If you’ve not had a chance to read the three-part article in the new edition of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife summer edition magazine, called “Living on the Edge”, I strongly encourage readers to do so. Follow this link and page up to page 22 where the article begins.

Evidently this article first appeared in a newsletter published by SWOAM – Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine. The first part explains how deer use the makeup of a winter deer yard to protect themselves from the harsh elements of winter. Part II explores deeper what constitutes a winter deer yard and Part III looks at how to manage a winter deer yard.

This is all excellent information but could be just a bit misleading to those not fully aware of what goes on in and around a winter deer yard. My intention here is not to find fault with the article. Bear in mind the piece first appeared in a newsletter for woodlot owners. Their focus is on perhaps how to recognize a deer yard, understand its importance and how to manage accordingly.

What I would love to see is a similar piece that can honestly and thoroughly explain all the other dynamics that occur in and around Maine’s deer yards that deer have to dodge in order to survive a winter. It’s not all just deep snows, blowing winds and brutally cold temperatures.

I would be more than eager to read such an effort.

Tom Remington

The pilot and two Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologists were killed this morning when the helicopter they were traveling in malfunctioned and crashed in Kamiah, Idaho.

One source says that the names of the two biologists are Dani Schiff and Larry Barrett.

More on the accident can be found here.

Tom Remington

Many of you will be aware that the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency asking the EPA to ban the use of lead for ammunition as a toxic material.

The good news is that when Congress gave the EPA the authority to regulate toxic materials in the environment, Congress specifically excepted lead ammunition from that EPA regulatory authority.

So, the EPA has reviewed the petition from the CBD and has rejected the request to regulate lead ammo, stating that it lacks authority to do so.

So, this round is over, for now. Much ado about nothing, this time.

Despite that this fight is now history, a less than scrupulous entity is trying to raise scare money off this episode, claiming that ammunition will be banned if you don’t send them money to engage a fight over lead. This entity also sent out a fundraising pitch a couple of months ago claiming that they desperately needed funds to support the Firearms Freedom Act effort. I don’t know if anyone sent them any money, but they sure never offered to assist us with the FFA fight. I suspect this entity doesn’t really exist, and the effort is just raising money for the guy who writes the fundraising letters.

If you have money to donate to the “cause,” I highly recommend that you donate to an entity that has a track record of actually doing something, such as MSSA, SAF, GOA or the NRA.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Hang on! Hang on! Hang on! Bill Press, who obviously hates Glenn Beck, says that the Lincoln Memorial is a sacred place. I’m certainly not in any position to make a determination as to whether or not a memorial to Abraham Lincoln is sacred ground, but……….oh, my! Perhaps he meant because that’s where the Rev. Martin Luther King once stood and delivered a speech………invoking God into his address in 1963.

You decide whether the Lincoln Memorial is sacred ground and then try to make sense out of Press’ comment that because it’s sacred ground, it’s no place to talk about God and religion and politics. Oooooh! Maybe there’s somebody Press is thinking about besides Lincoln or King but do either of these two guys, separately or combined, trump God when it comes to whose allowed on sacred ground? Anybody?

I think this is more a clear example of how blind hatred rules the mind and can turn a man into an incoherent, nonsensical blatherer.

Tom Remington

Why do I have to be the one to ask the tough questions and come across as though I am picking on the NRA again? I have to ask certain questions when I don’t understand. I am willing to entertain serious comments on why the newly passed into law “Firearms Tax Improvement Act” is being hailed as not a tax but yet certainly appears like a tax to me, no matter how small that tax is?

First let’s set the record straight. I sounds as though the bill will make the job of tax accounting for those people selling firearms, ammunition and certain other recreational equipment a whole lot easier. These vendors have paid federal excise tax bi-weekly and now it will be able to be done quarterly, like all other manufacturers. Great! Reducing the bureaucratic nonsense is good.

The NRA and others are hailing their victory and stating that this change is being done without increasing taxes.

This legislation will neither raise taxes nor exempt firearm and ammunition manufacturers from paying federal excise taxes into the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.

Great!

However, the Bill text says this:

The percentage under paragraph (2) of section 561 of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 0.25 percentage points.

Hmmmmm!

And the NRA says this:

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation will create a net revenue increase of $4 million over 10 years.

Not so great! If this Act does not increase taxes, then where is the $4 million revenue increase going to come from? I’m struggling with this concept. Is this a battle of semantics where by definition an increase is not a tax? Is this a matter of the Act itself didn’t cause an increase but the Restore Unemployment Act did? Therefore it’s not a tax?

It matters not whether this Act complies or doesn’t comply with the Paygo. It matters not whether supporters of the bill think it doesn’t matter this tiny tax. What matters is that people should be told the truth and I don’t feel that we have been.

I don’t understand the Joint Committee on Taxation’s calculations as to how they arrived at a net revenue increase of $4 million over ten years and then to be able to say this isn’t a new tax.

Help me!

I almost walk alone as the vote was 412-6. The following people voted against the bill but I don’t know their reasoning for doing so. More homework for me.

Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Tom Remington

One of the better enjoyments we get from politicians, and doubly so from presidents, is when their actions provide us with the opportunity at humor. President Obama is no exception. Even though many have feared to make jokes and laugh at the man, for varied ridiculous reasons, we all must laugh out loud that he felt compelled to tell the American people that he doesn’t have time to run around with his birth certificate plastered on his head. No, sir. It would seriously cut into his golf game.

Tom Remington

Yesterday I received an email from a friend that contained the editorial cartoon below. I laughed and considered the work excellent. I had never heard of “Comically Incorrect” before, so I traveled through cyberspace to visit this website and discovered an amazing world of editorial cartoons done by A.F. Branco, whose bio is as interesting as the cartoons.
I encourage readers to take a look at this man’s work. From what I gather, he works for donations. So if you can see your way clear to share a buck or two, I’m sure Mr. Branco would be extremely grateful.

Personally, I am ecstatic that the NRA has spoken out publicly that they will not be endorsing Nevada Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid for reelection this November. However, the move by the NRA-PVF is a departure from normal grading and endorsement policy. So my question is: Can we expect to see in writing somewhere that the NRA has amended their policies for political campaign endorsements or is this only a bit of a knee-jerk, temporary move to appease angry members?

Back in June there was outrage directed at the NRA because it certainly appeared that the NRA had struck some kind of deal that landed them an exemption from the DISCLOSE Act. I also said at that time that I wondered what the NRA had to give up for that exemption and I implied that perhaps it was an opposition vote to Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those avid defenders of the NRA quickly jumped up in support claiming that the NRA was only following their policies. Were they?

Now, the NRA-PVF made a public statement that they would not be endorsing Sen. Harry Reid (D), Nevada for reelection. This is a break from policy, isn’t it?

Chris Cox, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, says the NRA, in formulating their grades/endorsements, is non-partisan and that they have an “incumbent policy”.

Next, NRA-PVF has an incumbent-friendly policy that requires our support for pro-gun lawmakers seeking re-election. Again, this is regardless of political party. Whether in Congress or the state legislatures, it is critical that we stand with our friends who have stood with us.

Cox also tries to explain NRA-PVF policy in regards to endorsing judges, such as now Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements in judicial elections because they often involve unique issues. Judges, unlike legislators, often do not have voting records, so NRA-PVF can only make evaluations based upon past legal opinions (if any) and public statements on firearm-related issues.

There are reasons I mention this statement of policy. One, it was ridiculous when the NRA hedged on any opposition to Sotomayor until the very last minute, when she clearly had anti-gun rulings. Second, the same could easily be said about Elena Kagan and yet coming at a time when it appeared the NRA was in the midst of political wrangling on the DISCLOSE Act, it ruffled a lot of feathers.

Finally, the NRA voiced opposition to Kagan only after a backlash from members.

Another reason I mention the NRA’s policy on judicial endorsements is because of what the NRA gave for reasons for not supporting Sen. Harry Reid. According to a FoxNews report:

“The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment,” Cox said in a statement. “After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.”

This is surely a shift in endorsement policy…..isn’t it? It also leaves me short of understanding why the big shift? Back at the time of Sotomayor’s confirmation, the NRA didn’t seem all that concerned about her past rulings on gun issues and only after considerable outrage on Kagan did the NRA step up to oppose her. Judging that the NRA placed little importance on these Supreme Court nominations, now all of a sudden because Harry Reid voted for these two judges, he won’t get the NRA’s endorsement.

NRA states unequivocally that it is non-partisan and that they have a strong incumbent policy. The gun rights organization goes to great lengths to explain why it is so important to have this policy and yet they are dumping Reid because he voted for the confirmation of both Sotomayor and Kagan.

Can we now expect that the NRA is going to line up, due to this new policy change, and challenge every U.S. Senator who voted for Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court? Is this now the new policy? If enough angry members contact the NRA with their opposition to candidates or with the stand that the NRA has taken in regards to some political figure, will the NRA base its support or lack thereof on what direction the wind is blowing that day? Are they that fickle?

If the NRA is a one issue, non-partisan organization, then their actions of late don’t seem to be representative of the declaration. Now, the NRA has set precedence in ousting Reid, due I believe more to do with membership outrage than how he voted on Supreme Court nominees. Only time will tell if this is an actual policy shift or a careless and dangerous move to appease members.

I would guess the tell tale sign would be how the NRA reacts to senators up for reelection that voted in favor of confirming Sotomayor and Kagan.

If the NRA loses its power and reputation as a non-political, non-partisan, one-issue organization, they are toast. They need to tread carefully. It’s difficult enough to support a powerful organization like the NRA when they staunchly follow established policy. It’s impossible if they begin changing like blowing chaff in the wind.

Tom Remington

Recall if you will the trail camera photos I posted a couple of weeks ago from a reader who had his camera set up at a water hole. Here’s some more action. Thanks again for sharing.

According to a press release that was sent out by the Environmental Protection Agency less than 30 minutes ago, they claim that the Center for Biological Diversity and others did, in fact, file a petition to ban lead ammunition. The release states that this particular petition was denied for legal authority reasons.

“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

“This petition, which was submitted to EPA at the beginning of this month, is one of hundreds of petitions submitted to EPA by outside groups each year. This petition was filed under TSCA, which requires the agency to review and respond within 90 days.”

While it appears that my opinion from a previous post was accurate, the bad news in this petition is that the EPA will entertain a second part of the petition and consider the banning of lead sinkers used in fishing tackle.

EPA provides a link for those interested in comment directly on the lead fishing tackle portion.

Tom Remington