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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in order to obtain around 100,000 email addresses of those who bought hunting and fishing licenses online. As a result, it has set off a firestorm across certain channels of the hunting and fishing outdoor world in Maine. At issue is privacy and unwanted SPAM from SAM as well as the ability of any other individual or group to obtain the same list. Potentially, this could open a can of worms.

According to WMTW-TV website, SAM obtained the emails to send out information about coyotes. SAM has become very active of late in working to get all hunters involved in doing what they can to stop the further decline of the whitetail deer herd in Maine, which is suffering greatly due to many factors; poor management, severe winters, loss of habitat, overblown populations of predators, among other things. One aspect is to encourage and promote the hunting of coyotes.

One would have to recognize and appreciate SAM being all agog to fire up the licensed hunters and get them involved but I have to seriously question the decision to mount an email campaign using emails obtained, 1). through FOIA request, and; 2). using emails from fellow hunters without their approval. These are the guys you want help from. It’s an odd way to go about it.

We all hate SPAM and some are obsessed with it. It think it safe to say that most hunters are not very thrilled with the prospects of what can come from this move by SAM. First, it immediately creates bad public relations. Second, it forms distrust. Many hunters are asking whether SAM will resell the list to other agencies. This all comes at a time when hunters need to unite in an effort. I think SAM is attempting to do this but they failed to grasp what would happen. Third, if SAM, which had to go through the Maine Attorney Generals Office, can obtain this list, anyone else can. That fact in and of itself, has angered a lot of people.

In my opinion, here is what SAM needs to do. Immediately issue a public apology. Promise the list will not be used and that they will work with the Attorney General and MDIFW in order to get the law changed to protect those emails. I don’t believe this was the intent of FOIA. This only makes sense. MDIFW has promoted their MOSES online license purchasing program for quite some time. It is time and money saving for MDIFW. If perspective license buyers can’t be confident their email information and perhaps other personal information, cannot be safeguarded, it will seriously detract from the program. This has to be done immediately.

Once SAM has done what it can to minimize the damage they have caused, then they can choose other routes to get their message out. SAM has a website that needs updating to become more user friendly and interactive. They can wage an opt in/opt out email campaign for sending out newsletters, etc. and seeking new members. They can provide needed updates on their website along with providing RSS feeds so other websites, including blogs and forums, can post SAM’s feed so their readers have easy access.

Press releases can also be generated from the website and sent to all media outlets across the state. If SAM is wondering how well this might work, then just take a lot at how quickly and widespread the news traveled about them confiscating emails. I rest my case.

We live in an electronic age. With the rapid growth of the Internet, lack of knowledge can set businesses and organizations back in their progress as was the case for SAM. On the same token, knowledge can advance their cause. They now need to mend some fences and get with the times. The days of “stealing” email addresses to send unsolicited information is not only outdated but is extremely bad business. SAM needs to become cutting edge in this regard.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

*Update* Mar. 9, 2009 – Sen. Trahan offers alternative to salt water fishing license. Read more and sign a letter being sent to Joint Committee on Marine Resources.

Maine Senator David Trahan needs your help!!!!

On Thursday January 22nd, 1:30 p.m., in Legislative Council Chambers, 3rd floor of the State House, Sen. Trahan (R-Waldoboro) will testify on his Resolution to Congress expressing the Legislatures opposition to the adoption of a saltwater fishing license. The Resolution will reinforce state sovereignty rights, express support for responsible collection of information, but clearly state Maine’s total opposition to any salt water fishing license requirement.

The Resolution is the first step that Sen. Trahan will take in his effort to block any attempt by Congress to require the new license. Immediately after the Maine resolution, Trahan will launch a nationwide campaign, reaching out to every state in the nation with a saltwater fishery asking them to adopt a Resolution and enlist the support of their Congressional delegation to defeat this new federal mandate.

Senator Trahan will also work with Maine’s Congressional Delegation requesting their support in stopping this unwarranted intrusion on State Sovereign Rights.

Senator Trahan will need your help. In order for the Legislature to debate the Resolution in Maine, the Legislative Council must approve it for introduction. Legislative Council is made up of Republican and Democrat leadership. Republicans have already indicated initial support so Democrat votes are essential to achieving enough votes for approval. Please call or e-mail Legislative Council members and encourage them to allow a debate on this effort and join in the effort to fight for Maine people and their Sovereign Rights.

Please call or e-mail:

Sen. Elizabeth H. Mitchell, President of the Senate, Vice-chair of the Legislative Council
Phone: 622-2629 e-mail:
SenLibby.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov

Rep. Hannah Pingree, Speaker of the House, Chair of the Legislative Council
Phone: 867-0966 E-mail:
hannah@pingree.com

Sen. Philip Bartlett, Senate Majority Leader
Phone: 839-7827 e-mail:
phil@philbartlett.com

Sen. Lisa Marrache, Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Phone: 861-0154 e-mail:
drlisa@elmcitymed.com

Sen. Kevin Raye, Senate Republican Leader
Phone: 853-9406 e-mail:
SenatorRaye@wwsisp.com

Sen. Jonathan Courtney, Senate Assistant Republican Leader
Phone: 324-5467 e-mail:
SenJon.Courtney@legislature.maine.gov

Rep. John Piotti, House Majority Leader
Phone: 437-2493 e-mail:
piotti@uninets.net

Rep. Seth Berry, House Assistant Majority Leader
Phone: 522-1609 e-mail:
seth.berry@verizon.net

Rep. Joshua A. Tardy, House Republican Leader
Phone: 368-5858 e-mail:
tardylaw@adelphia.net

Rep. Philip Curtis, House Assistant Republican Leader
Phone: 696-3052 e-mail:
pdcurtis2@hotmail.com

We are a mere 26 days away from Election Day, a day that is shaping up to be one of the most important in U.S. history. I am hoping and encouraging all anglers and outdoor enthusiasts to get out to the polls and vote but before you go, please consider the support we fishermen will be getting from the team of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Sportsmen for McCain describe the Arizona Senator as knowing the right end of a fishing rod.

“John McCain is the only choice for Sportsmen. John McCain is an angler; he knows the difference between spinning gear and a fly rod.”

Doesn’t it make sense to support someone who is a fisherman when it comes to protecting our fishing heritage and conserving our wildlife?

We are presently facing numerous issues that will have an effect on how and where we can fish in this country in the near future. Our fishing access to water is threatened and radical groups want to stop us from enjoying an afternoon on the lake, wading our favorite trout stream or spending time with our family on a fishing expedition. This makes no sense.

John McCain has been there. He calls himself a fisherman and doesn’t need to pose for photo opts in hopes of convincing some of us that he is. He fully understands the importance of every aspect of fishing for sport and industry.

As we all know by now, John McCain has teamed up with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. He’s asked her to be his running mate and fill the position of the Vice Presidency. In all seriousness, could we have asked for a better person to be on McCain’s ticket?

Sarah Palin has a rich background and a diverse one in fishing. Not only has she made a living as a commercial fisherman but has enjoyed countless times the thrill of wetting a line in some of Alaska’s great fishing rivers and streams. She is a true conservationist and with that understands the very importance of proper wildlife management that will protect our fisheries and take us into the future.

Sarah Palin has been scorned and scoffed because she is different than the usual Washington insider. While it is disturbing that our self-proclaimed progressive society shows itself as judgmental and intolerant, the team of John McCain and Sarah Palin sees beyond such nonsense and looks to protect our future.

Please help support the McCain/Palin ticket because I believe they understand my heritage as a free American and are the best people to keep that heritage alive.

More information on Sportsmen for McCain can be found on their website.

Tom Remington

An Earmark + “K Street” Lobbyist = Massive Federal Land Grab

by David A. Ridenour

With his signature on May 8 to S. 2739, the ‘Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008,’ George Bush has now signed on to the establishment of de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Charlottesville, Virginia. It’s one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this massive, pork-laden bill that included a provision creating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area. Debate was limited to just 40 minutes.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local elitists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict property rights and move property ownership beyond the means of the less well-to-do.

Environmentalists and preservationists love heritage areas, because they can be used to curtail development.

Local elitists like them because they can help keep people they consider to be undesirable out of their communities. Minorities are harmed disproportionately when land-use restrictions cause home prices to soar. (It is perhaps no coincidence that lily-white Waterford, Virginia was at the epicenter of the effort to create the JTHG Heritage Area. Waterford has a rich black history — and history is apparently where the village would like to keep it.)

Politically well-connected developers like heritage areas because they can be used to establish near monopolies on real estate development opportunities. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt discovered, that’s precisely what the JTHG Heritage Area would do.

And federal bureaucrats love heritage areas because they allow them to get around little inconveniences to their central planning — inconveniences such as local elected officials.

House passage of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area was hailed by its chief sponsor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation, the chief lobby organization behind the effort. Both noted the overwhelming vote in the House, 291-117.

The bill received support across party lines. In the House, supporters included Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Don Young (R-AK), William Jefferson (D-LA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and John Doolittle (R-CA). (Now all these gentlemen can say they have a second thing in common.)

But it is unlikely that support for the land grab was as great as the tally might suggest, as it was buried in an omnibus bill of over 60 other proposals — some enjoying wide support.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) noted during the limited debate, “Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny… this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line.”

Approval of the JTHG Heritage Area is a case study in what is wrong with American politics.

The JTHG Heritage Area wasn’t approved by Congress due to overwhelming public demand for it. Borrowing from the Beatles, perhaps it got by with a little help from Wolf’s friends — a lot of Ben Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Abe Lincolns and George Washingtons.

You see, Congressman Wolf slipped a $1 million dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill — buried among 6,372 other earmarks — for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Foundation. This is the very group that has led the lobbying effort for Wolf’s bill. More unusual still is that at the time of the earmark, the foundation had yet to even be incorporated and was operating out of the personal post office box of its executive director, Cate Magennis Wyatt.

It appears as though Congressman Wolf used taxpayer money to fund the lobbying campaign for his own bill. (Read more about his here)

Then there’s the unseemly Wolf-”K Street” lobbyist connection. Wolf’s land grab bill was written by Don Pongrace, who runs the Indian practice (yes, a lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a large law firm with offices in D.C., London, New York and Moscow.

Not only that, but Pongrace apparently was authorized to speak for Congressman Wolf in meetings about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area.

It turns out that Pongrace serves on the board of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation — the group receiving Wolf’s earmark largesse — and Pongrace’s wife has served the group as vice president.

Apparently, the concept of a conflict of interest is lost on the mega law firm of Akin Gump.

Interestingly, at the very time Frank Wolf was collaborating with Akin Gump on his bill, he criticized the firm for working for the Chinese government in its bid to acquire Unocal.

Wolf wrote to Akin Gump, “I question the appropriateness of an American firm… being on the payroll of the Chinese government… I immediately thought, ‘Is there no bright line to separate who lobbyists in Washington will and will not represent?’”

Is there no bright line, indeed.

Congressman Wolf introduces a bill written by a “K Street” lobbyist, arranges a $1 million earmark for the group lobbying for that bill — and employing the lobbyist’s wife — and he asks about bright lines?

Congressman Wolf also received help pushing his bill from National Park Service employees, who acted contrary to the Service’s official position, which calls for the creation of no additional heritage areas until a formal NPS program is created through legislation. Nonetheless, the NPS’s Brenda Barrett and Alma Ripps were dispatched to defend creation of the JTHG Heritage Area.

The full extent of the National Park Service’s assistance with the legislative effort is still unknown, as the Service has so far failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. In violation of the FOIA law, it provided only incomplete records and documents that obviously had been altered (helpful hint for NPS employees: if you plan to alter documents, you might want to avoid using ruled paper).

Ethical questions surround the process through which this national heritage area was approved. A presidential veto was warranted.

-David A. Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

A federal judge this past week told the Department of Interior it had until May 15, 2008 to make a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And the environmentalists went wild!!!

If you follow the link category to the right under “Endangered Species“, you’ll find plenty of articles and links to the ongoing debate about whether the polar bear is in danger, whether the world is in danger and if it’s all caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from carbon dioxide.

I laughed out loud a few days ago, when Al Gore, during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes said that those of us who won’t jump on his flim-flam bandwagon, were like the Flat Earth Society people and that we believe the lunar landing was staged on a lot in Hollywood. What was hilarious about it was that the Flat Earth Society was made up of people like Al Gore, who refused to listen to any kind of reasoning whether logical or scientific, that showed the earth wasn’t flat. I know of hundreds of people personally that are not sold on Al Gore’s theory of man-made global warming but are open to listening to debate on both sides of the issue. So who’s a Flat Earther?

Without debate, media, politicians and American citizens are blindly plowing ahead, often times willy-nilly, to save the planet – in this case the polar bear. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle provided readers with an editorial about the plight of the polar bear. 100% of the piece (and yes I realize it’s an editorial) was presented as fact that ice is melting everywhere in the arctic, that this is caused by man and that the polar bear is dying off. They even repeated projections from recently discovered to be faulty models that said the bears would be extinct by the year 2050. There is just as much scientific evidence, particularly the newest data, to refute everything the Chronicle repeats as climate change facts.

But what I find as the most disturbing part of the editorial is their position on what they deem to be more important to the American people; affordable energy and a healthy economy or swallowing a politician’s theory on global warming.

It’s unlikely that in its final year in office, the administration will reverse its policy of protecting business interests instead of the environment and endangered species. The courts should not have to tell the administration to enforce environmental statutes rather than undermine or ignore them.

Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act isn’t a simple matter of adding it to a list and then we hope it gets better. There has to be intelligent discourse among sane people in order to realistically determine the all-encompassing affects of making such a move.

I have worked some in my past articles that I hoped would, if nothing else, get readers to ask questions and think more about this issue other than how it is going to affect next Christmas’ Coke commercials. Huge Hewitt of Townhall has also covered more in depth as to what actually can happen to our economy, through the federal permitting process for growth and development. He offers more thoughts on that today.

The short version: If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort –even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases– those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Hewitt practiced Endangered Species Act law for two decades and should have a pretty good understanding on how administering the Act works. In several of his articles about the polar bear listing, he refers to Section 7 of the ESA(pdf – scroll down to find Section 7) often. The first part of Section 7 I believe spells out quite clearly, even to those of us without a law degree.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementationof such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

The two biggest remaining questions which may never get answered are; Is the polar bear really threatened and to what degree should we as a society carry out the protection of an animal species while putting our own well being at risk?

I know of nobody who wants to see the polar bear disappear. Many scientists don’t believe it will nor that it is threatened. What the Houston Chronicle failed to reveal, as has many other media sources, is that only two areas of polar bear populations are decreasing somewhat in size. The remainder are holding steady or growing. It is my opinion that we have as yet to scientifically determine whether the bear is in danger.

Remember that should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list the bear, it will be because they think man-made climate change will destroy the bear down the road somewhere. This has never been done before. Hewitt, from a perspective of having been there and done that, clearly points out that we don’t know what we are in for. The courts can only make rulings that are based on the content of the Endangered Species Act.

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington

As I was heading out the door late yesterday afternoon, my good friend Kevin from Congressman Don Young’s office sent me the below email. Congressman Young, from Alaska, is the ranking republican member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. I couldn’t help but have a laugh…….for more reasons than one.

Dear Colleague,

Is this Speaker Pelosi’s “commonsense plan” for reducing Americans’ energy costs?

NO! to ANWR’s 30 year, 1 million barrel per day supply of American oil

NO! to 2 Trillion Barrels of American oil shale

NO! to more clean burning natural gas

NO! to Clean Coal.

NO! to more energy exploration in the 85% of OCS off-limits to energy development

NO! to more energy exploration in the Intermountain West

NO! to more Nuclear Power

NO! to more Hydropower Energy

NO! to expediting alternative energy development

NO! to any form of energy that will provide meaningful relief from record high energy prices

NO! to 90% of the energy that fuels America’s economy

NO!! IS NOT AN ENERGY PLAN

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

Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research is warning sportsmen that the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), “would do more to threaten the cherished pastimes of hunters, fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts than it would to ensure the cleanliness of our nation’s water.”

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