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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

Here is how Winters quoted me.

In a recent blog entry, Tom Remington states, “It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. This is about rights … your rights as a free American.” He compares legislators and anti-hunting groups to Nazis who are “bent on the destruction of our freedom.”

Here is what I actually wrote.

It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. Do you want to be a part of the ethics Nazis? This is about rights…..your rights as a free American.

Referring to those who sponsor such legislation as “ethics Nazis” is a bit different than calling them just Nazis. Please don’t skew my words.

But the real issue here again is that people like Winters feel compelled to make laws that dictate to you and I in what manner we must to live, all based on their personal ideals not yours. In Winters’ column she brings out many good points, most of which I cannot argue with. Because she claims these things to be her moral high ground, does it then make sense to turn them into law?

Winters’ points were valid until she began to show her ignorance of hunting ranches. In an effort to legislate your ethics, she is forced to make claims that are not true and cannot be backed up.

Living in the wild does not typically include being fed quality hay and feed on a regular basis and accepting the presence of man. If you query “game ranches in Maine” on the Internet, you’ll come up with a variety of photos showing elk and bison behind fencing, munching on bales of hay.

I am told that there are somewhere between 30 and 50 ranches in Maine that raise deer, elk, red deer, bison etc.. Of those, 8 are set up to include the use of shooting an animal for harvest. I don’t think going to the Internet and looking at photos of elk and bison “munching on bales of hay” is much of a way to substantiate the need to put these hard working Maine people out of business. Perhaps Ms. Winters should consider actually visiting one of these facilities other than looking at photos on line.

I warned in my previous article not to be fooled by groups like Maine Friends of Animals and the sponsors of this bill when they tell you this is about ethical hunting and animal abuse and has nothing to do with property rights. It has everything to do with property rights. A person has a right to farm and raise livestock. They also have a right to decide by which means they will harvest that livestock.

The legislation is not about land-use rights. It is not the tip of the iceberg to ban all hunting. LD 560 is about preserving the tradition of real hunting in Maine. It is about protecting and preserving our native species. LD 560 is about reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death for the sake of a trophy head for someone’s wall.

Much of Maine Friends of Animals has been about banning hunting and trapping and this appears just another step in that direction. It’s called incrementalism. Raising deer, elk and bison has nothing to do with the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”. Claiming not to be a hunter but having friends that are, gives no one standing to convey to others about the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”.

Also Winters needs to substantiate a statement that this bill is about protecting and preserving our native species. This makes no sense at all and can only be taken as a feeble attempt at instilling fear into Maine people that somehow this ranches are a threat to our wild and native species.

And stopping deer farms will have absolutely nothing to do with “reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death”. As I have said a million times before, resorting to lies and misinformation, especially as a tool to frighten people, for the purpose of promoting personal agendas only exposes groups such as Maine Friends of Animals for what they really are.

Maine people need to decide for themselves but please base that information on facts. If you’ve never visited a farm that raises deer, elk or bison, I encourage you to do that. Meet the people behind the operation that a small handful of people want to run out of business. And make sure you visit at least one farm that allows hunting, or shooting, or killing, or harvesting….whatever you want to call it, I have no problem with that.

This is completely about rights and don’t let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Remember, if you think you are qualified to dictate to others what their ethical standards will be, the day isn’t too far away when it will come home to roost.

Tom Remington

The state of Maine has become the target of animal rights groups for years. Maine, once a staunchly independent state, continues to morph into a land very attractive to secular progressives bent on the destruction of the liberties fought and died for in this country.

Maine has several deer, elk and bison ranches scattered across the state. A handful of those ranches offer anyone who has the interest, a chance to shoot one of these critters. This action has been dubbed the name of high-fence hunting. Once again a group of Maine lawmakers has put together a bill proposal that would repeal Chapter 202-A of Maine law, effectively banning the shooting of any of these animals on private land.

High-fence hunting has been the target of controversy in several states. The arguments used against ranch or preserve hunting are weak and misleading. In states that have been successful in winning the war against the animal rights activists have done so because they were able to get the truth to the voters. Maine will be no different. The truth must be made known.

History has shown us in this battle for private property rights that once voters are given the facts and understand the truth that exists, Americans win. In this case, Mainers are going to have to contact their state representatives and tell them not to be lured into this rights-stripping bill.

Don’t let anyone try to convince you that this is NOT a case of protecting constitutional rights. It is clearly that. Those fighting to stop ranch hunting hide behind hunting ethics, animal cruelty and often whip up a scare or two over disease. None of these excuses stand up to rational scrutiny.

Hunting ethics is extremely subjective, it’s a personal perspective, all guided with the rules that govern the sport. Those rules are crafted from the need to properly manage the game animals and provide for public safety.

We too often hear that fair chase hunting ethics is of the biggest concern to both hunters and non-hunters. While ethics certainly is important and is a integral part of what shapes our sport, it is far from a leading candidate of what is endangering hunting. Land access, costs, and available time to be in the field are the three major events that cause more damage to the sports of hunting and fishing than anything else.

When we begin legislating ethics, that is when individuals are attempting to set the moral standards by how others should live. Is that what we want? In all honesty if a handful of Maine legislators believes hunting on a game preserve is unethical, then we would have to just as honestly ask, why pick on preserve hunting? Shouldn’t be ban smoking? Shouldn’t we shut down bars, topless dance clubs, and remove any and all questionable magazines from our newsstands? How much more can we add to this list?

The truth is there is no real clear and necessary reason to stop a private citizen from trying to find a way to make a living by the utilization of his own land to raise domestic livestock and harvest it in the manner he would choose. LD 560 is nothing more than the effort of a handful of Maine lawmakers to push their personal ideals onto others. Join the fight to stop this attack on our rights. It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. Do you want to be a part of the ethics Nazis? This is about rights…..your rights as a free American.

Mark Luce is owner of Hindsite Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine. Mark is seeking the help and support of other who place value on property rights and our hunting heritage.

As a preserve owner in Maine who has made a substantial investment to keep our land in agriculture we are being attacked once again. The harvesting of these animals is far more humane than trucking the same animals to a slaughter facility. Those who speak negative about preserves do so with propaganda supplied to them by the anti hunting groups.

At a time when jobs are scarce and money is tight these antis want to put us out of business. They have submitted a bill, L.D. 560 to ban our preserves. This only the tip of the iceberg re: there true mission..BAN ALL HUNTING!

We as Preserve Owners would appreciate any support from the public that we can muster. Write your local Rep, our Governor and attend the public hearing.

Mark Luce has operated a first class business for several years and has invested huge sums of money looking for a return that will help pay for his economically stressed business. He pays $1,000.00 a year for his license and $25 for each animal that is harvested. The facility is inspected each year and Mark has to pay to have each animal taken tested for disease, including chronic wasting disease.

Luce tells me that he is one of the smaller facilities in the state and his feeding costs now run $680.00 every 10 days. He offers his hunts, as do many of the ranch owners, as a means of generating much needed revenue.

Often lost in these kinds of debates is the fact that Mark Luce is an American. He’s a human being with family trying to eke out a living just like everyone else. It is appalling that anyone, including lawmakers, often with their holier-than-thou attitudes, introduce bills that will legislate a family right out of business.

I helped the Idaho Elk Breeders Association fight similar attacks a few years ago. While I immediately saw through the deceitful tactics of those trying to shut down the elk industry in Idaho, it wasn’t until I traveled to Idaho and met with some of the people and their families did it really come home to roost for me. These are good Americans. Hard working people, some who have lost family members fighting to keep America free from the dictatorial efforts of some bent on the destruction of our freedom. Help do your part. Get involved now!

Sponsors and cosponsors of this bill are:

Sponsored By: Representative CASAVANT of Biddeford
Cosponsored By: Representative BOLAND of Sanford
Representative EBERLE of South Portland
Senator GERZOFSKY of Cumberland
Representative GILES of Belfast
Representative MAZUREK of Rockland
Senator NUTTING of Androscoggin
Representative ROTUNDO of Lewiston
Representative RUSSELL of Portland
Representative TRINWARD of Waterville

Get on the phone now! Call these people and your own representative. Call the governor’s office. Tell them you support the freedoms and liberties of Americans and that you believe Mark Luce and all the other preserve owners have a legal right to ranch deer, elk and bison and that they can decide how their livestock will be harvested.

Tom Remington

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest – some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation – a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

It is sad for America that one side is claiming victory, stating that the science is settled as it pertains to our warming climate. The reason this is not good is because it threatens to end debate. What if people like Einstein had listened to such nonsense? What if Columbus really believed science was conclusive and the earth was flat?

I have been called a few names because of my position on global warming. Most of that comes because those tossing the stones don’t understand the target they are trying to hit. Far too many advocates for “the sky is falling” approach to climate change point fingers at people like me and claim that I am uncaring, greedy, only interested in corporate power and am not concerned about pollution.

I also get a fair amount of chastising because much of what I do is to promote hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors. Are we to assume that because I am an advocate for such that I must be a member of the global warming gang (GWG)? Hardly!

My concerns go far deeper than whether or not warming waters will put brook trout at risk or if changing habitat forces the Canada lynx out of Maine and back into Canada. With the alarmists’ approach to climate change, we see more and more demand to declare habitat critical or list species as endangered, even when there’s no real science to back it up. The method serves only to prohibit people from going fishing, hunting or trapping or worse yet, the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness to own a piece of land – the American dream.

I’m not driven by greed nor is my focus only on my pocketbook. When climate change advocates insist on ceasing the debate on the subject and refusing to listen to the other half of the science world, this is wrong and it’s dangerous. When their proposals infringe on my rights as a free American, I will speak up.

Yesterday I was reading an article written by Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. The article was published by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Borelli believes much as I do, that if we continue to shut down dialog on global warming and continue with the approach we are using, this is threatening our liberties. She also puts aside claims by the GWG that critics don’t care.

Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don’t care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.

Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.

After all, the loss of liberty is a greater cause of alarm than global warming.

If I am going to be deprived of my personal choice to go hunting and fishing, or plant a crop on my land or cut down a tree to pay my taxes because a group of people believe the sky is falling, I’ll take issue with it every time. Contrary to what some believe, our group of hunters and fishermen are real conservationists. We understood long before anyone else the importance of proper management of wildlife and game animals. What we do is not perfect but it’s a far cry from the hypocritical efforts being exemplified by some groups.

Let’s take PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as an example. Borelli alludes to this group and others in making her case that in an effort to be in style people are forging ahead willy-nilly to be “green” without first considering the entire scope of their decisions.

In some cases these groups have other agendas and really care very little about the climate and are using global warming as a way to raise money and further their cause. PETA is one such entity. They advocate for a vegetarian diet because they don’t want you and I to exploit or kill animals to eat. Fair enough…….or is it?

They also lay claim that farm-raised animals are destroying our atmosphere and are contributing to global warming.

America’s meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country’s meat addiction is wrecking the earth.

Do you know how ridiculous this statement is? First of all, why pick on domestic animals, which by the way is necessary for survival. I’m not a vegetarian, never have been a vegetarian and have no plans to ever be one and I’m not alone. We hear everyday that groups like PETA want to rid the world of farm animals because they emit natural gases through flatulence.

Maybe PETA doesn’t realize that all animals fart, even wild ones. They defecate too! Are there not substantial enough populations of wild animals that fart worldwide that we should be concerned with that? On the one hand you have PETA saying that we need to eliminate farming because the animals are destroying the earth, while at the same time, making every effort to make sure that all animals are left alone to multiply and grow as “Mother Nature” would allow. Is this having it both ways? Or is this part of the “emotion and alarmism” that Borelli speaks of in her column?

It’s not just PETA. It’s everywhere. Suppose for a moment that just the United States banned meat eating. The first thing we’d have to do is dispose of all the dead animal bodies and parts and make sure they were kept from multiplying again. We now have to replace all that meat and protein with something. What?

When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters’ minds is, “What do you eat?” The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and “Fib Ribs” to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more.

And where do these alternatives come from? Much of this stuff is manufactured. What kind of a carbon footprint does that leave? If we have to grow plants to replace the meat, where’s that going to happen? Outer space? Who knows how many more acres of land it will take to grow enough vegetables, soy, etc. to replace the meat. Those crops have to be planted, cultivated, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped. And this is saving our planet? We might as well kill all the animals. They are of no use to PETA. Oh, wait! They are supposed to be advocating for animals.

This is the foolishness that needs to be discussed. It’s only one more element of the total debate on global warming that advocates don’t seem to want to talk about anymore. I wonder why that is? Are they afraid you might learn facts and can decide what you want to do about saving the planet based on science and data?

Science never “settles” for anything. If it did, we would cease to exist. We should be prompting science to continue its studies of our climate and stop plunging dangerously headlong into something that is going to cost us dearly in more ways than one.

Tom Remington

Maine Gov. John Baldacci has been pushing for more promotion of Maine’s natural resources and appears to be an advocate for the establishment of more “preserved” lands including National Heritage Areas. Part of this summit at Sunday River was to discuss the prospects of mapping and inventorying lands and waterways in order to protect them. Included in that process was to tap into federal money available to protect these lands through National Heritage Areas.

It is my belief that very few people are even aware of what a National Heritage Area is, say nothing about how they might think how it could benefit them or more particularly the landowner and the local economy.

In the January 28th, 2008 issue of National Review Magazine, John J. Miller, National Political Reporter, writes about National Heritage Areas. One of the things that Miller brings to our attention is the fact that sometimes our land is yanked out from underneath us without our knowledge, all for the good of conservation and preservation.

He cites the example in Arizona of a new National Heritage Area, Yuma Crossing, in which landowner Lee Ott, was completely unaware that his land had been designated as part of it until one day he spotted surveyors on his land. In Ott’s effort to fight back against the encroachment and thievery of his land, 600 people attended a meeting to learn more about what was taking place around them.

“About 600 people came to our meeting,” says Harold Maxwell, a farm-equipment distributor. “When I asked for a show of hands from those who knew they were in the NHA, only one hand went up.”

Evidently, this is part of how the designation of lands for National Heritage Areas takes place. What’s to hide anyway?

Miller describes what National Heritage Areas are in terms most of us should be able to understand.

National Heritage Areas are like a poor man’s National Park­ they aren’t actually owned by the federal government, but they’re zoned by it. Instead of employing Park Rangers in stiff-brimmed hats, they’re often administered by liberal groups that want to weaken the property rights of the people who hold a piece of land within or even near NHA boundaries. This is generally done in the name of historic preservation and environmental conservation.

Miller also describes NHA as a very popular thing these days particularly because they are a means of gaining huge sums of money through earmarks and is a wonderful tool for those bent on controlling and limiting our land-use rights.

Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research, says that NHAs become federal zoning laws that are enforced by private preservationist groups.

The rules governing NHAs vary from place to place, but they tend to have a few features in common. One important element is the involvement of a “management entity” that works in conjunction with the Park Service to come up with a plan. In the case of one NHA, this means creating an “inventory” of properties of “national historic significance” that it wants “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.”

Miller says that those who support NHAs, even though they claim they are not in the business of buying or regulating real estate, the end result does in fact do that. His claims are that supporters work with local government to enforce and create restrictive land ordinances that fall in line with plans for conserving and preserving “inventoried” and “mapped out” lands.

He gives an example of how that is done.

They do this by dangling the prospect of federal largesse in front of potential recipients. West Virginia’s Wheeling NHA, which is basically a downtown preservation project, makes this explicit, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Chumley and Ron Utt. Its management plan calls for new zoning ordinances and the acquisition of private property. And how will it achieve these goals? As Chumley and Utt write, “Major funding to support the activities . . . and the recommendations of this plan will be coming from the National Park Service.” In the year prior to its most recent available tax filing, the Wheeling NHA received more than $2.5 million in government contributions and not a dime from private sources.

Is this what we want in our own back yards? As we have now seen, these operations sneak about seeking people’s land to devour and control, even without the knowledge of the landowner. We have also been shown that you don’t even have to own land within a NHA, only to be “near” one.

While most of us favor conservation and in some cases we would like to see certain parcels of land protected, I want to believe that very few of us want these “Management Entities” empowered and funded by the federal government taking away our land and or limiting our uses for the sake of creating these National Heritage Areas.

As hunters, fishermen and outdoor sportsmen, our future depends on our ability to access the outdoors. We can’t blindly plunder into programs like this without knowing the facts. We just might end up “giving away the farm” as they say, without a clue as to what is really going to happen.

Severe limits and restrictions on lands and land use, including access to our waterways, will destroy our recreational opportunities and long time heritage of our love for the outdoors. Our property rights and those of our neighbors have to be protected from such programs.

We have to consider this effort as one that can easily be used by the incrementalists to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. With local governments strong armed into creating restrictive land use, you know only the elite special interest groups will ensure their access while restricting or eliminating many others.

Get involved in what’s going on in your community and keep your eyes on your own land to make sure it isn’t being snatched away.

Tom Remington