Black Bear Blog

Noah! Build Me An Ark!

Tom Remington — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:32:56 +0000

Because reader “jes” thinks I might be the modern day Noah, here’s a cute story he sent me.

In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said:
“Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.”

“Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans.”

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: “You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.”

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

“Noah!,” He roared, “I’m about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?”

“Forgive me, Lord,” begged Noah, “but things have changed.”

“I needed a building permit.”

“I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system.”

“My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.”

“Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark’s move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.”

“Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.”

“I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!”

“When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was
confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.”

“Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study
on your proposed flood.”

“I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m
supposed to hire for my building crew.”

“Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.”

“The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with
Ark-building experience.”

“To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally
with endangered species.”

“So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.”

“Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.”

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, “You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?”

“No,” said the Lord. “The GOVERNMENT beat me to it.”

Check Out Related Articles

Is It More Humane To Kill Elk Using Hired Sharpshooters Or Hunters?

Tom Remington — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:47 +0000

The beat goes on……La dee da de dee…..and the beat goes on. Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain!

The New York Times published an opinion piece, a piece I assume was compiled by their editorial staff because there was no name attached to it, about the effort to cull the elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in western North Dakota.

You see the problem is there are too many elk. Over 20 years ago, a handful of elk were deposited in the park and today that number is approaching one thousand. Officials say there should be no more than 300 to maintain some semblance of balance within the ecosystem.

The argument has been how to kill off those 600-plus elk. Some have said a hunting season should be opened up to allow qualified hunters to do the job, while others think the federal government should pay exorbitant fees to hire sharpshooters to systematically slaughter the beasts. And let’s not forget that there are those who think we should let Nature deal with it and yes, some espouse bringing in wolves to do their bidding.

The editorial isn’t so much one declaring their preference of slaughter methods as it is a bundle of contradictions and bad information. Montana Senator Byron Dorgan proposed using hunters to do the job. Evidently the NYT has a problem with hunting.

To begin with, the proposal would legislate a management issue better left to the secretary of interior and the National Park Service. Worse, it would authorize an activity — public hunting — that is proscribed by the founding legislation for the national parks and their current management policies.

I wonder if the Times would think it a good idea to let the Interior Secretary make all the decisions, unchecked, if the Secretary’s methods ran contrary to their ideals?

The Times also believes that nowhere within National Parks is hunting allowed, even though they speak of the Grand Tetons Park “exception”. (There are others as well) The opinion thinks the model being used in the Rocky Mountain National Park to kill off too many elk is a better idea than utilizing hunters who will pay for the opportunity.

Rocky Mountain National Park provides a better model. There, hired sharpshooters have culled cow elk in parts of the park that are closed to the public. This is a safer, more efficient and less expensive way of reducing numbers than shooting bulls, which is what most hunters do.

Huh? For some odd reason, the NYT thinks there is some real humane difference between killing an elk using a hired gun than using a pay-to-play hunter. Could the staff please give us some facts to support this? And they think this method is safer. Once again, facts please.

Oh, but then we get to see a bit of what’s really behind the opinion. The NYT just hates hunting and hunters. The hired guns would obey the guidelines and hunt only cow elk and hunters would disregard that mandate and go kill only bull elk because why? Hunters are blood thirsty animals, only interested in mounting horns over our fireplace mantels?

And how does the NYT calculate that it is less expensive to pay out millions of dollars to hire sharpshooters, than to collect hunting permit fees to allow hunters to do the job?

And then there’s this:

How to manage, and ultimately cull, this North Dakota elk herd should be decided by the National Park Service, based on sound science, not by faulty, if well-intentioned, legislation. It is also critical not to create a broad precedent for public hunting in the national parks, which would undermine their protected status.

Because the National Park Service thinks hiring sharpshooters is the best way to go and it happens to be an anti-hunting move of which the New York Times agrees with, this decision is based on “sound science”? Is there really any “sound science” in deciding what appears to be an ethics and humane decision of how to slaughter a few hundred elk?

The idea of proposing legislation is to force the National Park Service to utilize a different method of managing the elk herd that might be in the best interest of the public, rather than pay ridiculous fees to harvest elk when it could be done for little or no cost to the taxpayers of this country. Again, I ask. Is there science behind making such a decision? Isn’t it the science that determines how many elk are needed in the Park to maintain an ecological balance? It appears “sound science” has already determined there’s too many elk. The question is how do we kill them?

And why is it such a bad thing that we “create a broad precedent for public hunting in national parks”? The opinion says such an act would “undermine their protected status”, meaning the elk I presume. It would be nice if the Times had offered its readers some form of substantiation to this claim. How does culling an elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to protect the health of the herd and the rest of the ecosystem, “undermine their protected status”? Isn’t the idea behind this move to protect them in a responsible way?

It’s really quite clear. The Times, like most animal rights groups and anti-hunting groups, aren’t interested in the “sound science” of wildlife management, nor are they interested in the “humane” slaughter of elk. They just don’t want hunters doing what hunters do. They could have saved a bunch of ink and just said that.

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Tom Remington — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:07:49 +0000

No rain! Actually I do believe I can see a little sliver of sunshine peeking through the pine trees! I guess I’ll take a day off from building that ark.

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

Maine’s Coastal Trees: Odd Shapes A Reflection Of Weathering The Storms

Tom Remington — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:54:33 +0000

Maine’s coast is mostly rugged and rock bound. The southern coastline is where you can find some beautiful sandy beaches but most of the Midcoast and Downeast you’ll find rocks, cliffs, ledges, jut outs, inlets, all compiling many thousands of miles of coastline.

The tree below, sits in the front yard of a fine Maine Coast cottage near Seal Harbor on Mount Desert Island, only a few feet from the Atlantic Ocean. If this tree could tell us about the many storms it has had to endure, the list would be long. It’s anybody’s guess as to the age of this tree but with the bumps and twists and turns, it has put up with a lot, yet held its ground and stood firm.

Photo by Tom Remington

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

Milt’s Corner - The Forget-Me-Not Trail

Milt — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:14:00 +0000

In Fort Kent, Maine along the shores of both the St. John and the Fish River are some walking trails such as is shown in the picture below. While we were there in mid-June, many of the trails were lined on both sides with forget-me-not flowers. Very attractive!

Milt Inman Photo

Milt Inman

Check Out Related Articles

Second Amendment Incorporation Into Fourteenth Amendment - Open Discussion

Tom Remington — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:25:45 +0000

I believe this topic will make for a good open discussion for readers. Please feel free to comment and offer supporting facts for your comments.

This issue is a bit complicated but I think if you take a second you should be able to understand what is going on. Recently the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in a California case that the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, applies to the state because of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The NRA filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago because it continues to ban guns after the decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Coming after the Ninth Circuit Court decision, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

In its lawsuit against Chicago, now about two-thirds of all the many states have signed amicus briefs in support of the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling to incorporate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

While this all sounds good for enforcing the Second Amendment as an individual right, isn’t this a two-edged sword? By agreeing to the incorporation, aren’t we saying that the federal government is the ultimate authority over the states? If not the Second Amendment being overruled by the Fourteenth, then what else will the federal government snatch away from the states?

Presently, there is a movement in this country to regain state sovereignty. Does signing on to this ruling now claim states are willing to fore go their sovereignty in order to enforce the Second Amendment?

Or better yet. Why is it that we need one Constitutional Amendment to force an existing one? The Second Amendment was one of the original. It was drafted knowing full well the importance of a God given right to self protection and protection from tyranny. Isn’t that good enough? Why do we need to incorporate with the Fourteenth in order to honor the Second?

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

As The Globe Cools, Fascists Continue Fear Mongering Over Climate Change Disaster

Tom Remington — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:58:27 +0000

Briefed yesterday on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s latest push on global warming—a fascist genocidal report released on July 6 called, “Technology for a Low Carbon Future”—LaRouche asked, “What global warming? The entire Northeast of the United States is going through global cooling. And Obama is babbling about global warming. He’s the kind of ‘weatherman’ that should be associated with Mark Rudd! People should be told, ‘Get your fur coats out, August is coming!’” <<<Read the rest>>>

Check Out Related Articles

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Tom Remington — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:48:13 +0000

Rain! My God more rain!

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

Tell Me The President Of The U.S. Isn’t Doing What It Looks Like He’s Doing

Tom Remington — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:21:02 +0000

Does anyone ever spend time with this guy and teach him any proper etiquette? I wonder who dresses him?

Tom Remington

Check Out Related Articles

Al Gore Likens Battle Against Global Warming To That Of Stopping Hitler

Tom Remington — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:00:45 +0000

This is a sick man.

Tom Remington