If you will notice, at the top of TomRemington.com, on the menu bar, you will see, “Tom Remington’s EBook Sales“. If you click that link you will get information on “The Legend of Grey Ghost” as well as future books coming soon. The Legend can be purchased currently in two formats. At the bottom of the page, readers can click on the “BUY NOW” button. Through PayPal you will be able to purchase the book and download it to your computer hard drive. From there you can open and read the book or if you have other ebook reading devices, there are processes that exist to get this pdf version uploaded to those devices.

Or, you can follow the Amazon.com link and quickly and easily download “The Legend” to your Kindle.

Steven and I are excited about providing this opportunity for you. In addition, writing is underway and plans made for more ebooks coming soon. You don’t want to miss out.

Thank you.

Tom Remington

What was even more troubling is that the newspaper, the Sun Journal, published his piece in the “Columns & Analysis” section of the newspaper instead of in the “Opinions” section where it belongs. You can find his wolf drool here.

I’ll hit on some of the highlights.

Goldman claims he knows the “truth” about wild canines. I suppose, as is nearly always the case, that when one disagrees with someone else, you hold all the truth cards. Goldman is attempting to rebut an article that was written previously in the Sun Journal about wolves by V. Paul Reynolds, a weekly columnist for the Sun Journal and an editor for the Northwoods Sporting Journal.

In many ways, Goldman’s incorrect and idealistic frothing is very typical of his ilk, claiming that “malicious and inaccurate information about wolves that, for centuries, has resulted in the unjust demonization and heartless massacre of this vital and beautiful animal”.

Because the animal was readily killed and rightfully feared, Goldman, like his fellow canine worshipers, believes this action was uncalled for and born from ignorance of the wolf. Obviously knowing little about the world history of wolves or blatantly refusing to include it in his predilection toward protecting wolves, readers are robbed of an opportunity to discover how the wolves attacked and killed humans on far more than “rare” occasions, as we are indoctrinated to think from our schools and media; or that wolves without much difficulty killed people’s livestock; or anything about the 30 or so diseases they carry, many harmful or deadly to humans. Is there a need by Goldman to shield his readers from truth or is this about only his truth; that which only he wants you to know about.

Goldman drops names as the means of his references from where he claims his “truth” comes, i.e. Aldo Leopold, Adolph Murie, David Mech, Farley Mowat and Barry Lopez. Perhaps the author should have told his readers that much of the information provided by this list of resources is outdated and not necessarily scientifically proven. For instance, Dr. David Mech, a well-known “expert” on wolves, to his credit, has recanted some of the claims of which he laid out as truth some time ago (probably in order to achieve his goal of wolf introduction). One example of that is the Alpha male myth that still is perpetuated; that killing the alpha male disrupts the pack and causes the wolves/coyotes to do unruly things – a convenient application for those seeking defense of their wild dogs, while blaming humans.

One should be embarrassed to have read Farley Mowat and still rant that his writings are accurate and scientific. Many of Mowat’s claims in his book, “Never Cry Wolf” have been proven many times over to be false and rife with intellectual garbage.

You see, seeking the truth and taking the time to sing from the rooftops that you know the truth, requires reading and learning all sides of an issue and studying all perspectives and scientific data involved. Then and only then can the truth be discovered. One has to wonder if Mr. Goldman has ever studied Dr. Charles Kay, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Tom Bergerud, Dr. Clay Dethlefsen? Or read books by Will Graves, Teddy Roosevelt, C. Gordon Hewitt, the diaries of many of the trappers, explorers, etc. that traveled many years ago in the West? How about even the Adventures of Lewis and Clark? Only to name a few. And, being that Goldman hails from Maine, I wonder if he has read, “Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving. I suppose that if he has, he would think the people back in the 1600s – early 1900s were maliciously spreading inaccurate information about wolves, while demonizing the creature causing unjust killing.

Instead, people such as Robert Goldman opt to cherry pick only the information that conveniently fits a narrative. Goldman admits that he has a love affair with wolves. Even though I think some people take their love affairs with animals a bit too far, I’m curious if Mr. Goldman is so concerned for his wolves that he would rather they be healthy, than riddled with disease and have to resort to cannibalism for survival? Perhaps his wolf world is just a bit too idealistic and bases that idealism on inane theories of “natural balance” or “natural regulation”?

It is unfortunate that what also takes place when there is discussion about wolves/coyotes is that anyone who asks for accurate and up-to-date scientific studies to base wild canine management decisions on, requesting a control in numbers of these and other predators, we are instantly accused of wanting to kill all wolves and coyotes and well, predators as a whole. This is simply not true and results from a person lacking any knowledge to rebut facts with facts.

Goldman says that wolves are, “instinctively wary of people and avoid contact with humans.” This is true under ideal circumstances. But people should understand that not always is everything “naturally balanced” as some would lead us to believe. All should read Dr. Valerius Geist’s “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?”

Goldman’s claim that wolves “instinctively” avoid humans is not entirely true. Wolves are not stupid animals. Their “instinct” to avoid humans wanes considerably when they learn that there is no good reason to avoid humans. As a matter of fact, they will soon discover, and their “instincts” take over, that man and his surroundings can be a very easy and convenient source of food.

Reading and understanding Dr. Geist’s seven steps to recognizing wolf/coyote behavior can not only save your life some day, but will teach you much about the real behavior of wolves/coyotes and not the myth that wolves/coyotes are cute and cuddly, human-loving puppies that only want to be our friends. Understanding that concept doesn’t mean you then have to become a person seeking the complete destruction of the animal or live in fear of it. You can choose to go right on liking the beasts, it’s just that now you’ll know more truth about the animal. Is there something wrong with that?

It is the common theme these days for people like Goldman to postulate that wolves/coyotes are a necessary “balance” for our ecosystems. This theory is simply not true, has not, nor never can be proven scientifically to be an accurate statement. To latch onto such a claim is conveniently dishonest, intellectually vacant and reeks to high heavens of agenda-driven propaganda.

It is equally dishonest to promote hostility toward hunters, blaming them for disrupting the “natural” process, while at the same time painting some far flung notion that wolves/coyotes only kill the sick and weak of their prey subjects while hunters muddle the gene pool by taking only trophy game animals. (Read this article for information about whether “trophy hunting” spoils gene pools.)

Let’s not kid ourselves, a wolf/coyote is an opportunistic hunter. They will kill what they can kill. If that conveniently, for the wild dog, happens to be a three-legged deer or elk, then so be it. There exist documented evidence that wolves/coyotes kill adult healthy prey species any time of year. Documentation also exist that these varmints kill for sport. This is far too often denied by those who simply want to protect their loveable canines.

What is really despicable and a totally unacceptable attitude of this writer is his claim that those who wanted enactment of the Endangered Species Act were “enlightened”. In addition, those who lied and created the biggest deception in American wildlife history through wolf introduction into the greater Yellowstone area, are described by Goldman as being “maturing American attitudes”. He then goes on, in ignorant fashion, to declare that anyone not agreeing with his perspective are liars.

He follows this up with lies of his own stating that elk populations in the Rocky Mountain Region,”are strong and healthy”. Goldman needs to get out more and get his “truth” straightened around.

As I began this piece, it is a pity that I actually feel the need to rebut this garbage. I have better things that I should be doing, but until, somehow, we can break this cycle of repeated ignorance and bias and get our media to get off their lazy backsides and actually do some research of their own, this remains a stumbling block to move forward with sensible, science-backed facts in the management of our wildlife.

Tom Remington

However, the giddy puerility of “yet another task force” aside, this anointed assembly is made up of a “group of guides, sporting camp and outdoor business owners, DIF&W staff, and leaders of sportsmen’s organizations”. It was accepted as fact by the task force that there has been a reduction in hunting license sales by non resident hunters. Phew! Now why? I’ll be curious to see if this task force actually attempts to make a determination based on facts and figures, comparisons, etc. or by just what collectively they “think” are some problems.

This was reported by George Smith, former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and now community activist and writer/blogger.

Smith writes:

Recognizing that Maine has a problem attracting nonresident hunters, the legislature enacted a bill proposed by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine authorizing a “Task Force to Examine the Decline in the Number of Nonresident Hunters.”

Smith, a relentless pounder of the bully Sunday hunting pulpit, gets in a couple of jabs to the midsection in blaming part of the problem on non residents not being able to hunt on “residents only” deer hunting. I think it’s called residents only for a reason. First there was no opening day for resident Maine deer hunters and so, one was created. The Maine Legislature didn’t kick out the non residents on that day. No, they added another day, another Saturday, for Maine residents. However, it’s up to the mighty task force to determine if this shortchanging of one day of hunting forces non residents to hunt elsewhere.

Also touched on by Smith was the sour grapes of non resident hunters who can’t get a moose permit when they want one. I suggest they go cry on the shoulders of those Maine residents who have been applying for over 20 years, since the moose lottery began, and haven’t been drawn yet. And someone wants to blame the unfairness of the moose lottery as reason why license sales might be down?

What did strike me as a bit odd is what Smith wrote about the cost of hunting in Maine for non residents. He writes:

I was pleased to see that the task force recognizes that the costs of hunting in Maine are a problem, from gas to licenses. Some task force members believe we charge nonresidents too much. Oh boy, they are treading on very dangerous legislative turf there!

All I can say about the price of gasoline is that it is quite expensive in parts of northern Maine and I’m sure other places as well, but I’m not sure how big a deterrent it is. However how much the State charges non residents for a hunting license I’m not sure is really an issue.

What I did was spend a little bit of time compiling a list of 17 states that offer deer hunting and how much the license fees are. Let me explain my perspective. I was born and raised in Maine. Essentially lived there near 50 years before moving to Florida where I am currently a legal resident. I own property in Maine that includes a camp where I spend part of the summers.

I have however, been going with friends to the same hunting camp in western Maine for nearly 40 years. That’s a tradition that’s virtually impossible to give up. So, I cough up my $114.00 (this year) for a non resident license to hunt deer. I can tell you right up front that if I didn’t have the tradition of the Maine hunting camp experience, I would NOT spend a dime on a license to hunt deer there because…….well, there are no deer left to hunt. Spin it all you want and tell me how many deer there are in southern and parts of central Maine, but my preferred hunting territory (very few hunters and no fear of running into someone’s back yard) has no deer. It used to. This is the reason I would NOT buy a Maine non resident hunting license. I would shop elsewhere and discover where I might be able to better spend my money where the odds of a successful harvest are better.

I don’t find the cost as a deterrent when compared to a lot of other states. What I did was listed 17 states, including Maine, where I might consider hunting deer in sometime. I then priced out the cost of a license. The list below may not be completely accurate. It may not include agent fees and at times it was difficult to come up with a set price because some states play unbelievable games with permits and tags and zones, etc. You need an expert guide and a lawyer just to keep that part of it straight.

So, here’s my unofficial list. Take a look and compare and then you decide whether Maine charges non residents too much money for a deer hunting license.

Maine – $114.00
N.H. – $103.00
VT – $100.00
NY – $140.00
PA – $101.70
NJ – $135.50
VA – $111.00 for license plus $65.00 for deer permit
NC – $60.00 for license plus $60.00 for deer permit
SC – $125.00 for license plus $100.00 for deer permit
GA – $100.00 for license plus $195.00 for deer permit
TX – $315.00
ID – $154.75 for license plus $301.75 for deer permit ($456.50 for elk tag)
MT – $537.00 (deer) $757.00 (elk)
CO – $331.00
UT – $65.00 for license plus $88.00 – $563.00 for deer permit (permit price varies by species and zone hunted, etc.)
MI – $138.00
WI – $160.00

Photo Commentary by Richard Paradis

In that article I asked 12 questions, wanting to know if hunters knew the answers to those questions. A reader sent me an email having listed all twelve questions out in an orderly fashion, so it got me to thinking.

These twelve questions aren’t necessarily attributed only to Maine. It could be your state.

Here are the twelve questions hunters want answered on a regular basis:

1. Do you know what the current estimated deer population is in Maine?

2. Do you know what the total deer mortality rate is per year?

3. Do you know what the adult male, adult female and yearling mortality rates are each year?

4. Do you know what the fawn recruitment for Maine is?

5. Do you know at what level it needs to be just to sustain a population?

6. Do you know what the mortality rate is for vehicle deaths?

7. Do you know what data MDIFW biologists collect at tagging stations?

8. Do they test for any diseases and if so what?

9. Do they test for age of deer?

10. Do you know what the age structure is for Maine’s deer?

11. Do you know why age structure is vitally important?

12. Why can’t we have all this information made easily available to us?

The foundation of the piece seemed to be about why there was a need for states to enact constitutional amendments in order to guarantee citizens of their states the right to hunt, fish and trap. Not only does the author not grasp the reality of what outdoor sportsmen are facing, some of the outdoor sportsmen themselves seem to be living in a vacuum.

The article begins, “The idea of enshrining hunting and fishing rights in state constitutions is sweeping the country even though supporters and hunters themselves acknowledge that no one is trying to in pry rifles from their hands.” I wish the author had decided to get out a bit more and talk with those of us fully aware of the billions of dollars being spent every day by environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, fishing and trapping.

One “hunter” from Nebraska, interviewed for the article states: “I haven’t seen anyone on a local level holding up signs in front of the public area saying we’re a bunch of evil-doers.”

I have never seen anyone openly walking about the United States of America holding up signs that say, “End all our Rights Now” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. We have had more government intrusion in our lives in the past 3 years and with it comes a stripping away of our God-given rights but it doesn’t take picket signs to make it happen. It requires ignorance, denial and sitting quietly by letting it happen.

PETA attempts to deflect away from any search for truth by delving into seeming absurdity stating that if states allow amendments to protect hunting, then, “why not a right to shop and golf?” Sounds silly but right now I am not aware of anyone trying to stop shopping and golf directly but don’t bet your future that it won’t happen sooner than you think.

Constitutional amendments for individual states can become a very beneficial thing if written properly and carried out in a serious fashion. There really are no disadvantages to having such an amendment, unless you are one of those who want to end hunting.

Constitutional amendments to protect hunting must at a minimum contain the words that citizens of that state are guaranteed the right to hunt, fish and trap. It must be recognized as a heritage worth protecting. In addition, wording must be such that the amendment forces the fish and game department to manage its fish and game resources for surplus harvest opportunities for its citizens. I would also strongly urge wording in which the state supports the North American Game Management model and that it would even go as far as to state that “natural regulation” is a fallacy and will not be considered a part of any wildlife management tool until overwhelming science proves otherwise. This, of course, would never happen, so let’s just leave it out.

Once an amendment is passed, it will accomplish some, much or all of the following:

1. It will limit the actions of environmentalists and animal rights groups to file countless lawsuits all aimed at ending and/or limiting hunting, fishing and trapping opportunity. History is quite clear in this. States with constitutional amendments see far fewer senseless lawsuits than those without.

2. A constitutional amendment forces fish and game departments to manage game species for surplus management. This is a problem all across America. Money paid by license holders is being used for non game programs while allowing management of game species such as deer, moose and elk to suffer terribly. Fish and game departments must be accountable for their actions if they are unable to uphold the mandate of a constitutional amendment to manage for surplus harvest.

3. A forcing of the way in which fish and game departments manage will accomplish many things. For one, it will automatically change the dynamic make up of the leadership staff all the way down the line to the lowliest of state employees. A head of any fish and game department, knowing he or she must abide by the amendment, will surround himself with staff who can accomplish that goal or run the risk of being fired.

In addition, if the wording of any amendment discredited the term and use of “natural regulation”, then those biologists who have wrongfully espoused to such nonsense will have difficulty finding a job. This could have a cascading affect all the way back to the colleges potential biologists attend. If graduates can’t get hired because they are being taught garbage, perhaps it will force the colleges to change what they teach. Idealistic? Perhaps but it will certainly have its effects.

4. A constitutional amendment, in my opinion, would help to restore the reason why we have managed fish and game. If you investigate nearly every fish and game department’s programs across this nation, you will, no doubt, see that each state manages its “wildlife” according to the pressures of societal demands. No, I’m not kidding. What used to be a hidden agenda is now very much in the open. Fish and game departments readily admit that much of their management decisions are based on what the demands are by our society, for example: wildlife viewing, car accidents, human/wildlife encounters, property destruction, etc. With each passing year, the societal demands increase and change. Where’s the science behind all this?

While it’s easy to understand the concern for reducing say, deer populations because too many people are dying from collisions, it seems difficult for people to understand why we should have unhealthy levels of wolves so more people can view them. Makes little sense.

So, with a fish and game department with a different mandated direction in which it must manage its wildlife, the domino effect could be far reaching.

5. A constitutional amendment would give stronger reasons why anti hunting activists should not have a seat on any fish and game commission. Their agendas become more exposed and their efforts at incrementally stripping away hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities is that much more difficult.

6. With a constitutional amendment, the message is sent loud and clear by the citizens that they support and recognize hunting, trapping and fishing as part of their heritage. As such it makes it that much harder for anti gun activists and all efforts toward limiting which animals can be harvested or the methods in which those animals can be harvested, to accomplish.

Instead of people, including journalists and hunters, sitting around saying we don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect our hunting heritage, I suggest a bit more eye opening exercises and a better understanding how things have changed over the years that has brought us to this point.

As an example, the same friend who sent me the link to the above mentioned article, also reminded me of the countless number of states that have found it necessary to enact anti hunter harassment legislation. Here is only one such example from Maine. If nobody wants to shut down hunting, then why is there a need for legislation to protect hunters who go into the field? To me, these are very big picket signs. I suppose one just needs to open their eyes.

Tom Remington

Outdoor Life’s forecast includes mule deer and whitetail deer and as such Maine would prove to rank lower than many states simply because that state has only whitetail deer. The same dynamic takes place for states that only have mule deer.

Good news? Ummmmm, Maine beats out New Hampshire and Vermont….barely, along with Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island and let’s not forget Hawaii and Florida.

But I and we can sit here and poke fun of what’s happened to Maine’s deer hunting all we want but that isn’t going to change what I see as an extremely disturbing trend in this deer hunting forecast.

Outdoor Life provides an entire page to all 50 states about their deer hunting forecasts. On that page is a graph that shows the deer harvest for each state over the past five years – 2006-2010. It doesn’t take a trained statistician to discover the overwhelming trend nationwide in deer harvest is falling considerably. There are a handful of states showing increases in harvest but overall, it’s very troubling from my perspective. This, I wouldn’t think, would not bode well for the future prospects of deer hunting regardless of the reasons for the distinct decline.

Tom Remington