Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn’t trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska’s state constitution and laws throughout the West, as “socialism.” It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.

You must read the entire article for context.

Personally, I think there is a lot of shallow thinking and ignorance surrounding this topic and the use of the word socialism has been foisted for emotional reaction, which it appears Peay has gotten.

So let’s hear it. Read the article and then let’s hear the ups and downs of a “public resource” versus “private resource”, the models in the true and intended sense and what things influence the administration of those models.

Have at it!

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

For many of us, a continuous battle wages on to reeducate the indoctrinated wildlife managers who have been enslaved by the intellectuals. In doing so, we must gain a better understanding of who it is we are battling against and why they say and do the things they do.

In the article I described above and in a more recent article, I spoke of a definite “divide” that exists between the hunter/field person and the wildlife managers. This divide, which prohibits the honest dissemination of wildlife management information, is at least partially attributed to the elitist separation of the intellectual from the “common man”.

As Sowell describes, the intellectuals “create and disseminate” ideas. Ideas are not scientific equations substantiated with hard data. They are ideas. Ideas about wildlife management seems to have taken a strong rooting in wildlife management while hard and proven science takes a back seat. Hunters in the field see the truth of what is taking place in the field and it does not necessarily match the ideas of the intellectuals who are responsible for the indoctrination of the biologists. The divide widens.

Over a year ago I called for efforts between the sportsmen and the managers to work at tearing down these ridiculous walls that divide us. Little has changed. While it is still important to fight the good fight, perhaps the realization exists that there is little hope of “changing” the intellectual.

I am currently reading Eric Hoffer’s book, “The Syndicated News Articles”. In the late 1960s, Hoffer wrote The Syndicated News. This book is a compilation of many of his thoughts, ideas and commentary on the events of the day. Interesting as each and every article is, much of what he writes is applicable to today.

I have taken the time to type out one article called, “The Definition of an Intellectual”. I believe it to be important to help us gain a better understanding of this one man’s perspective on what an intellectual is and how they affect all of us. With a better understanding we equip ourselves with improved tools to get our jobs done.

Here is: The Definition of an Intellectual

February 16, 1969 – By Eric Hoffer in his book “The Syndicated News Articles” – Hopewell Publications, LLC

The intellectual knows with every fiber of his being that men are not equal, and there are few things he cares for less than a classless society. He is convinced that government is too weighty and complex to be left to common people. He cannot see how anything originating in an uninformed, unprincipled and uncommitted populace could be of any value. There is nothing he loathes more than government by and for the people.

Denial to the extent of which coyotes can present themselves still runs rampant in this country. What it will take to alter the ignorant repertoire of repeated rhetoric remains a riddle. Consider the following stories from the perspective of interesting to unbelievable.

In California, a jogger, with his two Yorkie mix dogs, is attacked by a coyote. However, a horseback rider nearby spots the attacking coyote and intervenes. As we have come to expect, “authorities” exclaim the rarity of the event.

In late October I reported on the results of a new study that shows that coyotes and wolves have interbred and migrated to many parts of the country. The National Geographic files it’s own story on the report. In the National Geographic piece, the author writes:

Scientists have not yet studied the behaviors of the Virginian hybrids to see if they’re killing bigger wildlife or otherwise changing the ecosystem, Bozarth added.

While it may or may not be true that “scientists” haven’t performed any “studies” to determine that these coyotes, hybrids, wolves, “wolfies” or whatever you choose to call them, are killing bigger prey, those of us in the field know this has been going on for decades.

Which brings us to the incredible part of this report. On the website “Deer and Deer Hunting” a very long (sorry) series of photos, taken from a trail camera, shows coyotes killing a mature buck in Oklahoma. Although the number of photos, posted sequentially, is a bit tiresome to click through, I would recommend reviewing them as it will educate a lot of people to a lot of things about how those little ole “doggies” can take down a full grown deer. It’s not that difficult.

The photos begin on August 1, 2011 at 18:48 (6:48 p.m.) and concludes a few days later. The buck deer in the photos, sports an impressive rack of antlers of 10-points and although I am not the best at estimating live weights, my experience in deer hunting over the past 50 years tells me this buck probably weighed live around 180 – 200 pounds.

At 22:08 (10:08 p.m.), the same day, the first photo appears with what is visible as one coyote. The deer is on his feet and staring intently at his enemy. At no time in any of these pictures can I spot more than 3 coyotes. However, I have no idea how many participated in the kill. Interestingly enough, the photos also show never more than one coyote at a time attacking the buck. This, of course, does not tell us this didn’t take place.

The attack commences. I will warn readers that in time the photos become a bit graphic but should not be a deterrent to those wishing to educate themselves to the truths of predator/prey relationships.

The photos will show that in about an hour both the coyotes and the deer are tiring as tongues and mouths are agape. At 23:07 (11:07 p.m.) the buck either lays down on his own (which is what I’m concluding) or the coyotes have taken him down. The photos do not show this.

At 23:25 (11:25 p.m.), the buck gets back up onto his feet, which is why I conclude both predators and prey needed a rest, and the battle rages on. The photos clearly show how the buck was attacked from the rear, chewing holes in his rump and going after the annal area. You can also note bite marks, some quite large, near the deer’s belly and underside. Blood becomes more prevalent as the buck weakens and the coyotes persist.

At 00:15 (12:15 a.m. on August 2, 2011) the buck is down with two coyotes eating at the rear end. The below photo, taken at 00:24 (12:24 a.m.), shows the buck down, still with some fight left in him and presumed agony as he is being eaten alive, while two coyotes begin feeding. If you will note in this picture (you may have to click to enlarge a bit) in the background darkness, to the left of the small tree near the opening where the battle took place, is what appears to be a third set of coyote eyes. I was not able to spot more than three coyotes at anytime in the photos, the third being eyes.

At 11:04 the next morning (daylight) vultures are seen having a feed. The final picture in this series shows the owner of the trail camera, holding what was left of that 10-point buck when he returned to the site of his trail camera and retrieved the photos. I also do not know how long after Aug. 2nd that he retrieved his pictures.

I guess money can be saved by scrapping any notions of conducting studies to determine if coyotes or hybrids are attacking larger prey, as these photos clearly show it to be fact and the process and length of time to get the job done.

Now I need to ask readers. Does this buck in this picture look like “only the weak and sickly” of the species as is claimed by the ignorant as the only prey coyotes and wolves take?

Tom Remington

A Woodland Incident
by Dave Miller

Two days ago as I was driving on the Bowtown Road near Basin Mountain, Pierce Pond TWP [Maine] a friend and I found an unusual incident had occurred. A Great Blue Heron had been caught and killed by three coyotes. The tale of what had happened was in the snow, as no other vehicle had yet driven on the road.
For about a mile we observed three sets of coyote tracks in the road, then all of a sudden one had taken off with a burst of speed, bounding through the snow. Up ahead we saw feathers and blood in the snow. As we drove up to the spot the size of attack lead us to assume it was likely a turkey, but as we looked at the feathers it was evident they were not of a turkey. They were slate gray and part of a wing including two large and long connected bones confirmed that it was not a turkey. It appeared to possibly be that of a Great Blue Heron. The attack took place in a flooded area on the left side of the road. A few hundred yards up the road we discovered the head and part of the neck of the Great Blue Heron. It was possible our arrival had scared off the coyotes as all the sign was fresh.
It is evident that the coyote not only has damaged our deer herd and snowshoe hare populations, but is taking many other species of wildlife that we all love.

Dave Miller

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?

Unfortunately, four of the five wolves carried the tapeworm echinococcus granulosus and in two of those cases, the wolves’ intestines were heavily infested. George Dovel, editor of The Outdoors offered the following comment:

It is worth noting that of the four lower intestines examined by WSU’s William Foreyt from four wolves taken in or near Elk City in Idaho GMU 15, which also includes the Idaho County Seat of Grangeville, all contained a significant quantity of E. Granulosus tapeworms. According to the following letters/reports from Foreyt, one contained several hundred, a second contained 4,000+ and the other two contained 10,000+ each. Both the large and small intestine were missing from a fifth wolf carcass shot on June 26th.

Back in 2006, studies in which the Idaho Fish and Game Department covered up, showed that 2/3 of the wolves tested at that time were infested with E.G. tapeworms.

Click on this link and download a copy of the necropsy results. I’ve also provide a Google map that might help show readers the region around Elk City. On the map, Elk City is the red balloon.

Tom Remington

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