When Hunting Was Cheap And Simple

I didn’t grow up normal! I know that doesn’t come as much of a surprise to some of you but by normal, I mean I grew up dirt poor but happy – a case of you don’t know what you don’t have if you’ve never seen it.

I was the youngest of four boys so you can imagine that growing up poor your “hand-me-downs” where at least three generations old and most of the time older than that because my oldest brother got someone else’s hand-me-downs.

When it came time for deer hunting season, the biggest argument was who got to carry the shotgun and who got to carry the single-shot Remington .22 bolt action. Let me tell you a brief bit about each.

The shotgun, a 12-guage, was an ancient relic from Montgomery Ward. It was mostly held together with black friction tape and shooting the blasted thing was always a mystery. Never, ever shoot up over your head while bird hunting. There stood a better than even chance the barrel would fall off beyond a certain point. There were no sights. You simply looked over the top of the barrel and hoped that was good enough. I did shoot my first deer with than blunder bust.

The .22 Remington was a beauty but none of us young boys had the strength to pull the bolt back so it could be fired. It didn’t matter much as nothing less than a precisely placed shot would do little more than annoy a Maine whitetail deer. In most states now it is illegal to hunt deer with a standard .22 caliber rifle.

If all us boys wanted to go hunting on Saturday, which I’m sure my father hoped wouldn’t happen, two of us had to walk along and carry lunch.

My father had traded his way into the ownership of a Winchester Model 94, .30-.30, lever action, saddle rifle. He got it for $8.00 and he gave the guy a haircut to boot. The owner said no one could hit the side of barn with that gun but my father proved that statement wrong many times over.

Ammunition was also a bit of a mystery come hunting season. Most of the time whoever got to take the 12-gauge got one 00 buckshot, one 0 buckshot, a slug and some number six shot that I think Christopher Columbus brought over with him. We had a 1/2 dozen rounds of .22 long rifles. It was what we could afford. If you wanted to live, you did NOT waste ammunition.

For hunting garb we wore whatever we had. No special pants, shirts or jackets. Back then hunter orange wasn’t even heard of but a few “rich” people were wearing red hats and jackets.

Fast forward about 47 years and my how things have changed. A quick visit to the Cabela’s web site and you can quickly see that only a few thousand dollars and you can have the very latest and greatest in the long line of gimmicks and gadgets to increase your chances at bagging a trophy buck.

Here’s what it now available for the “average” hunter, to name only a few:

1. Scent elimination, clothing and soaps
2. Scents and lures. I think they even now have scents for each day a doe is in estrus.
3. Radios
4. GPS
5. Binoculars
6. Riflescopes
7. Laser sights
8. Spotting scopes
9. Range finders
10. Game finders – special lighting to help you track wounded game (a good thing)
11. Night Vision
12. Trail cameras
13. Specialty ammunition for every occasion
14. Black Powder – It isn’t so primitive anymore
15. Game calls
16. Shooting sticks and by-pods
17. Blinds
18. Tree stands
19. Grow your own food plots, feed and special minerals to grow your own herd of trophy deer
20. Game feeders
21. About 2 gazzillion Cds, DVDs, books, magazines, etc. to tell you exactly how it’s all done.
22. Or, hire a guide and have everything set up for you.

And this only scratches the surface.

While at hunting camp this fall, a brief discussion was started about all this stuff. This discussion quickly turned to one of ethics. For those that know me, I don’t like to go down that road because ethics is something that I believe shouldn’t be legislated but taught.

So, ditching any discussion on ethics, the one question I do have is whether all this stuff actually gives a hunter that big of an advantage? And, if so, does one’s financial status provide more of a hunting opportunity than someone who can’t afford any of this stuff? And is this right? (I hate to use the word fair because nothing is fair)

Does anyone know of any hard data that can support any hypothesis about success rates due to gadgets and gimmicks or is it really just a negligible difference? Isn’t tried and true hunting knowledge, scouting and knowing the terrain you hunt and the habits of the game you chase a better way to seriously improve your chances of success?

What do you think?

Tom Remington

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

More Hunting Comedy From New York Times

On Wednesday I linked you over to a “laughable” article on morals, ethics, wolves and hunting. If that wasn’t embarrassing enough, the author attempts a bit of humor, while revealing continued ignorance of the issues and comparing criminal activities to that of hunting. Alas!

Tom Remington

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

New York Times: Hunting Wolves Only For Fun

Randy Cohen, a comedy writer, weighs in at the New York Times about hunting, ethics, morals and wolves. I don’t think his piece is comedy, although some of it is quite laughable.

Tom Remington

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

What Thomas Jefferson Thought Of People Who Put Animals At Par With Man

Thomas Jefferson spent several years in France traveling about much of Europe seeking trade treaties for the United States. This occurred in the latter part of the 1700s and before becoming president. In his travels he developed methods he used when visiting other countries to determine if life in those countries, which included all aspects such as work habits, ambitions of the people, politics, the court systems, etc., was a good match in what he considered a worthy trade partner with the United States.

In Jefferson’s writings he spells out exactly the things he would look for while visiting a country. One of the first things he would do would be to climb into the steeple of a town church and look over the town from that perspective. He often would forgo an immediate visit with state dignitaries in order that he call upon the common folks, the workers, if you will, to find out how they were treated by their employers and whether or not they were taxed too much or paid too much for their rent.

I discovered something quite interesting that Jefferson wrote about concerning what he thought of people, in this case the courts of certain countries, who placed animals at par or of higher esteem than the humans.

To be seen as you would see the tower of London or menagerie of Versailles with ‘ their lions, tigers, hyenas, and other beast of prey, standing in the same relation to their fellows. A slight acquaintance with them will suffice to show you that, under the most imposing exterior, they are the
weakest and worst part of mankind. Their manners, could you ape them, would not make you beloved in your own country, nor would they improve it could you introduce them there to the exclusion of that honest simplicity now prevailing in America, and worthy of being cherished.

Well over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson, and you could assume others of his time, realized that for those who considered animals as having a place in common with man, “they are the weakest and worst part of mankind”. Jefferson understood then the makeup of someone who thought that way and realized they would not make for good treaty.

I wonder if today other countries look at the United States in similar fashion and realize that because we are becoming a society that revels in the protection of animals, even to the extreme of affording those creatures the same or higher rights than that of humans, we are no longer the strongest of nations on earth but “the weakest and worst part of mankind”?

Of course the progressives, which often are the same as those who cherish animals above man, would say that over two hundred years ago, Jefferson and others had a completely different perspective of animals than today, that perhaps their ignorance and uneducated ways barred them from seeing that animals are living creatures that deserve the same treatment as man, and as such miss Jefferson’s point completely.

It’s not so much as to how animals are to be treated. It is that he sees the character of the kind of people he would have to deal with who thought this way. The future of our country depended very much on Jefferson’s success in finding viable trade partners. Dealing with “the worst part of mankind” offered little toward our future.

If you further investigate into Jefferson’s life, at his home in Monticello, he cherished his animals. He loved his horses and he even tended to and cared for deer there. He wrote often of how visitors were treated to feeding the wild deer by hand and yet, Jefferson also spent time hunting for sport and also as a necessary part of providing food for his family.

It appears to me that Jefferson had a solid and balanced understanding of the role God’s creatures played in our lives. Being one of the most educated and extremely intelligent human beings of that era, Jefferson was a good judge of character and could plainly see the troubles that awaited those who sought to do business with “the weakest and worst part of mankind”.

Tom Remington

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

Is It More Humane To Kill Elk Using Hired Sharpshooters Or Hunters?

The beat goes on……La dee da de dee…..and the beat goes on. Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain!

The New York Times published an opinion piece, a piece I assume was compiled by their editorial staff because there was no name attached to it, about the effort to cull the elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in western North Dakota.

You see the problem is there are too many elk. Over 20 years ago, a handful of elk were deposited in the park and today that number is approaching one thousand. Officials say there should be no more than 300 to maintain some semblance of balance within the ecosystem.

The argument has been how to kill off those 600-plus elk. Some have said a hunting season should be opened up to allow qualified hunters to do the job, while others think the federal government should pay exorbitant fees to hire sharpshooters to systematically slaughter the beasts. And let’s not forget that there are those who think we should let Nature deal with it and yes, some espouse bringing in wolves to do their bidding.

The editorial isn’t so much one declaring their preference of slaughter methods as it is a bundle of contradictions and bad information. Montana Senator Byron Dorgan proposed using hunters to do the job. Evidently the NYT has a problem with hunting.

To begin with, the proposal would legislate a management issue better left to the secretary of interior and the National Park Service. Worse, it would authorize an activity — public hunting — that is proscribed by the founding legislation for the national parks and their current management policies.

I wonder if the Times would think it a good idea to let the Interior Secretary make all the decisions, unchecked, if the Secretary’s methods ran contrary to their ideals?

The Times also believes that nowhere within National Parks is hunting allowed, even though they speak of the Grand Tetons Park “exception”. (There are others as well) The opinion thinks the model being used in the Rocky Mountain National Park to kill off too many elk is a better idea than utilizing hunters who will pay for the opportunity.

Rocky Mountain National Park provides a better model. There, hired sharpshooters have culled cow elk in parts of the park that are closed to the public. This is a safer, more efficient and less expensive way of reducing numbers than shooting bulls, which is what most hunters do.

Huh? For some odd reason, the NYT thinks there is some real humane difference between killing an elk using a hired gun than using a pay-to-play hunter. Could the staff please give us some facts to support this? And they think this method is safer. Once again, facts please.

Oh, but then we get to see a bit of what’s really behind the opinion. The NYT just hates hunting and hunters. The hired guns would obey the guidelines and hunt only cow elk and hunters would disregard that mandate and go kill only bull elk because why? Hunters are blood thirsty animals, only interested in mounting horns over our fireplace mantels?

And how does the NYT calculate that it is less expensive to pay out millions of dollars to hire sharpshooters, than to collect hunting permit fees to allow hunters to do the job?

And then there’s this:

How to manage, and ultimately cull, this North Dakota elk herd should be decided by the National Park Service, based on sound science, not by faulty, if well-intentioned, legislation. It is also critical not to create a broad precedent for public hunting in the national parks, which would undermine their protected status.

Because the National Park Service thinks hiring sharpshooters is the best way to go and it happens to be an anti-hunting move of which the New York Times agrees with, this decision is based on “sound science”? Is there really any “sound science” in deciding what appears to be an ethics and humane decision of how to slaughter a few hundred elk?

The idea of proposing legislation is to force the National Park Service to utilize a different method of managing the elk herd that might be in the best interest of the public, rather than pay ridiculous fees to harvest elk when it could be done for little or no cost to the taxpayers of this country. Again, I ask. Is there science behind making such a decision? Isn’t it the science that determines how many elk are needed in the Park to maintain an ecological balance? It appears “sound science” has already determined there’s too many elk. The question is how do we kill them?

And why is it such a bad thing that we “create a broad precedent for public hunting in national parks”? The opinion says such an act would “undermine their protected status”, meaning the elk I presume. It would be nice if the Times had offered its readers some form of substantiation to this claim. How does culling an elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to protect the health of the herd and the rest of the ecosystem, “undermine their protected status”? Isn’t the idea behind this move to protect them in a responsible way?

It’s really quite clear. The Times, like most animal rights groups and anti-hunting groups, aren’t interested in the “sound science” of wildlife management, nor are they interested in the “humane” slaughter of elk. They just don’t want hunters doing what hunters do. They could have saved a bunch of ink and just said that.

Tom Remington

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

Idaho Elk Industry Wants Clarification Of Support From Safari Club International

Since 2006 I have spent countless hours researching and writing, seeking the truth behind efforts in Idaho to destroy a perfectly good domestic elk industry. The effort is ongoing and very unfortunate.

There have been two issues used by those determined to end raising elk for livestock – high-fence hunting and disease. One thing is for sure. There is never a resolve when a discussion comes up about fair chase and hunting ethics. There are those who have determined that hunting inside a fenced-in area, regardless of its size, is wrong and violates their standards of fair chase hunting ethics. On the other side, there are those who take no issue with it, whether they do it themselves or not. Is this reason to destroy an industry? Some think so.

Disease is the second issue. In Idaho’s case, it’s really a non issue because in the 20 years the domestic elk industry has been in existence, there has never been a diseased animal. Guidelines are stringent as well as testing and the practices employed seem to have an incredible track record. Most elk ranchers that I have talked with over the years have a bigger concern that their disease-free elk will contract chronic wasting disease or brucellosis from wild ranging ungulates. Again, I have to ask, is this reason to shut down an entire industry? Some think so.

Back in 2006, Dr. Rex Rammell, now an announced candidate for governor of Idaho in 2010, owned and operated an elk ranch. He was one of a handful of ranchers who supplemented their ranching income by offering elk hunts on his property. Rammell became a big target when elk escaped his enclosure. Mahem ensued when then Governor Jim Risch, now a U.S. Senator, ordered that all Rammell’s elk found outside his enclosures were to be killed. His justification was fear of disease spread. No disease in any of Rammell’s elk was found and a lawsuit is still pending against Risch and the state of Idaho.

Attempts have been made through citizen’s initiatives and the Idaho legislature to ban outright or limit the domestic elk industry. Those efforts have all failed but that hasn’t deterred some to continue to fight against the industry, which is their right. But is it still a protected right to use false claims to promote your personal agendas? Some think so.

Kristy Sternes is president of the Idaho Elk Breeders Association. She and her organization take issue with claims of support at least one individual is using to discredit the domestic elk industry in Idaho. Mark Bell, among other things, is a member of the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council. Bell and others within the ISCAC have been very outspoken against the Idaho domestic elk industry as well as the small group of ranchers who continue to offer hunts.

Sternes takes issue with Bell’s claim as to what organizations he has in support of his efforts to stop the elk industry. In a recent letter she sent to Safari Club International representatives, she is asking them to clarify whether they support his efforts and that he has permission to claim such and even advertise it on some of his banners he displays at events.

Mr. Mark Bell who is a member of your SCI chapter has been the driving force behind the destruction and ultimate elimination of our industry here in Idaho. While I know that one cannot control the personal views of an individual, I do think you have to be made aware of the fact that this individual is claiming to have the support of your organization along with various other sportsmen groups in Idaho. Every time Mr. Bell has made public appearances in regards to the domestic elk industry, he displays a banner which includes your organization’s name on it and claims that you are amongst the supporters of the banning of not only our 6 high fenced hunting operations, but also including traditional agricultural producers such as ourselves.

Sternes points out in her letter that Mark Bell is outspoken in his opposition to high-fence hunting and claims to have the support of Safari Club International, and yet SCI supports high-fence hunting world wide.

The argument Mr. Bell continues to use is the fact that high fenced elk hunting is not hunting nor is it “fair chase”. This has always perplexed me due to the fact that SCI is one of the biggest if not the biggest supporters of high fenced hunting all throughout the world.

Also according to Sternes, Mark Bell is seeking to have a requirement that all fencing around elk enclosures be double wide. The cost would be enormous and to many prohibitive, aside from the fact it is unnecessary. Sternes states that Bell is promoting his efforts for double fencing by claiming to have the support of Safari Club International and all the other sportsmen clubs affiliated with the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council.

A public hearing will be held Tuesday night, May 26, at 7pm at the Dept of Agriculture to discuss Bell’s request for double fencing. Sternes hopes SCI will become involved with the public hearing or at least clarify their position prior to that meeting.

Tom Remington

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

Maine’s Anti Game Farm Bill, LD560, Dead

A bill in Maine that would have put an end to all game farms, including a handful that offer shooting opportunities, got killed in committee by a 12-0 vote – the vote for “ought not to pass”. Under Maine rules, a unanimous vote effectively kills the bill.

One member of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Chairwoman Rep. Wendy Pieh, D-Bremen, was quoted as saying the following:

…..whether it’s fair-chase hunting or farming, or whether it offends the morals of some, is not for the Legislature to decide.

I think those are issues the market can handle,

Give Rep. Pieh a blue ribbon!!!

Tom Remington

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

Fox News Reports On Maine Game Ranch Ban Proposal

I’ve been covering for you some of the ins and outs of LD560, a proposed law in Maine that would ban killing animals on game ranches in that state. Yesterday I reported about the visit Fox News film crew had with Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine. You can find more coverage of the proposed law and who’s behind it by following this link.

Fox News yesterday presented it’s report with Sheppard Smith.

Tom Remington

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

Fox News Visits Hind-Site Deer Preserve

*Update* This link will take you to the Fox News video

Fox News out of New York traveled to Newport, Maine and visited the Hind-Site Deer Hunt Preserve, owned by Mark Luce, to do a documentary of sorts of the facility. This was in response to a bill, LD560, that is being proposed in Maine to end hunting on game preserves. Fox wanted to visit a typical preserve and see for themselves.

In an email update sent to me this morning by Luce, he conveys the surprises the news crew found.

First they were amazed how quickly the deer on the farm headed for the furthest corner of their paddock….They clearly were not pets or tame and reacted like any good whitetail would after seeing the strangers.

After the farm interview we spent 3 1/2 hours in the preserve and they did not see a single deer. We had baited a site earlier in the morning with the hope of sneaking in and getting some deer on film, even if it were deer headed quickly to cover. When we finally made our way to the blind the bait was gone and no deer in sight They really wanted to see some deer so we put on two deer drives and we failed both times as the animals found a way to double back……20 + deer were not going to be seen today.

All too often people jump to conclusions about what a hunt preserve must be like. Unfortunately because of a couple bad apples and public relations campaigns by anti-hunting groups eager to spread false accusations and descriptions of game ranches, people are led to think things that just aren’t factual.

Luce says he is happy that Fox News took the time to actually visit a preserve, which is more than can be said about those sponsoring the bill, LD560, or the lawmakers who will be casting a vote one way or the other. Luce tells it this way.

They [Fox News] also asked the sponsor of LD 560 if he had ever visited a hunt preserve to justify his bill ……………………The answer was no!

What Fox News found was much different than the antis had painted us to be. I have invited numerous State Reps. to visit our preserve, but they are too busy and we are not convenient to get to.

It’s sad actually. Luce says lawmakers say that he is in an “inconvenient” location for them. In reality, Hind-Site Preserve is located just 3 miles off Interstate 95, one hour north of Augusta, the state capital. I might have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that I might cast a vote to put some good and honest people out of work because it was “inconvenient” for me to find out the truth.

Amazing!

Tom Remington

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

Maine Game Ranchers Get Lots Of Support At Public Hearing

Yesterday a public hearing was held in Room 206 of the Cross Office Building next to the state capital in Augusta, Maine. Those who showed up in opposition to LD 560, an act that would put game ranchers out of business, seemed to outnumber those in support. According to Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine, he was pleased with the turnout and the information presented to lawmakers.

We had the hearing yesterday morning and we did quite well in getting our message heard. We had four times as many people testifying in our favor.

Those testifying in opposition to LD 560 included, the Maine Guides Association, The Maine Trappers Association, The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine , The Maine Farm Bureau, The Maine Department of Agriculture, several Maine Guides, many people who have hunted on game ranches, feed producers, camp owners who supply lodging and others. Luce called the overwhelming support “a welcomed sight”.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance, also showed up to testify on behalf of SAM. In the morning edition of the Kennebec Journal, Smith’s weekly column addressed LD 560 and what he foresaw as taking place that day in Room 206. Smith sums up his thoughts this way.

Simply put, commercial shooting areas keep farmers farming, put meat on the table, offer exciting experiences and are more humane than most of the techniques used to slaughter animals these days. Nothing wrong with that.

The main sponsor of LD 560 is Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford. During yesterday’s testimony, according to a related article in today’s Kennebec Journal, Casavant called hunting on these ranches “barbaric”.

“Though I consider the shooting for hire of animals behind fences to be barbaric and designed to satisfy the blood lust of a handful of out-of-staters, I also believe that we need to be sensitive to the economic realities of those associated with such businesses,”

Odd way of showing sensitivity. Casavant is either lying or has never stepped foot on one of these farms. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts on what they deem to be ethical, fair chase hunting. Targeting an agriculture business, in order to run them out of business, is an ineffectual way of promoting fair chase ethics if that is really his goal.

The Maine State Veterinarian testified also that all farms treated their animals humanely, defying an accusation made recently by Maine Friends of Animals.

“Our experience has been that the animals are treated humanely, well fed and well cared for, and that the hunts are also carried out in a humane manner,” said State Veterinarian Don Hoenig, in written testimony.

According to Luce, he said that several members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, plan to visit some of the game preserves for a first-hand look.

Quite a few of the committee members are going to visit a few preserves and see for themselves that we have plenty of cover for our deer to avoid hunters.

If the Maine Friends of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, both supporters of LD 560, were truly interested in animal welfare, they would offer to tag along with the committee members and get an education but most of us know that is not their agenda.

The next step in the process will be a work shop session(s), where lawmakers will pound out the issue and make a recommendation. Luce says he feels confident that he and other participants in Maine game ranches will know within a month where this issue stands.

Tom Remington

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

Sponsors Of Maine’s Anti-Deer Farm Bill Have Poor Reasoning

Travis Barrett, a writer for the Kennebec Journal in Maine, does what almost no other reporter has the intelligence or ambition to do. He got out of his cushy office (I don’t know what his office is like) and went to a game preserve in Newport, Maine and visited with the owner and gathered information about Mark Luce’s operation at Hind-Site Red Deer Hunt Preserve. Kudos to Travis Barrett!

Included in Barrett’s report are comments from the main sponsor of LD560, Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford, and co-sponsor Rep. Pamela Trinward, D-Waterville. LD 560 seeks to ban all hunt preserves in Maine. Here’s Casavant’s comment.

“Hunting is a longtime Maine tradition. It is a sport. But this kind of hunting on a preserve, well, I don’t see that as hunting or as a sport. I have major problems with that, and I think a lot of people who hunt do, too.”

This is lame excuse number one. I completely respect the fact that Mr. Casavant doesn’t think going to a hunt preserve, one that I’m quite comfortable in saying he’s probably never visited, is something he is comfortable with. Here’s some great advice. Don’t go! I’m not comfortable with spending gobs of money for the most powerful hunting weapon decked out with every gadget known in the hunting industry, sitting in a lofty tree stand and waiting for the right “trophy” to come by. So how do I deal with that? Simple, I don’t do it but who am I to tell someone else they can’t? I have some issues with archery hunting and muzzle loader hunting but I don’t seek to ban it because of personal preferences.

Rep. Casavant says this isn’t an attack on hunting. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t but you can be sure it’s an attack on property rights and this attack is coming because one person doesn’t think hunting in a preserve is “sport”. What goes around comes around and once you head down the slope of legislating one’s hunting ethics, the door is left wide open.

Moving on to lame excuse number two. Mark Luce took the time with Travis Barrett to explain much of the economic repercussions should this bill pass. He pointed out that other farmers who grow and sell hay to all the deer farms in the state would lose an estimated $1 million dollars annually. There are no exact figures on other revenues that would be lost, say nothing about how many of these people will lose their livelihoods, a way to make a living, which could cost them dearly.

Rep. Trinward it appears, didn’t do her homework and has signed on to a bill without knowing the full effect the bill would have.

“If I were convinced that small businesses, that Maine people, need this to survive, then I would be against that,” Trinward said. “I was under the impression that this was something that was really on the decline. … We’re very sensitive right now with what’s going on in economy. This is not a time when people would be making changes to (the income of) traditional Maine families. If that were the case, I don’t think anyone in the Legislature would be for that.

“My position is one that’s from a Maine family of hunters. My concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals. That’s really what it’s all about.”

Obviously she’s not convinced. But let’s make her thoughts clear. Her decision to sponsor this bill is because she doesn’t think Mark Luce needs to raise red deer to “survive”. What’s even worse is her admission that she was under the “impression that this was something that was really on the decline”. She doesn’t know anything for a fact it appears. Wouldn’t you think it an act of responsibility to first have facts, an environmental impact statement, before proposing to run people out of business?

But this raises a very serious question that should be of concern to every Maine resident. Is Rep. Trinward saying that because she is under the impression that deer farms, or maybe she means hunting in general, is on the decline we should outlaw it? If that’s the case, who is next in line?

With a slumping economy, I’m not sure how hard pressed anyone would be to find a business that wasn’t “on the decline”. So should we then outlaw it?

The economy has nothing to do with Rep. Trinward’s decision to sponsor this bill. It’s about emotional preferences. It’s about control. It’s about having power to exercise for the promotion of one’s personal ideals.

Rep. Trinward then appears to want to deflect attention away from the fact she has no idea about anything to do with Mark Luce’s economic future or that of any other deer farmers and tells us that because she comes from a Maine family of hunters, her “concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals”.

If that is truly her concern, then she must have some supporting evidence that these Maine farmers are abusing their animals. If that’s true then it would serve all Maine residence to have a chance to look at that evidence.

Barrett’s piece in the Kennebec Journal also contained comments from readers. At the time of this writing, there were 10 comments from what appear to be 10 different individuals, all of them against this legislation to put Mark Luce and the other Maine farmers out of business.

But let’s not assume anything. Everyone needs to contact their representative and tell them you are American. Tell them you believe in the United States Constitution and that your rights are given to you by God and not some politician, and those include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such unnecessary laws are nothing more than giant obstacles in the way of achieving those goals.

Tom Remington

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

Maine Friends Of Animals “Ethics Nazis”, Purveyors Of Bad Information

Jayne Winters, a board member of Maine Friends of Animals, was allowed to write a column that appeared in today’s Kennebec Journal. Her piece is in support of the Maine Legislature’s LD 560, a bill that would ban shooting animals on private land. In her piece she quotes only part of what I said in an article I wrote about the nonsense of trying to legislate one’s ethical ideals.

Here is how Winters quoted me.

In a recent blog entry, Tom Remington states, “It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. This is about rights … your rights as a free American.” He compares legislators and anti-hunting groups to Nazis who are “bent on the destruction of our freedom.”

Here is what I actually wrote.

It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. Do you want to be a part of the ethics Nazis? This is about rights…..your rights as a free American.

Referring to those who sponsor such legislation as “ethics Nazis” is a bit different than calling them just Nazis. Please don’t skew my words.

But the real issue here again is that people like Winters feel compelled to make laws that dictate to you and I in what manner we must to live, all based on their personal ideals not yours. In Winters’ column she brings out many good points, most of which I cannot argue with. Because she claims these things to be her moral high ground, does it then make sense to turn them into law?

Winters’ points were valid until she began to show her ignorance of hunting ranches. In an effort to legislate your ethics, she is forced to make claims that are not true and cannot be backed up.

Living in the wild does not typically include being fed quality hay and feed on a regular basis and accepting the presence of man. If you query “game ranches in Maine” on the Internet, you’ll come up with a variety of photos showing elk and bison behind fencing, munching on bales of hay.

I am told that there are somewhere between 30 and 50 ranches in Maine that raise deer, elk, red deer, bison etc.. Of those, 8 are set up to include the use of shooting an animal for harvest. I don’t think going to the Internet and looking at photos of elk and bison “munching on bales of hay” is much of a way to substantiate the need to put these hard working Maine people out of business. Perhaps Ms. Winters should consider actually visiting one of these facilities other than looking at photos on line.

I warned in my previous article not to be fooled by groups like Maine Friends of Animals and the sponsors of this bill when they tell you this is about ethical hunting and animal abuse and has nothing to do with property rights. It has everything to do with property rights. A person has a right to farm and raise livestock. They also have a right to decide by which means they will harvest that livestock.

The legislation is not about land-use rights. It is not the tip of the iceberg to ban all hunting. LD 560 is about preserving the tradition of real hunting in Maine. It is about protecting and preserving our native species. LD 560 is about reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death for the sake of a trophy head for someone’s wall.

Much of Maine Friends of Animals has been about banning hunting and trapping and this appears just another step in that direction. It’s called incrementalism. Raising deer, elk and bison has nothing to do with the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”. Claiming not to be a hunter but having friends that are, gives no one standing to convey to others about the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”.

Also Winters needs to substantiate a statement that this bill is about protecting and preserving our native species. This makes no sense at all and can only be taken as a feeble attempt at instilling fear into Maine people that somehow this ranches are a threat to our wild and native species.

And stopping deer farms will have absolutely nothing to do with “reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death”. As I have said a million times before, resorting to lies and misinformation, especially as a tool to frighten people, for the purpose of promoting personal agendas only exposes groups such as Maine Friends of Animals for what they really are.

Maine people need to decide for themselves but please base that information on facts. If you’ve never visited a farm that raises deer, elk or bison, I encourage you to do that. Meet the people behind the operation that a small handful of people want to run out of business. And make sure you visit at least one farm that allows hunting, or shooting, or killing, or harvesting….whatever you want to call it, I have no problem with that.

This is completely about rights and don’t let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Remember, if you think you are qualified to dictate to others what their ethical standards will be, the day isn’t too far away when it will come home to roost.

Tom Remington

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

Maine Lawmakers Seek To Trample On Rights Ban High-Fence Hunting

Americans are guaranteed under the United States Constitution to be able to work hard and make a living. As this country spirals deeper and deeper into a form of European-style socialism, individual rights, including the right to prosper, are being yanked out from under American citizens for no good reason.

The state of Maine has become the target of animal rights groups for years. Maine, once a staunchly independent state, continues to morph into a land very attractive to secular progressives bent on the destruction of the liberties fought and died for in this country.

Maine has several deer, elk and bison ranches scattered across the state. A handful of those ranches offer anyone who has the interest, a chance to shoot one of these critters. This action has been dubbed the name of high-fence hunting. Once again a group of Maine lawmakers has put together a bill proposal that would repeal Chapter 202-A of Maine law, effectively banning the shooting of any of these animals on private land.

High-fence hunting has been the target of controversy in several states. The arguments used against ranch or preserve hunting are weak and misleading. In states that have been successful in winning the war against the animal rights activists have done so because they were able to get the truth to the voters. Maine will be no different. The truth must be made known.

History has shown us in this battle for private property rights that once voters are given the facts and understand the truth that exists, Americans win. In this case, Mainers are going to have to contact their state representatives and tell them not to be lured into this rights-stripping bill.

Don’t let anyone try to convince you that this is NOT a case of protecting constitutional rights. It is clearly that. Those fighting to stop ranch hunting hide behind hunting ethics, animal cruelty and often whip up a scare or two over disease. None of these excuses stand up to rational scrutiny.

Hunting ethics is extremely subjective, it’s a personal perspective, all guided with the rules that govern the sport. Those rules are crafted from the need to properly manage the game animals and provide for public safety.

We too often hear that fair chase hunting ethics is of the biggest concern to both hunters and non-hunters. While ethics certainly is important and is a integral part of what shapes our sport, it is far from a leading candidate of what is endangering hunting. Land access, costs, and available time to be in the field are the three major events that cause more damage to the sports of hunting and fishing than anything else.

When we begin legislating ethics, that is when individuals are attempting to set the moral standards by how others should live. Is that what we want? In all honesty if a handful of Maine legislators believes hunting on a game preserve is unethical, then we would have to just as honestly ask, why pick on preserve hunting? Shouldn’t be ban smoking? Shouldn’t we shut down bars, topless dance clubs, and remove any and all questionable magazines from our newsstands? How much more can we add to this list?

The truth is there is no real clear and necessary reason to stop a private citizen from trying to find a way to make a living by the utilization of his own land to raise domestic livestock and harvest it in the manner he would choose. LD 560 is nothing more than the effort of a handful of Maine lawmakers to push their personal ideals onto others. Join the fight to stop this attack on our rights. It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. Do you want to be a part of the ethics Nazis? This is about rights…..your rights as a free American.

Mark Luce is owner of Hindsite Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine. Mark is seeking the help and support of other who place value on property rights and our hunting heritage.

As a preserve owner in Maine who has made a substantial investment to keep our land in agriculture we are being attacked once again. The harvesting of these animals is far more humane than trucking the same animals to a slaughter facility. Those who speak negative about preserves do so with propaganda supplied to them by the anti hunting groups.

At a time when jobs are scarce and money is tight these antis want to put us out of business. They have submitted a bill, L.D. 560 to ban our preserves. This only the tip of the iceberg re: there true mission..BAN ALL HUNTING!

We as Preserve Owners would appreciate any support from the public that we can muster. Write your local Rep, our Governor and attend the public hearing.

Mark Luce has operated a first class business for several years and has invested huge sums of money looking for a return that will help pay for his economically stressed business. He pays $1,000.00 a year for his license and $25 for each animal that is harvested. The facility is inspected each year and Mark has to pay to have each animal taken tested for disease, including chronic wasting disease.

Luce tells me that he is one of the smaller facilities in the state and his feeding costs now run $680.00 every 10 days. He offers his hunts, as do many of the ranch owners, as a means of generating much needed revenue.

Often lost in these kinds of debates is the fact that Mark Luce is an American. He’s a human being with family trying to eke out a living just like everyone else. It is appalling that anyone, including lawmakers, often with their holier-than-thou attitudes, introduce bills that will legislate a family right out of business.

I helped the Idaho Elk Breeders Association fight similar attacks a few years ago. While I immediately saw through the deceitful tactics of those trying to shut down the elk industry in Idaho, it wasn’t until I traveled to Idaho and met with some of the people and their families did it really come home to roost for me. These are good Americans. Hard working people, some who have lost family members fighting to keep America free from the dictatorial efforts of some bent on the destruction of our freedom. Help do your part. Get involved now!

Sponsors and cosponsors of this bill are:

Sponsored By: Representative CASAVANT of Biddeford
Cosponsored By: Representative BOLAND of Sanford
Representative EBERLE of South Portland
Senator GERZOFSKY of Cumberland
Representative GILES of Belfast
Representative MAZUREK of Rockland
Senator NUTTING of Androscoggin
Representative ROTUNDO of Lewiston
Representative RUSSELL of Portland
Representative TRINWARD of Waterville

Get on the phone now! Call these people and your own representative. Call the governor’s office. Tell them you support the freedoms and liberties of Americans and that you believe Mark Luce and all the other preserve owners have a legal right to ranch deer, elk and bison and that they can decide how their livestock will be harvested.

Tom Remington

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

Defenders Of Wildlife Chief Schlickeisen Suggests CNN Film Aerial Wolf Killing

Do to a messed up schedule last night, I wasn’t able to catch the interview on Larry King with Ashley Judd and Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen. I caught the very ending of the interview and heard Schlickeisen suggest to Larry King that CNN travel to Alaska and film the aerial shooting of wolves that is conducted by the Alaska fish and game department to protect other wildlife species including caribou and moose.

I am all for that. I think it’s a wonderful idea provided that in turn CNN take Ashley Judd and Rodger Schlickeisen with them and they go and film an abortion! Too bad they couldn’t have caught on film the recent abortion in Florida that was botched and the baby was born alive. It didn’t stop there though. The doctor (?) just scooped the baby, placenta, etc. into a garbage bag and let the baby bleed out through the umbilical until it was dead and he tossed it away.

We manage our populations of wildlife to conserve all species, so all will be healthy and thrive. And why do we kill unborn and now I guess new born babies?

Who is inhumane?

Tom Remington

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

Native Alaskans Not Interested In “Tofu Salad And Pinkberry Yogurt”

It’s quite amazing actually that once Defenders of Wildlife (yes the “extreme fringe group”) announced their campaign to destroy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, while hiring a wildlife ignorant Hollywood starlet and hiding behind a supposed effort to save the wolves, the media has loved to report on Ashley Judd’s attack on Gov. Palin. News headlines have read like this:

Judd rips into Sarah Palin
Ashley Judd attack Sarah Palin
Hollywood Star Ashley Judd puts Palin in her place
Judd criticizes Palin of senseless slaughter of wolves
Ashley Judd exposes Palin as animal killer

And the list goes on and on. However, as soon as Gov. Palin released a rebuttal announcement about the efforts of the Defenders campaign, the presses ran silent. Days later the media is still fawning over Ashley Judd’s robotic narration of the video being used against Sarah Palin.

I have weighed in on this action several times and you can find my articles here, here, here and here. You can also find numerous articles I’ve done covering Alaska’s wolf management program.

This morning in Michelle Malkin’s syndicated column, “Ashley Judd: Clown in wolf guardian’s clothing”, she also takes Defenders of Wildlife and Ashley Judd to task on their motives.

No matter. As Judd proclaimed, “It is time to stop Sarah Palin.” That is the true aim of left-wing lobbying groups and their allies in Hollywood. Palin is a threat not to Alaska’s wolves, but to the liberal establishment’s wolves. Defenders of Wildlife isn’t targeting the ads in states affected by these policies. They’re running the Judd-fronted ads across battleground states. It’s about electoral interests, not wildlife interests. The eco-Kabuki theater is just plain laughable.

Not only will I give Malkin credit for pointing out the truth about the goals of Defenders of Wildlife, but she, unlike few others in the media, actually takes the time to look into and understand why Gov. Palin has to control wolf populations. Malkin says it best when she exclaims, “Alaskans rely on caribou and moose for food. Not all Americans care to live on environmentally-correct starlet diets of tofu salad and Pinkberry yogurt.”

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »