Who’s got information on this deer picture? I can’t find anything on Snopes but I didn’t spend a lot of time looking around. Of course we all know there are such things as black deer, I believe they are called melanistic. The email I got with this photo in it says it was in Michigan.

I remember a year or so ago, a good-sized black buck was taken in Pennsylvania.

Tom Remington

I found these this morning in my mailbox from a good friend and reader of the Black Bear Blog. I thought these bits of information were worthy of passing on to others in order to stimulate a bit of thought about guns, the Second Amendment and our God-given right to defend ourselves.

The purpose of fighting is to win… there is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield…
and skill is more important than either one.
The final weapon is the brain… all else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he’s too old to fight… he’ll just kill you.

~ Other observations ~

If you find yourself in a fair fight… your tactics suck.

I carry a gun ’cause a cop is too heavy.

When seconds count… the cops are just minutes away.

A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him, “Why do you carry a 45?” The Ranger responded, “Because they don’t make a 46.”

An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?” “No, Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”

Beware the man who only has one gun… he probably knows how to use it.

A visiting lady once asked me if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said, “Well, I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!” To which I said, “Of course it’s loaded… can’t work without bullets!” She then asked, “Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?” My reply was, “No… not at all. I’m not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around. and they’re all loaded too. To which I’ll add… having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded, is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.”

And, finally…

One-word definition of an unloaded gun… ‘Stick’

Tom Remington

On this past Thursday’s Open Air radio show, I shared with you an article written by Hugh Hewitt about the foreseeable troubles and real agendas behind the push by environmental groups to get the polar bear listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. You can get some information and listen to the radio broadcast here.

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.

When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.

If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?

As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.

* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.

* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.

* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.

* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.

* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.

* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.

Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.

Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.

If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.

What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back – namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.

This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.

As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.

In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?

Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.

Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.

How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?

I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.

There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put together about the polar bear. It’s light, entertaining and worth seeing polar bears dressed in formal attire.

Tom Remington

I have a series of 17 photographs that arrived in my inbox the other day. The title said it was a Canadian National Railroad train stuck in the snow in Northern Maine. I think it looks like Northern Maine, I believe it looks like a CN train and I know that white stuff is snow.

For obvious reasons I didn’t post all the pictures on this page. Click this link and view the entire gallery of 17 photos.

Tom Remington

That’s what “Terrierman” says. Go check out his article with links to interesting information for those of you wishing to better arm yourself against PETA and the other whacked out animal rights hypocrites.

Tom Remington

Tom Remington

I’ve been able to work through enough of the glitches to get the audio of yesterday’s live broadcast of Open Air With Tom Remington uploaded to my server and is now ready for those wishing to listen in. I apologize for the difficulties we were having yesterday. For some reason we kept experiencing “drops” which, if you were listening in, would drop you from the feed. I’m still working on that one.

I’ve put together all the information about the show, along with links to important information and resources. And as a special treat, you can watch a video interview of Al Gore, done by CBS’s Lesley Stahl, about what Mr. Gore has to say about the rapid increase in world-wide scientists who are saying that new data coming in from the latest in climate equipment is giving them data that would indicate that the global warming caused by man’s generated carbon dioxide is seriously flawed. What’s Gore’s response? You’ll have to watch the video but in short he says that there as so few people left in this world who don’t think like he does and that they are the kinds of people that think the moon landing was a hoax and likens them to the “flat earth society”. What an arrogant *$&$#!!

Follow this link for the information, to listen to the broadcast and see Al Gore show the world he’s a giant boob! By the way, I believe that you will be able to see the complete interview this Sunday night on Sixty Minutes.

Tom Remington

First my apologies to anyone attempting to log on to the live broadcast of Open Air With Tom Remington yesterday at 3 p.m. Due to technical problems, of which I am still trying to figure out and sort through, that’s why I’m way behind in my work this morning, you may have been booted off the air while trying to listen in. As near as I can figure out, if the connection or transfer speed is too slow or has interference, the connection gets lost which would force a user to close out a browser and open a new one and try again. This seemed to go on all through the show.

Fortunately, I recorded the show but once again, for some reason, again for which I haven’t figured out yet, I am having difficulties (putting it nicely) getting the file uploaded to the server.

As soon as I can get this corrected, the show will be available for streaming and I will put up a notice.

Thanks for your understanding and once more my apologies.

Tom Remington

Today’s Open Air with Tom Remington broadcast on Skinny Moose Radio will air live……that is if all goes well. Tune in at 3:00 p.m. today and find out. I plan to discuss some property rights issues, people attacking people over wolves, gun rights, some debate over plans to list the polar bear as a threatened or endangered species and of course, climate change, including the new medical terminology called “global mourning”.

Who knows what else I might sneak in there unsuspecting and there will be no commercial interruptions!!

Tom Remington

Oh, God! This one showed up in my mailbox this morning! The look says it all which prompts the statement that even man’s best friend has limits.

Tom Remington