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

If you’ve never had the pleasure of meeting a person I choose to call a character, you’ve missed out on some of the best things in life. Perhaps you have met one and run scared in the opposite direction. A character is someone unique, a “oner” they have been called. They are people with a different take on life, someone with a varied past.

All too often we are mired in the moment, striving to make a buck, worrying about what a neighbor might be doing to reduce your property values. I would suppose in lots of ways, we could say the world has gotten far too serious. I fear we are so far into ourselves that when the last of life’s true characters are gone, all that will be left are a few tales to tell from those who want to remember.

Last evening my wife and I went out to a nearby diner and had a bite to eat and decided, after satiated, we needed a ride in the country (it’s all relative you know). We found ourselves taking in some scenes as we slowly bumped along the Grover Hill Road eventually landing in Mason Township. For those who don’t know, Maine still has several “unorganized townships”. These are areas where there is no official town government to steal your property rights away and tell you what you can’t do with your land, etc. But don’t get too excited. The state is eager to step up to the plate and assume that role.

We took a drive up one side of the Pleasant River, past the old Mason Township School House, which now looks like it has been converted to someone’s residence. We didn’t go far and turned around. We later crossed a one lane bridge over the same river and turned left onto the King’s Highway.

I struggled trying to remember who lived where and where the old (now new, old) Grover Farm sat. It had been several years since I had been up that way. I did recall and shared with my wife a time perhaps as long as 25 years ago, that I traveled up the dead end King’s Highway to a wood lot owned then by Robert Swain of Andover. I had gotten permission to go on his lot and clean up tree tops for firewood. Mr. Swain had sent a logger in there with horses to selectively harvest some of his timber. When this is done, back then, the tops of the trees are cut off and left laying in the forest. This provided a great way for people like me to get my winter’s supply of firewood, providing I could find a willing landowner.

What I recall most of going up there is that I was warned that in the last house on the end of the road, a man lived who claimed to be a caretaker of the property. It was a charming piece of property, nestled at the foot of the White Mountains, near or bordering directly on National Forest land.

The land may have been charming but the man living there surely wasn’t. On my first trip out with a pick-up truck full of cut and split firewood, I was greeted with the hollow end of a twelve gauge shotgun. The old recluse sprung from the bushes and stood between me and my truck and my destination. I had options but none I considered under the circumstances.

It took some time to talk him into believing I was there by permission and he let me go. I told him I would be returning in an hour or so. He didn’t bother me again.

As we plugged along the Highway, we took notice of several places where the road had some washouts from all the heavy rain we have been having. As we pitched over a rise, we came upon a man and his dog. As we passed him, I waved and told my wife I thought that was Richard Grover, one of the many members of the Grover family that fills this area of Mason with years of history.

We went a few hundred yards further and turned around, knowing the road would dead end shortly. When we returned, we stopped to chat with Mr. Grover and his dog Snuffy.

I have known to some degree a few of the Grovers over the years and it can be said that most, if not all, the Grovers fall into the category of being “characters”. Richard is no exception.

While living in Florida, my wife and I visit the website of the local weekly newspaper here in Bethel. If you visit that page, look to the right under the column of “Town News”. Scroll down a bit and click on the link for “Mason”. Richard has a weekly article there. For some you’ll enjoy it. For others, you are certainly missing out.

When my son and I began opening up our websites, one of them being Maine Outdoors Today, I was looking for great Maine writings to include. I wanted to get Richard’s articles republished but had some difficulty with copyrights, so I left it alone.

However, Richard remembered I had inquired about his writing and he commenced to tell me that after his father passes, he was sure to have some very interesting stories to tell. It seems that the elder Grover doesn’t care too much to have his stories spread around.

Although I hesitate to show my eagerness to hear the stories as it would mean the passing of a good man, it is important that his stories be told and passed down. I can only hope that somehow I can be a part of that.

As we reluctantly left Richard and Snuffy to battle the black flies and mosquitoes by themselves, I said to my wife, “What’s going to happen when all the characters are gone from this life?”

After a brief discussion, we both sat in silence for a bit and headed our vehicle back toward camp, somehow feeling a bit saddened, knowing that one of life’s greatest thrills might someday be only tall tales.

Tom Remington

Below is the press release sent out from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife pertaining to the results of this year’s deer harvest figures. At the end of the release, I’ll talk more about what some in Maine are saying about the dismal deer population as it relates to coyote predation.

~~~~~~~~~

2008 Deer Harvest Brought Down by Winter

AUGUSTA, Maine – The winter of 2008 was one of the worst winters for Maine’s deer population across the state. Preliminary harvest numbers of 21,062 deer represent a 27% decrease in harvest from 2007 and the lowest deer harvest since the beginning of the any-deer permit system in 1986.

The long winter, with record-setting snow packs, created extremely difficult conditions for deer, with deer yarded up on average for over 140 days statewide compared to the normal 84 days, according to Lee Kantar, deer and moose biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. During those additional 56 days resulted in extremely low overwinter survival rates for fawns, and left adult does in poor condition prior to fawning season. The poor condition of the adult does likely resulted in a high rate of mortality for the fawns born in 2008. This was evident in the dramatic decline in the fawn harvest (45%) as part of the total antlerless harvest. Fawns were just not available during the fall hunting season.

The deer harvest by season showed an overall drop in success rates across most methods.

· Youth hunters harvested 510 deer, down 52% from 1,065 in 2007 (the second best youth harvest day ever);

· October archers harvested 834 deer and expanded archers harvested 921. Last year’s archery total was 2,236. October archery was up 18% despite new restrictions on October archers in bucks-only Wildlife Management Districts.

· Blackpowder enthusiasts harvested 1,137 deer – a 42% decrease from a record-setting harvest of 1,964 deer in 2007.

· Modern firearms users harvested 17,652, down 25% from 23,537 in 2007.

More deer (2,340) were harvested in Penobscot County again this year than any other county. Other counties with more than 2,000 deer harvested were Kennebec (2,062), York (2,108) and Cumberland (2,000).

Maine residents accounted for 91% of the total statewide deer harvest with Piscataquis County having the highest harvest by non-residents (26%) of all counties. Most counties (10 out of 16) had a deer harvest by residents greater than 90%.

Hunters killed 13,566 adult bucks and 7,496 antlerless deer. The adult buck kill was a 16% decrease over the previous year while the antlerless kill was down 41% from 2007. Yearlings were more scarce than normal in 2008. This is because as fawns in 2007 they suffered high losses over the 2007-08 winter. Yearlings normally make up a higher percentage of the buck kill. In 2007, the statewide yearling harvest of bucks comprised 49% of the yearling and older buck harvest, while in 2008 it represented only 37%.

“The harsh winter of 2007-08 and its effects on Maine’s deer herd will be felt for a long time,” according to Kantar. “The current winter of 2008-09 so far looks very similar to last year and will exert additional pressure on the state’s deer herd. If this winter results in conditions similar to last year, we will need to brace ourselves for a further decrease in any-deer permits as well as a reduced harvest in 2009. A reduction in any-deer permits is needed in order to compensate for an expected high rate of winter mortality.”

IF&W wildlife biologists will be meeting in the next few weeks to determine the preliminary number of any deer permits that will be available for next year.

~~~~~~~

No one will argue that last winter was severe and took its toll on the whitetail deer herd. But is winter the only thing to blame? Northern and Eastern Maine have deer populations that have reached the point of no return. Some places in these two regions hunters are hard pressed to find one or two deer per square mile. But we can’t just keep blaming the winter. We’ve always had harsh winters and when they hit, we make necessary adjustments in harvest tactics and with any luck from Mother Nature, in a few years the herd recovers. So why have we allowed the deer herds in these areas to reach non sustainable levels?

That’s not a simple question to answer but we know there are issues – habitat and predation. We know that as long as we live in a state that has black bears, lynx, bobcat, coyotes and possibly mountain lions and wolves, we will have to deal with the predators’ destruction of the whitetail deer. But are we dealing effectively with it?

Hunters have groaned and moaned to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for a long time to do something about the dwindling deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine. There was some hope when the state formulated the Deer Task Force, made up of a diverse group (perhaps containing some who shouldn’t have sat on this board) whose job it was to make recommendations on what to do. This was enhanced by the fact that the state Legislature enacted a bill to deal with coyote predation. Some now are saying that nothing was done and nothing will be done.

Gerry Lavigne used to be the head deer guy at MDIFW. He’s retired now and some have told me that Lavigne was forced to “retire” because he was bucking the system, that he stood up to some at MDIFW and told them we needed to do something about coyote predation on whitetail deer. Recently he had this to say about the Maine deer herd.

“Early fawn survival in eastern and northern Maine is low enough to prevent population recovery, even after moderate winters. Predation, primarily by coyote and bears during the early fawning period seems to be the main cause of low fawn recruitment in eastern and northern Maine.”

Read for a minute what Levigne is saying. First he is saying that the deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine is beyond recovery. That means it can no longer sustain on its own. The numbers are too low. If this is true, how can any responsible fish and game department have allowed this to happen?

Lavigne is also saying that it is the predation of coyote and bears that’s destroying the deer. This statement seems to run contrary to what is being fed the public from MDIFW. There is little talk of predation and all the focus seems to be on the harsh winters.

It is not a popular topic when discussions surround the need to slaughter overgrown populations of coyote or any other predator that’s destroying an ecosystem. Look at the controversy that has surrounded Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin with their predator control program. So far Alaska has fought successfully against the animal rights groups because they believe in the necessity of what they are doing.

Popular or not, it is the responsibility of fish and game to take care of this problem. Many are angry and asking why hasn’t something been done? Is it too late as Lavigne suggests?

V. Paul Reynolds, editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal, says we, the Maine sportsmen, have been “hoodwinked again”.

That’s right, Maine sportsmen – apparently an easily beguiled group – have been let down once again by the agency that collects and expends our hunting and fishing license fees. We now know that all this talk about coyote control was just that – talk and no action. Did the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ever really have any intention of establishing a coyote management program? It would appear not. So we must conclude that assembling all of these deer task forces and predator control working groups was merely a political ploy to divert attention, turn down the heat, and buy some time.

Evidently the licensed hunters in the state of Maine don’t scare MDIFW as much as the animal rights groups and environmentalists. It is our license dollars that pay their wages and allows for them to “manage” wildlife. I thought IFW got the message loud and clear when Governor Baldacci ordered, after a lot of complaining, the formulation of the Deer Task Force. Then many of us felt encouraged when the Maine Legislature ordered the MDIFW to come up with a Coyote Management Plan. After all this, MDIFW makes a recommendation to formulate another working group to study the problem.

How much more will the hunters in Maine take? Nearly every licensed hunter I know has told me they would gladly pay a reasonable fee increase if they knew the money was being spent the right way and most of all to continue to provide hunting opportunities. I agree with Reynolds. We’ve been had! We are tired of our money supporting animal rights agendas!

Trappers that I have spoken with have made no bones about the fact that they can no longer effectively trap coyote once the animal rights groups were successful in banning the snare trap. Trappers used to set snares all around winter deer yarding areas where the coyote prey on the weakened and young deer. No longer. Under the lie of protecting a lynx population, the snare was outlawed.

Nearly every action against Maine brought by animal rights has only resulted in Maine making endless concessions and where has this left our deer herd? If MDIFW believes in the science they use in wildlife management, then it is time that they stand up in support of their own methods. But it appears they are scared. Maybe there are too many animal rights wildlife biologists who have infiltrated the MDIFW. This is happening all across America. I see it everyday.

I’m not sure how much it will take to really anger the hunting community. Maybe this isn’t enough. Maybe they don’t care any longer. If so, the anti-hunters, animal rights activists and environmentalists are winning the battle against us.

What are licensed hunters supposed to think when they continue to spend millions and millions of dollars for wildlife conservation and what we are now seeing is the result spending that money catering to the nonpaying population making all the demands against hunting and trapping. We now have a whitetail deer population in peril because of it.

I suppose it is now time to declare the whitetail deer in Northern and Eastern Maine endangered. If this was a native brook trout population in one of Maine’s famous trout ponds, efforts would be put forth to slaughter every invasive fish there that was destroying the brook trout. If Maine can slaughter hundreds of thousands of fish from a body of water to “reclaim” it, why can’t they justify fighting for the means to allow for the killing of coyotes that are destroying our deer?

Isn’t that what needs to be done now? It would be a start!

Tom Remington

Americans are guaranteed under the United States Constitution to be able to work hard and make a living. As this country spirals deeper and deeper into a form of European-style socialism, individual rights, including the right to prosper, are being yanked out from under American citizens for no good reason.

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

It all makes little sense to me. Maine, like just about every other state in the Union is looking at ways to cut the budget and Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci insists on targeting the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. At least 90% of the budget is paid for through license fees and reimbursed taxes paid through Pittman-Robertson. Only recently did the Maine legislature cough up any money to assist MDIFW. Budget constraints on the Department have come mostly due to the demands placed on it for services outside fish and game (oh, sorry! Fish and Wildlife. That changed a few years back), yet those taking advantage of those services pay little or nothing.

Now Gov. Baldacci is seeking a license fee increase and he seems determined to either get the increase or merge the fish and wildlife into one huge natural resources entity, of which nobody wants to see. An article by Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News says that Baldacci is threatening sportsmen to either accept the fee increase or he’ll merge the departments.

Baldacci spokesman David Farmer stressed that the consolidation proposal is being put forward as an alternative to higher user fees. If the sporting community can live with the fee increases, then the consolidation proposal goes nowhere,

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

Generally speaking sportsmen are content to pay reasonable fee increases when they can see value for their dollar. What’s getting really old is paying extra for the license in order to pay for things that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing and trapping. Maine has to find a way to make up the shortfall by collecting fees from those who use and don’t pay, admittedly a difficult task.

I can assure you though that consolidating departments and morphing Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into a huge natural resources kind of department would be the biggest mistake Maine could make. Just look around at the states who have. First and foremost, it saves no money but more importantly two things happen.

One, fish and game doesn’t get the attention it needs. Monies are moved around and license fees continue to escalate in order to pay for more non-game activities and services. This results in the second problem. Time and again when talking with other sportsmen in other states and even looking at surveys taken, one of the biggest complaints by sportsmen who have stopped buying a license is that they feel they have no say anymore with fish and game.

Where once sportsmen organized into clubs in order to have input into the management of game no longer exists to the same degree. Ask any sportsman and they’ll not give a real positive impression of their own fish and game departments. On top of that bury the fish and wildlife into a huge, bureaucratic nightmare of a “superagency” and what little confidence left gets further eroded to efforts of futility, devaluing the experience and rendering a license purchase a waste of time and money.

Maine Senator David Trahan, (R) Waldoboro, who sits on the Fish and Wildlife Committee says he wants people to know “Over my dead body”.

“I’m not interested in having this discussion about consolidating these agencies into one,” said Sen. Dave Trahan, R-Waldoboro, a member of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee. “I just want people to know that. My position is ‘Over my dead body.’”

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says he opposes both of the governor’s proposals.

SAM’s executive director, George Smith, has promised to fight both proposals to increase fees or merge the agencies. Smith and other several other speakers said the state needs to find a way to get kayakers, hikers and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts to help pay for the services that game wardens and DIF&W biologists provide.

The chairman of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, Bruce Bryant (D) Oxford, also thinks Maine has to find ways to get those utilizing services to pay to play.

Sportsmen complain about the fee increases. Others don’t because they enjoy the benefits bought and paid for by the sportsmen and yet these same free loaders are making much of the demand for bigger and better services.

There is one thing that is certain. We can get mad at the governor. We can berate the fish and game department but if we don’t stop placing demands for more and bigger, how can we expect to keep fees down? Granted our departments have to hold the line on spending but at the same time we need to stop demanding.

Tom Remington

Many Americans believe that being in the outdoors is what makes their lifestyles so remarkable and frankly, having grown up that way, I just don’t know what I would do if I lost the freedom to do that anymore.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. This lifestyle is being threatened. Ask yourself who you would rather have looking out for your interests in these matters, someone who is one of us or someone with little if any experience in outdoor affairs, namely hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, boating, ATVing, horseback riding, rock hounding, canoeing, kayaking and the list goes on?

As we rapidly approach November 4, 2008, Election Day, I encourage everyone to get out and vote. This may be the most critical election ever to face our nation and you need to be a part of it.

If you are anything like me, where the outdoors is more of a part of my life than indoors, I have to seriously consider who I want leading the way. John McCain is an outdoor sportsman. He is a fisherman and doesn’t pretend to be something that he’s not. He has selected a running mate in Sarah Palin that doubles the draw of the ticket.

The Sportsmen for McCain website says McCain supports your interests.

“John McCain understands that hunters and anglers are the first conservationists and without them, conservation as we know it will cease to exist. John McCain recognizes the importance of recruiting the next generation of hunters and anglers as well as maintaining those currently in our ranks. John McCain believes in multiple uses of public lands and knows that the revenue generated by the licenses and gear that we purchase is the life blood of state wildlife agencies.”

Our Endangered Species Act has been so far twisted out of shape it has lost its ability to protect the species we want to have long into our future. Who better to lead than someone with a real understanding of what proper wildlife management is. McCain is someone who knows that it is the outdoor sportsmen that make it possible for him to go fishing when he can.

I have to believe that one of the reasons John McCain recruited Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate, is because who else can have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the outdoors than the governor of the state that labels itself as “The Last Frontier”.

Having a grip on the importance of our outdoor heritage is huge. This directly affects tens of millions of Americans. Outdoor issues shouldn’t be overlooked in this election. Putting the future of our heritage in the wrong hands can gravely impact how we live as Americans.

Both McCain and Palin have track records on where they stand and what they have done to protect our heritage. Obama and Biden pale in comparison and have yet to show that they even care. Don’t hope for the best, when the best is right before you.

For more information on Sportsmen for McCain, visit their website.

Tom Remington

Today, George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine chastised the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for doing an inadequate job of managing the state’s moose herd. His criticism came in his weekly column in the Kennebec Journal.

While I can agree with Smith that the moose isn’t getting the attention it deserves, I can also say that other species aren’t either much because the MDIFW is strapped for cash and Gov. Baldacci thinks he can cure some of the problems by creating bigger departments and absorbing fish and game into another entity.

Smith suggests that Maine pays much better attention to the lobster than the moose and says the state falls short in taking advantage of the moose as a tourist attraction.

Sure, our quality of place is important, but these two critters are critical to our tourist economy.

The state and its lobsterman take care of their lobsters. But the forlorn moose is left to fend for itself.

To compare the management of lobsters with moose is a stretch, even though I understand Smith’s point. He says lobstermen understand the importance of good management and are willing to fork over money for the cause. What competitive lobsterman wouldn’t do that? They can pass on the added expense to the hungry tourist who comes to Maine to dine on the crusty creature.

Moose hunters cough up a lot of dough over the course of each hunting season and the demands being placed on them to dig deeper is getting old. Moose hunters don’t set traps, harvest the moose and sell it at the local butcher shop for whatever the market value is.

If Smith wants to talk tourism and how the moose and lobster affect the Maine economy, that’s fine but comparing lobstermen with moose hunters isn’t quite the same.

Maine isn’t alone when it comes to trying to find the right balance between catering to the freebie wildlife watchers and to hunters. Survey after survey shows that hunting interest is holding steady or in decline while wildlife viewing is up. In fairness, many of those wildlife viewers are hunters and fishers.

States struggle to find funding to meet the demands of wildlife management. Part of the problems have come from states morphing their fish and game departments into fish and wildlife departments, moving their focus away from managing for game and managing for demanding wildlife viewers who essentially pay nothing for the privilege.

We must remember also that when we begin demanding that wildlife viewers pay their two cents worth, they will also demand better representation for the fees they pay and history shows us that not always are hunters and wildlife viewers in total agreement.

I concur with Smith that Maine should have a more accurate count of their moose population. This demand is always easily asked for but extremely difficult and expensive to do. Let’s face it, even the deer population estimates are only that, an estimate based on data and fancy formulas that get tweaked every year.

I hear demands from hunters all across the country that fish and game should go out and count the animals one by one and get it over with. Oh, really? I believe the most effective way to count game is by aircraft. It’s expensive and still is not highly accurate.

I believe Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer biologist and now moose biologist, is a smart man and does his job well. I do agree with Smith that a position should have been filled instead of dumping this in Kantar’s lap.

It is obvious to me the department is looking at ways to cut expenses. I’ve said this before and I’ll continue saying it. Maine needs to go in the opposite direction than what Gov. Baldacci is suggesting. The fish and wildlife department needs to return to the fish and game department for the purpose of managing game. If the state wants to start a department of natural resources, then fine. Then they can figure out how to levy fees against the freebie users of our lands and natural resources that hunters, trappers and fishermen have paid for for years but leave the fish and game alone.

Perhaps Smith needs to be reminded as to why we have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 moose in the state of Maine. It didn’t happen all by itself and it didn’t happen because somebody thought they could make a buck hauling tourists around in a van hoping to spot one of the gangly creatures mucking it up beside the road. It came from the fish and game management, through restrictive regulations and thought, all bought and paid for by the hunters.

I have no sour grapes that people want to go to Maine to see a moose or eat a lobster. I like doing that myself. What I don’t like is that more and more demands are being put on the fish and wildlife department, while using up my license fees, that aren’t benefiting me as a hunter.

Smith recalls what former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne had to say.

Kantar’s predecessor, retired deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, summed it up well, saying, “You’ve got to put money and you’ve got to put resources into it, and you have to have leadership.”

Not assuming that Lavigne required those to be in order, I might first suggest new leadership. Baldacci must go. He has cost the state of Maine dearly in his poor leadership skills, especially in suggesting that MDIFW should become absorbed into some natural resources quagmire. Bigger government is not better and everyone, including the viewers, will suffer from this move. History proves it through the number of other states doing just as Baldacci is suggesting.

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to whether wildlife watchers and game hunters can operate well as a cohesive unit. It seems the goals of each entity are polarizing and would war with each other.

Moose watchers want one thing – moose to watch. They don’t understand wildlife management and tend to view hunting as nothing more than a reduction in the moose population, which runs contrary to their goals. This presents quite a problem and one that can’t be remedied simply by saying that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needs to throw more money at the moose issue so both hunters and viewers will have more moose. It’s far too complex an issue and wrought with emotions and politics.

Yes Maine needs to do a better job in managing their moose but I’m suggesting it first begin with new leadership and a better structuring of departments so that all pay their fair share. Then, money will be available to better manage a valuable resource in the moose.

As Smith asks, “Shouldn’t a state agency that brings in $2 million from moose be able to do better than this?”

The answer is yes, as soon as the money stops being spent on none game projects demanded for by non fish and game projects.

Tom Remington

The Boston Globe has a typical article today that shows the media’s desire to disregard hunting in favor of wildlife watching at the expense of hunters. It really kind of irks me, the ignorance that exists and then the arrogance from the wildlife watching community as they are continually told they outnumber hunters and are gaining the upper hand politically to have things their way.

And it appears that the Maine Office of Tourism isn’t exactly jumping up and down in support of the state’s thousands of hunters.

“It’s a challenge,” said Phil Savignano, senior tourism official for the Maine Office of Tourism. “Maine is changing . . . There is clearly a decline in hunting and a growth in wildlife viewing. But we want both to exist.”

According to officials at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, hunting participation has held pretty steady in Maine. I’m sure Savignano is referring to the USFWS survey that I have said for months is not an accurate measure of who hunts and who doesn’t, yet even state officials use that data instead of information from their own agencies. Go figure!

The difficulty, as I see it, does come from the power of the dollar. I don’t want the wildlife watchers taking over fish and game departments. Lee Kantar, a biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and who has recently been put in charge of looking out for the moose, had this to say about the pressures put on the department in managing the moose.

“Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care,” said Lee Kantar, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Population numbers, he added, “can be the stuff of battles.”

Perhaps this is what it has evolved into but it’s not supposed to be the function of the fish and game department to be managing game animals for the wildlife watchers and those trying to make a buck off charging people to go on wildlife watching safaris.

Once again we see history being lost in our society. People forget what state the moose was in not that many years ago and whose dollars it was that were used to restore the moose population. Now we have a seemingly abundance of moose and some hunters are demanding more permits to hunt the creature while at the same time wildlife viewers, who pay nothing for the management of the animal, are demanding more moose to watch.

For many reasons there are people who don’t want the two entities to coexist. I won’t go into all the reasons. The media does little to help as is shown in this article.

I want to see the wildlife watchers pay their share to meet the demands they are putting on MDIFW but separate from the fish and game department. I have said this repeatedly. Fish and game needs to be shrunk in size to a function of, well, fish and game and NOT as Mr. Kantar says: “Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care.” This is not a function of a wildlife biologist or the fish and game department in my opinion. Why should my license fee be used to satisfy those wanting to go moose watching, or for pandering to the insurance companies to reduce collisions, etc.?

There are no sour grapes here toward those who want to make a buck or two by schlepping those interested in canned photo opportunities and wildlife viewing safaris across the state. What irks me is their demands that hunters stop shooting the animals in order that they have more animals to watch. All this without paying a red cent to the agency they are demanding provide them more opportunities.

It’s been said countless times. If it wasn’t for the millions of dollars paid by hunters over the years, these viewers would have little to watch and safari organizers would be doing something different. Hunters generally speaking do not resent that people want to go wildlife watching. What we do resent is these groups looking to promote their new-found activity at the expense of running the hunters off the face of the earth.

Tom Remington

Consider this if you will. Fred owns a small farm. In the middle of his property he discovered he had a good source of water, water that he could use for his home and to water and care for what few animals he had on his farm.

A city dweller bought a lot of land next door to Fred and decided to build a home. The city dweller considered digging his own well but didn’t think it would look good and might be detrimental to the environment, so he worked out an agreement to buy his water from Fred.

On the other side of Fred, another buyer purchased a lot of land and built a house. This new buyer, being an acquaintance of the city dweller, also opted not to dig or drill his own well. Instead, he too bought his water from Fred.

Fred is not an idiot and soon he realized that he could sell quite a few people water and right now he still had all the water he needed for his own use. Fred continued to sell water. More people moved to the area and bought Fred’s water until one day he realized he had to stop selling water to more people because he was running out.

People demanded his water for their needs. They had lawns to water and cars to wash, as well as swimming pools to fill. As demand rose, Fred decided he had to charge more for his water. He brought in water experts who told him that he really couldn’t get anymore water by digging more wells. Fred continued to raise the price of water all the while more people moved into the area, all refusing to dig their own wells but seemingly unaffected by the rising cost of his water.

Eventually, Fred was now making $5.00 for every gallon of water he sold and his buyers were getting mad. The neighbors got together and appointed a spokesperson to go talk to Fred and demand that he dig more wells and lower his price of water. Fred said he couldn’t do that and suggested that they needed to start digging wells on their own land so that they would have water at a cheaper price and not have to be dependent on Fred for his water.

They refused claiming that they would not spoil the pristine beauty of their land and refused to have to be subjected to looking out their back window and seeing a well. Certainly this would decrease their property values and cause environmental damage that could destroy our planet.

Fred suggested that if they were not willing to dig for their own water, they would have to reduce the amount of water they used but the neighbors would have nothing to do with that. Altering their lifestyles was not an option. Most people could well afford Fred’s water. They just didn’t think it was right that Fred was making money by selling a commodity that people depended on.

Fred once again raised the price of his water. When neighbors complained again, he told them he had other neighborhoods who had discovered that they needed more water and were willing to pay a higher price. This angered Fred’s neighbors who now claimed they were entitled to Fred’s water, once again demanding he lower his price and increase production. Fred refused.

The neighborhood coalition met the following week, hired an attorney and decided they were going to sue Fred because he refused to dig more wells.

Tom Remington

The following Op-Ed appeared in the Bangor Daily News yesterday, May 1, 2008. It is written by Nathaniel Richie, who is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering at the University of Maine.

One year after Virginia Tech, the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University serve as a reminder that no meaningful progress has been made to increase safety on college campuses. To date, the “solutions” presented by school officials have been nothing but a rehash of the same failed policies that were in place before the shootings.

Police training and presence has been presented as the best way to protect students in the event of a school shooting. While certainly an important measure, there are problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that public safety response time is measured in minutes, not seconds. The critical time between a 911 dispatcher receiving a call for help and the arrival of law enforcement is time during which shooters have free rein. Police response times were five and eight minutes at NIU and Virginia Tech respectively. Both shootings ended before police were able to respond. <<<Read the rest>>>

Posted by Tom Remington

I might be a rarity when it comes to the hunting and fishing industry, at least from the perspective of the “consumer”. Hey, I’ll cut right to the chase and come out and say that some? many? most? anglers and hunters aren’t that interested in sharing their fishing holes and highly productive hunting grounds with “outsiders”. Just pretend for the duration of this article that you actually did care and see if you can get beyond your personal feelings long enough to understand some odd reasoning. At least my form of reasoning is having trouble with this.

I would suppose that because I have a background in the tourist industry and that happens to be in Maine, it is difficult for me to get rid of that networking and marketing mindset that so much is a part of making it in the tourist business. With my background and this odd drive I have, I still find value in marketing Maine’s (or fill in your state) natural resources – in this case hunting and fishing.

I have a very good friend who lives in Maine. Her name is Wende Gray. I have a lot of respect for her expertise in the tourism/marketing industry in Maine because, 1) I think she understands it and, 2) she’s been at it for a long time. Wende wears many hats and one of those hats of late has been her involvement with the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance. The UAAA is a group of local businesses scattered throughout and along the watershed areas of the Upper Androscoggin. In this case from about the Maine and New Hampshire boarder south and westerly to the Rumford, Maine area.

The purpose of the Alliance is to promote the river as a destination fishery. Anyone who has been in and understands the tourism business knows that you are always scrambling for business and the competition can get fierce.

As Wende has done in the past, she invites prominent outdoor writers into the area and wines and dines them in hopes they will in turn publish some kind thoughts on their experiences. This all in hopes of luring others, often times “from away”, to the area obviously to spend some money and keep people employed and able to pay bills.

Wende recently contacted the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to inquire about obtaining some complimentary fishing licenses for visiting outdoor writers to the region. Here’s part of that email.

On behalf of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance I am requesting a dozen complimentary fishing licenses for travel and outdoor writers visiting our region this summer. UAAA has joined the New England Outdoor Writers Association and attended the Media Marketplace in New York City. There is great interest in our emerging destination fishery and we expect up to a dozen writers visiting this year-in particular for the Two Fly Contest and Drift Boat Competition in June. Our pr efforts in the past have generated articles in Cabella’s Sporting Journal, Gray’s Sporting Journal, New England Fish & Game, Outdoor Life, the Boston Globe, and New York Sun to name a few. It is our understanding that due to budget cuts at IF&W, complimentary licenses are no longer available. With the emphasis on Maine’s fishing product in promoting Maine tourism this summer, we are in hopes that the Office of Tourism would be able to assist us with our request.

Regis Tremblay, the new Director of IF&W’s Public Information and Education Division, responded to Wende’s request saying that she could forward her request on to the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Dan” Martin and then he took some time to explain to Wende about the new policy concerning complimentary licenses in addition to having to be approved by the Commissioner.

…..we’d like to have some certainty that the writers are aware of a lose quid pro quo…i.e. IF&W and our mission as stewards of Maine’s Wildlife and Fisheries does not go unmentioned. We would also expect to receive copies of the magazines in which mention of us might appear. Also, just for your information, these licenses are not free, but are paid for out of my budget. We are happy to do this, but are hopeful of some return on our investment.

I have no idea what Commissioner Martin’s expectations are regarding who he will consider worthy of a Maine complimentary fishing license. The other expectations laid out by Trembley I really have no issue with and actually think it is a great idea to have some kind of guarantee that this small investment sees some kind of return other than willy-nilly handing out free licenses to anybody.

*Note* – For clarification purposes and to be as transparent as possible, I have no stake in this as a writer. There’s no sour grapes because I want a free license to go fishing in Maine and can’t get one. I do fish in Maine when I am there in the summer but I gladly hop on over to the local agent and purchase a non-resident fishing license.

Getting back to the guidelines about comp licenses, I was struck by the comment made by Tremblay that the cost of these licenses comes out of his budget. So, I emailed him for an explanation. I wanted to know what the actual cost of administering a comp license was and how many, on average, did MDIFW issue in a given season.

Tremblay was kind enough to take the time to answer my email but I can’t say I actually got the answer I was looking for, only raising more questions. He told me the retail price of a resident and a non-resident fishing license in Maine.

* Resident fishing licenses costs $21.00
* Non-Resident fishing licenses costs $52

Does this mean that if MDIFW issues a complimentary license to a writer who lives in Maine, Tremblay gets hit for $21.00 and $52 if the writer lives out of state? How does the cost of issuing a comp license to a writer change depending on where the writer lives? Before you jump all over me, I understand about having resident and non-resident licenses but if the idea for a complimentary license is for the purpose of advertising and promotion, does it matter?

What I was hoping to find out was what the actual real costs were in issuing a complimentary license – $1.00, $2.00, $3.00 or $21.00?

And why is Tremblay getting nailed out of his budget the full retail price of each license? And the money gets extracted from his budget and then goes where? Inquiring minds want to know. Is this Martin’s way of reeling in (sorry) the public relations people at MDIFW because he thinks they are issuing licenses irresponsibly? If so, why can’t he just simply approve or not any complimentary licenses issued?

Tremblay also told me that MDIFW typically issues “a few dozen” licenses annually. For clarification purposes, I don’t know if that “few dozen” is all complimentary licenses or just those issued for outdoor writers and those only to fishermen outdoor writers.

So what is a few dozen? And how much does this really cost the state of Maine?

Not to get mired in the questionable administrative methods of MDIFW but one has to at least question the expense and return. Remember, I asked you to pretend you don’t mind if people “from away” come to Maine (insert your state) to fish. If Tremblay says a few dozen licenses are issued, let’s see if we can guess what a few is.

I asked Wende Gray again if she had any idea about how many in the past MDIFW has given out. Her interpretation of a few dozen most closely resembled between one and two dozen.

As a country boy growing up in rural Maine, I seem to recall my grandfather telling me that a few meant twelve. Let’s say Wende says two dozen and Grandpa’s definition is twelve dozen and split the difference to seven dozen or 84 licenses. You do the math. Is it not worth it? Should the Maine Office of Tourism pick up the tab for the 84 complimentary licenses? Is this all tit for tat while losing focus on the big picture? I don’t get it.

Either there is legitimate value in the process of utilizing outdoor writers for advertising and marketing, or there isn’t. I concur that somebody should “approve” complimentary licenses and if MDIFW can’t afford to issue those licenses because of budget shortfalls and somebody needs to pay, should they be paying full retail price for each license?

Recently MDIFW teamed up with the Maine Office of Tourism to promote fishing on the MOT website. Who paid for that? Did MOT charge MDIFW the full retail value of creating web pages for that purpose? Regardless, MDIFW must be showing an interest in luring in out of state anglers by undertaking this action. Another indication is they still are willing to sell non-resident licenses, so there must be some value in their eyes, to bringing in outsiders to fish the waters of Maine.

It all seems quite silly if you ask me. The reality is that it cost the state of Maine virtually nothing to issue a complimentary license. Is this a viable advertising and marketing scheme for Maine or isn’t it? If it is, let’s get on with it. If not, it’s time to end the charade.

Tom Remington

Maine, like a lot of states, is having trouble funding its Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Maine, not necessarily like a lot of states, loves to tax its citizens. Maine is one of the most heavily taxed states in the Union. Maine is coming off one of the most severe winters in history and in parts of the state, the deer herd has been hit very hard. Needless to say, the state has its troubles financially and is faced with decisions on how it is going to fund programs.

The MDIFW is facing a shortage this year in its budget and they are scrambling to find funding. Sen. Bruce Bryant, Committee Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is proposing an increase in hunting, trapping and fishing license fees by $2.00 per year for residents and $4.00 per year for nonresidents.

Coming as no big surprise, Maine sportsmen are divided on whether they should be asked once again to pick up the slack.

Rep. Tom Saviello of Wilton and member of the JSCIFW, is also proposing a bill that would levy a fee on hikers and kayakers of $20.00 annually. That money, as I understand it, would go into a pool used to offset the costs of the Maine Warden Service to respond to search and rescue calls for non-license holders in the state. This bill may be facing more resistance than the license fee increase.

I’m not going to get into discussions about whether or not I think any of the fees are fair, necessary or justified. What I will do is raise some questions that I think need to be answered before anyone in Augusta or the users and sportsmen can make qualified decisions on what should be done.

Sportsmen are notorious for complaining about fee increases and we can’t really blame them. It does seem that all too often they are called upon to pick up the slack when it comes to financial shortcomings. But also true to sportsmen is that they don’t mind coughing up their fair share and a lot more, when they are able to see the worth of their investment.

There is also a trust factor. Sportsmen have to have a belief that the MDIFW is looking out for them. Here’s one example. Last year in Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, said it had to raise license fees because it was looking at a $10.8 million shortfall. Sportsmen there were also divided but after raising fees, when the end of the year came around, DNR had a surplus of nearly $20 million. Trust me when I say there is no more trust between Michigan sportsmen and the MDNR and it could be years before MDNR will get a license fee increase again.

As I see it, those complaining the most about paying the extra fee are doing it for two basic reasons. 1). They see their services being cut along with a reduction in fish and game and opportunities. 2). They believe that non payers that rely on Fish and Game services, which includes the Maine Warden Service, need to start anteing up their fair share. In honesty, I think these two reasons are legitimate, although I probably won’t get a majority approval on that from readers.

How MDIFW will find the funding remains to be seen. What isn’t being answered, and I have sent out emails that have not been answered, is how is funding of MDIFW going to be affected if Gov. Baldacci gets his way and merges MDIFW with other “natural resources” departments in order to save money?

As most of you know, I am dead set against such a move for a number of reasons, one of them being the problems that arise from how revenue is generated to this new department and how it gets spent. Sportsmen need guarantees that the money they lay out in license fees is actually going to be spent on managing fish and game and not going to fund the local nature walk project that once open will be closed to all hunting and fishing.

In previous discussions I have had on this subject, people remind me that Maine is required by law to spend fish and game money on fish and game programs. I realize that but nobody will answer my question when I ask if those laws become null and void if legally the MDIFW is dissolved and a new entity of natural resources is created?

Maine doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to spending the money generated by license fees on fish and game items. If Baldacci gets his way, will the formation of a different department guarantee that Maine sportsmen’s money will be spent as promised?

Baldacci opposes a license fee increase, which I find interesting as I never knew a tax he didn’t like. Maine sportsmen need to decide if any money they have to spend more than they do now will be spent as promised and whether it is worthwhile. I don’t completely buy into the argument that Skip Trask, spokesman for the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Guides, used as was reported in the Banger News.

Skip Trask with the Maine Trappers Association and Maine Professional Guides Association pointed out that a daily lift ticket at a ski resort can cost $70 while some golfers pay $60 for a day of green’s fees.

Paying $40 for a year’s worth of hunting and fishing, as the bill proposes, is a deal by comparison as long as it helps keep wardens patrolling the backcountry to protect the resources, Trask said.

Trask is right in his representation of the costs of skiing and golf. I’ll also concur that the cost of a license to hunt, trap and fish in Maine is a bargain but making such a comparison isn’t in and of itself justification to raise fees. We shouldn’t raise fees simply because we can and get away with it – and I don’t think Trask is suggesting such a thing.

My point still comes back to perception of the license holder. It’s what you get for your money and whether you feel the money is spent with the best interest of the sportsman in mind.

This proposal for a rate hike comes at a troubling time in my mind. If this was coming at a time when Baldacci wasn’t suggesting a hocus-pocus, mix up and blend departments together, closely resembling a shell game, then maybe the decision could be easier.

It seems the majority of Maine sportsmen want non-paying users to contribute. How to make that happen is argumentative for certain. Making government bigger in hopes of accomplishing that task will never work. We need to fight Baldacci’s idea of creating a bigger department of natural resources and return the fish and game department back to more what it used to be – fish and game management.

Tom Remington