Right on schedule, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups are lining up in opposition to coyote hunting in Maine and more specifically the current coyote tournament sponsored by the Jackman-Moose River Chamber of Commerce. 6 hunters have enrolled and have killed one coyote since it began Dec. 16.

But what’s really at stake here is a test to witness the resolve and priorities of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife under the direction of Gov. Baldacci. According to the Maine Public Broadcasting Network website, Baldacci opposes the hunts too.

David Farmer is a spokesman for the governor. “The governor doesn’t support this kind of tournament — he finds the practice inhumane,” Farmer says. “He has spoken with his Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and asked that he reach out to the group that is sponsoring the event and see if they would be willing or interested in calling it off.”

I find it amazing that Maine’s governor doesn’t have at the least an understanding of what his state is facing concerning the destruction of its whitetail deer herd. To me this is a clear indication of why Maine’s deer herd has been decimated. He and MDIFW are ultimately responsible for this demise. They have failed and are offering little in the way of solutions, yet oppose efforts by locals to save their economies and deer herds.

Should the governor and MDIFW Commissioner Martin buckle to the whims of hypocritical and extremist environmental groups on this issue, then outdoor sportsmen in Maine have their answer as to why Maine will never see a return of deer to certain parts of the state.

It is hypocritical that these groups oppose the taking of coyotes in order to balance out the predator/prey ratios to protect deer. Why aren’t these misguided groups interested in protecting other species? Simple answer. They’re not. They are interested in stopping hunting.

So, Mr. Governor and Mr. Martin. It appears the ball is now in your court. What do you intend to do with it? Show us your true colors. Are you interested in protecting the deer and preserving Maine’s deer herd and deer hunting heritage? Or, are you scared of bad publicity that will be generated from a group of extremists that are mostly laughed at by Maine residents.

Your call.

Tom Remington

Add one more state to the list of those filing a Firearms Freedom Act bill – HB69.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

I thought about doing this for Christmas, but being that I am not one to look for gifts at Christmas time I thought putting together a list of resolutions or rather the things I would like to see changed for 2010 might do the trick. The following list is in no particular order.

1). Magically render all cell phones, Blackberries, etc. void and prohibited. These gadgets have and are destroying our society. They are hazardous to everyone’s health (because people just can’t cell phone/text and drive at the same time. Neither can cops but they somehow think they are better than the average Joe.)

We don’t need them and if you really think we do, examine life prior to cell phones and post cell phones. I rest my case.

2). Get our Constitution back or at least teach everybody that we have one, including Pelosi.

3). Clean out the halls of Congress. Start all over. Fire them all. Set term limits. Pay public servants a stipend while they serve and then send them home. Nobody can retire with lifetime pensions for doing 4 years of attending parties. Senators and Representatives will, once again, actually represent the people.

No more advisers, czars, deputy chiefs, assistants to the deputies, vice assistant chief deputy advisers. If the president can’t do his job without 6,000 people around him, send him home.

4). End lobbying.

5). End the United Nations

6). Send Al Gore away. (And a lot of others. It would need to be a very big boat.)

7). Do away with officiating by instant replay. I can’t stand listening to sports commentators analyzing the play over and over a million times before the ref says, “After further review……..”

If for just one game, I could be the head ref. Here’s how it would go. I’d look at the play and then run out onto the field, turn on my mic and say, “After further review, I laughed my ass off. I don’t know what the coach was thinking. Only a moron would challenge that call. So, not only does the play stand as called, but the challenging team will be fined $50,000. If we can, let’s get back to the football game that these 80,000 fans came to watch.”

8). I want to invent cars and a transportation grid that worked this way. As soon as the driver of a car sped, cut somebody off, ran a red light, cut across three lanes of traffic, plays their radio too loud or just are someone I don’t like the looks of, they and their car are immediately sent back to where they started and they have to start all over again.

Grumpy old man, aren’t I?

9). Anyone caught wearing baggy pants that show any part of their underwear, will be ushered to the central park stockade where they will be forced into watching reruns of “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best”. Add to that list, fat people showing their bellies and anyone with tattoos. I’m not sure what to do with gigantic women who insist on wearing Spandex. Maybe turn them into a Goodyear tire or something.

10). End all New Years resolutions or wish lists because they are stupid.

Tom Remington

This is another in a series of responses to George Smith’s email about the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s (SAM) commitment to seek action in stopping the further demise of Maine’s deer herd and attempts to restore it back to something sustainable. Smith is the Executive Director of SAM.

Please find the entire email of Smith’s at this link. I will also attempt to provide all the links to all the articles pertaining to this debate at each of the sites where posted. Yesterday’s response can be found here.

Let me begin this article by first making some general comments about Smith’s and SAM’s efforts, etc. I have been reading George Smith’s recent articles published in newspapers and magazines, along with his blog at the SAM website. I believe he has a pretty good handle on the condition of Maine’s deer herd and the overall atmosphere and attitude of Maine’s angry licensed hunters. I think he also grasps the negative effects the loss of hunting will have on Maine’s economy and private business. I appreciate Smith’s work on this issue.

As pertains to the email I posted previously, I have a couple of comments. I am going to assume that where this email was only a draft to be considered by the Board of Directors for SAM, that what appears in the SAM newsletter may not be exactly the same, although overall content should remain similar.

The second thing I’d like to point out is that most all of what Smith writes is good stuff and should be considered by all of us. My attempt is not to find fault with his information but to expound on it and offer my own perspective and solutions to this sensitive issue. As is always the case, I welcome comments and responses from readers below in the comment section.

As we plod ahead, all ideas and observations need to be explored. A faithful reader on a previous article made a comparison of Homeland Secretary Janet Nepolitano’s comments about the “Pantie Bomber” terrorist and the failure of Maine’s deer management.

Nepolitano’s comment was that the “system” worked. Nobody could understand how the system worked if a terrorist was successful in getting explosives on a plane. The only failure was the “Pantie Bomber’s” inability to detonate the bomb.

The comparison comes when people in Maine begin saying the system of whitetail deer management works. If the “system” had worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That doesn’t however mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It simply means some things need to change.

So, let’s further examine the ideas suggested and see if we can expand on those and make the process work better.

“Fact Finding” – Smith offers that fact finding “need not take long”. I can’t say that I agree with that sentiment.

Job one is to fully understand the facts of this situation. Many are casting blame in all directions. It’s time to step back and gather all available facts. This need not take long. We look to landowner organizations like the Maine Forest Products Council and to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the information needed to properly assess the situation. I’ve already learned a lot in meeting with these interests over the past few weeks. We’re not looking to cast blame. But we must know as much as possible about the situation.

The information needed includes: 1) an evaluation of the system of voluntary deer wintering area management agreements between DIF&W and large landowners, and LURC zoned deer yards; 2) a report on the amount and quality of deer wintering habitat now available in the unorganized territories on private and public land; 3) an evaluation and explanation of the 2009 deer season including harvest and license sales; 4) an accurate estimate of the current deer population by WMD; 5) an explanation of the major challenges in restoring deer numbers to DIF&W’s population goals for each WMD.

He begins well by saying that we all need to fully understand, stop casting blame and gather all available facts. What I am troubled with is it appears Smith believes the fact finding mission is easy and tells us from what sources we should get our facts from.

In yesterday’s article, I expressed real concern about the need to be all inclusive, that every licensed hunter in the state is a stakeholder. They are a source as well.

I don’t believe Smith is suggesting that the Maine Forest Products Council (MFPC) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are the only places we should get facts from. However, we can’t imply this either. From experience I can tell you that anytime I employ MDIFW data in support of my statements, it doesn’t always carry a lot of credibility. It should but it doesn’t. More on this in a bit.

If Smith is honest, and I believe he is, that “we better be together on this”, then we need to look out beyond just MDIFW, MFPC and the Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM), for facts. The best way I know of to be all inclusive is to not disregard somebody’s ideas but to be receptive and eager to hear and understand everyone’s frustrations. We all can learn a lot from those angry hunters.

It’s easier to collect information and responses from known entities, often by overlooking each individual hunter. That is a fact of how things operate and I’m not suggesting it should change or is wrong. I mention it because I think hunters need to find or formulate a local sporting club, get involved and become a very loud voice in the game management process. It’s your money and investment we’re discussing here.

Smith goes on to explain what he thinks the “information” needs to be. It would have been better had he added just a few words to his opening paragraph. He said, “The information needed includes:”. This would have been much more effective it had read, “The information needed includes, among other things – a list that will grow as we reach out to all concerned:”

Five items are listed. You can read them above. The list is good but incomplete. Troubling again is the fact that the information being sought comes from government agencies only – MDIFW amd Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). We shouldn’t disregard this information but once again, the system isn’t working the way hunters want it nor is it meeting the goals of the Maine Deer Management Plan. Therefore, something must change. It’s time to consider other ideas, perhaps those not so strongly influenced by politics or job security, etc.

It would appear to me that included in this list should be the following: (Note: Some may perceive this as finger pointing and blaming MDIFW. Not at all. To this point it is only MDIFW “facts” that have fueled the deer management machine. If we are to continue to use MDIFW “fact” then certain questions need to be answered. I am challenging for those answers, seeking honest dialog.)

1). What is MDIFW’s official statement about the impact of large predators on Maine’s deer herd. Hunters in Maine aren’t interested in what is written in outdated studies from coyotes that don’t share the same habits and characteristics as Maine’s larger coyote – more than likely a hybrid of wolf and coyote. Maine outdoor writer Bob Humphrey wrote in an earlier article that an MDIFW report done in 1995 stated that coyotes accounted for 30% of deer loss statewide. Is this accurate information? Is there more updated data?

We hear from some at MDIFW that coyote depredation on deer is insignificant. This information suggests otherwise and as Humphrey begged the question, what is that mortality rate in places like Northern Maine where the deer numbers are down around extirpation levels?

Some honesty would go along ways here. If MDIFW’s official position is they aren’t concerned about coyotes, which appears to be their position, then Maine hunters want to know precisely what that is being based upon other than worn out and unproven rhetoric.

2). Would MDIFW please tell licensed hunters in Maine exactly how terrified they are of dealing with lawsuits from animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups? Maine hunters want the truth about how much time and expense this is costing us and exactly how much effect this has had on their ability to properly manage the deer herd? We know that it has had some effect because the most effective means of trapping coyotes around winter deer yards was taken away from us via lawsuits.

3). How much of Maine’s licensed deer hunters’ money is going to pay for non-game programs at MDIFW? Along with that cost analysis could we also be given an evaluation of how taking license fee money away from game management has hindered the ability of MDIFW to properly manage the deer herd and other game species.

4). Could Maine hunters get a breakdown of how much of their dollars goes toward search and rescue? And at the same time could we have an evaluation of how the loss of those dollars shifted to search and rescue has hindered the MDIFW’s ability to manage the deer herd and other game species properly.

I think you are getting my point. We are hearing and have heard for some time how that a lack of resources has kept MDIFW from doing the job they would like to do. My contention is that the lack of resources is the result of MDIFW, either willingly or forcibly, shifting dollars and manpower away from game management and into non-game programs. With a reduction of license dollars going toward good deer herd management and no income coming back to MDIFW from non-game beneficiaries, how can MDIFW properly manage Maine’s deer herd?

Remember, it’s Maine’s license buyers who fund MDIFW. Also realize that all employees of MDIFW are not hunters. It would naive to think that all employees at MDIFW are looking out for the best interest of hunters. Hunter’s interest headed south as soon as Maine fish and game became MDIFW, whose job it became to do many things not at all related to hunting, fishing and trapping.

Let’s keep going!

5). Could someone, anyone, please come up with an explanation as to how Maine’s Any-Deer Permit system works? I have tried as I’m sure many others have but it is next to impossible to convince licensed Maine hunters, especially angry ones with no deer to hunt.

While I’ve only scratched the surface, my contention still remains that fact finding will take a long time if this is to be done right. My facts don’t necessarily mean George Smith’s facts, or MDIFW’s facts. Maine hunters need convincing the source of these facts is reliable. That’s the task we face. How do we do that? If we can’t convince the angry hunters about our “facts”, I question how much success this effort will realize.

Being honest would be a great place to start. We all make mistakes. MDIFW has made some mistakes. They do a lot of good things but when something goes this awry, it’s time for adjustments. What better way to make those adjustments than done through honest dialog. Making excuses is just as bad as pointing a finger.

I suggest we take a deep breath for a second. We know that the longevity to a structure is a great foundation. I believe the foundation to “effective action”, as Smith calls it, is an honest and complete compilation of all the facts, not just the same one’s from the same sources. If we can build the best foundation possible, that meets the standards of all licensed hunters, putting in place an “effective action” will be made much simpler.

There is one other issue that needs mentioning and one that I hope doesn’t become lost in the rush to “effective action”. MDIFW can’t get a free pass on this. It appears to me they are too eager to pass the responsibility off on SAM and/or anybody else willing to take up the flag. We paid our fees and expected game management in return. Most are not satisfied with that effort.

Smith says we all need to step up and be responsible. I concur but not in order to give MDIFW a free pass. If they have forgotten who pays their bills, we need to rattle their cage. If we, the angry hunter, have to go about managing our own game, then maybe it’s time to dismantle and seriously downsize the fish and game department.

The managerial operation and structure of MDIFW comes from the governor and legislature on down. Remember that next time you go to vote.

Tom Remington

Since the terror attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by the “Pantie Bomber”, much of the discussion has turned to profiling. Those that fear profiling wrongfully call it racial profiling.

Wikipedia, a publicly compiled usually biased site, can give us a publicly compiled, usually biased definition of racial profiling.

Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner.

Amnesty International describes racial profiling this way.

Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.

Profiling without the race is defined also by Wikipedia.

the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities

Racial profiling ends up being simply a subset of profiling in general. I suppose from that perspective we can have gender profiling, intelligence profiling, interests profiling, educational profiling, character profiling and so forth.

Whenever we label something as racial, it nearly always ends up as being interpreted as something bad. And it very well can be but does not have to be. The truth is, we learn or are trained, however you want to describe it, to profile from infancy. It is all a natural part of life otherwise how would we function?

We profile – “the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities” – based on our own developed qualities, ideals, morals, etc. Profiling directs us in our everyday lives; where we live, who our friends are, the kind of job we want, the college we choose to attend, who we buy a house from, etc., etc. In short, isn’t profiling just an everyday part of our lives? And aren’t we kidding ourselves if we think that we can make a law prohibiting profiling that it will stop what’s bred in us?

Let’s be honest. Racial profiling in its simplest definition is wrong. Nobody should look at a Muslim and declare them to be a terrorist simply because they are Muslim. It’s wrong and does nothing to stop terrorism.

Race is only one part of profiling. If we focus on profiling at airports, train stations, etc. as part of a routine to thwart terrorism, it would not only be wrong to suspect only Muslim or “Muslim looking” people because of race but because not all terrorists are of “Middle Eastern” decent.

Police have used profiling for years to help solve cases. Years of collected data has helped them to be able to profile a suspect, even when they don’t know who that suspect is. Behavior patterns are determined from the same data. While not a perfect system, it can help solve crimes and solve them quicker.

Law enforcement officials are trained and have learned from experience what to look for when patrolling or searching for suspects etc. Police can recognized the position of a person driving in a car and make a reasonable determination whether that driver is intoxicated. When police ask people questions, they’re not just seeking an answer. They observe behavior patterns, body language, etc.. They can then tell if someone is lying or hiding something. Without this kind of profiling, crimes would never get resolved.

Should we be profiling at airports and other venues that attract terrorists? Absolutely, but exclusively profiling only race is not only wrong, it’s stupid and does nothing to deter crime, no more than pulling aside a 90-year old grandmother and strip-searching her.

One of the problems with airport security is that screeners are scared to death that if they select the wrong person to screen, they will get into trouble. This has to stop.

Authorities continue to collect data about terrorists. With this information they then can extrapolate that out to determine a profile, complete with behavior patterns.

We need to stop labeling the efforts to screen passengers on planes as racial profiling. It’s profiling and yes, a person’s race is all just a part of the entire overall picture.

It’s a shame that our lives have had to come to this. Flying stinks, especially since 9/11 and presently after the Pantie Bomber’s success in getting explosives past security. This leaves us with the choices of either not worrying about security and we can all take our chances when we fly or do the best job we can to screen passengers, including all those that fit a profile. If this is an infringement on your rights, then don’t fly. If we can’t make flying safe, there won’t be any flying therefore it won’t matter anyway.

Tom Remington

Milt Inman Photo

Milt Inman Photo

I recently posted the thoughts and ideas of George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his quest to save and/or rebuild a large portion of Maine’s whitetail deer population that is dismal and described as some as beyond rebuilding.

While the debate on that subject is young and in need of “help” from “everyone”, I thought as one of every I would offer up my own thoughts in response to Smith’s.

There’s a big rub that exists when talking about the deer herd in Maine. That rub is the dissatisfaction of the Maine hunter who buys the license. Hunters want action not another effort of gathering together stakeholders to rehash what most already know. They don’t see any of the previous efforts put forth as amounting to anything. Why would it be different now?

Can we blame the disgruntled hunters for feeling this way? The deer are gone and what the hunters are getting is more blaming of bad winters and cut down forests. They are tired of hearing about these excuses and they want action. Calling together all the same components of what to hunters looks like failed policies and poor management, isn’t going over big at all. That’s a wall that needs dismantling.

Smith says early on in his piece that a process has to be followed or the consequences could be more harmful than helpful.

Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding.

I wonder if the “facts” will come mostly from the same source of “facts” that has gotten us to the point we are in now? The most important fact is that the deer herd in depleted in certain areas of the state. A fact is what has taken place, whether natural or man made hasn’t worked. A fact is maybe it’s time to find some “different” facts.

I’m not suggesting anyone is insane, but the definition of such is a repetition of the same action hoping for a different result. Sanity tells us if the repetition isn’t working, perhaps we need to change something. We cannot pretend to gain an understanding of facts we aren’t convinced accurately describe a situation.

If we are to effect the proper action to achieve an end result, there must be a united effort as Smith suggests. The only way that is going to happen is to convince the disgruntled hunters.

So where are the facts to effect this understanding and action going to come from? The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Try telling these angry hunters that MDIFW has the facts. Why should they be believed? Hunters have laid out a lot of money over the years and the results are not very good.

Are we going to believe “facts” from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine? Some will. Many won’t. Sportsmen are not united on issues and while the SAM is the largest organization representing Maine sportsmen, it doesn’t represent a majority of hunters.

Will “facts” come from guides and outfitters? That’s tough as well. You see we find out that the Maine guides seemed to dictate to MDIFW that they didn’t want more bear harvested as a means of helping to reduce bear predation on deer. It was reported in a previous article on Smith’s blog that MDIFW was simply following the recommendations of the predator working group. It doesn’t sit well with deer hunters when they find a group getting their wishes taken care of at what appears to be the expense of the deer population.

The stakeholders in the issue are everybody who buys a hunting license to hunt deer. Let’s not kid ourselves. The groups are simply a means of gathering more power to promote group agendas, therefore having more influence on game management policies of the MDIFW. I suppose one can either work independently, join an existing group that seems to best represent their ideals or shut up and go away.

Everyone of the groups I’ve mentioned and not mentioned, including the individual deer hunter, plays an important and integral role in deer management in Maine. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the squeakiest wheel isn’t necessarily a good representation of the hunting population.

Smith’s contention that “Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding” is a good one but each element of that progression has to be done right. The task that lies ahead to gather facts that can be agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of hunters and not just by the “group in charge” is the axis that will make the wheel turn. Once that is achieved, gaining understanding and putting together actions shouldn’t be so difficult.

I believe Smith understands this.

We cannot sugar-coat this situation. Hunters deserve to know the truth. What is the situation? What can we expect in 2010 and the years beyond? What will work? What won’t work? Who is stepping up to help? Who is not? These truths must come from every organization, including landowner groups, SAM, and DIF&W. And we better be together on this. There is simply no room for argument, or a shading of the facts to suit someone’s agenda. SAM seeks a commitment from all major players to both fact finding and truth telling. I am promising you will get nothing but the unvarnished truth from SAM, even if some of it is hard to accept.

My fear is that the “facts” will be repeated from the same sources as before without support and explanation from someone hunters can trust. I don’t know who that is but it might be worthwhile to come up with one, two or three people who can hammer out the “facts” and pass them on to hunters in order to bring them on board.

Smith says, “And we better be together on this”. He’s right but how do we do that? If we can figure that out, the rest should be comparatively easy.

If you hunt and you care about the future of deer hunting in Maine, I would suggest getting involved. How you do that is up to you. I suggested before that perhaps you can find a sportsman’s organization that best fits your ideals. Bear in mind you won’t find a perfect one, just a good one.

You can also become an activists by yourself. Talk to your friends and neighbors about what’s going on with the deer. Help them understand why it is important to everyone that we have a healthy deer herd, a well-managed one that includes predator controls, etc. Do some research on your own seeking the truth about deer management, predator management and landowner rights. Talk to your local game warden. If you can develop a good report with them, they can educated you to a lot of what is going on in your area. Report a poacher.

Do your part as a hunter. If there are too many coyotes in your favorite hunting spot, take up hunting them or find someone who will. Invite a trapper or a coyote hunter to come on your land and do some of your own predator control.

This task will not be easy but sitting idly by complaining isn’t a viable option.

In the future I will examine more of Smith’s ideas as well as those of others and the progress that is being made. Look for updates and links.

More responses: Fact Finding

Tom Remington

It’s that time of year once again to recap the year in stories…..that is stories that I believed to be important issues for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts in general. The importance of these events may not be measured in the number of articles written or the extent to which I covered them but more by what I deem to be of primary concern to all outdoors people.

10). Spent Military Brass – It was a short-lived story but one that exemplified the power that exists behind the firearms and ammunition industry in the country – perhaps the last stronghold against the tyrants working to rob us all of our rights.

The U.S. Government sent out a notice that all spent military brass would be destroyed rather than recycled, a move that would have reduced the ability of companies who reload that spent brass, creating a shortage of ammunition to the American people.

For the whole story, start with this link and follow links in the story for updates.

9). Sonia Sotomayor – The appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court holds potential ramifications for all of us. We know that she is a non supporter of Second Amendment rights and has ruled in lower courts that states do not have to abide by federal gun laws, including the Second Amendment.

We may have a chance early in 2010 to see Justice Sotomayor in action as the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the gun ban in that city is being challenged as unconstitutional, much the same way as District of Columbia v. Heller.

For articles pertaining to Justice Sonia Sotomayer, follow this link and scroll through.

8). “To Catch a Wolf” – As many of you know, I spend a great deal of time discussing wolves here at the Black Bear Blog. It’s not so much about some kind of infatuation with the creature as the political ramifications that effect all Americans.

As a bit of a spin off on the sometimes old and tired topic of wolves and other predators and the onset of wolf hunting seasons in Idaho and Montana, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching more of the world wide history of wolves.

This research included not only the struggles people had with wolves throughout history but also the difficulties encountered in trying to hunt and trap these creatures. The stories ranged from unbelievable, to sad due to loss of life.

I thought it only fitting that with wolf hunting seasons scheduled for the first time in 70 or so years in America, that it would be educational to see how wolves were taken care of many years ago.

“To Catch a Wolf” Part I can be read from this link. There you will find links to all five parts.

7). McDonald v. Chicago – While little has been written about McDonald v. City of Chicago, the importance of this future event becomes Chapter II in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chapter I of course being District of Columbia v. Heller.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case March 2, 2010. Chicago bans guns much the same way that Washington, D.C. did prior to the Heller case. Almost immediately after Heller, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legal right for the City of Chicago to deny its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I suspect that this story may make the top ten stories next year. For more on McDonald v. Chicago, follow this link and scroll through the stories.

6). New Jersey Bears – No, this is not a football team. New Jersey hunters and concerned residents have battled the state of New Jersey over the management of its bear population. New Jersey had a bear hunt to help reduce bear numbers and reduce bear/human encounters. When Jon Corzine became governor, he appointed Lisa Jackson to head up his Environmental department. Under Corzine’s direction, she threw away a court-approved bear management plan and banned all bear hunting.

When Barack Obama became president, he appointed the same Lisa Jackson to head the federal environmental department and Governor Corzine was recently defeated in a run for governor and will be leaving office in January.

At this point in time, the citizens of New Jersey can only wonder what will become of the black bears. Fortunately for everyone, bears have slipped away into winter hibernation but come spring, bears will be awakening. How will the new administration handle its bear management?

Follow this link for stories and information on New Jersey bears.

5). Delta Smelt – The delta smelt is what’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA was designed to protect an animal or plant species but not at the expense of humans. Water, necessary for growing crops and keeping residents of California employed and fed, has been withheld in order to hopefully protect a tiny fish.

Questions surround whether the efforts being employed are doing anything to protect the smelt while thousands of Californians are out of work and businesses are failing. The withholding of water has caused a man-made drought that now will take years to recover from the damages done.

Read about the delta smelt with this link.

4). Maine’s Deer Problems – The state of Maine has a shortage of whitetail deer in much of the geographic territory of the state. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been quick to blame a couple of bad winters for the problem, but many question whether that’s really it.

Most will admit that loss of habitat and access to hunting grounds has played a role but little attention is directed at a rapidly growing coyote population and the role of other large predators.

Debates are ongoing and actions are lacking but the future of Maine’s whitetail deer remains in the balance. Some have indicated that the vast majority of the northern half of the state can no longer sustain a whitetail deer population and until efforts are made to rebuild wintering deer habitat, it will be decades, if ever, before that happens.

This past year I did a four-part series on Maine’s deer management problem. You can follow this link to Part I. There you will find links to the other parts and also check out the “related articles” links at the bottom of each page.

Other key articles can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.

3). Firearms Freedom Act – It all began in Montana. With the support of the Montana Legislature and the signature of the governor, Montana had passed into law a bill that essentially said that any gun or accessory manufactured in Montana and remained in Montana was not subject to federal firearms regulations.

This brings to the forefront the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and a reclaiming of state sovereignty. The passage of this bill will be challenged, no doubt, but Montana took extraordinary steps seeking the ear of the court and requesting a ruling on their bill.

With the overreaching new Obama administration, many people fear the tyrannical pressures being put on states to relinquish their state powers and sovereignty. This has set off a domino effect and now there are 29 states that have either passed, introduced or are planning to introduce a clone of Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act.

Follow this link for more information on a movement that could have overwhelming implications on all Americans.

2). Wolves – Wolf Delisting, Wolf Hunt, Wolf Disease – The topic of wolves in America remains big and emotional. The reason I continue to focus my efforts on this is because it’s strong political ramifications effect all of us. It challenges the core of the Endangered Species Act, it highlights the hypocrisy of the environmentalists who make their living by suing the federal government, while stealing away Americans rights, it has revealed corruption at many levels and without proper constraints, treads on the very rights of free Americans.

Lawsuits affected the delisting of the wolf but eventually Idaho and Montana, if only temporary, gained custody of wolf management and implemented wolf hunts for the first time in about 70 years. Idaho still has a hunt going on as I write this. Pending lawsuits threaten to once again shut down the wolf hunts and take the management away from the states, allowing wolf numbers to grow unchecked while the people sit by watching their elk, deer and moose herds disappear, while giving livestock owners major headaches.

And if all this wasn’t enough, testing of wolves has revealed the animals are full of worms and are spreading the diseases feared by some and ignored by others, before reintroduction.

It appears there may never be an end to this debate. In the meantime Wyoming has been shut out of the delisting process because of politics being played. Lawsuits are pending for Wyoming as well.

You can spend weeks reading the seemingly unending articles on wolves by following this link.

1). Climate Change/Climategate – Although not everyone will admit it, Climategate may prove to be the biggest revelation not only to the world of climate science but the entire scientific community.

Global warming and its causes have been a hot button topic for several years now. As a matter of fact, it has been around long enough now that a majority of people have been indoctrinated to believe that climate change is the result of the influence of man living on this planet. This indoctrination took place in such a way that by the time the entire scientific community became involved, convincing “believers” that the science wasn’t settled became a daunting task.

Aided now in that effort was what is now becoming apparent a whistle blower’s release of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that showed fraud, conspiracy and cover-up of scientific data.

Whether you buy into the theory that man’s influence on this planet is warming it or not, or whether you want to believe that the information contained in the emails and documents proves or disproves anything, the fact is that it is quite likely to change how science and specifically scientific research, especially that funded by governments and special interest groups, is conducted and perceived.

For more on Climategate and global warming in general, follow this link.

Tom Remington