As many of you probably are already aware, a mentally ill person (that definition is one to be debated for a long time) attacked, killed and injured people in Seattle, Washington. Here is a short press release issued by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

WASHINGTON, July 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement today on the shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle Friday:

“Our prayers go out to the victims of gun violence in Seattle and their families. To the family of the victim who died, we express our deepest condolences. To the victims who are struggling to recover, we offer our hopes for a full recovery.

“This terrible attack appears to have been launched by a deeply troubled person who had shown signs of mental illness, and had run afoul of the law as a result of that mental illness. We, as a society, need to do more to restrict access to firearms to individuals who are exhibiting public recklessness and espousing hatred to people around them.”

The Brady Campaign has elected to dumb down this attack as a random act of violence. Are they kidding? By someone’s definition, there are a lot of mentally ill people in this world. To simple make a statement that puts this act into a category with other random acts of violence is absurd and was done to fulfill the ambitions of the BCPGV.

There are six candidates vieing for the 7th Congressional District in Washington, D.C. They were posed several questions by The Daily Telegram about were they each stand on specific issues. Included in those questions was one concerning gun control. Here are their responses. (Candidates are, Joe Schwarz republican incumbent, Tim Walberg republican challenger, Daryl Campbell democrat, Chuck Ream democrat, Sharon Renier democrat and Fred Stack democrat.)

SCHWARZ: Says that “my position is a very strong position in support of the Second Amendment.” Has come under fire from his opponent for telling the Detroit Free Press in 2002 that he believed the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the rights of states to maintain armed militias, rather than individual rights to bear arms. Has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund.

WALBERG: Says he supports the Second Amendment and believes it was written to protect the rights of individuals. Has been endorsed by the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

CAMPBELL: Says he supports the Second Amendment, but believes it should be coupled with “common sense.”

REAM: Says he supports gun rights and belongs to the NRA, but is sure “there are some things the NRA believes in that I don’t believe in.”

RENIER: Says she is a card-carrying NRA member who supports gun rights.

STRACK: Says that “I fully support our Second Amendment rights to responsible gun ownership.”

Those responses were about as clear as mud. A typical political response that says nothing. They might as well as asked why the sun shines.

Tom Remington

HB 1646 has evidently passed both Houses in New Hampshire and the Governor is prepared to sign it. The bill would allow hunters to track a wounded deer using leashed dogs.

There is little information that I have about this bill as yet. More information on the use of dogs for tracking wounded big game can be found at a brand new website called Untied Blood Trackers.

Tom Remington

It what may prove to be a difficult task, Vermont officials are once again taking up debate on how to regulate game farms both used for hunting and farming. This has always been a sticky issue is trying to define and separate agricultural interests, wildlife concerns and personal rights.

Louis Porter from the Rutland Herald tries to take a stab at explaining what lies ahead.

Tom Remington

I am going to take a look at the six questions that were posed to each of the candidates for Maine’s Governor. I have received three responses from the four candidates who were asked to participate. Those asked was Governor John Baldacci incumbent democrat, republican candidate Chandler Woodcock, independent candidate Barbara Merrill and green party hopeful Patricia LaMarche. The only one not to have responded to date is LaMarche. I have decided to proceed without her answers. If I get them later, I will post them and make separate commentary.

I will do this in six parts breaking down answers from the candidates that apply to each question separately. I will post the original question as it was posed to the candidates followed by each one’s response. I will then make comments on their answers and offer opinions of my own.

Question number one – In an effort to protect hunting and fishing heritage, some states have enacted a Constitutional Amendment protecting that heritage. Proponents of an amendment say it will reduce the millions of dollars spent on fighting groups opposed to hunting and that guaranteeing a protected industry will strengthen the Maine economy, to name some reasons. Those opposed to an amendment mostly say it is unnecessary, that existing laws protect hunting and fishing now. Would you support a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee the protection of Maine’s hunting and fishing heritage?

Here is Governor Baldacci’s response to question one.
I am a strong supporter of Maine’s hunting and fishing heritage, and played a key role in defeating the referendum to ban bear hunting, baiting and trapping. I understand the desire of some sportsmen not to have to engage in public referendums to protect hunting and fishing, but fear of debate about public issues runs counter to our American values. When sportsmen fear debate on issues of importance to them, they have already lost. There have been only two voter-initiated referendums in Maine history on hunting or fishing issues, the Moose referendum in the mid-1980′s and the 2004 Bear referendum.
Sportsmen prevailed in both. A better use of the time and resources of sportsmen would be to support the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s “Hunter Heritage” program to educate Maine people – particularly in Southern Maine – about why they need hunting and hunters.

Barbara Merrill’s response:
I do not believe we need a Constitutional Amendment and fear that if we tried to enact one and failed that it would lead some to conclude our Maine heritage isn’t already protected. What we need is to elect leaders who understand the importance of hunting and fishing to Maine people and who have the ability to convey this to new comers to our state. I try to do this in my book Setting the Maine Course – We Can Get There From Here. It’s available on line at BarbaraMerrill.Com and at most Maine bookstores. I would be interested in feedback from the readers of this blog.

Chandler Woodcock’s response:
I would support the constitutional amendment after it was approved by the people of Maine. I would not initiate the process or side with those who initiate the process. That said, there are two issues being addressed: The first is the preservation of the heritage and the second is the rights of the citizens to petition the government. I do not yet believe that the first has created a need to eliminate the second.

My analysis:

First of all, I would like to say that it became obviously apparent to me who the incumbent was by the political answers given by Governor Baldacci. The Governor took the opportunity to be evasive, diplomatic and inclusive of hunting groups such as the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine – perhaps making an assumption that many of our readers are members of or support efforts by the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance. He also jumped on the chance to toot his own horn of the accomplishments he wants readers to hear, as would any incumbent.

Both Baldacci and Woodcock state that having a Constitutional Amendment to the Maine Constitution to protect the heritage of hunting and fishing would diminish the freedom of the people to petition the government to enact change. To me this response is one born out of fear of losing a few votes and is a contradiction unto itself. First of all, a citizen’s initiated referendum to amend our Constitution is what our state and country is founded on. If an amendment were completed, it would in no way take away the rights of citizens to petition a change, again.

What a Constitutional Amendment would do is protect a heritage that is engrained into Maine society and is a very big part of the Maine economy. It would discourage groups like the Humane Society of the United States from accomplishing their ultimate goals by bombarding us with further referendums in order to deplete our financial resources. Once that is accomplished, they can proceed with their agenda of banning hunting and fishing. If an overwhelming majority of Maine citizens believe in protecting that heritage by referendum, then that in itself is the right of the people to petition the government.

Baldacci laments about sportsmen fearing public debate. I don’t know of one single sportsman who fears a debate about what they love to do. What they don’t have is bottomless pockets full of money that it takes to fight groups bent on destroying American heritage. He states that “When sportsmen fear debate on issues of importance to them, they have already lost.” As I have already stated, Maine sportsmen do not fear debate. Baldacci’s answer comes from his fear of losing the votes.

Woodcock is very non-committal in where he stands. He says he would support a Constitutional amendment after it was approved by the people although he would not side with whoever initiated the petition. I guess he is saying that he wouldn’t get in the way of what the citizens of Maine wanted.

He also speaks of my question as having two parts – one of protecting our heritage and one of preserving the rights of the people to petition their government. I will ask a question of Woodcock and Baldacci. Why is petitioning the government for a Constitutional amendment to protect hunting and fishing heritage not good American values? Yet according to both Baldacci and Woodcock, leaving the door open for animal rights groups to come in at anytime and try to strip our heritage from us, now is the right of the people to petition? Their reasoning is illogical.

I believe that Merrill at least makes an attempt at addressing the truth about what is happening in Maine. As more and more people cross the border into Maine, buy up the land and post it, these are the same people who often will either side with the animal rights groups or take on a “I don’t care” position. These people haven’t a clue about Maine’s heritage and could really could care less.

I have to ask if either Baldacci or Woodcock have left the state of Maine in recent times? The Governor is recalling the two referendums that occurred in Maine in the last twenty or so years that concern hunting – the Moose Referendum and the Bear Referendum. Woodcock says he doesn’t think there’s a need to protect hunting and fishing heritage. He believes by doing so we would be taking away the rights of citizens.

Both men need to get out a bit more and see what is happening all across America. Land use is shrinking at an alarming rate. Big money is being funneled into the hands of extreme animal rights groups who are bent on destroying our heritage. Land grabbers, as they are called, are making every attempt at closing down lands and making them wilderness, excluding many.

The HSUS has left Maine for now after losing the bid to stop bear hunting but you can bet they will be back. Once they spot a weakness, they exploit it. They are watching closely as the landscape of Maine changes. With that change is coming more and more residents who could care less about what’s important to the natives. They will return but not nearly as quickly if Maine voters were to say they believe in protecting our heritage. Maine needs to step up and speak out now about how really important hunting, fishing, trapping and all outdoor recreation is to the economy of this state. A bold statement in support of an amendment would be a first step.

Overall, I am very disappointed with the responses given by all the candidates to this question. Somehow I thought that someone would actually be brave enough to state how he or she felt.

Merrill is correct when she says we need to elect representatives who truly understand this heritage and will work to protect it. The right of the people to petition the government will stand no matter whether this amendment or any other amendment is initiated. Maine and the United States have several amendments to its Constitutions and none of those has taken away the rights of the people. It wouldn’t in this case either.

Baldacci wouldn’t tell us what he would do. He bragged about how much he supports hunting and fishing and tells us to spend our time doing something more productive – like joining up with the Sportsman’s Alliance. He doesn’t think Maine is being threatened by outsiders and says sportsmen fear debate.

Merrill clearly stated that she doesn’t think we need an amendment. But, she went on to say that she feared a failed attempt would make people think that the heritage wasn’t protected.

Woodcock seemed a bit too wishy-washy. He would support an amendment but don’t ask him to take a side. That’s non-committal. He too stated that there really was no need to protect our heritage.

I am tempted to keep score by giving one candidate the nod over the others per each question. I may regret doing this but here goes.

I would give an ever so slight edge to Barbara Merrill with the emphasis on “ever so”. The reason being that she at least stated right up front that she didn’t think we needed a Constitutional amendment. The other issue was in her attempt at making me think that she just might have a clue as to what is happening to the character and personality of Maine.

Comments are now open.

Tom Remington

Tennessee game officials have been debating the deer baiting issue for some time holding public hearings, getting input and conferring with at least 15 other states – some who do and some who don’t allow baiting of deer for hunting.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission has followed the recommendation of the Resources Agency to ban baiting. The major reasons stated are as follows: The increased threat of the spread of disease from congregating deer; powerful toxins that develop in the feed, especially in corn; the results of studies that show deer feeding regularly on bait become more nocturnal and 60% of hunters and non-hunters oppose baiting – the results of a TWRC survey.

Tom Remington

The Florida Wildlife Commission has announced the new hunting season schedule for this fall. It is very similar to previous years. To take a look at the dates, visit the FWC website.

Tom Remington

Permits for alligator hunting in Florida went on sale on June 15, 2006 and were all sold out in four hours. Do you think gator hunting is something people want to do? Obviously. The gator hunting season begins August 15, 2006 and runs through November 1, 2006.

The reason FWC is offering the free classes is to educate inexperienced and first-time gator hunters on what to expect. The courses, being held in St. Petersburg, Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee and Dania Beach, will cover subjects like, hunting techniques, safety, harvesting, processing, hide care, rules and regulations.

For more information about the classes, visit the FWC website here.

Tom Remington

A special deer tag that will allow the holder to hunt in any wildlife management area in the state of Kentucky will be auctioned off on EBay from August 8-18. The proceeds of the auction will go to Kentucky Hunters for the Hungry. The tag can be bought by either a resident or non-resident.

For more information go the the EBay website, Kentucky Hunters for the Hungry or call John Phillips at 859-824-1372.

Tom Remington

In Idaho, a certain wolf pack near Idaho City is chewing off and eating the radio collars placed on them by officials to track them. Yes, this is expensive and yes don’t you think it’s time to replace the leather collars with something different? Or better yet, forget it. This is just a prime example of a waste of taxpayers money to go toward watching a species that only a few romantics care about.

The wolf is an animal that few people care about. Most dislike it for numerous reasons – oh, like they eat up your pet dog, attack and kill people, livestock, baby game animals and just about anything if they are hungry enough, to name just a few.

Because the beast is protected by law, we have to monitor and manage its every movement to ensure it is surviving when most people hope it doesn’t. Now we got officials who announce the wolves are destroying the radio collars and they can’t explain why.

Here’s a few reasons. How about there are too many of them and they are hungry? How about they, like any dog I’ve ever seen, don’t like things put around their neck. Would you? Maybe, as one reporter put it, they eat what the collar is made from – duh! One Idaho game official said he thought perhaps the wolf was bored. Are you kidding me?

The bottom line is who cares why they are eating it. Stop wasting my money tracking the vicious predator. The sooner we de-list this animal the better off we all will be. We can become sensible again and kill off three-quarters of them and things will return to normal.

In the meantime, if stupid laws say we have to follow them around, then find a collar they can’t chew. These collars aren’t cheap you know, or do you even care? With the federal government and now most state governments, money grows on trees.

I don’t think this story is funny at all.

Tom Remington