Not much of a shocker there I’d say. The problem is the information the Sierra Club is presenting to the public about HCR2037, which is a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would give citizens of that state a guaranteed right to hunt. The Sierra Club is saying that a passage of this bill would remove control of wildlife management from the fish and game and put it in the hands of the legislature. But that’s not true.

HCR2037 says: (the emboldening is mine)

House Concurrent Resolution 2037 amends the Arizona Constitution to ensure the right of Arizona citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest game animals pursuant to existing regulations and restrictions.

It also spells out the authority of the Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission. Perhaps the Sierra Club is taking out of context the part of the bill that says under “provisions”,

States that the right of Arizona citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest game animals in a manner consistent with the laws of trespass shall not be impaired, except as reasonably restricted or regulated by the Legislature.

I believe this is in reference to laws that influence access to hunting lands and in no way states or implies that the management of fish and wildlife in Arizona would be put in the laps of the legislature.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It’s getting worse before, if ever, it will get better. Abuse of the Endangered Species Act is at an all-time high and rising like a rocket. Something must be done! (Scroll to bottom to find links to related articles)

Can it get any worse? Millions of dollars are being spent on lawsuits aimed at preserving habitat and some species of wildlife needlessly, with no end in sight. The ESA is being used as a lethal weapon that will destroy our property rights and further sink us into economic recession. It’s out of control.

In yesterday’s Tucson Citizen, B. Poole has an article that focuses the most of its attention on one such over the top environmental group called the Center for Biological Diversity. This is how Poole describes the efforts of this group.

The Center for Biological Diversity staff brandishes the Endangered Species Act like a blunt-force instrument. Leverage from its petitions and lawsuits - more than 500 in 18 years - helped gain protection for nearly a fourth of the 1,351 endangered or threatened plants and animals in the United States.

This has been much of my argument in the past about why we need to do something about the ESA. A piece of legislation that was created to insure that we humans wouldn’t knowingly wipe out a species of animal or plant, has now become a “blunt-force instrument”, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

It doesn’t help anyone when the author of this piece states that the USFWS’s purpose is to protect endangered species.

Critics accuse the center of helping to hobble Fish & Wildlife, the federal agency with the task of protecting the nation’s endangered species.

The USFWS recently revised its “Mission Statement”.

Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

I fail to see here where the purpose of USFWS is to spend nearly every penny it has fighting lawsuits. The job of the USFWS is far more complex than protecting only endangered species but groups such as CBD are tying the hands of the agency by draining the budget that should be used for other purposes. This blatant act of suing the USFWS is only one tactic used to draw attention to the group in order to better be able to raise money. Donations are expected to exceed $6 million this year.

According to the article, the USFWS’s annual budget used for endangered species is $5 million. Since the year 2000, USFWS has used all of that money, $35 million, just on court cases from groups like CBD.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, who is executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, another preservationist, animal rights group that spends all of its time in the courts suing USFWS, told the U.S. Congress that USFWS is in trouble and needs more funding. His complaint is that the USFWS has had to take money away from endangered species programs to fund other programs. Can Congress not see that this is an indirect request to put more money in the pockets of groups like DOW and CBD?

President Bush requested $146.5 million dollars be spent on endangered species. Clark is asking for that amount to be bumped up to $185.2 million. I would suppose in order to give her and her group more opportunities in court.

Incidentally, Defenders of Wildlife just announced they plan to sue the USFWS over the latest proposed ruling regarding management of wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The feds announced they would ease up some restrictions to make it easier to protect game animals and property owners in the event that the effort to remove the wolf from federal protection gets tied up in court for the next several years. As many as 27 animal rights and preservationist, environmental groups have threatened legal action once the USFWS makes the announcement, which is expected perhaps in March.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based group that advocates property owners’ rights, has challenged some center lawsuits. Foundation President Robin Rivett accuses the center of exploiting the Endangered Species Act requirement for speedy habitat designation.

Once certain parcels of land are designated protected habitat for endangered species and/or a species is placed on the endangered list, it is nearly impossible to get it removed, as we have witnessed many times. The money being spent on lawsuits to stop this action serves only to line the pockets and promote the personal agendas of these groups and does very little if anything to protect species.

Even Rivett says the way the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated and interpreted falls into the hands of the protectionists.

“I don’t think it’s helping. It seems to be litigate first and talk second,” he said.
The Endangered Species Act requirements leave judges little choice but to side with the center, Rivett said.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to critical habitat,” he said.

Judges ruling in favor of the Center for Biological Diversity shows in that the Center has won 86% of the court cases they have fought. But some are saying that part of the reason for this success is the result of too little challenges from anyone, perhaps the result of lack of funds or organizations to fight back. It is clear to me that the USFWS does very little to fight back. They are so cash strapped they can’t afford to fight these groups and have found it easier to give them what they want. This is not in the best interest of Americans.

In Arizona, Jim Chilton, Jr. fought the CBD in court and won. He was awarded $600,000 in damages in a defamation lawsuit. The CBD posted photographs on its website claiming that damage done to land, deemed critical habitat for the Sonora chub and Chiricahua leopard frog, was done by his cattle.

Even thought the Center claimed in court that the photos were put up by mistake, we all know this is just part of the many unethical tactics used by such groups in order to strong-arm their way to get what they want.

And who’s behind this movement? Perhaps this will help shed some light on the kind of person and the mentality associated with them. Kierán Suckling, one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity and has a degree in philosophy, had this to say about why we think the way we do about animals.

The center’s work goes far beyond biology for Suckling, who has a master’s degree in philosophy from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. There are deep cultural bonds between people and animals that start soon after we are born, he said. From Garanimals to stuffed animals to familiar icons such as Big Bird, we wrap our children in wildlife from birth, he said.
“We don’t surround them with images of people. We surround them with images of animals,”

Unfortunately, much of what Suckling is saying is true, although I strongly disagree with his statement that “we wrap our children in wildlife”. This is much of the problem with this entire mindset. He is not drowning his kids in “wildlife”. He is presenting to children the myth that animals talk and play games. There is nothing about wildlife in how our kids are being presented animals.

Kids have found comfort and solace in hugging a teddy bear. At some point in their lives they need to be taught that it is only a stuffed animal and does not resemble the real bear in any way shape or form. We do not wrap our children in wildlife. We are telling them that animals have personalities. That there are mommy and daddy animals, with cute little kids that grow up to be just like us.

People like Suckling may find this a suitable means of educating their own children but not all of us agree. There is something just as perverse in teaching your kids this way as probably Suckling thinks is wrong in teaching kids about bears, wolves and mountain lions that attack and kill people and that people kill them back.

With organizations such as these that I have spoken, given a chance at exploiting a broken Endangered Species Act, there is very little that can be done until we decide to do something about the Act. I know I’m sick and tired of my money going toward enabling these groups that in my opinion are harming our society far more than most people may know.

Tom Remington

Related Stories

USFWS Announces New Rules For Wolf Management

There Will Be No Satisfaction No Matter What The Determination Of Polar Bear Protection

It’s Time Something Be Done About The Endangered Species Act

Safari Club International Joins Lawsuit To Fight The Overturning Of Grizzly Delisting

Feeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act?

Maine Lynx Trapping Lawsuit Settlement Reached

Time To Toss The Endangered Species Act

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have written some here at the Black Bear Blog and Blogging the Maine Outdoors about National Heritage Areas. Just last week, I wrote an article at Blogging the Maine Outdoors about a summit which also took place last week at the Sunday River Ski Resort. That summit was to discuss the economic impact of trails to Maine’s economy.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci has been pushing for more promotion of Maine’s natural resources and appears to be an advocate for the establishment of more “preserved” lands including National Heritage Areas. Part of this summit at Sunday River was to discuss the prospects of mapping and inventorying lands and waterways in order to protect them. Included in that process was to tap into federal money available to protect these lands through National Heritage Areas.

It is my belief that very few people are even aware of what a National Heritage Area is, say nothing about how they might think how it could benefit them or more particularly the landowner and the local economy.

In the January 28th, 2008 issue of National Review Magazine, John J. Miller, National Political Reporter, writes about National Heritage Areas. One of the things that Miller brings to our attention is the fact that sometimes our land is yanked out from underneath us without our knowledge, all for the good of conservation and preservation.

He cites the example in Arizona of a new National Heritage Area, Yuma Crossing, in which landowner Lee Ott, was completely unaware that his land had been designated as part of it until one day he spotted surveyors on his land. In Ott’s effort to fight back against the encroachment and thievery of his land, 600 people attended a meeting to learn more about what was taking place around them.

“About 600 people came to our meeting,” says Harold Maxwell, a farm-equipment distributor. “When I asked for a show of hands from those who knew they were in the NHA, only one hand went up.”

Evidently, this is part of how the designation of lands for National Heritage Areas takes place. What’s to hide anyway?

Miller describes what National Heritage Areas are in terms most of us should be able to understand.

National Heritage Areas are like a poor man’s National Park­ they aren’t actually owned by the federal government, but they’re zoned by it. Instead of employing Park Rangers in stiff-brimmed hats, they’re often administered by liberal groups that want to weaken the property rights of the people who hold a piece of land within or even near NHA boundaries. This is generally done in the name of historic preservation and environmental conservation.

Miller also describes NHA as a very popular thing these days particularly because they are a means of gaining huge sums of money through earmarks and is a wonderful tool for those bent on controlling and limiting our land-use rights.

Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research, says that NHAs become federal zoning laws that are enforced by private preservationist groups.

The rules governing NHAs vary from place to place, but they tend to have a few features in common. One important element is the involvement of a “management entity” that works in conjunction with the Park Service to come up with a plan. In the case of one NHA, this means creating an “inventory” of properties of “national historic significance” that it wants “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.”

Miller says that those who support NHAs, even though they claim they are not in the business of buying or regulating real estate, the end result does in fact do that. His claims are that supporters work with local government to enforce and create restrictive land ordinances that fall in line with plans for conserving and preserving “inventoried” and “mapped out” lands.

He gives an example of how that is done.

They do this by dangling the prospect of federal largesse in front of potential recipients. West Virginia’s Wheeling NHA, which is basically a downtown preservation project, makes this explicit, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Chumley and Ron Utt. Its management plan calls for new zoning ordinances and the acquisition of private property. And how will it achieve these goals? As Chumley and Utt write, “Major funding to support the activities . . . and the recommendations of this plan will be coming from the National Park Service.” In the year prior to its most recent available tax filing, the Wheeling NHA received more than $2.5 million in government contributions and not a dime from private sources.

Is this what we want in our own back yards? As we have now seen, these operations sneak about seeking people’s land to devour and control, even without the knowledge of the landowner. We have also been shown that you don’t even have to own land within a NHA, only to be “near” one.

While most of us favor conservation and in some cases we would like to see certain parcels of land protected, I want to believe that very few of us want these “Management Entities” empowered and funded by the federal government taking away our land and or limiting our uses for the sake of creating these National Heritage Areas.

As hunters, fishermen and outdoor sportsmen, our future depends on our ability to access the outdoors. We can’t blindly plunder into programs like this without knowing the facts. We just might end up “giving away the farm” as they say, without a clue as to what is really going to happen.

Severe limits and restrictions on lands and land use, including access to our waterways, will destroy our recreational opportunities and long time heritage of our love for the outdoors. Our property rights and those of our neighbors have to be protected from such programs.

We have to consider this effort as one that can easily be used by the incrementalists to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. With local governments strong armed into creating restrictive land use, you know only the elite special interest groups will ensure their access while restricting or eliminating many others.

Get involved in what’s going on in your community and keep your eyes on your own land to make sure it isn’t being snatched away.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The L.A. Times has a short snippet this morning saying that the Mexican government is asking the U.S. to change its plans of building a fence because it may effect animals. Instead they want to build bridges and such done in a way so as to “be less attractive to smugglers”.

Let’s get this right. The Mexican government wants most of their people to go to the U.S. and make American dollars and ship them back to Mexico and we should listen to their recommendations? These illegals are currently destroying the ecological systems that support all of these animals they say need protecting, yet they have no interest in addressing that problem.

And we must remember that when illegals come into this country, they consider areas that are “less attractive” to cross the border. Please!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Representatives from 23 states and four Canadian provinces gathered recently in Flagstaff, Arizona to discuss recruitment and retention of hunters and fishermen. The event was hosted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Many things were discussed and those in attendance reviewed facts and figures provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on downward trends in license sales.

Here’s what AZCentral.com listed as the major reasons discussed as to why recruitment and retention was low.

Some of the reasons discussed at the meeting were complex rules and regulations, reduced hunting opportunities, age restrictions, a lack of encouragement or help for older hunters, increasing urbanization of the population, rising license and permit costs, difficult access to recreational lands and a perception that hunting and fishing is cruel and inhumane.

One in attendance had this to say and I couldn’t agree more.

“We try to placate the public by becoming invisible,” Keck told the group.

“And hunters are passive as to why they hunt. We are terrible at selling the product we have. We need to sell the sizzle of hunting and conservation.”

Maybe that has something to do with why I do what I do. But all too often I feel like I am talking to myself out in the wilderness somewhere. Hunters are for the most part passive and are difficult to engage in conversation, particularly in a public forum.

I think for too long we have felt the need to “placate the public by becoming invisible” but those days are history. We are being forced out of our silence by those active enough to want to shut us down. We can’t continue down this same path or it will be too late.

No longer should we have to remain quiet or apologize to people because we hunt and fish. We have much to be thankful for and proud of. Our billions of dollars over the years and conservation efforts have provided this country with a bountiful wildlife population and that’s something we should be telling the world about. Our entire package of monetary support and understanding the need to conserve our wildlife for the future is what has gotten us to where we are today. Tell that to the wildlife viewers, some of whom seem not to understand or care.

Thank God for the few activists we have that have worked diligently to keep hunting and fishing alive and well. But they can’t do it alone. We all must speak up now. We all must get involved and no longer remain “out of sight, out of mind”. We’ve done a lot. Let’s let the rest of the people know what a great contribution we have made to our country.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The United States is a sovereign country. To remain that way, we must control who comes and goes. The people voted that we wanted to secure our borders particularly between the U.S. and Mexico where an estimated 12 million illegal aliens have infiltrated our country through the southwest border. That’s 12 million people in this country that we know nothing about.

I’ve covered a few stories about the environmental impact being felt in border areas of the southwest.

Illegal Immigration Is “Garbage”!
Scientists Want To Protect Wildlife By Opposing Border Wall In The Southwest.
What Illegal Immigration And Drug Smuggling Is Doing To The Southwest’s Wildlife
There’s More To Illegal Immigration Than Crossing the Border
A Different Affect From Illegal Aliens

Illegals crossing the borders between the U.S. and Mexico are completely destroying the habitat of just about every species of animal and plant living in that area, yet what do we hear about that from the environmentalists? Nothing really!

Instead we see a campaign by organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity on what impact putting up a fence will have on animals and vegetation.

The people voted to have a fence built to stop the flow of illegals from Mexico into the United States. Now Homeland Security is proposing a virtual fence, with towers, sensors and lights. What happened to the fence?

Before a virtual fence or any other fence for that matter can be erected, Homeland Security must conduct public hearings and receive written comments from people about the environmental impact. As would be expected, DOW and CBD showed up to voice their opposition to a virtual fence.

In a one-sided, Bush hating biased article in the Tuscon Citizen, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity reveals which is more important, protecting our national security of worrying about a long-nosed bat.

Greta Anderson, conservation advocate from the Center for Biological Diversity, was most concerned about damage to plants and animals.
She said there is more to assessing environmental impact than trying to avoid harming endangered species. It also includes protecting habitat to help the species recover.
She said the area has a range of wildlife that traverse the border, including many endangered species, from the lesser long-nosed bat to the jaguar.

There was even complaining that light pollution would hinder star gazing in the area.

As I pointed out in previous articles, not one of these groups has had a thing to say about the destruction caused to the environment from the illegals living in the desert while waiting to be transported to a work destination. They leave behind tons of waste, garbage and human waste, that is killing plants. This out of control land destruction is taking away the valuable habitat of our wild species yet not a word from these groups. It clearly shows their interest lies more in providing for illegal aliens than protecting wildlife.

As hunters and outdoor enthusiasts, we all want to see our wild species protected. After all, we would have nothing left to hunt if we all didn’t do our part to conserve our game species. We are now presented with a decision. Do we compromise the security of our nation during a time that we are at war with terrorists whose aim it is to kill Americans, in order to prevent disturbing the wildlife in an area that is already being destroyed by the activities of illegals?

It is my understanding that Homeland Security has already modified the “wall” in favor of a virtual fence in order to minimize the environmental impact of the area. We must question whether or not resorting to a virtual fence is really in the best interest of our national security. I question whether the people are even aware that this change is being proposed.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Over a year ago, I brought you a couple stories of how the migration of illegals into the Southwest was destroying our hunting lands, among other things, with the tons of garbage being left behind by the illegals as they often spend several days or longer living in the deserts until they can safely be transported elsewhere.

I’m not here to report that it’s getting any better. On the contrary. Marshall over at Desert Rat, has more and recent coverage of the destruction and disgusting filth being left behind, complete with pictures.

Whether you support illegal immigration or not, this has to stop. If you can’t grasp what it is I’m talking about, which Marshall says you can’t, at least go over and take a look at the photographs. Those don’t lie.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bowhunting Mainiac says that Arizona bow hunters are in danger of having their deer hunting seasons yanked out from under them. Check it out here.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Some are calling it a gun rights bill and others are saying it is a victory for gun rights advocates. A bill already passed by the Arizona Senate and now the House, will move on to Governor Napolitano for signing.

The bill says that when anyone bans guns from an event or public building, they must provide a secure place where an individual’s gun can be locked up while they are inside and retrieved when they come out.

What foolishness really! If you honestly consider why a person wants to carry and the rights provided them under the Constitution, what good is it doing them to lock their gun up outside the building?

Most people carry weapons for protection and self defense. What good does that weapon do anyone who needs to protect themselves when it is locked up outside somewhere?

Others say that such a bill requiring the provision of space for securing a weapon will become cost prohibitive. The same bill states that any event or building, etc. that does not provide a secure lock up, has to allow the carrier inside with their weapon.

A bill that restricts the right to bear arms in any form is a gun control bill. This is no different than requiring trigger locks on guns in your own home.

Some question how this new law will effect an existing law that allows operators of events and owners of public buildings to ban weapons. While this compromise bill is seen by some as a tiny step toward an easing of gun restrictions, it is done so only on paper.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We have always heard discussions about our deer, moose and elk and what effects loss of habitat has and the presence of wild animal predators, namely wolves, mountain lions and bears. We all know that both habitat and predation are important factors in the survivability of our wild ungulate populations everywhere. The question is or at least should be, is there a major difference between the negative affects of the two on our deer, moose and elk, enough to be concerned about anyway?

I read all the time about how predators have little or no substantial affect on deer, elk or moose. Is this true?

I read how it is hunters who kill more of these animals than do predators. Is this true?

I am always reading about how it is habitat that has a greater affect on mortality rates than does predation. Is this true?

In the discussion of wolf predation in the three states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and in particular south central Idaho, I hear how drought is what’s killing off the mule deer population. Is this true?

I also hear that large herds of elk are eating up all the plant life and as a result of decimating the plant life elk populations are declining. Is this true?

I hear that more deer die each year from natural causes than predators kill in a year. Is this true?

In the December 2005 - January 2006 edition of The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 16, pages 13,14 and 15, editor George Dovel, received permission from the Mule Deer Foundation to republish an article written by Dr. Charles E. Kay. You can read the entire article here.(pdf) Here’s a bit about Dr. Kay.

(Charles Kay has a PhD in wildlife ecology from Utah State University and is an adjunct professor and senior environmental scholar there. As a researcher in the Northern Rocky Mountains for 2O-plus years, his 1993 predictions concerning the number of wolves, their impact on game, and de-listing delays have all come true. If you enjoy hunting mule deer, please read this carefully.

Dr. Kay examines through collected data and research, what effects loss of habitat and predation has had specifically on mule deer but also talks at length about how this all stacks up against elk and moose.

Let’s first put into perspective the number of mule deer killed by just one predator, the mountain lion. Dr. Kay quietly estimates there to be approximately 36,000 mountain lions living within mule deer habitat in the west. Let’s do some math.

A number of researchers have estimated how many deer-sized ungulates a single lion will kill every year and, on average about 50 prey animals must die to feed one cat. Thus, in total, mountain lions are killing 1.8 million ungulates each year. Of that number, approximately 1.2 million are mule deer.

Dr. Kay verified his figures with another wildlife professor who concurred.

Kay further looks at how hunter harvest numbers have changed over the years compared to predator numbers. He says that in 1960, hunters across the west harvested 21% of the mule deer in the fall. Today (at the time of the article published in 2006) that harvest percentage is 9%.

In Alaska, biologists say that in areas where there are a lot of predators, only 5% of moose can be taken by hunters. If we compare those figures with areas of no predation, like Scandinavia, hunters can easily take 55% of the population each year without having any affect on the herd management goals.

All these figures are well and good and animal rights groups, particularly wolf advocates because of the federal protection on them in the lower 48 states, don’t much care that hunters aren’t getting the opportunities they once had to take these elk, deer and moose. Even though most states are mandated by law and commission the fish and game departments to manage game animals to provide hunting opportunities, this doesn’t seem to deter lawsuits and consequently hunters are the ones suffering because of it.

In states that have constitutional protection, recognizing that it is a right to hunt, trap and fish, it at least deters the lawsuits. Dr. Kay points out in this article that no animal rights group has ever successfully overturned a state constitutional amendment protecting hunting, fishing and trapping. Any changes to stop the sports, require a 2/3 majority vote.

So, these figures are interesting and clearly show us what most of us probably suspected anyway. That predators kill a lot of ungulates each year. But what about that shrinking habitat? Isn’t that having a bigger negative impact on these animals?

Doesn’t it only make sense that if we can produce a greater habitat for let’s say deer, that we will have more deer and conversely if we reduce habitat, deer die off or will not reproduce in sufficient numbers? That’s always been the formula hasn’t it?

According to Dr. Kay, in a study that appeared in the scientific journal “Ecology”, a publication of the Ecological Society of America, showed that improving habitat for moose did very little to increase numbers.

In Alaska, where the Department of Fish and Game has conducted predator-prey research for many years, and where moose are the principal prey and wolves and grizzlies the main predators, Dr. Ward Tesla recently concluded: From a management perspective, methods that improve range conditions, and by extension moose productivity, have limited potential to reverse the decline of moose numbers when compared to measures that reduce predation.

There are other such cases that show the same thing. Banff and Jasper National Parks in the central Canadian Rockies have some of the most “spectacular wildlife habitat in North America”, says Dr. Kay but today there is very little game due to predation. Animals are not hunted in these parks.

Dr. Kay has taken four extended horseback trips into the wilderness of Banff and Jasper to study the lack of ungulates. He says that unlike the National Parks in the United States, park officials in Canada speak openly of how predation is wiping out elk, deer and moose populations.

There are other areas to make comparisons. Yellowstone is one such place. Dr. Kay talks of the money and effort put into the restoration and improvement of elk habitat in that region, yet numbers continue on the decline. Where once as many as 4,000 elk permits were issued in the Gallatin and Yellowstone River areas, today there are none.

To appreciate the magnitude of the problem look at Colorado. Here is a state that has neither wolves nor grizzlies as this is written.

At last report there were approximately 300,000 elk in Colorado, which is three times more elk than exist in all of Canada! In addition, prior to wolf reintroduction there were more elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem than all of Canada!

Canada has some great wildlife habitat but hunting is definitely better in Colorado where hunters took home nearly 70,000 elk last fall. More elk were killed in Colorado and Wyoming last fall than exist in all Canada!

And let’s not forget about drought conditions and how wolf advocates are saying that in Idaho it’s the drought that’s killing off the mule deer and any affects being seen in elk and moose herds has to be the drought as they insist that predation has no effect.

To answer this question we need to look at some Arizona data. Based on tree-ring evidence, Arizona has experienced the worst drought in the last 700 to 1,000 years and the fawn to doe ratio in Game Management 22 dropped to only 18 fawns per 100 does in 2002.

Drought right? Well, not exactly. Inside a predator-proof enclosure that Arizona Game and Fish has maintained on the Three-Bar watershed since 1970, there were 100 fawns per 100 does! In addition, mule deer density inside the predator-proof enclosure was ten times “higher” than where predators held sway.

Drought may make deer more susceptible to predation, but predators do most of the actual killing. Over the last 35 years, does inside the enclosure have, on average, produced 225o/o more fawns than mule deer outside the fenced area.

For those who may be wondering if this same information can apply to whitetail deer as compared to mule deer, Dr. Kay shows in studies that for whatever the reasons, whitetail deer more easily adapt to eluding predators but not to the point we can say that predation has no effect on whitetail deer.

This is an interesting article combined with research that should make wildlife biologists take another look at where they are expending their efforts in deer, moose and elk management. Just today, I wrote an article about Maine’s efforts to do something about coyote predation on that state’s whitetail deer herd in northern Maine. As the article stated, the majority of the discussion with the legislative committee to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, was centered around trying to find ways to improve the habitat and little to do with reducing coyote numbers.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A bill approved by the Arizona senate will make its way to the governor’s desk for a signature. That bill will allow hunters to transfer a game permit to anyone between the ages of 10 and 17. Anyone under that age who receives such a transfer, would have to be accompanied by an adult and they need to take the mandatory safety class.

This bill is intended to help increase the interest in hunting among young people. Read more about the bill here.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Kirt Darner, known for being an avid mule deer hunter, guide, author of several books and holding the most Boone and Crockett records for mule deer, faces several game violation charges.

Some of the charges lodged against Darner, who was 66 at the time of the original indictment, are two counts each of transporting stolen livestock, receiving stolen property, conspiracy to transport stolen livestock and tampering with evidence. His wife, 49 at the time of her indictment, was charged with six felony and 13 misdemeanor charges.

Rumors have flown for several years about Darner’s claim to have shot and killed so many trophy mule deer in his lifetime. Some have claimed that nobody could have done what he did.

In September 2006, a Grand Jury indicted Darner.

In February 2006, the grand jury indicted Darner for illegally drugging and moving up to four wild elk, three of them state-owned, on a 40-acre Lobo Canyon ranch to Pancho Peaks Ranch and Game Park, owned by Steve W. Lewis of Artesia in 2004. Lewis was indicted on two felony counts of conspiracy involving controlled substances to sedate a large bull elk for transportation.

Darner has a bit of a storied past.

Darner is no stranger to law enforcement. Once the advertising face for Remington bolt action rifles in the ’70s and ’80s, had his license revoked by wildlife authorities in Colorado for three years in 2001 after it was discovered that a hunter Darner was guiding shot illegally at an elk decoy from the window of a truck. The hunter Darner was guiding at the time also did not possess a permit for that particular hunt unit.

But there’s much more to this story than you’ll find in this newspaper article. Darner recruited one-time chief editor for Outdoor Life magazine, Rich LaRocco, to write two of his books. LaRocco spent a great deal of time on these projects but began hearing stories and actually received verbal warnings from some to steer clear of Darner. LaRocco wanted proof.

This set of a string of investigations and confrontations with Darner, until LaRocco finally found enough proof to convince him that some of the claims that Darner had about the trophy deer he shot, were fabricated. It was time to set the record straight about his relationship with Darner.

At his website, Hunts.net, LaRocco shares with readers and anyone else interested in the years of history of Darner, LaRocco and others, including Jim Zumbo, in a lengthy but informative story. He includes photographs that prove his contentions. Well, worth the time to read it.

I would like to thank J.R. Absher for providing the links to the stories.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I bet you didn’t know that Teddy and I were tight. Oh, yeah. I was such good friends with him I could tell exactly what he was thinking and what was on his mind.

I’m sure by this point you are wondering if I have lost my mind. Well, I have always said that to lose something means that at one time you had to have possessed what you claim to have lost in order to have actually lost it. Yeah, Teddy and I were inseparable. Mind you we never met but that doesn’t matter. I still can tell you everything about the man because I read a lot, or well, I’ve heard many people talk about him and everything he stood for, well actually, I do recall the name. So, I feel like I really know him and if we had lived at a time together, I know we would have hung out together. Probably done some hunting together too. Teddy was a big hunter you know.

The truth is, I must confess, that Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t my best friend. Actually, I know very little about Teddy. I heard via the grapevine that teddy bears were named after him and that he was a nerdy kind of fellow who did a few things to help set an example of how we should protect our natural resources and make sure we had some wildlife left to enjoy. That’s about it.

If more people would be honest with themselves they too would admit that they don’t know Teddy Roosevelt and they should stop pretending that they know “what Teddy Roosevelt would have done”. Poor ole Teddy. I wonder what Teddy would say if he knew how many people dropped his name on a daily basis as a means for finding support for their agendas?

In Maine last year (follow this link and click on “Baxter Land Swap” category), supporters of an effort to trade off some of Maine’s public lands in order to acquire an additional 6,000 acres of restricted sanctuary land to be added to Baxter State Park, used the fact that Teddy Roosevelt visited the park therefore he would have wanted the land protected.

Last week in a debate in Montana over whether that state should outlaw hunting in so-called “high-fence” preserves, one opponent of the practice said that Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave if he knew hunters were shooting game behind fences. A Montana senator replied that if we were to infringe on the hunting rights of individuals, “I think Teddy Roosevelt would crawl out of his grave and come get us.” Poor ole Teddy! Does he ever get any rest?

Just today, a member of the Humane Society of the United States, in an opinion piece in the Arizona Daily Star, chastises the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a proposal to allow hunting mountain lions in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge near Yuma, Arizona. The author rants on as if she had been best friends with Teddy (I’m jealous).

The first National Wildlife Refuge was created by President Theodore Roosevelt on Pelican Island, Fla., in 1903 as a place where birds would be safe from the guns and snares of hunters. Today the National Wildlife Refuge System includes more than 93 million acres of wildlife habitat in all 50 states.
For a good portion of their history, the vast majority of these refuges were maintained as Roosevelt had intended they should be: safe havens where animals would be secure from hunters.

And I thought I was the only one who knew him well enough to know what he was thinking then and what he would be thinking today if he were alive. Poor ole Teddy!

Do any of us really know Teddy Roosevelt other than what we read in a few books and the “lore” that has been passed down from one story to the next? Not really, no more than we could say what Abe Lincoln would do, Thomas Jefferson or Fred Arbuckle (Fred was a neighbor of a friend living next door to a second cousin of my best buddy’s brother). I think Teddy did what Teddy thought was cool for his day. If Teddy were alive today, he might have had a chance in the last 88 years since his death, to have revisited some of his beliefs and pet projects. Maybe he would have made a few adjustments. Maybe not.

Do I have a right to say I know Stephen King because I read his books? Do I have a right to say I know what Ronald Reagan would do because he was our President? Do I