A time for action
Consider this a call to action for anyone who has ever sworn an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. First let me be clear that this is a call to nonviolent action. You are being called to remember your solemn oath and asked to be oath keepers.
This call to action requires obedience to our Constitution in the form of refusing to obey an unlawful order from a superior.
Our Constitution is in serious trouble. Many of our leaders have placed themselves above the Constitution. We have become complacent and lazy.
So what is an unlawful order? During the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, the U.S. Army was dispatched to help out. Soon after they were sent to disarm all the residents of New Orleans. That’s a two-for-one violation folks.
One, the active duty military is never to be used on American soil, especially as police. Disaster relief is the National Guard’s job. Two, the 2nd Amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms. Why would you disarm law-abiding citizens who are only protecting their homes from looters? Disarm the looters.
This is not a call to anarchy. I am not proposing you do anything to create chaos in the military or your local police department and thereby jeopardize your mission. No one is advocating any unlawful activity.
So, how about it, my brothers and sister at arms? Will you stand up and be oath keepers? And how about it you elected officials? Will you fight to protect and defend the Constitution?
Master Sgt. Tim Clark (Ret.)
Bangor
Slow down
Do you want a car or truck driving at 40 mph less than 4 feet from your child? Apparently the majority of the drivers on the Finson Road have answered yes to this question, as they do it on a daily basis.
Finson Road is a small connecting road between Broadway and Ohio streets, currently a detour route around the bridge construction on Griffin Road. There are no sidewalks, breakdown or safety lanes. It is a residential area where the majority of homes have at least one child, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Every morning I take my daughter to the bus stop to wait for the school bus. A group of six to eight children are endangered every day by the drivers who speed less than four feet from them, and five minutes after my daughter’s bus comes, the smaller children go out to wait for their bus.
I’ve contacted the Bangor PD numerous times about this issue. They respond by increasing their presence in the area, but there are not a lot of places on this street where the police can legally park to get speeders.
I’m not writing to tell you the dangers of speeding or how much a speeding ticket is, but as a concerned mother begging that the next time you’re driving and you see a child, slow down. Nobody needs the trauma of hearing about a child struck by a vehicle.
Tracey Ridley
Bangor
Coyote dollars
Four-hundred-fifty-thousand tax dollars allocated to kill coyotes? An annual budget of $150,000 of Maine’s hard-earned money to pay for traps and hunters is just too much and borders on the barbaric.
Fifty families could pay off their debts, get the car fixed, buy some oil and fill the pantry. Instead, we’re filling trucks with hundreds of new, gleaming leg traps, guaranteed to maim and torture, ensuring a slow and painful death to whatever unlucky critter happens by, so deer, who eat my plants and vegetables, can live?
There are better ways to spend this money, or maybe we could just put it toward paying off our debts.
Catherine Tanzer
Camden
Vigue’s shortsighted vision
Peter Vigue has had multiple opportunities to convey his vision of an east-west corridor to the people of Maine and Canada, it is time we have open debate about a project that could define the future of Maine.
Should Maine tie itself to a failed economic model that puts the future of human existence at risk or should it embrace a new local economy? The proposal is a 220-mile, 500- to 2000-foot-wide, concrete-and-steel corridor bisecting the state from Calais to Coburn Gore. It’s a $2 billion investment creating an ecological dead zone to move resources and goods in a global economy.
By any standard the global economy is a failure: it has lowered our standard of living; a foreclosure epidemic is driving us from our homes; poverty is on the increase. Increasing CO2 levels are making us sick and bringing on climate change that will possibly make large parts of Earth uninhabitable.
We do need investment in Maine, investment in a new economy based on local values. Investors are starting a grist mill in Skowhegan and a food-processing-and-storage facility in Belfast. The Crown of Maine Organic Cooperative is creating market opportunities for small farmers. Money spent on these projects stays in Maine and doesn’t go to Wall Street. Such investments create more jobs than the corridor could and move Maine’s economy away from one that is unhealthful and makes us poorer.
This is the road we should take.
Read Brugger
Freedom
WABI-DirecTV Feud
The inability to come to a compromise between WABI and DirecTV is taking a page from our political posture in the U.S. Neither side is wrong and blames the other as they are both adamant it is not their fault while the thousands of viewers (constituents) that are paying for the service are left in the dark without those channels.
What a shame it is that they cannot sit down and come to an agreement that would serve everyone equally but if we can’t expect our politicians to do it why should we expect big business to do it. Maybe it’s time to fire everyone and start all over again.
Jeffrey Weatherbee
Dover-Foxcroft
Sales tax
If the Bangor Daily News is so in love with dysfunctional politicians like Rep. Chellie Pingree and Gov. Paul LePage that it can’t resist trumpeting their blather about the unfairness of our not having to pay sales tax on Web purchases, then your rag probably can do without me and some others when it comes time to renew our subscriptions.
It’s already unfair enough when people who never buy anything on the Internet already have to pay a compulsory amount for “supposed Internet sales taxes” every time we have to file our state income tax returns.
Carroll B. Knox
Caribou
Master Sgt. Tim Clark (Ret.)
Agreed we need to take back and defend the constitution. Today another onslaught against the constitution took place in the form of a desperate President unlawfully changing immigration policy.
First of all,you don’t have to take back the constitution because it hasn’t gone anywhere and I’m willing to bet that the President has not done anything illegal. Please give me an example of a law he has broken . I’m betting you can’t. Just more right wing BS.
Why, he’s not even American! That’s a law he broke right there!
~rolls eyes~
Oh here we go. The left wingnuts can’t bear to have some truth come out and label anyone who disagrees with their shangrila policies as right wing extremists. Well so be it, we’re extremists then according to your definition and darned proud to bear the label. We’ll worry about the social stigma and our fragile self esteems after the election.
First, our Constitution has been under attack for decades and has been slowly degraded over time. So slowly that we hardly notice. You have to be blind (or a left wing, bleeding heart liberal) to not see it now though. Our Constitution is being trampled under by the very people WE voted for. And don’t whine to me about “interpretations”. Our Bill of Rights is quite clear and requires no interpreting.
Ben Franklin said “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.” Those words have never been more true than they are today. Since 9/11 we have steadily given up our freedoms in the name of security.
-The NDAA has some good aspects to it, but there are some very disturbing (and unconstitutional) parts that directly affect Citizens Constitutional rights, but we’ll never hear the ACLU howl about those will we?
-TSA is way over stepping their bounds and basically rape every traveler before you can board a plane, why? Because we might be hiding a terrorist in our under pants? I’m all for aircraft security, but come on people!
Oh and by the way. We didn’t say take the Constitution back. We said take America back and get back to following the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
For the Republic!
CORRECTION!
One responder DID say words similar to “take back the Constitution”. Sorry.
My original statement still stands though.
You might be interested in this article that appeared in the November 1998 issue of Vanity Fair. “The War at Home” by Gore Vidal. It’s crazy that it was written before 9/11-we were on track to total surveillance LONG ago…
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/1998/11/civil-rights-199811
My. my, how must the Native Americans feel about you taking back America. What you say is shameful.
Oh brother.
Native Americans ARE Americans aren’t they? I want everyone to enjoy every single freedom that the US Constitution gives every US Citizen.
Its up to all of us to stand up and speak up. Its up to all of us to elect officials at all levels that will stand up for our Constitution.
according to your interpretation …… your rants are a valuable lesson that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…..glad to see that you include all in your campaign for fairness… I hope that I have not mischaracterized your intent with the word ‘fairness’… I do hope that you will be voting to extend the freedoms of which you speak to your fellow gay citizens in our next election… I might remind you of the phrase ‘toward a more perfect union’….peace.
SIGH!
Again with the “interpretations” thing. I do not interpret.
Fairness? Yes, I believe in fairness and I think that everyone standing up for our Constitution will bring some of that back.
You said,
“…… your rants are a valuable lesson that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…..”
I say that NO knowledge is even more dangerous. The Bible says, “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” How true.
I’ll add two quotes of Ben Franklin’s to keep this in the secular arena.
God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.
They establish that one does not know their rights have been violated if they don’t know what those rights are. Knowledge is power, even if you are powerless to stop wrong doing.
SIGH ! You seem to see all that you refer to in your comments as ‘black and white’. Life is not like that. The Constitution has been interpreted since it was first penned. That is how it was written.
Let’s agree that we see life and country from different perspectives. Nothing that I have written supports ignorance. I believe that I understand where you are coming from and I do not accept your simplistic takes.
I am a very big fan of Ben Franklin.
Speaking of bleeding heart liberals, how about Jesus?
The first reply was an open one to all.
This reply is for you Michaela.You would lose that bet and if you can’t find any of the thousands of glaring examples to found on our Weird Wide Web then you really are living in a cocoon. The President has written one Executive Order after the next and signed Bill after Bill that directly infringes on or negates our Constitutional Rights. This Admin is trying to hand over our sovereignty as a NATION to foreign authority. Not so many years ago we would be clambering for impeachment proceedings and charges of Treason.But it isn’t just this Admin. It goes much further back than that an encompasses both Parties.
It really IS time for change.
Do you actually believe that the Republicans in congress would turn a blind eye to any of Mr. Obama’s policies that they thought they could use against him? If they thought they could conjure up enough evidence to bring him up on charges of any kind they would be all over your TV screen drooling like a bunch of blood hounds. You can find glaring examples of anything on our Weird Wide Web but you have to be able to seperate what is true from what you want to hear. This can be to much of a stretch for some people. If you want a TRUE glaring example of handing over our sovereignty to foreign authority you only need to look back a very short space in time to the Citizens United Ruling by a Conservative leaning Supreme Court that allows un-fettered access to our electoral process to the highest bidders without knowing if they are foreign or domestic.
Other than some immaterial differences, the Republicans and Democrats in office are no different and are trying to obtain the same results. There are a few in office that are trying to buck the system, but they are few and far between.
Let’s assume we all live in a cocoon and then you could give us the thousands of examples, actually 10 of the most infringes would be sufficient for this discussion.
Thanking you in advance for you information.
Master Sgt. Clark (Ret.) has written complaining about something that former President George W. Bush (a Republican, let us remember) did several years ago, after Hurricane Katrina, something that Clark believes to have been unconstitutional. Why Clark waited until now to complain about this old news , I’m not sure.
Yes, all voters should be vigilant, and we should expect our elected leaders to uphold the Constitution. I was concerned throughout the Bush Administration that on many issues, the president was overstepping his authority. There have been times when President Obama has appeared to overstep presidential authority in the same manner that President Bush did (not to mention President Jefferson, President Jackson, President Lincoln, and President Truman, to name just a few). It seems that everyone who sits in the Oval Office interprets his authority in the most expansive way. This is not new news.
No, I did not complain about what Mr. Bush did. I cited examples of Constitutional violations. The fact they occurred under Bush had nothing to do with it.
I do agree that exceeding Executive Authority seems to be a Presidential hobby.
Here’s what I said: “Master Sgt. Clark (Ret.) has written complaining about something that former President George W. Bush … did several years ago …” You say that YOU did not say that. Are YOU Sgt. Clark?
I said that HE complained about President Bush sending troops into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, which he did complain about (without mentioning that it was done by President Bush). That is the incident he cited. It happened under Pres. Bush 43.
You claim that YOU never said that. But I said that Sgt. Clark said it, and it is clearly in his letter to the editor. My question is, why is he complaining now about something that happened under the previous president?
You and I appear to agree that many presidents have exceeded their authority. I would say this goes back to President John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 (especially the Sedition Act), and the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the size of the United States under President Jefferson in, I believe, 1803 — the Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to expand the United States by purchasing land. In other words, this expansion of presidential authority goes back to our Founding Fathers.
My question is, why is Clark complaining NOW about something the previous president did five or so years ago? I could complain, I suppose, about the Alien and Sedition Acts (which violated the First Amendment), but John Adams is no longer President, and the Federalist Party is no longer in office.
Hmm, you may be on to something there.
Before you get started this is my only user registration at BDN.But again, MSgt Clark (wink) did not complain about any particular President in the above LTE. The only intent was to cite prior examples of violations of our Constitution.If the unconstitutional internment of our Japanese/American Citizens at the start of WWII had been cited would it be viewed as complaining about FDR? No, its an example of what has occurred to support a position.Complaining about such things now would be akin to closing the gate after the cows have already gotten out.
Oath_Keeper, you and MSgt. Clark have a valid point, that many presidents (and I agree with your statement about FDR and the internment of Japanese-Americans) have gone beyond their presidential authority. I believe we agree that we must be always vigilant.
It seems, however, that Republicans are only concerned when a Democrat is in the White House, and Democrats are only concerned when a Republican is in the White House. I heard a rousing speech by a prominent Democrat during the Bush 43 administration, complaining about all the many different ways Pres. Bush was overstepping his authority, violating the Constitution, and threatening our liberties. The Republicans were silent on this issue.
Senator Obama echoed many of those same concerns. Now that he is president, he is (like other presidents) expanding presidential authority, stepping over Constitutional lines, and the Republicans are complaining loudly that our liberties are being curtailed and our freedom threatened.
Why don’t Republicans ever complain when a Republican is in the White House? Why don’t Democrats ever complain when a Democrat is in the White House? We always trust the guy who is in our own party (perhaps too much), and we always distrust the guy in the other party (perhaps too much).
I wonder if we’re going to sit around and let the US government follow Britain’s war-on-the-people lead and propose a plan to logging every citizen’s correspondence, from texts to paper mail. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/mass-surveillance-uk-releases-new-details-of-plan-to-track-all-citizens-communications/2012/06/14/gJQARl53bV_story.html
Interesting read Joe.
The Patriot Act and NDAA already give our Govt. (that’s here to help us, btw) the unconstitutional authority to do this though. But of COURSE its for our own good and “we will only look for bad stuff and bad people”. Why wouldn’t we approve?
Of course those of us who complain about it get labeled as tin hatters or domestic terrorists. Meanwhile the blind left wing liberals dance merrily down their yellow brick road to Shangrila.
I wouldn’t say it’s just the liberals. It’s both parties. It’s everyone at that level-it doesn’t matter who’s in charge-this was a concern with Clinton in office as well as when Bush was in office.
I will say that I am freaking tired of people, including UK Home Office Secretary Theresa May, telling us that we have nothing to be concerned about if we’re not doing anything wrong. Really-it’s at the point where we are all suspects with them waiting for us to act out of line. They’ll be reading with their dossier on us should that happen, whether we know we’ve stepped out of line or not.
Uh, opposition to the Patriot Act and the NDAA is split pretty evenly between “left wing liberals” and libertarians, Oath_Keeper. Liberals have been fighting to protect the constitution from conservative authoritarianism for decades (that’s why the ACLU was created, after all).
Accusing liberals of being complicit in the government’s increasing restriction of civil liberties is just plain ridiculous.
Agreed. We’ve started to establish (in this discussion thread) that it isn’t Left or Right, Dem or GOP. They all share the blame and the responsibility.
I just like poking fun at liberals. Because, well, its fun. LOL
another reason to not take seriously what you say….
They already do. And when we tried to fight against the big telecoms for giving them access to every single email and text message on their network, they passed an ex post facto law that said they are protected for giving that information. Do you think they stopped after this? We as Americans should be very worried. It isn’t about ‘if you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.’ They can now arrest any American citizen indefinitely without a warrant. They are now storing all of your communications without a warrant. They can now assassinate American citizens remotely with a drone without a warrant. Watch what you say, because many comonly used words are now a reason to be investigated and trigger alerts for those that have been elected to defend and protect the constitution. We are not free
Check out this article written in November 1998. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/1998/11/civil-rights-199811
I just saw that ex. But that’s a rant for another day.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
We must always be alert and hold our elected officials accountable. But shouting “DOOM!” is not particularly enlightening, nor is it helpful. Presidents since John Adams have been overstepping their authority, and the problem goes back to the days of the Federalist Party, yet somehow the nation and Constitution have survived.
Yes, of course, we need to remain vigilant, and we need to vote intelligently. As a liberal, I have always supported liberty — the two words, after all, come from the same root.
01/20/13 The nightmare ends
It’s beyond Obama, bro. It’s at that level, period, no matter who’s in charge. All this didn’t start with Obama.
As I mention elsewhere on this page, it goes back at least to President John Adams in 1798. And yet our nation and Constitution survive.
Hope there are more like you out there Read, big corporations from out of state will rape and scour our state if they see any way to degrade our way of life and enhance their bottom line. DCP’s proposal in Searsport is a good example, Vigue’s obscene vision is another. The oil and gas mega-corps who own our politicians couldn’t give a rat’s behind for the likes of us who just live and love it here. Watch out folks, the lies and manipulations have just begun!
Thank you Read for cogent arguments on why “local” is better for us/the economy. We must support or local enterprises initiated by our neighbors, and be brave and smart enough to shun the corporate entities that will exploit us and our resources, for their gain, not ours. Shop local. Grow food. But stand up and speak out against The East-west Highway, and DCP’s Megabomb tank in Searsport that relies on all the surrounding towns for their resources and manpower, and will give (12-15 jobsthat may not go to local people) nothing but pollution and blight in return.
Haven’t been able to post a specific comment on the BDN blog site so here goes.
The imbecile with the “Foodie” blog laid out a list of food and cooking blogs on their site. It amazes me that I’ve offered a blog with the perspective of a disabled person and yet I hear crickets.
It just screams “Let them eat cupcakes!!”
Let’s face it the BDN doesn’t care about anyone that doesn’t hang out at the local coffee house.
Oh yea, we need 18 FOOD BLOGS. But a disabled person??? Who cares??
I would be interested in a food blog written by a disabled person. I have two sets of parents who are disabled and I think this might be good for them. I’m interested in microwave or other types of pre-packaged dinners with high nutritional value that can be purchased at the supermarket. Is this the type of thing you would write about?
Go to the discus website and link your blog there. Traffic isn’t magic, you need to advertise.
Sorry, that was the disqus website. Crappy system won’t let me edit.
According to the BDN , people submit ideas and THEY have control. I know I can blog anywhere, just hoping to get a built in audience. It appears FOODIES are as deep as the people at the Bangor DULL news gets.
Clark, please realize your personal interpretation of the Constitution isn’t the universal nor acceptance interpretation.
Well its painfully obvious that our Constitution it isn’t acceptable to left wing liberals. As for interpretations I avoid that like I avoid liberal extremists.
There is no “personal interpretation” as you put it. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and anyone who tries to take away the freedoms given to all Citizens through that document should be charged with treason.
I wonder why the founders included Article III if they did not want to allow any interpretation.
Yes, there absolutely are interpretations of the Constitution. There would be no Federal courts otherwise.
Agreed. That’s what the Judicial branch is supposed to do. I don’t interpret. Our Bill of rights is fairly clear. It doesn’t take a Supreme Court Justice to understand that we all have the right to free speech, a free and unfettered press, the right to bear and keep arms, etc.
Oath_Keeper, there are differences in interpretation, however — what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishments”? V.P. Cheney said water-boarding was not torture. Sen. John McCain, who knows something about torture, said that it was torture. Both men are in the same political party, and yet they could not agree.
John Adams did not think that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment. Jefferson (and most historians) disagreed.
So your interpretaion allows for indefinite detention of American citizens? Your interpretation allows for the collection and scanning of all your digital communication, whether it be email, text or cell phone? Does your interpretation allow for a dispatch of a drone plane to assassinate American citizens?
I didn’t say that.
Master Sgt. Tim Clark (Ret.)–As long as we are supporting the constitution…….remember this clause:
“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.”
Remember to vote yes to allow gays to marry in November–support the constitution.
Personally I don’t think the government should have any say at all about marriage, It is a religious event. But I don’t see anywhere in your quote that says anything about gay people or heterosexual people being married.
Marriage is a religious event in the eyes of the church but it is a legal contract in the eyes of the government. The privilege to marry another citizen is denied to gay citizens of the United States. They are denied equal protections that the marriage contract provides to couples and and they are deprived of liberty to enter into a legal contract with another citizen that most of us are guaranteed. I call that unconstitutional discrimination.
Like I said. I don’t think it should have any governmental standing at all. Marriage should be transparent as far as the government is concerned. No legal contracts, nothing.
And yet both Federal and state governments are involved in marriage. So until then, what are you going to do? You purport to defend the Constitution but then are comfortable with inequality for similarly situated individuals — that’s a concept that’s unconstitutional.
Where did I say that I was comfortable with inequality? I explicitly said I didn’t think the government should have any say in who marries who. I think that if a man wants to marry a man he should be able to. If a woman wants to marry a woman she should be able to. But I also believe if a man or a woman wants to marry multiple partners they should be able to also.
I agree that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business, but what I’m saying is that’s not an excuse to vote against conferring marriage rights to gay people this fall. Maybe not you, but certainly others are using it as an excuse and that’s where I’m coming from with the “comfortable with inequality.” Until the state is out of the marriage business, it isn’t right to deny gay people equality.
To me it’s the other way around — the clergy should NOT be agents of the state. Get the church out of the business of signing legal wedding documents — the legality of a marriage is a state issue that the church should not be involved in.
Let the government do governmental things; let the church do spiritual and religious things.
The legal contract of marriage is a governmental issue; it cannot be separated from the many thousands of laws it is is written into. Marriage is a legal covenant. All legal marriages should be civil.
Then, if the church or synagogue wishes, religious groups can bless the marriage, but the blessing should have no legal consequences. Priests, pastors, ministers and rabbis should not act as agents of the government, signing the legal marriage documents. Let the church do religious and spiritual ceremonies, but don’t entangle the church in legal proceedings.
Let the church be the church; let the government be the government. Don’t make the church into the government by having the priest or pastor sign the legal wedding document.
You make eminent sense !
mAineAc, I understand and appreciate your sentiment. However, the legal covenant of marriage is written into thousands of laws. It would be nearly impossible to disentangle it — for instance, when one marries, the other person legally becomes part of the family, and is included in estate and inheritance issues.
I once attended a wedding in England. In England all weddings are civil. You go to the town office and get married there in a nice but secular setting. Then, if the church wishes to “bless” your marriage, you may go to a church for a church “wedding.” The church gives a blessing to the marriage, but the church’s blessing has no legal consequences.
To me that makes sense. All legal marriages should be civil (and in my opinion all adults, regardless of sexual orientation, should be treated equally). The church or synagogue, then, can bless the marriage, or not, as it sees fit.
Lemme guess, “retired” 40 years ago?
From Carroll B Knox – “It’s already unfair enough when people who never buy anything on the Internet already have to pay a compulsory amount for “supposed Internet sales taxes” every time we have to file our state income tax returns.”
What are you talking about? Are you taking about line 31 on the long form? If you have no internet purchases or out of state purchases you put “0” zero on this line. No one is making you pay a compulsory amont when you file your income taxes. You are getting yourself all worked up over nothing or something if you are using the alternate state formula to put an amont on this line. Again put zero on this line..it is not against the law.
You must have a fool for an accountant: if you don’t buy anything on the internet you put a big fat ZERO on that tax form line.
If you DO buy anything from the Internet, still put a big fat ZERO on that line. Let them try and prove it. They won’t waste their time. This stupid tax is completely unenforceable.
All they state has to do is get a list of purchasers from say Amazon and run it against a db file from tax returns. Not all that hard really.
Or make online companies charge the tax, if they can use computer software to run an online store, then it probably wouldn’t be hard to charge a sales tax.
Maybe, but having more than 50 different tax rates for online buyers may not be within the realm of all online businesses. But I don’t really see that it should be the responsibility of some shop in North Dakota who sells items online to collect Maine state taxes.
How about a little bit of personal integrity and honesty?
Catherine Tanzer. It’s called business. Fewer coyotes means more deer. More deer means more hunters buying Maine hunting license, firearms, ammunition, clothing, assorted gear and clothing, food, lodging, fuel, and sometimes Registered Maine Guides. I support the governor on this action, and I also support the war against coyotes.
Larger coyote litters are usually born when their numbers are low. So the more coyotes you kill, the more they will breed.
It’s a little more complex than that, with a proper plan they can make a difference. You can decrease a coyote population by removing 65-80% of the population depending on a variety of circumstances, but in most cases that is not practical. I think the idea behind the monies that were set aside for coyote control is more for removing the coyotes that are in the deer yards and thus taking pressure off of the deer. The compensatory recruitment ability of the coyotes doesn’t mean that they will have larger litters if the population is low, but that they will have larger litters if their habitat can support it. With a management plan for certain areas (as the whole state would be impossible) you can manipulate that effect to a degree by targeting dominant individuals and females. It would be a hard job but it is not impossible.
Cat, they don’t care that what you say is true, nor that there continues to be a decline, every year, in hunting and trapping. They don’t see the idiocy in killing one species to save another species (which historically is at the uppermost 10% of their range) so that they can kill them. They don'[t care that the paper industry is cutting down the very habitat that Whitetail Deer need to survive tough winters…. As I’ve said before, there are none so blind as those who will not see, and you are talking to those who WILL NOT see…….
Kired, your statement about removing the dominant individuals could not be more wrong. If you read the two most recent, peer reviewed studies in the Canadian Field Journal concerning the Eastern Coyote you will see that removing the dominant coyotes resulted in a doubling of the litter sizes (2009) in one study and the doubling of the pack size in the second study(2010). Also, read the white paper The Wildlife Society (a professional wildlife biologist organization) just published on predator management. There is a chapter there on coyotes and deer in Maine written by our deer biologist Lee Kantar. There is nothing in there that supports anything resembling what the extreme end of the hunting community sees as the solution. He states “Ultimately the relationship between coyotes and deer and their relative population levels will be
dictated by ecological and sociological factors.” There is nothing in this paper that defends anything the state nor that extreme end of the hunting community proposes to try and accomplish that can not and will not be accomplished concerning deer in northern Maine.
Sales tax on all Internet purchases are required to be honorably remitted on personal tax returns. The problem is many consumers both knowingly and unknowingly evade their honorable tax obligations. 86% of Internet consumers surveyed would rather have sales and use tax, which is legally due, collected at the time of purchase. After all why should consumers be burdened with having to track and remit sales and use tax on their individual returns, especially when merchants can employ free technology freely available on the internet. Processing shipping is actually more complicated now than calculating and remitting sales tax for any jurisdiction in any state. Pending Federal legislatio will finally enable elimination of legacy tax burdens and associated administrative burdens for all consumers, merchants and local governments.
Carroll Knox, I hope you are not using a paid tax preparer for your state taxes. If you do not make out of state purchases, you put in zero for the tax. The calculation is an alternative method for people who do make out of state purchases but do not track them. If you are paying for sales tax on your income tax form with no purchases, you are overpaying your taxes.