Once again the talk is next to feverish about someone having seen a mountain lion in Maine and they have produced a photo as evidence.

An anonymous person gave this photo to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife claiming to have seen a mountain lion in the Sydney, Maine area. According to an article in the Sun Journal, Mark Latti of MDIFW says the photo is authentic but cannot confirm the animal in it is a mountain lion.

Officials are investigating the scene to measure the rocks and surrounding objects to help better put to scale the size of the animal in the photo. As is usual with lions, experts use the tail as the first positive indicator of a lion. A puma’s tale is long and a pretty definitive trait. None can be seen is this photo. Officials hope to also be able to find tracks and scat.

I certainly am no expert on identifying animals but I question that the animal is a mountain lion. Here are two photos. One is of a mountain lion, the other a Canada lynx. Granted the photos are a considerably different setting but it should give you an indication of some of the key features of each of the animals.

Mountain lion, cougar, puma, catamount – these are name common to the lion.

Markings and colorings on the Sydney photo don’t seem to match those of a mountain lion. It is difficult to say as some of the color variations could be caused by shadows, etc.

Either way, these sightings have gone on for decades and MDIFW officials still report that there are no wild mountain lions in Maine. Until it is easily proven that Maine has a breeding pair of lions, that status will remain.

Tom Remington

Actually, it should read, “Americans Beware the Fairness Doctrine”. Diane Feinstein and others are already talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was something the FCC began a long time ago because it felt that it needed to control what kind of news people heard. They mandated that news services provide both sides of issues in a fair and balanced manner.

As you can imagine, this was bad right from the beginning and almost immediately the FCC began tearing down their own doctrine. At different times in our history, those who believe government should control what we can see, hear and read, have tried unsuccessfully to reinstate the doctrine.

When the FD was created it was meant for television, newspapers, radio, etc.. The grumbling today from those who think conservative talk radio has an unfair advantage, is a means in which they want to censor free speech. This is completely contrary to our Constitution and the American way, yet politicians like Feinstein, John Kerry and others have either called for a complete implementation of the doctrine or some form of it.

The “New Media”, which includes us bloggers can and probably would be affected as well. There are those who recognize and understand the power of the Internet and in particular the so-called “citizen journalists” who have brought a completely new perspective on presenting the “news”.

As a blogger, do you want to have to go out and find someone with an opposing view in order to be able to express your opinion? If this kind of legislation passes, that’s exactly what we all may be having to do in short order. In other words, it would effectively kill the blogosphere, talk radio and any kind of insightful media.

Government and people like Feinstein and Kerry think you and I are stupid. They believe it is government’s responsibility to spoon feed its citizens their kind of news. This is censorship and another form of governmental brainwashing.

Part of the problem for those who favor the Fairness Doctrine is that they are seeing a growth in talk radio, television and Internet entities that oppose their views. It just so happens that much of these businesses are successful. It’s what people want to hear, see and read.

Talk America, a liberal biased radio talk show, has declared bankruptcy. Some say because of a poor business plan. Other say because content is bad and not enough people want to listen.

It doesn’t really matter which side of the aisle you land on as a blogger, if you enjoy what you’re doing, you cannot support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. If you have something to say and can put together a piece of written text that has interesting enough content, no matter what the slant, people will come and read it. If not, you’re sunk. That’s life.

Below is a press release issued by the office of Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana. Pence today is proposing legislation that will ensure that this Fairness Doctrine is not given a chance to be reinstated.

“The American people love a fair fight, especially where the issues of the day are debated. In a free market, fairness should be determined based upon equal opportunity, not equal results. As some voices are calling for Congress to enforce their idea of ‘fairness’ upon the American people, it would be good for us to proceed with caution whenever some would achieve their ‘fairness’ by limiting the freedom of others.

“Beginning in 1949, the Federal Communications Commission and its precursor developed and enforced the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. However, because of the lack of clarity in the Commission’s ruling, broadcasters opted to offer non-controversial programming in lieu of hours of paperwork or countless legal fees.

“Thankfully, the FCC began to overturn its own ruling on the Fairness Doctrine in 1985. And, following that change in policy by the FCC and President Reagan’s veto of attempts to reinstate it, the results have been dramatic. The lifting of the Fairness Doctrine has opened the public airwaves to free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues by individuals of all political stripes.

“Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation.

“Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called the ‘massive imbalance’ on the radio airwaves.

“Some elected officials have said that Congress should ‘deal with that problem’ and others are ‘looking at’ bringing back this outright regulation of the American political debate.

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.

“Congress must take action to ensure that this archaic remnant of a bygone era of American radio does not return. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.

“During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty. It is with this in mind that I will introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

“The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.

“John F. Kennedy stated, ‘We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.’”

Contact your representative and tell them you value free speech and not censorship.

Tom Remington

Now there’s a headline you’re not going to see very often, if at all. It’s also one that will rile the dander of just about every anti-hunter and animal rights group that believe humans should take a back seat to animals and let them run nilly-willy over the countryside.

All we ever hear about these days when it comes to human/wild animal encounters is how man is encroaching on wildlife and that we are to blame for forcing these poor innocent creatures into our backyards to eat our garbage, kill our pets and attack children.

What if it’s not our fault? What if the cause of these increases in coyote attacks in New Jersey and bear attacks in Utah, Pennsylvania and Kentucky were just the result of too many animals?

Don’t get me wrong. I do think that we are building far too many homes and developing too many areas that once was fine habitat for many species of wildlife but if we are to blame ourselves for these attacks, maybe we should consider that we have done such a great job managing our game and wildlife that we now have too many.

I’ve written several articles of late concerning bear attacks on humans. The latest being that of 11-year old Samuel Ives in Utah while camping with family. One particular article, “Expert Advice On Dealing With Black Bears“, relates to an article written in the Bangor Daily News by John Holyoke about how to deal with black bears. Holyoke talked with Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife field expert on bears, Randy Cross.

In that article, I took issue with a comment cross made about the frequency of bear attacks.

“I think it’s remote out there [in Utah] as well,” he said. “It’s not like it happens five times a year or even five times in a decade. We’re talking about something that happens less than five times in a century … almost anywhere you want to go.”

The article began a mini debate. Reader Richard Paradis wanted to know if I had links to support my claim that bear attacks occurred far more often than Cross suggested. I had forgotten to include the links in the original story and added them later in the comments section. Here again are those links.

Southeastern Outdoors, where they claim that there have been 52 known fatal black bear attacks in North America in the last 100 years.

Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Washington. This article claims there have been 45 black bear deaths since 1900.

Ithaca37, another Black Bear Blog reader wrote:

It is not as much bans on hunting as it is urban sprawl that has led to increased human-wild animal contacts. As people push farther[sic] out into “the woods”, the less space there is for wildlife.

The fact that there have been more attacks recently doesn’t mean anything unless you look at urban sprawl and what has happened to the number of national park visitors. I do not know if there are more people visiting national parks or not, but until someone can demonstrate that there has not been a significant change in other factors there can be no positive link between number of bear attacks and hunting bans.

I responded to Ithaca37 that there had to be some degree of a correlation between encroachment and the closing of hunting lands by landowners sprawling further out into the woods, resulting in less hunting opportunities. With less hunting comes an increase in bear populations.

Paradis, having some kind of trouble last evening posting further comments, sent me an email with information in it about bear populations and changes in hunting regulations.

The argument here is whether or not bears are encroaching on us or we are encroaching on them. Paradis points out an article that appears in the Foggy Mountain Guide Service website that was written by Craig McLaughlin, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist, Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The statewide population was estimated at 6,000-9,000 in 1979, and season restrictions were implemented to guard against over harvests. By 1984, improved information on bear densities yielded a revised statewide estimate of 18,000 bears. The 1985 population was estimated at 21,000 bears, but renewed interest in hunting and escalating harvests during the late 1980s reduced the population to 18,000 bears by 1989.

Additional restrictions on hunting season length have increased bear survival during the 1990s, and the population increased to 22,000-23,000 bears in 1998.

I’ll revert back to the Bangor Daily News piece in which Cross points out that Maine probably has fewer human/bear encounters because of hunting pressure that helps instill that fear of man by bears.

“The biggest problem I think you have with bears becoming dangerous are bears that have lost their fear of humans,” Cross said. “The habituation of bears usually begins with inadvertent feeding of bears and escalates from there. But once bears have lost their fear of humans, they’re a much more dangerous animal at that point.”

Cross said Maine’s hunting heritage may be a factor in reducing bear-human contact here, in that the most aggressive, bold bears are generally among the bruins that are shot each year.

Doesn’t this further explain why there are increased human/bear encounters in areas where bears are not hunted than in those that aren’t? Maine has a relatively small human population in proportion to land mass but one of the largest black bear populations in the U.S. One would think Maine would have more bear/human attacks than most other states.

Even to further confirm the 23,000 bear population estimate for Maine, back in 2004 during the big bear hunting referendum debate, opponents of that initiative put together a television commercial in which Jennifer Vashon, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, made the following statement.

“I’m Jennifer Vashon, the state’s bear biologist. Maine’s bear population is healthy and growing. Today we have over 23,000 black bears – one of the largest bear populations in the country. Our bear hunt is highly regulated and closely monitored by wildlife experts”.

We have to ask ourselves who’s encroaching on whom? As Paradis pointed out in his email, a 400% increase in bear numbers is huge.

I believe the fact that we have nearly a 400% increase in bear population in Maine over a relatively short period of time to be the most significant cause.

Cause, is referring to the cause for human/bear encounter increases.

Maine is only one case. I have no statistics on other states as far as increases in bear populations. On the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources website, officials estimate the black bear population at between 2,000 and 4,000.

Bunnell says Utah’s black bear population numbers between 2,000 to 4,000 bears. “While that may sound like a lot of bears, our bear population is actually small compared to many other states,” he says.

Bunnell says bears can be found in almost any mountainous area in Utah.

There is one other issue to address in which Ithaca37 brought up. This was the one of whether there was any increase in visitors to National Parks that would add to the increase in bear/human encounters.

Paradis pointed out an article published in the Portland Press Herald in July of 2006 that states that visits to Maine’s parks have taken a sharp decline and that it is a reflection of the trend nationwide.

Use of Maine’s two premier parks – Baxter State Park and Acadia National Park – has fallen sharply since 2000, a drop that mirrors national trends and is blamed by some on an exploding preoccupation with the Internet and entertainment media………

Attendance at Acadia dropped 20 percent during the same period, from 2.5 million to 2 million…….

The study found that park attendance increased nationally from 1939 to 1987. The steady decline since then has accompanied an explosion in electronic entertainment.

If this is true, then isn’t this further evidence that there are more bears, perhaps more than officials estimate and that there is far more competition among the animals for food and good habitat forcing them more into our back yards and campsites?

I’ll say it again. We need to slow down the sprawl and building of homes in the middle of wildlife habitat but we also need to stop completely blaming human encroachment on wildlife as the only cause for increased human/wildlife encounters.

We do a great job overall in managing our wild animals, perhaps too good. Demand is increasing from U.S. citizens to be able to drive around a view wildlife. With better science and management skills, decreased access to land for hunting, urban sprawl and development and continued insistence by anti-hunting and animal rights groups to ban hunting and trapping, this trend toward human/animal conflict will continue to rise. With this rise, fish and game officials will have to more closely monitor wildlife populations and manage accordingly.

I want to thank Richard Paradis for taking the time to email me the links with the very helpful information on them.

Tom Remington

Six-year old Silas Faria of Waldoboro wandered away from a party at a neighbor’s camp on Route 32 in Waldoboro at around 11:00 a.m. yesterday. The Maine Warden Service was notified at around 11:30 and a search began that involved the Warden Service, the Lincoln County Sheriffs Office, Maine State Police, Waldoboro Police, Waldoboro Fire, Bristol Fire Department and approximately 30 volunteers.

Maine Warden Mark Merrifield and his K-9 partner Aspen began tracking Silas and was able to find him at approximately 4:20 that same afternoon. Faria was checked out by emergency medical personnel on the scene and then was released to his family.

Tom Remington

A couple weeks ago I received an email from Whit Richardson, staff writer for MaineBiz.biz. He told me he was doing a story about Maine rivers, including the Upper Androscoggin. Through his research and I think mostly talking with Wende Gray, he learned that I had grown up living on the Androscoggin in East Bethel.

We played phone tag for a few days until finally we connected. I spent nearly two hours on the phone talking with Whit and sharing much of what I had experienced as a child living on the river when it was literally an open cesspool. Today, that same river is teeming with fish, the water is mostly clean and people are beginning to discover what it has to offer.

Whit put together an article that touches on aspects of all three of Maine’s largest rivers – Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot. Of course his focus, being the writer for a Maine business oriented magazine, is on how these three rivers can benefit the citizens of Maine economically.

Richardson talks with several people who have at least some degree of influence and knowledge of how these three rivers have in the past and are currently benefiting Maine people. The real question now becomes, what does the future hold?

Much of the talk these days is about how to lure the “deep pockets” of wealthy fly fishermen. While I agree that Maine needs to focus attention on luring the money-spending fishermen that will be a benefit to many businesses throughout Maine, we need to make sure this isn’t done at the expense of other aspects of fishing. More on that in a moment.

The goal, says Bill Pierce, a marketing specialist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is to create a brand around the Androscoggin and the Kennebec. Both are big rivers that are close to a big marketplace — in this case, the entire Northeast as far south as the Mason-Dixon line — and they have the tourist infrastructures already in place to offer a comfortable vacation, as well as options for non-fishing members of a family.

Pierce draws parallels to the Madison River in Montana or the Yellowstone River that snakes through Montana and Wyoming. “Those are brands in the angling community that are highly regarded, like Apple and Microsoft are highly recognized brands in the computer industry,” Pierce says. “If we create that energy around the upper Andro and the Kennebec, we will establish those as brands and people will come and spend money and they will have an economic benefit.”

I have a lot of respect for Bill Pierce and I believe he has done a remarkable job marketing Maine’s outdoor industry with very limited funds. I agree that we can draw some parallels with our rivers in Maine to the Madison and Yellowstone, but we will never be those for several reasons. That shouldn’t however hinder our efforts to continue to promote the assets each of our three major rivers hold.

Phil Monahan, editor of American Angler magazine in Bennington, Vermont put it this way.

Maine has the best fly fishing in New England, and could certainly become a regional paradise for anglers if it promoted itself more. But he doesn’t think the upper Androscoggin or the Kennebec will ever have the allure a river like the Yellowstone does for anglers. “Fly fishing tourism to a certain extent depends on a sense of romance for the angler,” Monahan says. “You just say ‘the Yellowstone’ to any fly fisherman and it conjures up images. I don’t know how the town of Bethel can generate that same kind of excitement.”

Whether Maine’s rivers are a draw to tourists or not and how much that will translate into revenue for struggling businesses remains to be seen. There are two issues that I see that are stumbling blocks for those eager to promote these rivers.

Be assured that not all Mainers want to see the rivers used more. Maine is a unique state in that many of her people are very eager to keep Maine as it is today or perhaps see it regress twenty or thirty years. Without the support of the majority of the people, promoting the rivers for tourism is that much harder.

The second issue is one that I touched on briefly before – promoting the river at the expense of others. Some sportsmen, as well as tourism officials, believe that it is the “Orvis” or “Cabela’s” or the “L.L. Bean” fly fishermen that has deep pockets and will save Maine by bringing in the big spenders to fish our native brook trout and associated waters. Whether that can and will happen, I haven’t a clue but it can’t be done at the expense of shutting down the rest of the fishing industry or at a minimum, giving it the short end of the stick.

As pressure mounts from groups promoting fly fishing as the end all to the fishing industry, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is facing decisions on regulation of its waters. For the fly fisherman searching for the ultimate experience, he wants a “Yellowstone” river. This means managing that body of water for that purpose and that purpose only. When this is done, it shuts out a bigger majority of spin-casting or general law fishermen, including a lot of kids.

Fishing is a big industry that involves many aspects and disciplines. It requires a balancing act by fish and game to do what is right in both managing fisheries for science and regulating waters to benefit all anglers, which in turn fires the economy.

Even if it is determined that Maine can benefit financially from promoting its waters as a destination fly-fishing haven, we can’t shut down the rest of the fishing industry to promote just that niche. We have to find the right balance.

One thing is for sure though. However one views the best way to take advantage of the waters of the Androscoggin, the Kennebec and the Penobsot, none of this will much matter if we don’t all do our part to keep these rivers clean and accessible to the public.

Tom Remington

Outdoor writer and fisherman Ken Allen takes a trip down the Upper Androscoggin River in Western Maine with Maine registered guide, William Clunie of Dixfield. Their trip included a raft trip and fishing from Gilead to West Bethel.

Not only does Allen find the trip one of the most scenic he’s been on but he also finds a surprise or two in the waters. Read about his adventure and I’m sure you’ll be itching to wet a line or two on this remarkable body of water that offers beauty, relative peace and quiet, bountiful wildlife and a minimum of 5 species of game fish.

Tom Remington

I’ve provided some links and comments to several bear encounter stories, many of them being recent. The most recent was the story of Samuel Ives being dragged out of his tent by a black bear while camping in Utah.

When incidents like this happen, all too often in my opinion officials downplay the seriousness of the potential dangers all of us face while being out in bear country. Should we stay inside and let fear stop us from enjoying being outside? Of course not. We just need to be better educated in how to deal with bears and share the same woods.

Just the other day, a dad killed a bear with a stick of firewood after it attacked one of his kids. In that case, officials say the bear was lured to the campsite because of improper handling, care and storage of food. The father received a $75 fine for not adhering to the rules.

With these stories making headlines all across the country, many media outlets have decided to go find their sources of “experts” who are willing to give some advice. John Holyoke, outdoor writer for the Bangor Daily News, went and talked with Randy Cross, Maine’s field expert on black bear management for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

You can read Holyoke’s article here which includes information about black bear habits and things you can do to reduce the chances of encountering a bear in the woods, while camping or in your own back yard.

I will have to take issue with one comment that Cross makes about the frequency of bear attacks in the U.S.

“I think it’s remote out there [in Utah] as well,” he said. “It’s not like it happens five times a year or even five times in a decade. We’re talking about something that happens less than five times in a century … almost anywhere you want to go.”

From the information I have read, there have been 49 recorded incidents of death resulting from the attack of just black bears in North America. 29 of those deaths have been since 1990. This is far more than 5 in a century, unless of course Cross was referring only to Maine of which I am not sure.

Regardless, bear attacks resulting in death are not real common but they do happen and are happening more frequently these days. So, spend some time and learn a bit more or refresh your knowledge about bears and how to deal with them.

Tom Remington

I have written often about the attempt at mixing politics with the science of wildlife management. A couple of questions that continuously pop up is how do you avoid politics when it comes to decisions on wildlife management and if there is any room for such politics how much is enough and who decides?

I think it would be safe to say that it is virtually impossible to create a situation where no politics existed in any fish and game department. Having said that, we have to figure out how much is enough.

All states are set up a bit differently when it comes to wildlife management. Some states have their own separate department, while others are part of a bigger department, often a department of environmental affairs or natural resources.

Within these departments often the wildlife managers, including biologists, are manged by the same head person who oversees conservation officers or more times than not affectionately referred to as game wardens.

Depending on how a particular state functions, the head of the fish and game has certain authority over specific tasks involving fish and game. Usually this would entail setting bag limits or seasons on game animals. New laws to help regulate fish and game aspects most of the time come from the legislative branch. These laws can be proposed by the fish and game department, legislators and/or citizens.

In a previous article I wrote about the reasons why we have wildlife laws. I also explained how that every day more laws are being proposed that are not based on science, public safety, etc., but on ethics and views from those living a progressive lifestyle who deem hunting, trapping and fishing to be inhumane, unnecessary or just passe. We also are seeing a strong upsurge in efforts by special interest groups within the sporting community sometimes at the expense of other special interests. It is these forms of politics that are interfering with good sound wildlife management.

But what happens when it seems that an entire fish and game department has focused its resources on the promotion of its own political agenda? When this happens, science gets put on the back burner in place of promoting personal beliefs. If the head honcho for the fish and game department becomes a strong advocate for the preservation of wildlife and has very little support for game harvesting practices, how does this affect the sportsmen of that state? How do we prevent that from happening?

For too long I think hunters, trappers and fishermen have had it relatively easy. But today when participation in these outdoor pursuits is dwindling, land access is shrinking and more and more people believe that animals have more rights than humans, we are faced with a constant fight to keep what we have. We have to become more active and more outspoken.

Two things have happened because of the complacency of hunters. Animal rights groups have found holes in our defenses and they have worked to exploit those to promote their agenda to rid the country of hunting, trapping, fishing and any recreational activity that involves animals.

The other thing is wildlife agencies, in other words biologists, wildlife managers, including conservation officers, have been able to work unchecked by us sportsmen and as such have gotten away with things that perhaps they shouldn’t have.

A line has to be drawn somewhere as to how politically involved fish and game personnel can and should be in addressing issues concerning wildlife management. It is commonplace for the head person at the fish and game or a designated representative, to appear at a hearing about discussion concerning a proposed law to answer questions and even voice support or opposition to this bill and the reason for such a position. Is it alright for that same person to actively campaign for or against a bill outside of their professional scope?

Of course we can’t tell an employee they can’t participate in political activities on their own time but how far should we allow them to go when in uniform on government time? Here’s an example. Let’s say a group of citizens decided to bring a citizen’s initiative for a statewide vote to end bear hunting. This is not unusual because we have seen this play out in several states in the past few years.

Should we expect the state’s fish and game department to publicly state support or opposition to such an initiative? I believe that in most cases this would be considered an acceptable practice. What if an officer of the fish and game department attended meetings with the groups sponsoring the initiative? Or attended meetings with organized groups in opposition to the initiative?

In other words, should taxpayer dollars be used to send a representative of fish and game, let’s say using government transportation, to a meeting of the group who is the main sponsor of the bear hunting referendum? Should that officer be permitted to actively participate with groups that are for or against such legislation? Could this become a huge advantage in that a particular group could have access to privileged information?

Some states have guidelines that prohibit fish and game employees from actively participating in political activities while on duty or with state-own vehicles, equipment or buildings. But there are documented cases where this has gone on in the past. What is being done about it? Is this something you have seen? If so, report it.

With such a polarization these days as a result of more and more people speaking out on issues, this leaves our fish and game personnel in a bit of a bind. As more and more wildlife issues are being debated from the position of ethics and social standing, we are going to have a dilemma on our hands.

I think the simple days of counting game and deciding how long a hunting season was going to be has gone by the wayside. I believe that with more and more special interests garnering large sums of money for support will completely upset the balance of our wildlife management policies. No longer will biologists be able to tell their boss the recommendations they believe should be employed as part of a game management plan. Politics will bore its way into the planning, threatening to derail all the efforts that have been put into management plans over the last several decades.

States are fortunate when they have leaders of fish and game departments who believe that maintaining a healthy game population while at the same time providing opportunities for hunters, trappers and fishermen to harvest that same game, is in the best interest of our people. Everyday we see more and more wildlife managers going the way of the anti-hunters and animal rights groups and abandoning the original mission of fish and game to provide game animals for hunting, etc.

The pressures placed on these leaders from such groups have caused many to cave in to their wishes and sportsmen are suffering for it. Our investment through license fees goes up and the benefits in return have diminished.

Sportsmen have to unite, even the special interest sportsmen. We have to become more vocal, more organized and more powerful in order to fight against the forces working against us. We have to send a clear message to fish and game personnel that they are under our microscope and we will not tolerate personal agendas and politicking at our expense.

At the same time a clear and focused sportsmen organization will let the animal rights groups and anti-hunting, anti-gun people know we aren’t going to just go away. We are here to fight.

So ask yourself again many of the questions I have posed here today as to where we should draw the line with politics and wildlife management. How should our license dollars be spent? How do we fight the onslaught from special interest groups? How can we better halt the increase in politics that force the hand of wildlife managers?

Remember nearly everyone of these fish and game employees wouldn’t have a job if we didn’t pay our license fees. They are commissioned by the state to manage our wildlife for everyone and provide opportunities for hunting, trapping and fishing. They work for us and we should begin again to act as though they do.

Tom Remington

I would say for at least ten years now I have talked about one day having the time and money to travel through every corner of Maine taking photographs and meeting and talking with real Maine people in order to compile a photographic essay about life in Maine. I had figured out the title shortly after the state of Maine tourism people coined the slogan, “Maine, The Way Life’s Supposed to Be”. My title was going to be “Maine, The Way Life Is”.

Well, to date I don’t have the time yet nor the money to back me. I actually think I might be a bit late as well because I recall my wife saying something to me about someone else using that same title for a similar project. Such is life…….in Maine!

Yesterday, I was traveling south from Bethel. My wife wanted to visit southern Maine and maybe take a small detour down memory lane for her. She said she wanted to revisit Higgins Beach, a place where she hung out with family and friends during her high school years.

We ended up taking a few side trips visiting other places that were part of her past – Deering High School and her old home nearby.

On the ride down I got to thinking and decided that it may be years before I ever get to do my photo journal journey, so why not take pictures of some of the trips we take while summering in our home state.

Below is a small sampling of photos I took yesterday that I thought would show only one tiny side of Maine, the way life is.

I hope you enjoy them and I will make every effort to continue this series of my meanderings this summer.

A young entrepreneur sells his wares on a street leading toward the beach. I particularly was attracted to the architecture of the lemonade stand. After studying it for a while, my wife and I determined that it was purpose built.

For those who haven’t been to Higgins Beach, it is a remarkable small Maine coastal community and unique in several ways. What makes Higgins Beach unusual these days is that it has remained much like it always was – small cottages with little or no commercialism.

Unfortunately for us tourists and thrilling for the residents, it’s not very “tourist” friendly. What I mean by that is there is no place to park to get to the beach. So if you’re going, plan to walk quite a distance to get there.

As we walked down the street to get to the beach, we came across this very friendly woman who was out manicuring an absolutely gorgeous flower bed, complete with stunning poppies.

Once onto the beach, we walked the length of it coming across this architectural design by two women enjoying the day at the beach. I was most intrigued by the keeper of the gate into the castle.

From the far end of the beach sat this quaint looking little shack. To be real honest, I couldn’t tell if anyone was living there or not. There were a few boats tied up to the dock in front of it though.

We left Higgins Beach and headed down east toward Cape Elizabeth. We took a slight detour and ended up at Fort Williams, location of the Portland Head Light.

As are most New England lighthouses, the Portland Head Light if photographed my thousands of people each year.

A bronzed plaque that is mounted on a large stone on the south side of the lighthouse reads as follows:
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow often walked from Portland to visit this Lighthouse. The Keepers were his friends and it is believed he sat here for inspiration for his poem, “The Lighthouse”.
“Sail on sail on ye stately ships.
And with your floating bridge
the ocean span.
Be mine to guard this light
from all eclipse.
Be yours to bring man near
unto man.”

Navigating the rugged rocks of Fort Williams Park, these two eager fishermen hope for some unsuspecting fish while standing in the shadow of the the Portland Head Light.

Make sure to check out Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI.

Tom Remington

11-year old Samuel Ives was camping at the head of American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest with his family when a black bear snatched him from a tent and dragged him some 400 yards where his body was found having been mauled to death by the bear.

Earlier that same day, another camper had reported to officials that a bear had attacked him through his tent, even biting and ripping a pillow and lugging it off. There are differing reports as to what park officials did in response to that bear encounter.

One report yesterday claimed that officials notified some of the other campers in that area that there was a bear that had been spotted. In a report today, Jim Karpowitz, Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources director, said officials searched for the bear all day on Sunday.

That policy includes aggressively hunting bears believed to be dangerous, says Karpowitz. And it’s one reason there has never been a fatal black bear incident until now, he adds. In fact, he says wildlife officials had already spent a day actively hunting the bear that would kill 11-year old Samuel Ives later Sunday night. Immediately after the incident, Karpowitz says additional hunters and dogs went after the bear and killed it Monday morning.

Officials have stated that there are existing signs warning campers of the existence of bears, etc. But there seems to have been some confusion as to what transpired after the early Sunday morning encounter leading up to the fatal attack on Sam Ives. A report from ABC4.com, tells a story of perhaps a poorly communicated report of a bear encounter.

An examination of the stomach contents of the bear shot by officers in American Fork Canyon confirmed it mauled the Ives boy. If they had not found the killer bear officials said they would have closed off sections of the forest to campers until they did.

Rangers did post warning signs around the campsites but admit they would have taken more precautions if they had known the seriousness of the bear activity that had occurred before the deadly attack. “It was reported as only a brush by,” Logan said. “Not the detail of what that really was.”

Samuel Ives grandfather, Eldon Ives, says he blames forestry officials for not alerting the family of the bear encounter earlier in the day.

The grandfather of an 11-year-old boy who was killed by a black bear blamed federal foresters today for not warning that the animal had harassed another group of campers at the same site hours earlier.

“We’re hoping that the Forest Service will do a better job protecting campers. It’s been like a surreal nightmare,” Eldon Ives told reporters at a news conference on his front lawn.

“The violent way he was taken is a sorrow that will never heal,” Ives said.

But officials continue to blame food as the reason for the attack. Eldon Ives stated emphatically there was no food in the family tent that would have attracted the bear.

ABC4.com in their report says that Uinta National Forest officials blame the attack on dirty campers who don’t take care of their food.

“It’s usually the person who pays the price did not cause the problem, it’s prior camp experiences the black bear has had with dirty campers,” said Uinta National Forest Service District Ranger John Logan. “Wildlife fear humans and stay away from humans. It’s just when they have these food familiarities that we have problems.”

Logan says that once a bear samples these leftovers, etc. the bear’s natural fear of humans disappears and because of that sometimes bears will attack humans looking for food.

So, are we to assume that bears will attack humans out of anger now that they have no fear of us? Is this anger born because the bear come looking for food and don’t find it, so they take it out on whomever happens to be handy? If the bear was that hungry, would it eat the human?

Whatever the answers are to those questions, people need to understand that although the majority of the time they are relatively safe in the woods and while camping. There are things that can be done to reduce those odds. One is to protect yourself. Arm yourself as a way to protect you and your family. Do take care of food. Don’t toss unwanted items into the woods or leave them laying around. Don’t leave or toss unwanted items into your fire pit either. Wash up all dirty dishes immediately when finished cooking.

All these things and more will help but most importantly never assume that a bear will always flee from you because they are more scared of you than you are of it. Most people never see bears in the wild for that reason but under the right circumstances, any wild animal will attack. It could be pushed by hunger, protection reaction, disease or a host of other reasons. All wildlife needs to be respected and treated as though it could potentially be dangerous.

Tom Remington