In a second part of a series George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine(SAM), has posted on his blog at Downeast Magazine, he tells us that as part of the question and answer event conducted by SAM, The Nature Conservancy(TNC) and Maine Audubon Society(MAS), four of the five candidates for Maine’s Governor support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee a percentage of funding for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW).(Part I of this series can be found here.)

Only Independent candidate Eliot Cutler withheld from making any sweeping promises about raising taxes at a time when Maine is possibly facing a $1 billion budget shortfall.

“The next governor is going to be confronted with massive budget shortfalls, so I have not and will not make any promises to any group about funding levels. That said, I recognize the important work of the IF&W and how that work benefits the general public.

“I don’t believe in across-the-board cuts and I have said many times in this campaign that I want to invest in Maine’s competitive advantages. Our natural environment and our fish and wildlife are key assets for our state, and we must invest in them to protect our quality of life and to attract sportsmen and other visitors.

“So while I cannot in good conscience commit to any specific level or minimum amount of funding, I can assure you that I intend to spend our hard-earned tax dollars strategically to adequately fund those departments and programs that enhance Maine’s competitive advantages and to cut programs that neither operate efficiently nor provide an adequate return to Maine people,” concluded Cutler.

This is a shame actually. If this amendment were to pass, this would do little in the short term to actually take care of issues at MDIFW that pertain to fish and game. In the long run, it will only continue to support the efforts of environmentalists seeking a stronger foothold in the affairs of wildlife management further destroying our outdoor heritage.

History has proven, for those who would like to take examination of the facts, that as soon as general taxation dollars are spent for fish and wildlife management, demands soon follow for non hunting, non trapping and non fishing representation on fish and wildlife boards. For those who espouse to the growing trend for non consumptive wildlife management, this proposed amendment should be a god send. Anyone looking to get back to the business of growing and protecting game species with surplus management for harvest opportunities, this is the wrong way to go.

It’s tempting to take the money. But what if the hunters, fishermen and trappers had all the money they contribute to the revenue stream to MDIFW and it was being used to manage game species to provide the opportunities? Would this not give us what we are looking for, in combination with finding a leader at MDIFW and the Blaine House who supports this same approach?

Twenty years ago an all out effort was launched to convince state fish and game agencies that general, non consumptive wildlife management was the way to go. Twenty years ago, states began a systematic metamorphosis and changed their names from fish and game to fish and wildlife, or natural resources, etc.

This effort required the confiscation and take over of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies(IWFWA), now shortened to Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies(AFWA), of environmentalists whose goals are far from my interest in protecting my hunting and fishing heritage.

I am exposed to a troubling trend everyday in my work. I see state after state where sportsmen are raising the level of complaints because there is so little game left to hunt. Is this a mere coincidence or is this following the agenda set forth in the new wildlife management dream? A dream that emphasizes the protection of all predators at the expense of game species.

The short of it is that for the State of Maine, its Governor and head of the MDIFW to continue to buy into this non scientific dream of non consumptive wildlife management, it is a guarantee for continued failure toward your hunting opportunities.

This has been slowly transitioning for 20 years and is now at a fever pitch. Simply ask yourself. Have your hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities improved over the past twenty years? Have the increases in fees actually resulted in better hunting and fishing and the opportunities to participate in them? Do you know where YOUR Pittman-Robertson money goes? What it’s being spent on?

Which direction do you think we should go?

Tom Remington

Related Posts