I got a telephone call one day from Les Otten, owner of Sunday River Ski Resort. He wanted to know if I could meet him at his office. When I arrived he was on the telephone heavily engaged in a telephone conservation concerning the sale of several new condominiums being constructed on the mountain. Twenty-five years ago, a few hundred thousand dollars was a lot of money. I waited.

Les wanted to know if I was interested in building on an addition to one of his ski lodges. We walked around the building and peered under a deck where the addition would go, both of us raising several questions about the existing structure. Soon, with Les in his work clothes (dress slacks and dress shirt) and I in mine (grubs), we were both crawling on our bellies through the dust, gravel, weeds, debris and just about everything else one might have the pleasure of finding under a heavily traveled ski lodge deck. I did make a couple of comments about our adventure but I’ll refrain from posting them here.

I’ve told that story more than one time but as I was thinking more about it this morning after getting off the phone with Les, that action actually is a pretty good characterization of him. Here’s a man who could have sat in the comfort of his clean office but instead did not hesitate to roll up his sleeves and get dirty.

I’ve known Les for perhaps 30-plus years and during that time he has given unselfishly to his community. Time and space will not permit the endless list of how he has impacted the people in his home town and surrounding area.

Les Otten is a businessman who understands many things, among them tourism, promotion, marketing, investment, providing a viable product and operating within a budget. Whoever resides in the Blaine House will face daunting tasks and challenges. I believe he is up for the challenge and can put together the right people to make it all happen.

One huge undertaking will be the financial shortfall of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, a depleted whitetail deer herd, an overgrown population of coyotes and other predators, and environmental groups eager to make a living serving up lawsuits to stop hunting, trapping and fishing. The hunting, fishing, trapping and general outdoor recreation brings millions of dollars into Maine each year. The next governor has got to find a way to tidy up fish and game and make sure that those running it are in sync with the mission.

True to character, Otten will “roll up his sleeves and get dirty” on this issue.

All of the United States is at a crossroad. Things are changing and many of us don’t care for the direction it is going. If there’s one weapon we have as free Americans it is the right to vote. That’s where we can begin to push back.

Outdoor sportsmen can be independent people. We love to be outside, in the forests, on the water, enjoying the peace and quiet and the beauty God gave us. But to protect that, we have to give a bit more than we take sometimes. I’m asking every sportsman in Maine to make it a point to vote on June 8, 2010. Vote for the candidate(s) that you believe best represent your ideals. Finding the right people is extremely important at every level of government. Don’t wait to see who comes out on top. Be the one who puts your candidate at the top.

Tom Remington

The Aroostook County Conservation Association and many other volunteers worked tirelessly to gather thousands of signatures to put on a petition that requested that Governor John Baldacci of Maine take immediate action to stop the seeming decimation of the whitetail deer herd that’s taking place in Northern, Eastern and portions of Western Maine. In the absence of Maine Rep. Bernard Ayotte (Caswell), the petition was delivered to the governor by Maine Rep. Peter Edgecomb (Caribou) back in February.

According to a letter composed by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Deputy Commissioner, Paul Jacques, and dated April 2, 2010, Rep. Bernard Ayotte composed a letter to the department on March 8, 2010 seeking an update as to the status of the State’s application for an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it would pertain to trapping in Canada Lynx designated critical habitat. Jacques’ response was varied, covering a plethora of items he lists as all the things his department is doing to stave off the continued destruction of Maine’s whitetail deer herd. Time and space prohibits addressing all issues but I would like to take the time to clarify at least one item that seems to always get left out of discussions. To do this requires some brief history.

In 2006, an organization called the Animal Protection Institute (API) filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), (API v. Martin), claiming essentially that the allowance of trapping in Canada lynx designated critical habitat areas was causing undue harm against the lynx and was a violation of the Endangered Species Act. (This lawsuit and others followed after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed a decision and declared the lynx an endangered species in portions of Maine and at the same time defining protected areas of habitat.)

On October 4, 2007 a Consent Decree was reached through the court between MDIFW and API. That decree put limitations on trapping in lynx habitat areas.

The Decree required the Commissioner to impose restrictions on trapping in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11

Keep in mind that the Consent Degree applies to the Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) listed above. In addition to certain restrictions on leg-hold traps, cage traps and killer traps in the ten named zones, the decree banned snaring.

The Commissioner “shall not permit the use of snares for any purpose other than to catch beaver and bear unless and until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.”

It should be noted here that according to the information I have gathered in the past, the Maine Legislature, under the recommendation of the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Danny” Martin, banned snaring out of fear that more lawsuits would be brought against the state. I should also like to note the obvious, that should the Maine Legislature so desire, they can overturn or even modify that ban to accommodate efforts by the MDIFW to reduce predator kills on deer and protect the species as they are so mandated to do by law.

Getting back to the letter from Deputy Commissioner Jacques to Rep. Bernard Ayotte, Jacgues makes the following assertion:

Also, and this is important, the first lynx-trapping lawsuit was settled by a Consent Decree in Federal Court that included a ban on snares. The Consent Decree has to remain in place until a recreational trapping ITP is obtained by the slate. This Department does not, therefore, have the authority to restart the snaring program at this time without violating a Federal Court order.

This statement is not entirely true and could be very misleading. Yes, I believe that, as I stated, the Maine Legislature has banned snaring. Under the circumstances of what most Maine sportsmen would classify an emergency situation, if that same sentiment were shared by the MDIFW leadership, they would request that this ban be lifted in the WMDs not designated as lynx critical habitat, being those ten zones named in the court ordered and approved Consent Decree.

If you look at the map of Maine, you’ll see all the Wildlife Management Districts as designated by the MDIFW. I have placed a large “X” over the ten WMDs listed by the Maine court as protected Canada lynx habitat where snaring is banned at least until MDIFW obtains an Incidental Take Permit. MIDFW Deputy Commissioner Jacques states that snaring is banned by court order and that’s not wholly true. The Consent Decree designates only WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. Certainly those WMDs have severely diminished whitetail deer herds but so does WMDs 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and most of 28. These are WMDs in Eastern and Western Maine that suffer from serious deer mortality.

One would think that if the MDIFW had any inclination at all that coyotes and other large predators were having any negative effect on the deer herd, a request would go out to the Maine Legislature seeking a modification to the ban on snaring. We can only assume they don’t think predation is a problem and continue to rely heavily on loss of habitat and Al Gore’s theories on global warming as the only culprits that are destroying Maine’s deer herd.

So now to the Incidental Take Permit. The 2007 Consent Decree prohibited the Commissioner to authorize snaring in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, until such time as MDIFW obtained this illusive ITP. Even after Judge John A. Woodcock’s ruling in Animal Welfare Institute v. Roland D. Martin, the court ruled that any incidental taking of Canada lynx was not having any affect on the preservation of the Canada lynx. Nothing from the Consent Decree changed and in AWI v. Martin, Judge Woodcock refreshed our memories of the Consent Decree of 2007.

IF&W acted swiftly and on December 4, 2008, the Department adopted an emergency rule imposing further limitations on the manner in which Conibear traps could be legally set in Wildlife Management Districts 1 – 11

And the Animal Welfare Institute clarifies any confusion about whether all of Maine or only designated lynx habitat had been banned from snaring or using “killer” traps, by specifically soliciting the court to include WMD 7 with the other ten WMDs listed.

Following the hearing, AWI expressly asked for injunctive relief that would “(1) prohibit the use of leghold traps on land in the identified lynx WMDs as well as in WMD 7 where . . . lynx have been identified as present and have been trapped.

October 4, 2007, a Consent Decree was issued and MDIFW was told that snares and killer-type traps could not be used in Canada lynx habitat areas “until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.” It’s now April 19, 2010 and Maine appears no closer to obtaining an ITP than it did on October 5, 2007. How long does it take and what kind of serious effort is Maine putting into obtaining this permit?

It is my opinion that MDIFW doesn’t care whether they get a permit or not. It is my opinion the MDIFW does not see predators as any kind of problem that has had but the slightest of negative effects on the whitetail deer herd. All their money is riding on Al Gore and dumping the blame on landowners for cutting trees they own.

How many telephone calls has Roland Martin, MDIFW Commissioner, made to the USFWS pleading his case that Maine has a serious deer shortage problem? Has MDIFW ever heard of or considered utilization of the Endangered Species Act 10j rule? The 10j rule was put in place to make sure that at the cost of trying to protect one species we didn’t extirpate another.

Round and round she goes. Where she stops, nobody knows. If Lady Luck shines on MDIFW, their bets on global warming will pay off and the whitetail deer population in Northern, Eastern and Western Maine will magically reappear.

Tom Remington

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has announced a group effort plan to help fund the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife with a portion of the general taxation. SAM is teaming up with The Nature Conservancy and the Maine Audubon seeking 1/8% of sales tax revenue to fund MDIFW.

Smith writes of how nearly one million Maine residents enjoy the benefits of the hard work done by MDIFW and yet do not pay a nickel for it. He’s correct. MDIFW is funded through license fees and federal money kicked back via the Pittman-Robertson Act. And yet, MDIFW is overburdened with non fish and game programs all funded on the backs of hunters, trappers and fishers.

Changing the funding to come from general taxation is a bad idea and I’ll explain why. First let me briefly lay out my plan for how to ease the financial burden along with the stretching thin of MDIFW personnel. Remove a majority of the non game programs that have been dumped in the lap of MDIFW and place them at the Department of Conservation or other departments where they belong. Then fund those programs with general tax dollars. This would include but not be limited to management of all non game wildlife, including plants and vegetation. Add to that endangered species protection, wildlife viewing platforms, etc. and let’s put search and rescue and snowmobile/atv law compliance into law enforcement. When the Warden Service is needed, they can bill out their services to the appropriate department.

Keeping general tax dollars out of MDIFW is essential. If Maine should opt to allow this money for funding, I guarantee, environmentalists, anti-hunting and animal rights groups will begin pounding the drum and demanding that they have representation on the MDIFW commission. Just about every state in America that has buckled to the financial pressures to find ways of funding and chose tax dollar funding, has run up against this very problem.

Here’s one state in which I’ll give you an example. New Jersey began funding it’s fish and wildlife division, which by the way was morphed into a larger Department of Environmental Protection, with tax dollars. Almost immediately animal rights and anti hunting groups demanded representation. This was a petition that was circulated there last year.

I support Assembly bill A3275 and Senate bill S2041 – legislation that will democratize, modernize and remove the corrupting influence of profit from the hunter-dominated New Jersey Fish and Game Council, the state body that has power over our wildlife.

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

We, the people of New Jersey, stand united against the NJ Fish and Game Council, for it has abused its power, has broken the law, and benefits from millions of our tax-dollars every year without giving one voice to the common man.
We seek nothing but reasonable reforms that will prepare our state for managing wildlife in the twenty-first century. We aspire to nothing more than bringing democracy to a state body that now has none.
We act for the environment, for wildlife, for the people of New Jersey and the ideal of good government, for when one special interest holds tyranny over all, only arrogance and corruption can follow.
In this cause we are unanimous and resolute: The NJ Fish and Game Council must be dramatically reformed, so that it will at last serve the interests of the many instead of the recreational hunting desires of the few.

Notice the demonizing of hunters through “profit” when their goals is to put an end to all hunting and fishing. They describe it as “modernizing” and “democratizing” wildlife management. Is this what Maine wants?

In Smith’s article he points out that $2.4 billion is raked in each season through benefits directly related to work by the MDIFW. If you want to see that amount of money shrink in a hurry, then allow the animal rights groups to get a foot in the door to limit hunting and fishing opportunities. MDIFW spends enough time now wasting valued wildlife management dollars defending senseless lawsuits brought on the state by the same groups that will be demanding representation.

I appreciate George Smith’s eagerness to find funding for MDIFW but not at the expense of the hunting, trapping and fishing heritage Maine has enjoyed for decades. I contend that we can actually grow the economic contributions to the state of Maine by shrinking MDIFW back to a fish and game department, while moving all non game programs into other departments, including Conservation and better funding those programs with the tax dollars they deserve.

The money that MDIFW generates now from license sales can then be put toward game management, which is suffering badly. With improved hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities, license sales will go up and non resident sportsmen will return to Maine to spend their valuable sports dollars.

Maine voters should seriously get all the answers and completely understand what an amendment to the Constitution would do to their hunting and fishing heritage. The quick fix to a money problem might look appealing but in the long run it may not be in the best economic interest for Maine to do this.

Tom Remington

I was reading through the threads and comments of the Maine Sportsman Forum this morning. Some of you may have read my articles about the controversy of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) seeking email addresses of sportsmen from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife through the Freedom of Information Act law. This thread is discussing that topic and that’s where I pulled the comment below made by Harry Vanderweide, Editor of the Maine Sportsman.

SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Maine Audubon have joined together to seek passage of a constitutional amendment referendum that aims to create stable dedicated funding for the Department through a tiny percentage of the sales tax. That effort is crucially important to DIF&W. The Department currently gets no state tax money and is now running deeply in the red with no way out. In other words, as a matter of simple survival, it is in the Department’s best interest to work with SAM because nobody else is offering solutions to solving the Department’s serious financial woes.

This comment is saying that MDIFW is so financially in trouble it is willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain funding and that nobody else is offering suggestions. Well, I have been offering suggestions for quite some time. Either nobody is listening or I’m not offering suggestions that anyone is interested in hearing. Let’s try again.

The first problem why MDIFW is broke is they have morphed into being a do-all department, much of which has nothing or little to do with fish and wildlife and too much to do with issues not related to fish and game. Call that a problem or not, but you can’t keep asking the MDIFW to take on nongame issue while only asking the fish and game license buyers to fund these programs.

So the solution is quite simple actually. If, as Vanderweide says, SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Audubon have teamed up to find tax dollars to fund IFW, then why not put these nongame entities into the hands of the Department of Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Law Enforcement, or any other non fish and non game entity, and then fund it with tax payer dollars the way it should be?

Do the Maine sportsmen want members of the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Wildlife Alliance of Maine or any other agency dujour not interested in the best interests of hunters, fishermen and trappers sitting on the Commission? That’s what you’ll get if this is the route that is pursued. Politics controls far too much of MDIFW now. Add tax dollars to the funding and it will only get worse.

I see no reason why these nongame programs can’t be moved to departments where they belong out of MDIFW and then funded with tax money as they should be. This will relieve the MDFIW from the monetary load of keeping these programs up and the manpower required, then they can get back to focusing on fish and game issue with the same amount of money. Doesn’t this make sense? Isn’t this better than having your fish and game department run by animal rights groups and environmentalists?

If you agree, call SAM, call your representative, tell your neighbor, tell somebody. If you disagree, call SAM, call your representative, tell you neighbors, tell somebody. But please tell somebody how you feel about your wildlife management.

Tom Remington

A bill in Maine that would have put an end to all game farms, including a handful that offer shooting opportunities, got killed in committee by a 12-0 vote – the vote for “ought not to pass”. Under Maine rules, a unanimous vote effectively kills the bill.

One member of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Chairwoman Rep. Wendy Pieh, D-Bremen, was quoted as saying the following:

…..whether it’s fair-chase hunting or farming, or whether it offends the morals of some, is not for the Legislature to decide.

I think those are issues the market can handle,

Give Rep. Pieh a blue ribbon!!!

Tom Remington

I’ve been covering for you some of the ins and outs of LD560, a proposed law in Maine that would ban killing animals on game ranches in that state. Yesterday I reported about the visit Fox News film crew had with Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine. You can find more coverage of the proposed law and who’s behind it by following this link.

Fox News yesterday presented it’s report with Sheppard Smith.

Tom Remington

*Update* This link will take you to the Fox News video

Fox News out of New York traveled to Newport, Maine and visited the Hind-Site Deer Hunt Preserve, owned by Mark Luce, to do a documentary of sorts of the facility. This was in response to a bill, LD560, that is being proposed in Maine to end hunting on game preserves. Fox wanted to visit a typical preserve and see for themselves.

In an email update sent to me this morning by Luce, he conveys the surprises the news crew found.

First they were amazed how quickly the deer on the farm headed for the furthest corner of their paddock….They clearly were not pets or tame and reacted like any good whitetail would after seeing the strangers.

After the farm interview we spent 3 1/2 hours in the preserve and they did not see a single deer. We had baited a site earlier in the morning with the hope of sneaking in and getting some deer on film, even if it were deer headed quickly to cover. When we finally made our way to the blind the bait was gone and no deer in sight They really wanted to see some deer so we put on two deer drives and we failed both times as the animals found a way to double back……20 + deer were not going to be seen today.

All too often people jump to conclusions about what a hunt preserve must be like. Unfortunately because of a couple bad apples and public relations campaigns by anti-hunting groups eager to spread false accusations and descriptions of game ranches, people are led to think things that just aren’t factual.

Luce says he is happy that Fox News took the time to actually visit a preserve, which is more than can be said about those sponsoring the bill, LD560, or the lawmakers who will be casting a vote one way or the other. Luce tells it this way.

They [Fox News] also asked the sponsor of LD 560 if he had ever visited a hunt preserve to justify his bill ……………………The answer was no!

What Fox News found was much different than the antis had painted us to be. I have invited numerous State Reps. to visit our preserve, but they are too busy and we are not convenient to get to.

It’s sad actually. Luce says lawmakers say that he is in an “inconvenient” location for them. In reality, Hind-Site Preserve is located just 3 miles off Interstate 95, one hour north of Augusta, the state capital. I might have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that I might cast a vote to put some good and honest people out of work because it was “inconvenient” for me to find out the truth.

Amazing!

Tom Remington

Maine’s Senator David Trahan began an effort to put a stop to the proposal to require Maine residents to purchase a salt water fishing license. You can read more about that here.

The proposal for the license claimed that the license was a way to collect and track data from fishermen who use the resource. Sen. Trahan has come up with an alternative proposal to a license and he needs your help.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has teamed up with Senator Trahan to promote this alternative. The New England Outdoor Voice has provided a site where you can read a letter that is being sent to the Joint Committee on Marine Resources asking them to consider Trahan’s proposal and why.

If you would like to read the letter and sign you name to send, click this link.

Tom Remington

Yesterday a public hearing was held in Room 206 of the Cross Office Building next to the state capital in Augusta, Maine. Those who showed up in opposition to LD 560, an act that would put game ranchers out of business, seemed to outnumber those in support. According to Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine, he was pleased with the turnout and the information presented to lawmakers.

We had the hearing yesterday morning and we did quite well in getting our message heard. We had four times as many people testifying in our favor.

Those testifying in opposition to LD 560 included, the Maine Guides Association, The Maine Trappers Association, The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine , The Maine Farm Bureau, The Maine Department of Agriculture, several Maine Guides, many people who have hunted on game ranches, feed producers, camp owners who supply lodging and others. Luce called the overwhelming support “a welcomed sight”.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance, also showed up to testify on behalf of SAM. In the morning edition of the Kennebec Journal, Smith’s weekly column addressed LD 560 and what he foresaw as taking place that day in Room 206. Smith sums up his thoughts this way.

Simply put, commercial shooting areas keep farmers farming, put meat on the table, offer exciting experiences and are more humane than most of the techniques used to slaughter animals these days. Nothing wrong with that.

The main sponsor of LD 560 is Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford. During yesterday’s testimony, according to a related article in today’s Kennebec Journal, Casavant called hunting on these ranches “barbaric”.

“Though I consider the shooting for hire of animals behind fences to be barbaric and designed to satisfy the blood lust of a handful of out-of-staters, I also believe that we need to be sensitive to the economic realities of those associated with such businesses,”

Odd way of showing sensitivity. Casavant is either lying or has never stepped foot on one of these farms. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts on what they deem to be ethical, fair chase hunting. Targeting an agriculture business, in order to run them out of business, is an ineffectual way of promoting fair chase ethics if that is really his goal.

The Maine State Veterinarian testified also that all farms treated their animals humanely, defying an accusation made recently by Maine Friends of Animals.

“Our experience has been that the animals are treated humanely, well fed and well cared for, and that the hunts are also carried out in a humane manner,” said State Veterinarian Don Hoenig, in written testimony.

According to Luce, he said that several members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, plan to visit some of the game preserves for a first-hand look.

Quite a few of the committee members are going to visit a few preserves and see for themselves that we have plenty of cover for our deer to avoid hunters.

If the Maine Friends of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, both supporters of LD 560, were truly interested in animal welfare, they would offer to tag along with the committee members and get an education but most of us know that is not their agenda.

The next step in the process will be a work shop session(s), where lawmakers will pound out the issue and make a recommendation. Luce says he feels confident that he and other participants in Maine game ranches will know within a month where this issue stands.

Tom Remington

Travis Barrett, a writer for the Kennebec Journal in Maine, does what almost no other reporter has the intelligence or ambition to do. He got out of his cushy office (I don’t know what his office is like) and went to a game preserve in Newport, Maine and visited with the owner and gathered information about Mark Luce’s operation at Hind-Site Red Deer Hunt Preserve. Kudos to Travis Barrett!

Included in Barrett’s report are comments from the main sponsor of LD560, Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford, and co-sponsor Rep. Pamela Trinward, D-Waterville. LD 560 seeks to ban all hunt preserves in Maine. Here’s Casavant’s comment.

“Hunting is a longtime Maine tradition. It is a sport. But this kind of hunting on a preserve, well, I don’t see that as hunting or as a sport. I have major problems with that, and I think a lot of people who hunt do, too.”

This is lame excuse number one. I completely respect the fact that Mr. Casavant doesn’t think going to a hunt preserve, one that I’m quite comfortable in saying he’s probably never visited, is something he is comfortable with. Here’s some great advice. Don’t go! I’m not comfortable with spending gobs of money for the most powerful hunting weapon decked out with every gadget known in the hunting industry, sitting in a lofty tree stand and waiting for the right “trophy” to come by. So how do I deal with that? Simple, I don’t do it but who am I to tell someone else they can’t? I have some issues with archery hunting and muzzle loader hunting but I don’t seek to ban it because of personal preferences.

Rep. Casavant says this isn’t an attack on hunting. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t but you can be sure it’s an attack on property rights and this attack is coming because one person doesn’t think hunting in a preserve is “sport”. What goes around comes around and once you head down the slope of legislating one’s hunting ethics, the door is left wide open.

Moving on to lame excuse number two. Mark Luce took the time with Travis Barrett to explain much of the economic repercussions should this bill pass. He pointed out that other farmers who grow and sell hay to all the deer farms in the state would lose an estimated $1 million dollars annually. There are no exact figures on other revenues that would be lost, say nothing about how many of these people will lose their livelihoods, a way to make a living, which could cost them dearly.

Rep. Trinward it appears, didn’t do her homework and has signed on to a bill without knowing the full effect the bill would have.

“If I were convinced that small businesses, that Maine people, need this to survive, then I would be against that,” Trinward said. “I was under the impression that this was something that was really on the decline. … We’re very sensitive right now with what’s going on in economy. This is not a time when people would be making changes to (the income of) traditional Maine families. If that were the case, I don’t think anyone in the Legislature would be for that.

“My position is one that’s from a Maine family of hunters. My concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals. That’s really what it’s all about.”

Obviously she’s not convinced. But let’s make her thoughts clear. Her decision to sponsor this bill is because she doesn’t think Mark Luce needs to raise red deer to “survive”. What’s even worse is her admission that she was under the “impression that this was something that was really on the decline”. She doesn’t know anything for a fact it appears. Wouldn’t you think it an act of responsibility to first have facts, an environmental impact statement, before proposing to run people out of business?

But this raises a very serious question that should be of concern to every Maine resident. Is Rep. Trinward saying that because she is under the impression that deer farms, or maybe she means hunting in general, is on the decline we should outlaw it? If that’s the case, who is next in line?

With a slumping economy, I’m not sure how hard pressed anyone would be to find a business that wasn’t “on the decline”. So should we then outlaw it?

The economy has nothing to do with Rep. Trinward’s decision to sponsor this bill. It’s about emotional preferences. It’s about control. It’s about having power to exercise for the promotion of one’s personal ideals.

Rep. Trinward then appears to want to deflect attention away from the fact she has no idea about anything to do with Mark Luce’s economic future or that of any other deer farmers and tells us that because she comes from a Maine family of hunters, her “concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals”.

If that is truly her concern, then she must have some supporting evidence that these Maine farmers are abusing their animals. If that’s true then it would serve all Maine residence to have a chance to look at that evidence.

Barrett’s piece in the Kennebec Journal also contained comments from readers. At the time of this writing, there were 10 comments from what appear to be 10 different individuals, all of them against this legislation to put Mark Luce and the other Maine farmers out of business.

But let’s not assume anything. Everyone needs to contact their representative and tell them you are American. Tell them you believe in the United States Constitution and that your rights are given to you by God and not some politician, and those include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such unnecessary laws are nothing more than giant obstacles in the way of achieving those goals.

Tom Remington