What message do we send to our children……….? Ah, never mind because I’m sure Keith Olbermann and just about every other Tom, Dick or Harry could really care less. They have successfully convinced themselves that practice makes perfect but only when learning to play a musical instrument. Nothing else has an affect on children.

But honestly, a regular presentation for Keith Olbermann, news anchor for MSNBC, is called the “Worst Person in the World” award. Can you imagine. We have come to a point in this country where we are angry enough, bold enough, secure enough and dumb enough to find satisfaction in recognizing what one person would judge to be the worst person in the world – for what benefit? Is this entertainment? If so, move it to Comedy Central or Saturday Night Live. A nightly news show? I guess ratings are bad. Or am I supposed to “lighten up”?

I remember several years ago, a friend of mine was working tirelessly to raise two children. As parents we all have our own little “techniques” we used to “reach” our kids. For these two parents, they found it effective to insist that their kids ask themselves if something had “social redeeming value” as a way of putting substance toward making a decision. I don’t want to get into a “touchy-feely” moment but I do recall the young boy, who at the time was perhaps four, say, “But Mom. I don’t think that has any social redeeming qualities!” Had me understanding that kids understand perhaps more than us “educated” adults.

So now the question might be, does Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” award have any social redeeming qualities. Obviously it does to enough people to justify the continuation of presenting the award. Therefore I rest my case.

Unfortunately for Olbermann, whom I’m sure doesn’t really pick the recipients all be himself, doesn’t know the difference between a person and an entity. Mind you this is not a yearly award, nay, not even a monthly or weekly award. This is an award in which human beings, who have nothing better to do with their lives than dream up who fits their description of a loser, sit around daily mulling over the choices. That’s right! This is a nightly ritual on his show. This just might qualify as lacking in social redeeming qualities.

So what’s this got to do with hunting? Second place last night went to the National Rifle Association.

Our silver medalist tonight: The National Rifle Association. Perhaps the most famous rifle hunter is Jim Zumbo… Or he was. He had the top-rated show on Outdoor Channel TV, a column for Outdoor Life Magazine, and he worked for most of the big gun-makers.

And then he wrote of using assault weapons, “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. As hunters, we don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them… I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.”

Zumbo’s contracts, TV show, and column are all gone now, and an NRA spokesman pointed his fate out to anyone, including, “a fellow gun owner,” who challenges the right of Americans to own assault weapons.

Mind you the NRA was up there with some pretty elite company – a woman arrested for pedaling a stationary bicycle under the influence of alcohol, came in third. Does it matter the bike was in a gym? And a White House spokesman who said the United States didn’t “invade” Iraq, was the gold medal winner. Evidently it’s more important to argue semantics’s than talk about things like homicide bombers attempting to assassinate the Vice President. Oh,yeah! That’s right! The left want him dead anyway.

Obviously Olbermann has a left-wing agenda in selecting the recipients of the three biggest losers. I wonder if he knows that the National Rifle Association is not “a person”?

Tom Remington

It has become obvious that Theodore Roosevelt National Park superintendent, Valerie Naylor, prefers animal slaughter over hunting. It also appears that Governor John Hoeven is treading lightly or isn’t aware that what is intended by some and the reality of others, aren’t jiving. Hoeven announced that he supports using “qualified volunteers” to shoot elk in TRNP, while Naylor says that if “qualified volunteers” are considered sharpshooters they must abide by the rules she dictates, according to the Bismark Tribune.

Park superintendent Valerie Naylor said she’s already asked park officials to clarify whether qualified volunteers fit the definition of a sharpshooter.

In any case, using volunteers as sharpshooters would require that they be closely controlled, accompanied by park staff, told sex and other characteristics of the animal to kill and the elk meat would be donated to charity, Naylor said.

She said those conditions are used for sharpshooters in other park management actions and qualified volunteers would have a much different experience than a typical hunt.

She said she expects to get some clarification on the matter in a relatively short time, based on her request and the governor’s personal interest.

So now the question is, is the Governor supporting public hunting of the elk or does he know that volunteers could be used as sharpshooters to slaughter elk? In my own assessment and commentary on this issue, as with the similar circumstances within the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, volunteers would be used to “hunt” the elk. That means a licensed hunter, given a permit for a specific animal to harvest, would do so in the traditional sense. This would include dressing the animal, removing it from the woods and fields and taking the meat home for consumption.

Again, the question is, what is the Governor supporting? It’s clear Naylor is determined to not allow hunters to do what they do and they would gladly do it for nothing or little or no fee cost. Would volunteers, i.e. hunters, willingly line up and give of their time to shoot elk that have been corralled into pens by helicopters as Naylor suggests?

Naylor said it’s still not certain that the final decision will involve any form of killing and hunting by sharpshooters, whether or not they include volunteer sportsmen.

Alternately, the park may use helicopters to push the elk into holding corrals for killing, processing and meat distribution to food banks and charities. It also is looking at killing and testing enough elk to insure there is no chronic wasting disease among the survivors and then transferring them.

I hope that they wouldn’t.

Governor Hoeven had contacted Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and asked him to intervene, meanwhile, Sen. Byron Dorgan has submitted legislation(pdf) that would give the Interior Secretary the authority to open the park so that hunters can thin the herd. But, Dorgan’s bill only states that licensed hunters could be used in accordance with the Elk Management Plan of the Teddy Roosevelt National Park. It does not specifically say that licensed hunters will be able to hunt the elk in the traditional sense.

sec. 3. MANAGEMENT OF ELK POPULATION.

(a) In General. -Nothing in section 4 of the Act of March 2, L929 (16 U.S.C- 198c), or any other provision of law, prohibits the secretary from permitting an authorized individual to use lethal means to reduce the population of elk located within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, in accordance with the elk management plan.

(b) Consultation -The Secretary shall consult with the appropriate agency of the state to determine the level of participation of the appropriate agency in carrying out this Act.

(c) Limitation of Authority -The Secretary shall not permit an individual to take any elk located with in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park for any purpose other than to carry out the elk management plan.

I’m not sure that Dorgan’s intent of the bill is so that TRNP authorities can use volunteers to do their slaughtering for them and not see any of the rewards for their efforts.

I have sent Mr. Dorgan an e-mail requesting clarification.

Mr. Dorgan,

Could you kindly answer me a question. Your legislation to allow for the hunting of elk to reduce populations in Teddy Roosevelt National Park, I believe is intended to allow for hunting of elk in the park. However, the wording of the bill seems to say that it gives the park superintendent the authority to use “qualified” hunters to implement the Elk Management Plan. With what I am hearing from superintendent Valerie Naylor is if this authority is granted, she would use hunters as sharpshooters, which may involve using helicopters to corral the animals and then be slaughtered.
As a representative of the hunting community, I would not want to see licensed hunters be used in this capacity and I don’t think there would be too many who would.
Could you please verify for me what the intent of your proposed legislation is and whether this wording will accomplish that? I would appreciate your help and I await your response.

–
Thomas K. Remington
Managing Editor
U.S. Hunting Today
Black Bear Blog
tom@ushuntingtoday.com

There seems to be some serious discrepancies between what many of us in the hunting community, myself included, are being led to believe about the use of licensed hunters to reduce elk populations and what park authorities are saying they will allow. Governor Hoeven may be supporting hunting in the traditional sense or he could be knowingly or unknowingly, supporting the use of licensed hunters as sharpshooters whose only function will be the slaughtering of elk.

Hopefully, I will soon hear from Sen. Dorgan about his legislation and what it will realistically provide. In the meantime, for those interested, I would suggest contacting your representatives and finding out.

Tom Remington

“And they’re off!” Jumping out to an early lead are the anti-hunters, spewing untruths while scaring the dickens out of every reader as to how we’ll all die when someone shoots a gun on Sunday. Moving up on the outside in a fast and furious stride are the hunters who want to hunt on Sundays no matter what the cost. Holding their own in the middle are the moderately paced hunters and non-hunters who don’t really see this debate as worth the effort that will go into it. To them this is just another training exercise. Trailing far behind and perhaps pulling up a bit lame, are those who don’t even know there is a proposed bill before the Standing Committee of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and will never be seen as the group rounds the second turn.

A bit of a spoof but not too far from reality. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, once again a bill is being proposed that would allow for some Sunday hunting. This bill, LD307, is sponsored by Rep. Stacey Fitts, of Pittsfield.

8. Landowner hunting on Sunday. An antlerless deer permit system adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section may include a provision allowing landowners who keep their land open to hunting by the public to hunt on Sunday. The commissioner may adopt routine technical rules pursuant to Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A necessary for the administration, implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this subsection to allow landowners to hunt on their land on Sunday if their land is 20 acres or more and the land is open to the public for hunting during the open hunting season. As a requirement for hunting under this subsection, the landowner must register with the department at no cost. A member of the landowner’s immediate family is permitted to hunt on Sunday on the landowner’s land if that family member is a licensed hunter.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA §11205, sub-§1, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 and as affected by c. 614, §9, is amended to read:
A. Hunt wild animals or wild birds on Sunday except as provided in section 11152, subsection 8;

If you want to get a head start on the insanity involved in this debate, today’s Portland Press Herald posted an editorial against LD307. Of course immediately following the article are the countless attacks and counter attacks that can only be expected when discussing hunting, guns and in this case, Sunday hunting.

Don’t miss an episode as this is sure to change the lives of every Maine resident from Kittery to Fort Kent. If we are lucky, this debate will rage for months, maybe even years, but you can rest assured that no matter what happens NO ONE will know the truth.

Tom Remington

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation announced that last season 189,100 deer were taken and 796 black bears. There also were no new cases of chronic wasting disease found in the mandatory testing area.

Tom Remington

According to this morning’s Home News Tribune, Gov. John Corzine has allocated $850,000 in his budget to deal with New Jersey bears and none of that money will be used for bear hunting. Instead, the majority of it will pay for salaries for extra wildlife technicians whose primary job it will be to capture and remove bears from places where there are too many.

When Gov. Corzine was running for the office, he made no bones about the fact that he did not support bear hunting. Liza Jackson, Department of Environmental Protection commissioner, the department of which oversees fish and game, is also an obvious opponent of bear hunting. Upon taking the control she ordered the scheduled bear hunt for 2006 stopped while disregarding the court approved Bear Management Plan, saying it was illegal. This aspect of the battle still remains to be heard out in the courtroom.

Dep. Commissioner John Watson says that whatever is left over after paying salaries will go toward educating the public.

Watson also said the state would move to educate the public in the main areas where bears are found on what they can do to discourage bears from coming around such as not feeding them or removing bird feeders with seeds that bears like to munch on.

Maybe Corzine and Jackson could also spend some of that money and take a lesson from the folks over in West Milford and buy some “bear-proof” garbage cans. They come complete with no handles.

*Previous Posts*
Untethered Politicians And Wildlife Management
Oh, The Insanity Of It All
Whoda Thunk It? Black Bear Complaints Going Up In New Jersey
Sen. Robert Littell Thinks Jackson’s Bear Proof Garbage Cans Idea “Unconscionable”
I Think Bears In New Jersey May Be Smarter Than Government Leaders
Differing Court Views Behind Bear Hunt Decisions
Questions And Answers About New Jersey Bear Hunt
New Jersey Supreme Court Has Ruled – No Bear Hunt This Year
New Jersey Supreme Court To Decide On Bear Hunt
Governor Corzine’s Got It All Wrong
New Jersey Appeals Court Says No To Hunters
Appellate Judges Hear Arguments On New Jersey Bear Hunt
New Jersey Bear Hunt Nixed By New DEP Commissioner
What Is New Jersey Governor Corzine Up To?
What’s The Status On The New Jersey Bear Hunt?

Tom Remington

Savage River Lodge is a private retreat that sits amid the Savage River State Forest. State law says hunters must remain 150 yards from any dwelling. Owners of the lodge complained to DNR officials who responded by expanding that zone more than doubling the size of the safety zone.

Hunters began complaining to DNR and other state officials that actions being carried out by the owners of the lodge, Michael Dreisbach and Janis Russell, essentially prohibited access to the public lands and limited hunting to a point where it was nearly impossible to use any of the land.

A hiking trail that criss-crossed the park also had been granted a safety zone. Some complained that the layout of the trail combined with the safety zone virtually closed down the park.

There was also much dispute about a gate leading into the park and signs erected by the owners of the lodge. People complained that the gate was being illegally closed and locked and that Savage River Lodge owners erected “No Firearms Permitted” signs and tried to enforce it. The DNR ordered Savage River Lodge to remove the signs and leave the gate opened.

The DNR announce yesterday that they are reducing the size of the granted safety zone to what is supposed to be the original zone granted by law. It is unclear whether this affects only the dwellings or the dwellings and the hiking trail.

*Previous Posts*
Maryland DNR Tells Landowner To Remove Gate And Take Down Signs
Savage River Hunting Land Appears Useless To Hunters As State DNR Panders To Private Lodge Owners
Savage River Hunting Land Up For Debate
Maryland DNR Giving Away Public Lands For Private Use??

Tom Remington

Jim Zumbo, who has been the headline throughout the outdoors media, has now taken up much ink within the pages of major newspapers across America. Today the Washington Post carried a story about him. Today alone, I have opened and read a minimum of six articles, the vast majority of which are being generated within the ranks of outdoor writers and Second Amendment advocates. With today’s entry in the WaPo, this is sure to begin more of a national spotlight onto the hunting and gun industries.

When Zumbo posted his blog on February 16, 2007, much of hell was released for a time and what many predicted would come true has. The prediction was that Zumbo’s words would tear down a lot of what has taken years to build up in the hunting and gun ownership world but worse than that, this would become fodder for anti-gun legislation and everything surrounding it.

But who is it that is growing the fodder?

In perusing the morning articles on Jim Zumbo, I have managed to put together a list of insults, name calling and inflammatory statements. I will not link back to where they came from because that is nothing more than stealth name calling. Mind you these insults, could have been directed toward any or all parties involved. Here are some.

“terrorist” stance
Shooting animals with automatic and other military-style weapons is not sportsman-like
ignorant
propagandists in the anti-gun community
gunning for prairie dogs
assault rifles
assault-style firearms
zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness
bunch of enthusiasts
gun rights zealots
wet-behind-the-ears neophyte
Powered by the Brady Campaign
attack dogs
“black” rifles
gun zealots who worship black rifles
gun nuts
vicious attacks
uncontrolled cyber-firestorm destroying everything in its path
Brady sympathizer
gun rights snipers
military-style rifles
a crowd of vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals
NRA-trained thugs
eat a good friend alive like meat thrown into a school of piranhas
black rifle Gestapo
wouldn’t be caught dead hunting with an assault rifle
fanatic minority
NRA and their minions are more like a pack of rabid dogs

I must tell you that nearly all of these comments came from newspaper articles and professional outdoor writers. Some came from a couple of blogs, editorials, etc.

Granted this is a passionate debate. Up until now, most of this has happened between a rift of hunters and gun owners. But now that the mainstream media is seeing an opportunity with this divide between the two groups, a new can of worms may be opening soon. This will make great ammunition (sorry) for those wanting to push for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s assault weapons ban bill – HR1022.

Don’t get me wrong. If you are thinking that I am calling for an end to the debate, I am not. I think that it is time to take a deep breath and cease with the name calling, insults and inflammatory statements that proves only to incite the anti-gun people to join in the battle.

Let’s keep the debate focused on facts and through this common ground and understanding, we can and will move on as a stronger, more resolved group that believes in the Second Amendment.

*Previous Posts*
NRA Taking Heat Because of Jim Zumbo
Jim Zumbo Apologizes – Again!
The Tail Spin For Jim Zumbo
Jim Zumbo Apologizes

Tom Remington

Rex Rammell, the former owner of the Chief Joseph Elk Ranch near Rexburg, Idaho, pens an editorial in the Idaho Statesman this morning. Rammell, who made headlines last summer when several of his elk escaped and the Governor ordered them shot on sight, believes that the Idaho Elk Breeders Association sponsored bill that would require licensing of ranches, would be a clear threat to property rights. Here’s what he says.

he anti-freedom coalition put on their frowny faces recently after their three bills aimed at immediate destruction of the elk industry failed to make it out of committee. Those on the elk breeders “board,” on the other hand, were all smiles after the defeat of the three bills and the passage of their “elk ranch licensing bill” onto the Senate floor. What they don’t realize and have been warned repeatedly about is that a law requiring licensing of elk ranches will have the same end result, only more insidious.

Licensing is a government imposed “epidemic of control and fear”: do as they say or have your license revoked. Nearly every occupation has or soon will be licensed. Surely you will recall the controversy over contractor licensing in 2006. Now we are moving into licensing property. I was recently humored when I took a vacation to Las Vegas. A solicitor approached me on the street and gave me a flier promoting a local psychic. At the bottom it warned: Be sure your psychic is licensed! I couldn’t help wonder what the requirements possibly could be to be a licensed psychic. Maybe they have to take a test which validates they are certifiably insane.

Likewise, I think the elk breeders (the board, not the majority) that supported the licensing of elk ranches — private property — have validated their insanity. Scared to death that the anti-freedom coalition’s arguments would win over a private property rights’ argument and would end elk ranching in Idaho, they committed the unpardonable sin: making a right a privilege.

Licensing as defined in Black’s Law dictionary is a “revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.” Owning property in Idaho is a bedrock “inalienable right” found in Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution and can only be taken away through eminent domain in which a person must be compensated or by the consent of the people in which the right would forfeit.

I wonder if Idaho really understands what is at stake here. Believe me, it is not just elk ranches that are in trouble!

The bill Rammell is referring to that was sponsored by the IEBA is SB1074. This bill would require licensing of elk ranches and would include a $200.00 inspection fee plus $5.00 per head. Written into the bill as well is a provision that gives the Agriculture Department the ability to revoke a license from anyone not adhering to the guidelines.

SB1074 passed the full senate by a vote of 24 – 9 and has since gone on to the House. No action as been taken as of yet.

Tom Remington

There are too many elk in Teddy Roosevelt National Park. There are differing opinions on how the problem should be dealt with. Officials of the park are attempting to hold public hearings as part of an informational process before deciding how to cull the numbers by about half.

One of the suggested proposals is to hire sharpshooters and use helicopters costing taxpayers millions of dollars to kill somewhere around 400 – 500 elk. Many, including the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and Sen. Byron Dorgan, believe the management of herd numbers can be easily achieved by using licensed hunters who would volunteer and/or pay a permit fee.

Yesterday in Washington, D.C. Sen. Dorgan submitted a bill, S684, that would “clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the management of the elk population located in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.” At the time of this writing, the text for the bill had yet to be posted at the senate’s website. I’ll post that when available.

According to an article in the Minot Daily News by Kim Fundingsland, Valerie Naylor, park superintendent doesn’t seem at all interested in discussing the prospects of using hunters for free, continuing to state that Congress would never allow hunting in the park.

“Certainly we have not and cannot change our policy on hunting in the national parks and certainly the American public would not want us to do that,” Naylor said Monday.

Is she sure about that? Sounds more like her opinion more than fact.

Sen. Dorgan explains his reasoning for submission of the bill.

“If we need to thin the herd, I don’t see any sense in spending millions of dollars to bring in federal sharpshooters and helicopters when we have qualified hunters in North Dakota that would do it free of charge,” said Dorgan. “This bill would allow the Park Service to set up some standards to make sure we use only qualified and responsible hunters to thin the herd and still protect the national park.”

But Naylor makes a statement that may tell a different story and one that is contrary to other reports that the park has considered using public hunters.

“We’ve never fleshed out any specific details on who the sharpshooters would be or where they would come from,” said Naylor. “We’re still discussing ways the public may be involved but we’re not discussing hunting. I would hope the public will examine this closely. There are many important factors for people to consider. The public as a whole would be leery of any hunting in national parks nationwide. This certainly has national significance.”

She points out clearly in this statement that hunting isn’t even being discussed, while making attempts to convince the people that hunting will cause some serious problems.

If Naylor is opposed to hunting, whether in parks or out of parks, it may take more than an act of Congress to effect some change. With the information through statements like this that she is giving to the public, she is clearly making attempts to influence the people into believing that hunting is a bad thing and would set a precedence nationwide.

If the taxpayers of this nation were given the truth behind facts, I honestly don’t believe that they would prefer the habitat devastation and starvation and disease that will likely follow if the elk herd goes unchecked. The other issue is the cost. Once the public is convinced through science that the herd needs to be reduced, then it is the responsibility of those entrusted with the power to conduct business in the best interest of the American people. Spending millions of dollars to kill a few elk is a “fleecing of America”.

Tom Remington

Coming up next month, there will be several public hearings sponsored by the N.H. House Finance Committee to give residence the opportunity to speak out on the state’s budget proposals. While these meetings aren’t specific for Fish and Game budget information, officials there are encouraging everyone to attend.

The proposed budget does not provide for stop-gap funding to cover the budget shortfall for 2007. The budget also still includes an estimated $250,000 from the auctioning off of 50 moose permits annually. It also calls for a 10% cut to the existing budget.

Here is a list of upcoming meetings. Please make every effort to attend. If you cannot attend, contact your representative and voice your concerns.

* March 5, 2007, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. in Lebanon at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Auditorium E&F.

* March 6, 2007, from 5:00-8:00 p.m. in Keene at Keene State College, Alumni Recital Hall, Redfern Arts Center.

* March 8, 2007, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. in Rochester at the Rochester Community Center.

* March 12, 2007, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. in Manchester at the Public Service of New Hampshire Auditorium.

* March 15, 2007, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. in Lancaster at the White Mountain Regional High School Auditorium.

Tom Remington