Now that deer season has wrapped up, hunters across Maine are returning to their usual off-season routine: processing meat, watching football and passionately debating the “right” way to hunt and fish.

Anyone who spends time in the woods knows opinions run deep.

So, what’s your hunting hot take? Is camo really necessary, or do deer not care what you’re wearing? Can they really smell a Swisher Sweet on your clothing? Should hunting licenses be harder to get, or should crossbows be classified as firearms?

It’s not just about laws, either — it’s about ethics, tradition and your personal style.

Your hot take might spark a friendly debate — or a fiery one — but either way, we want to hear it.

Share your thoughts in the comments or email Outdoors editors Susan Bard at sbard@bangordailynews.com.

Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious-liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office has concluded that Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill did nothing wrong when she used her government email to assist a law firm that was suing the state over its voter ID law.

Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell wrote that Liot Hill’s use of her state email to assist a national Democratic law firm find plaintiffs didn’t amount to “electioneering” under state law.

The state Republican party alleged in August that Liot Hill — the only Democrat on the five-member Executive Council — misused her position by involving herself in a lawsuit against the state.

From the start, Liot Hill called that claim baseless, and the Attorney General’s office said Liot Hill’s conduct didn’t warrant sanction.

“This Office cannot conclude that the e-mails constituted a misuse of position or otherwise violated the executive branch ethics code. This matter is closed,” the office wrote.

In a statement Friday, Liot Hill, from Lebanon, welcomed the conclusion of the case.

“The AG’s findings underscore the partisan nature of the ongoing attacks against me: I am being impeached not for wrong-doing, but for being a Democrat,” she said.

The lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s voter ID recently failed in state court. But this issue may not yet be over: A top House Republican has filed a bill to explore Liot Hill’s impeachment next year.

As the lone Democrat on the Executive Council, Liot Hill is her party’s ranking member in the State House. That profile has made Liot Hill, who spent two decades in local politics before winning election to the council last year, a regular target for Republicans, who argue that her approach to the job, which she says honors the state’s volunteer spirit, has crossed ethical lines.

The New Hampshire Republican Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment to the Attorney General report Friday afternoon.