back to its rightful heritage.

And what have we as a society done with hunting since the days that sticks were made pointed with sharp pieces of flint and shale? That’s easy. Take a look around. It’s all right there in front of us to see but for people like Kaseman and his following, they choose only to set aside preserve hunting as the one thing that is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”. Surely there are more legitimate bastardizations his group could spend their time on.

Trampling on the rights of legitimate land owners and businessmen will do more to rip apart that one important element to assure the continuation of the sport. For without access to the lands of private individuals, hunting becomes diminished greatly. Some argue there is always public land to fall back on but in places where that is the only land to hunt on, interest is dwindling fast.

I believe it is one of the most selfish and self righteous things a group calling themselves a pro hunting group can do. They spit in the faces of the landowner because they think preserve hunting is unethical, all the while the vast majority of them practice the bastardization of hunting.

Personally, I resent their actions and condemn the reasons they use for taking the steps they have. I respect the rancher who is making every attempt at running a legitimate business. I am grateful for the generosity of all landowners that grant permission for hunters to access their land. When Kaseman and his ilk try strong arm tactics that fly in the face of landowners, this affects me and millions of other hunters nationwide who give countless hours and energy into creating hunter/landowner relations. They are destroying those efforts.

To bastardize means to reduce in quality and lower in character. The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have placed themselves above everyone else and are doing far more to bastardize hunting heritage than a handful of Americans trying to realize part of the American dream.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I might be a rarity when it comes to the hunting and fishing industry, at least from the perspective of the “consumer”. Hey, I’ll cut right to the chase and come out and say that some? many? most? anglers and hunters aren’t that interested in sharing their fishing holes and highly productive hunting grounds with “outsiders”. Just pretend for the duration of this article that you actually did care and see if you can get beyond your personal feelings long enough to understand some odd reasoning. At least my form of reasoning is having trouble with this.

I would suppose that because I have a background in the tourist industry and that happens to be in Maine, it is difficult for me to get rid of that networking and marketing mindset that so much is a part of making it in the tourist business. With my background and this odd drive I have, I still find value in marketing Maine’s (or fill in your state) natural resources - in this case hunting and fishing.

I have a very good friend who lives in Maine. Her name is Wende Gray. I have a lot of respect for her expertise in the tourism/marketing industry in Maine because, 1) I think she understands it and, 2) she’s been at it for a long time. Wende wears many hats and one of those hats of late has been her involvement with the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance. The UAAA is a group of local businesses scattered throughout and along the watershed areas of the Upper Androscoggin. In this case from about the Maine and New Hampshire boarder south and westerly to the Rumford, Maine area.

The purpose of the Alliance is to promote the river as a destination fishery. Anyone who has been in and understands the tourism business knows that you are always scrambling for business and the competition can get fierce.

As Wende has done in the past, she invites prominent outdoor writers into the area and wines and dines them in hopes they will in turn publish some kind thoughts on their experiences. This all in hopes of luring others, often times “from away”, to the area obviously to spend some money and keep people employed and able to pay bills.

Wende recently contacted the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to inquire about obtaining some complimentary fishing licenses for visiting outdoor writers to the region. Here’s part of that email.

On behalf of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance I am requesting a dozen complimentary fishing licenses for travel and outdoor writers visiting our region this summer. UAAA has joined the New England Outdoor Writers Association and attended the Media Marketplace in New York City. There is great interest in our emerging destination fishery and we expect up to a dozen writers visiting this year-in particular for the Two Fly Contest and Drift Boat Competition in June. Our pr efforts in the past have generated articles in Cabella’s Sporting Journal, Gray’s Sporting Journal, New England Fish & Game, Outdoor Life, the Boston Globe, and New York Sun to name a few. It is our understanding that due to budget cuts at IF&W, complimentary licenses are no longer available. With the emphasis on Maine’s fishing product in promoting Maine tourism this summer, we are in hopes that the Office of Tourism would be able to assist us with our request.

Regis Tremblay, the new Director of IF&W’s Public Information and Education Division, responded to Wende’s request saying that she could forward her request on to the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Dan” Martin and then he took some time to explain to Wende about the new policy concerning complimentary licenses in addition to having to be approved by the Commissioner.

…..we’d like to have some certainty that the writers are aware of a lose quid pro quo…i.e. IF&W and our mission as stewards of Maine’s Wildlife and Fisheries does not go unmentioned. We would also expect to receive copies of the magazines in which mention of us might appear. Also, just for your information, these licenses are not free, but are paid for out of my budget. We are happy to do this, but are hopeful of some return on our investment.

I have no idea what Commissioner Martin’s expectations are regarding who he will consider worthy of a Maine complimentary fishing license. The other expectations laid out by Trembley I really have no issue with and actually think it is a great idea to have some kind of guarantee that this small investment sees some kind of return other than willy-nilly handing out free licenses to anybody.

*Note* - For clarification purposes and to be as transparent as possible, I have no stake in this as a writer. There’s no sour grapes because I want a free license to go fishing in Maine and can’t get one. I do fish in Maine when I am there in the summer but I gladly hop on over to the local agent and purchase a non-resident fishing license.

Getting back to the guidelines about comp licenses, I was struck by the comment made by Tremblay that the cost of these licenses comes out of his budget. So, I emailed him for an explanation. I wanted to know what the actual cost of administering a comp license was and how many, on average, did MDIFW issue in a given season.

Tremblay was kind enough to take the time to answer my email but I can’t say I actually got the answer I was looking for, only raising more questions. He told me the retail price of a resident and a non-resident fishing license in Maine.

* Resident fishing licenses costs $21.00
* Non-Resident fishing licenses costs $52

Does this mean that if MDIFW issues a complimentary license to a writer who lives in Maine, Tremblay gets hit for $21.00 and $52 if the writer lives out of state? How does the cost of issuing a comp license to a writer change depending on where the writer lives? Before you jump all over me, I understand about having resident and non-resident licenses but if the idea for a complimentary license is for the purpose of advertising and promotion, does it matter?

What I was hoping to find out was what the actual real costs were in issuing a complimentary license - $1.00, $2.00, $3.00 or $21.00?

And why is Tremblay getting nailed out of his budget the full retail price of each license? And the money gets extracted from his budget and then goes where? Inquiring minds want to know. Is this Martin’s way of reeling in (sorry) the public relations people at MDIFW because he thinks they are issuing licenses irresponsibly? If so, why can’t he just simply approve or not any complimentary licenses issued?

Tremblay also told me that MDIFW typically issues “a few dozen” licenses annually. For clarification purposes, I don’t know if that “few dozen” is all complimentary licenses or just those issued for outdoor writers and those only to fishermen outdoor writers.

So what is a few dozen? And how much does this really cost the state of Maine?

Not to get mired in the questionable administrative methods of MDIFW but one has to at least question the expense and return. Remember, I asked you to pretend you don’t mind if people “from away” come to Maine (insert your state) to fish. If Tremblay says a few dozen licenses are issued, let’s see if we can guess what a few is.

I asked Wende Gray again if she had any idea about how many in the past MDIFW has given out. Her interpretation of a few dozen most closely resembled between one and two dozen.

As a country boy growing up in rural Maine, I seem to recall my grandfather telling me that a few meant twelve. Let’s say Wende says two dozen and Grandpa’s definition is twelve dozen and split the difference to seven dozen or 84 licenses. You do the math. Is it not worth it? Should the Maine Office of Tourism pick up the tab for the 84 complimentary licenses? Is this all tit for tat while losing focus on the big picture? I don’t get it.

Either there is legitimate value in the process of utilizing outdoor writers for advertising and marketing, or there isn’t. I concur that somebody should “approve” complimentary licenses and if MDIFW can’t afford to issue those licenses because of budget shortfalls and somebody needs to pay, should they be paying full retail price for each license?

Recently MDIFW teamed up with the Maine Office of Tourism to promote fishing on the MOT website. Who paid for that? Did MOT charge MDIFW the full retail value of creating web pages for that purpose? Regardless, MDIFW must be showing an interest in luring in out of state anglers by undertaking this action. Another indication is they still are willing to sell non-resident licenses, so there must be some value in their eyes, to bringing in outsiders to fish the waters of Maine.

It all seems quite silly if you ask me. The reality is that it cost the state of Maine virtually nothing to issue a complimentary license. Is this a viable advertising and marketing scheme for Maine or isn’t it? If it is, let’s get on with it. If not, it’s time to end the charade.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I suppose in Barack Obama’s eyes, I too fit his stereotypical bitter rural American who clings to my guns and religion and possess “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Then again to him, maybe I am a typical white man bred to be bitter because I live in rural America and my government hasn’t taken care of me.

It has become clear that Barack Obama is a typical politician whose glowing halo is getting dimmer with each passing “I’ll admit I didn’t chose my words correctly” excuse. He promised Americans he was different. He boasted he was going to pull us all together, mend fences, make America respected in the world again.

Part of Obama’s problem is he thinks we’re all dumb - at least those who aren’t following him like sheep gone astray. He thinks us bitter country folk can’t see through his facade of fakery.

He is elitist. This morning on the Today show, Matt Lauer was interviewing James Carville, self-proclaimed best friend of Bill Clinton. Lauer asked Carville about comments being made that Obama was an elitist and Carville responded that he didn’t really know what that meant.

Let me help. An elitist is someone who readily scoffs at the heritage of others different than themselves. An elitist profiles others into categories seemingly inferior because they are different or misunderstood. Elitist is appearing before a group of wealthy people in a closed-door reception/fund raiser and describing people in Pennsylvania and the West as being bitter with nothing left to cling to except their guns and religion while having antipathy toward people not like them or having anti-immigration and anti-trade sentiment.

Elitist is then going before the public the next day in an attempt to explain why he said what he did and tell the world that now we are all bitter because the truth was told. *Note* - The press reports it that he said he erred in not choosing his words more carefully. Why is it they miss such blatant snobbery from Obama when he admits he believes in what he said?

Elitist is also telling the same crowd that “bitter” is a word used in the Bible. Maybe that’s one word used a lot in his pastor’s, Jeremiah Wright’s, bible. There are a lot of words written in the Bible. Some of them far worse than “bitter”. Now, have our politician found that they can say anything they want and justify it because it’s written in the Bible?

Obama is alienating himself, along with his party, with anyone who doesn’t think and believe as he does. He has come to realize that the group of Americans he just insulted will not vote for him anyway and evidently, because he admits he told the truth, doesn’t care much about these people. He certainly doesn’t understand them and instead of taking some of his own cheap advice, he mocks them, ridicules and places them on a tier far below his uppity, angry attitude. This is a man who understands?

Little by little the real Barack Obama is being discovered. We now know what most of us suspected from the beginning, that he is very much an anti-gun candidate. He has come right out and said that he does not believe in concealed carry, that guns should be used only for hunting purposes and that he supports the current Washington, D.C. gun ban.

Perhaps what Obama is mistaking for bitterness because of lost jobs is that Americans that are not like him, are fed up with people like him. Obama wants to continue to strip away our rights and we are tired of that. We are tired of liars. We are tired of out of touch politicians, of which Obama is no different than any other. We are tired of losing our country and constitution that our ancestors, friends and family have fought and died for. We are tired that history isn’t being taught in our schools anymore. We are tired of political correctness. We are tired that our sovereignty no longer has value. We are tired of big government. We are tired of increased regulation. We are tired of being taxed out of existence. We are tired that politicians, just like him, don’t have the slightest clue what a dollar bill is.

I’m willing to stake my reputation on the fact that the Pennsylvanians, Westerners and all other Americans Obama looks down his nose at, aren’t bitter that they lost their jobs 25 years ago. These people are hard working and intelligent. What makes them the true Americans that they are is because when they get in trouble, they don’t look to the government of come bail them out. They take after themselves. They are what made America great. People like Obama don’t like that in Americans. When we don’t suck off the teet of the government, he loses his control, his power and his job security.

These Americans he so dislikes don’t have anti-immigration sentiment. They are filled with anti-illegal immigration sentiment because people like Obama want to give anyone asking, citizenship to this country without making requirements to insure our security and maintain our sovereignty.

This man, I’m afraid, is an angry, out of touch elitist who called his own grandmother a typical white woman that was bred to fear a black person walking down the street. I don’t think these Pennsylvanians, our friends in the West or any other American who chooses to own guns and go to church, would even entertain the thought that their grandmothers were typical in anyway and the suggestion that someone has had fear bred into them makes me wonder what really is in this man’s heart.

I think that it is a shame that because I love my country, grew up in rural America, I choose to own guns and I choose to make God and religion an important part of my life, that somehow I am bitter and these are the only things left of value in my life. I resent that and will pray to God that I will not be bitter toward a man that is misguided and thinks he’s better than me or my family.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine, like a lot of states, is having trouble funding its Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Maine, not necessarily like a lot of states, loves to tax its citizens. Maine is one of the most heavily taxed states in the Union. Maine is coming off one of the most severe winters in history and in parts of the state, the deer herd has been hit very hard. Needless to say, the state has its troubles financially and is faced with decisions on how it is going to fund programs.

The MDIFW is facing a shortage this year in its budget and they are scrambling to find funding. Sen. Bruce Bryant, Committee Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is proposing an increase in hunting, trapping and fishing license fees by $2.00 per year for residents and $4.00 per year for nonresidents.

Coming as no big surprise, Maine sportsmen are divided on whether they should be asked once again to pick up the slack.

Rep. Tom Saviello of Wilton and member of the JSCIFW, is also proposing a bill that would levy a fee on hikers and kayakers of $20.00 annually. That money, as I understand it, would go into a pool used to offset the costs of the Maine Warden Service to respond to search and rescue calls for non-license holders in the state. This bill may be facing more resistance than the license fee increase.

I’m not going to get into discussions about whether or not I think any of the fees are fair, necessary or justified. What I will do is raise some questions that I think need to be answered before anyone in Augusta or the users and sportsmen can make qualified decisions on what should be done.

Sportsmen are notorious for complaining about fee increases and we can’t really blame them. It does seem that all too often they are called upon to pick up the slack when it comes to financial shortcomings. But also true to sportsmen is that they don’t mind coughing up their fair share and a lot more, when they are able to see the worth of their investment.

There is also a trust factor. Sportsmen have to have a belief that the MDIFW is looking out for them. Here’s one example. Last year in Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, said it had to raise license fees because it was looking at a $10.8 million shortfall. Sportsmen there were also divided but after raising fees, when the end of the year came around, DNR had a surplus of nearly $20 million. Trust me when I say there is no more trust between Michigan sportsmen and the MDNR and it could be years before MDNR will get a license fee increase again.

As I see it, those complaining the most about paying the extra fee are doing it for two basic reasons. 1). They see their services being cut along with a reduction in fish and game and opportunities. 2). They believe that non payers that rely on Fish and Game services, which includes the Maine Warden Service, need to start anteing up their fair share. In honesty, I think these two reasons are legitimate, although I probably won’t get a majority approval on that from readers.

How MDIFW will find the funding remains to be seen. What isn’t being answered, and I have sent out emails that have not been answered, is how is funding of MDIFW going to be affected if Gov. Baldacci gets his way and merges MDIFW with other “natural resources” departments in order to save money?

As most of you know, I am dead set against such a move for a number of reasons, one of them being the problems that arise from how revenue is generated to this new department and how it gets spent. Sportsmen need guarantees that the money they lay out in license fees is actually going to be spent on managing fish and game and not going to fund the local nature walk project that once open will be closed to all hunting and fishing.

In previous discussions I have had on this subject, people remind me that Maine is required by law to spend fish and game money on fish and game programs. I realize that but nobody will answer my question when I ask if those laws become null and void if legally the MDIFW is dissolved and a new entity of natural resources is created?

Maine doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to spending the money generated by license fees on fish and game items. If Baldacci gets his way, will the formation of a different department guarantee that Maine sportsmen’s money will be spent as promised?

Baldacci opposes a license fee increase, which I find interesting as I never knew a tax he didn’t like. Maine sportsmen need to decide if any money they have to spend more than they do now will be spent as promised and whether it is worthwhile. I don’t completely buy into the argument that Skip Trask, spokesman for the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Guides, used as was reported in the Banger News.

Skip Trask with the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Professional Guides Association pointed out that a daily lift ticket at a ski resort can cost $70 while some golfers pay $60 for a day of green’s fees.

Paying $40 for a year’s worth of hunting and fishing, as the bill proposes, is a deal by comparison as long as it helps keep wardens patrolling the backcountry to protect the resources, Trask said.

Trask is right in his representation of the costs of skiing and golf. I’ll also concur that the cost of a license to hunt, trap and fish in Maine is a bargain but making such a comparison isn’t in and of itself justification to raise fees. We shouldn’t raise fees simply because we can and get away with it - and I don’t think Trask is suggesting such a thing.

My point still comes back to perception of the license holder. It’s what you get for your money and whether you feel the money is spent with the best interest of the sportsman in mind.

This proposal for a rate hike comes at a troubling time in my mind. If this was coming at a time when Baldacci wasn’t suggesting a hocus-pocus, mix up and blend departments together, closely resembling a shell game, then maybe the decision could be easier.

It seems the majority of Maine sportsmen want non-paying users to contribute. How to make that happen is argumentative for certain. Making government bigger in hopes of accomplishing that task will never work. We need to fight Baldacci’s idea of creating a bigger department of natural resources and return the fish and game department back to more what it used to be - fish and game management.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The latest recipient of the Black Bear Blog’s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinn is the sponsor and Pearce the co-sponsor of HB2498, a bill that would pay anyone involved in an accident with a deer, the first $250 in damages. And, that money would come from the Department of Conservation. For those who might not quite understand what the Department of Conservation is, in your state it may be called the Department of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Game, etc. Whatever it’s called, it appears these two guys want sportsmen to pay for deer accidents.

In 2004, there were 8,648 reported accidents with vehicles involving deer in Missouri. Simple math tells us that this would cost sportsmen $2,162,000 annually.

Fiscal year 2007, collected revenue(pdf) to the Department of Conservation was $171,676,521. $31 million of that came from license buyers. To pay for this added expense would call for either cuts, increases or a combination of both. Will this once again fall on the backs of Missouri’s outdoor sportsmen? Either way wildlife conservation will suffer and in fact this move could actually end up exacerbating the problem.

Let’s suppose for a minute if we can. If there were 8,648 REPORTED deer/vehicle accidents in 2004, how many are there today? And the bigger question would be how many would now get reported (wink, wink) knowing they could claim $250 for saying they got hit by a deer. Read what the text of the bill says.

252.042. The department of conservation shall pay the owner of any motor vehicle the first two hundred fifty dollars for repair of damages to any motor vehicle that collides with a deer that is not otherwise covered by insurance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any damage caused to a motor vehicle that involved avoiding a deer where there is no contact with a deer. The owner shall prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that such damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that at the time of the collision the motor vehicle was legally operated.

So, the owner of the vehicle has to show “clear and convincing evidence”. Interesting! Will they have to bring the remains to the Department of Conservation? Or how about bring them to Mr. Quinn’s house and let him decide. Maybe we could have victims cut off four feet? We could require them to carry a hack saw around with them. Oh, but wait, what if they hit the deer causing damage and the deer runs away, living to get hit again? There better be hair on the grill. If you don’t have any deer hair to make it look convincing, I’ll be you can get your hands on some quite easily.

Another interesting note is that no compensation will be paid to anyone who wrecks their car trying to avoid hitting the deer. So if you see one, make sure you take careful aim. $250 “bucks” (sorry, I couldn’t help myself this time) would be quick and easy beer money wouldn’t it. Say you hit a deer and you got blood, guts and hair on the grill. Then get some body shop guy say it’s going to cost, oh, let’s round it off to about $250, collect the money, say sayonara to the body shop guy (or maybe slip him an easy $50), and head on over to the beer store.

The point to all this is the ridiculousness of the whole thing. How can this at all be regulated? Oh, geez! I hadn’t thought that would could place restrictions and requirements on the deer. But what’s even bigger is the domino effect of abuse and lawsuits that will follow.

By the Department of Conservation being forced to pay for damages incurred by deer, is saying that is the Department’s fault that there are deer and in particular the sponsor of this bill probably is one of those guys who thinks that hunters cause everything - too many deer, not enough deer, sick deer, healthy deer, Lyme disease, global warming, George Bush’s stuttering problem and that Al Gore gained 600 pounds riding around on icebergs looking for endangered polar bears.

If sportsmen are to blame, at least to some degree, for deer accidents, who else can the lawyers blame and the courts agree with? Let’s start with the landowner where the accident happened. I’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’s a fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up.

Maybe the Department of Transportation didn’t have their “deer crossing” sign in the right place. We have all heard about the idiots who complain that the deer don’t cross in the crossing zones. That has to be the fault of the DOT by not putting the sign in the right place.

The manufacturer of the vehicle has to now assume a certain amount of responsibility too. Couldn’t something have been done in the design of the vehicle to make it more “deer proof”?

Let’s not forget the family Griswolds’ who moved to the suburbs to “get away from it all” and decided it’s really fun to feed the deer. They have to be blamed. Maybe each neighborhood should be required to pay into a fund specifically for deer related accidents. After all, that deer probably wouldn’t have gotten hit if the Griswolds hadn’t of built their house there.

What’s nuts about this is that a percentage, how much I don’t know, of these accidents happen in areas where hunters aren’t allowed to hunt to reduce the numbers. If the number of deer wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be some many accidents. If I’m going to be blamed for deer/vehicle accidents and have to pay for them, then I want to have some say in how many deer there are in the woods to run over.

Is this all just ridiculous? Of course it is. Is there no sense and sensibility left in this country? Give me a break!

Maybe it’s all good for the Motherland, comrades!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Essentially, it was LD823 of the Maine Legislature that created the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force. Their mission was to find out why there are very few deer left in Northern and Eastern Maine and make recommendations as to what to do about it. Before anything else is said, the 11 members of this task force where given a commission that others before them had yet to accomplish and the time put into this effort is to be commended. Thank you!

Having said that, brings me back to the main question I have had since I heard of the Deer Task Force’s commission and the task given to them. What can they do that nobody or entity before them has been able to accomplish?

It certainly didn’t take hours of hard work from any task force to know that two major obstacles face the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in attempting to fulfill the deer population goals in the MDIFW Deer Management Program - loss of habitat and predators.

Although many more issues that do have some degree of effect on the deer herd were discussed, quickly winter deer yards and predators, such as coyotes and black bear, became the front issue. Let’s jump immediately into the final recommendations of the task force and then we can look back as some of what drove them to those conclusions.

*Note* - The full report of the Task Force can be found on the MDIFW website by clicking this link. (pdf)

Task Force Recommendations:

1. That MDIFW work cooperatively with landowners to protect deer wintering areas in Northern and Eastern Maine to gradually increase the deer population in conjunction with land carrying capacity. This recommendation was a majority vote as some felt that a forced land-use zoning regulation would work better.

2. That MDIFW establish a Deer Predation Working Group, in short, to figure out how it is going to control predators, namely black bears and coyotes, that are killing too many deer.

3. That MDIFW establish a Deer Research Working Group whose function will be to figure out better science in managing winter yards and the species.

Obviously, each of these recommendations come with much more detailed procedures for carrying out the recommendations.

Long before this Task Force met, Maine hunters have known what is causing the loss of deer in these affected areas. From what I read in the report, there certainly was not consensus on how to go about trying to protect deer wintering areas (DWA). Some advocate for a land zoning initiative that would force landowners that have DWA on their property to preserve it, tying their hands from full use of their property. According to representatives of the Maine Forest Products Council, landowners are opposed to land zoning for this purpose. They said landowners understand they have certain responsibilities “but are very resistant to zoning.”

John Gilbert of JD Irving says that of the 1.3 million acres of forest its company manages, 6% or nearly 82,000 acres are cooperatively set aside for DWAs. He says one of the problems facing deer management is that these are historically DWAs but the deer aren’t going there anymore. This makes them reluctant to be forced into setting aside such areas.

I think it was mostly agreed upon that any work with protecting and establishing deer wintering areas was a long-term goal and efforts wouldn’t yield positive results for some time.

One of the recommendations of the DTF was to use money from Land for Maine’s Future to buy up easements and land for wintering habitat.

On the issue of predators, part of what made this effort even more difficult than it already was, was because Maine was in the middle of a lawsuit filed against it by the Animal Protection Institute to stop trapping in Canada lynx habitat. Near the end of the meetings of the Task Force, Maine reached an agreement with API and thusly gave up many of the tools being used in the trapping of coyotes.

It has been said by trappers that earlier on when snaring was outlawed on coyotes, the major tool of controlling the coyote was taken away. Reports are that better designed traps might provide a better means of trapping the coyote but that has of yet to be revealed.

Between coyotes, black bears and bad winters, like this year’s, mortality rates on deer have skyrocketed. The Task Force made several recommendations for controlling and reducing bear populations. They included lengthening the bear season, increasing bag limits, among others, most of which require either legislative action or implementation through the MDIFW.

Probably the one most effective recommendation that could have some effect on predation is the recommendation of the Task Force that the MDIFW renew Animal Damage Control, a tool to use to target known areas of predator problems and work to reduce coyotes and bears.

The Task Force in recommending to set up the Deer Predation Working Group, effectively shuffled some of its responsibilities to establish methods to reduce coyotes off onto that perhaps-to-be group. Gerry Lavigne, former Maine deer biologist and a representative of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, who sat on the Task Force, points out that this needs to be addressed. This in a letter addressed to the Task Force from Lavigne with his recommendations on it.

Finally, we note that the Deer Task Force failed to tackle one directive of LD 823. There is a provision directing the working group to: “establish methods of controlling coyote populations and set goals to manage the populations.” While the Task Force clearly deferred discussion of control methods to the proposed Deer Predation Working Group, the task of goalsetting
was never addressed. This is unacceptable, because serious efforts at predator control require the same attention to harvest intensity, data collection, and monitoring of efficacy as is required for other big game management.

The Dept. requires the use of management systems to guide harvest and other management actions for most hunted and trapped species, as well as for many non-hunted species. Yet, no management system has ever been implemented for eastern coyotes, since the Dept. initiated the management system approach 23 years ago! SAM believes the DIFW is long overdue for creating a management system for coyote that will guide recreational harvest, ADC activities, and public outreach, as these activities pertain to achievement of clearly defined population objectives. We urge the Dept. to accomplish this task without delay, and with the scientific competency it accords other important wildlife.

I think Lavigne nails it pretty close but I’m wondering, as I’m sure many more are as well, just how is this going to be accomplished? It’s easy to say the MDIFW needs to do this and that but we also must remember that by them giving in to the animal rights groups, many good effective tools used to keep coyote populations in check, were given away.

Trappers that I talk say they could easily target deer wintering areas with their snare traps catching the coyotes as they bear down on deer in the yarding areas. They say what’s left for tools is quite inadequate to do a good enough job.

I don’t want to sound like an excuse maker looking for ways to fail but I can’t say that I have any real suggestions either and I’m sure this has played a significant role in the past with those trying to find ways to deal with coyotes.

MDIFW will have their work cut out for them, especially when it comes to dealing with the public, namely the environmentalists and animal rights groups. Two issues talked about as possible methods of dealing with predators was opening up a spring bear hunt with a “cub clause” - meaning no bear with cubs could be harvested. In states that do have spring hunts, there has been opposition to them because cubs are involved.

Going along with that same social outcry, is talk of targeting denning coyotes in the early spring. This would involve destroying coyote pups while still in the den. This is not an easy task to locate dens and is highly controversial as animal lovers can only see that these are cute little puppies. This method has been discussed in Alaska in their efforts to control overgrown wolf populations. They have seen strong opposition to this method, yet again, they’ve seen strong opposition to anything they are trying to do to reduce wolf numbers.

MDIFW personnel think nothing of killing every fish in a pond in order to “reclaim it” and restock it with game fish, yet can’t deal with denning coyotes? One of the problems I think the department has had in the past is not taking a firm enough stand. They must stand behind their science in wildlife management, even if it gets grief from the public or a handful of noisy activists. If their science behind what the do is real and necessary, then they must, from a position of strength, stand firm. I’m not sure they can accomplish that. Surely they understand that giving a little here and a little there isn’t going to make the noisy ones go away?

The facts are, Maine has a serious deer management problem in the Northern part of the state and Downeast. This has been exacerbated by a record-breaking winter dumping in excess of 200 inches of snow in parts. It might not be too far fetched to claim that there are probably more Canada lynx in some of these areas than deer.

It’s tough to suggest asking hunters to give up their deer hunting opportunities but it might come to that. This of course would be tragic, coming at a time when some economic leaders are officially saying this country is in recession and MDIFW is cash strapped, struggling now to make ends meet. Losing valuable license fee money would just make matters worse.

One thing is for certain. I have faith that hunters and trappers are the real true conservationists and they’ll roll up their shirt sleeves and do what needs to be done to bring the deer herd back. We can’t control the weather but there are many more things that we can do, which might require a fight.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns - the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Nearly three years ago environmental groups began demanding that the U.S. Government protect the polar bear by adding it to the list of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. This suggestion is being based on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, causing ice in the arctic region to melt putting the bear at risk of survival. Some scientists back that claim while just as many refute it as only a theory based on poor models.

Over a year ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that they would consider listing the bear and would begin researching to determine whether the bear needs increased protection. Such a decision would be the first time that an animal would be listed based on climate speculation and not on hard evidence of loss of habitat, etc.

From the moment the USFWS made its announcement it seemed that environmentalists and Bush haters lined up believing that it was only a matter of time before the official announcement was made that the bear would be listed. Back in January I wrote