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

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

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

I think those are issues the market can handle,

Give Rep. Pieh a blue ribbon!!!

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Here is how Winters quoted me.

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

Here is what I actually wrote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsors and cosponsors of this bill are:

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

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

Tom Remington

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.

A more significant problem is consistent court rulings that law enforcement does not have a duty to protect the individual except under very special circumstances. An examination of several precedent-setting legal cases clearly demonstrates the court’s firm stance on this issue.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the United States Supreme Court in 2005 stated that, “it is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection.”

Additional cases, including South v. Maryland (1856), Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), Bowers v. DeVito (1982), and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), have also served to affirm the consistency of the court’s position for more than 150 years. This precedent does not only apply to municipal police. In Rhaney v. University of Maryland Eastern Shore (2005), the court in Maryland found that the school had no duty to protect its students against the violent acts of another student even if the school was aware of the student’s potential to be violent.

Opposition to carrying concealed weapons on campus is most often founded in the belief that it would increase violence. The collective incident-free experiences of Colorado State University, which allowed permit holders to carry weapons on campus for 10 semesters, Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia, which allowed licensed, concealed carry since 2003, and the nine state universities in Utah’s system, which have allowed concealed weapons since 2006, all stand to refute this notion.

This is also not supported by analysis of crime data since adoption of Maine’s current concealed carry legislation in 1985. A comparison of violent crime and murder rates for the 15 years before and after Maine’s adoption of right to carry shows an average decrease of 48 percent and 53 percent respectively, while nationwide murder fell 11 percent and violent crime increased 26 percent.

Neither is this claim supported by national crime statistics. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, while right to carry laws did not cause a significant decrease in crime across the nation, neither did they increase crime rates.

There are those who oppose recognizing concealed weapons permits on campus claiming that permit holders would not be equipped to handle a campus shooter. There are many examples of armed citizens stopping shooters in and out of school and saving lives. At Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., on Oct. 1, 1997, Luke Woddham shot and killed two and wounded seven. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick ran a quarter-mile to retrieve his firearm from his car and returned to stop Woddham before he could drive away. Myrick held Woddham for four and a half minutes until police arrived; preventing him from executing his plan to drive to Pearl Middle School to continue killing.

On Jan. 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy Va., Peter Odighizuwa opened fire, killing three and wounding three more. Two students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, retrieved their firearms from their vehicles, confronted Odighizuwa and held him until police arrived.

In light of these facts, the University of Maine owes the students and faculty a full and complete explanation of the obligation to protect the individuals on campus. Furthermore, given the inability of the individual to rely on the police for protection from both a practical and legal perspective and the proven track record of armed citizens in defusing violent situations, universities face a decision: either change their policies to allow legally licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons or continue to allow their students and faculty to exist in an institutionally created state of vulnerability.

Nathaniel Richie is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering at the University of Maine.