*Scroll for Updates*

There is one thing for certain. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s announcement yesterday that the polar bear will be listed as “threatened” has stirred the proverbial pot. It should have come as no surprise that regardless of what decision was made, it was going to be the wrong one to someone.

I want to take this opportunity to focus on a few comments made by Sec. Kempthorne, President Bush and others about listing the bear, the Endangered Species Act and the role the courts play in all this.

Here’s a comment made by Sec. Kempthorne in his address yesterday concerning the ESA and his past and present dealings with it.

I sought to reform the Endangered Species Act with Senators Harry Reid and Max Baucus and the late John Chaffee when I served in the United States Senate. I had lived with the consequences of ESA decisions as Governor of Idaho. As Secretary I have now experienced the reality that the current ESA is among the most inflexible laws Congress has passed. It prevents me, as Secretary, from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions.

There is something wrong when an Act such as this that has obviously reached the point where it is being abused, is nearly thirty years old making it “inflexible” and clearly is not necessarily in the best interest of the people or the animals we are trying to protect. This statement should not be taken by some to mean nobody cares about the welfare of animals but things have changed considerably in 30 years.

President Bush said:

“There is a right way and wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution. Discussions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges but should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect.”

He acknowledges that the courts are being used by environmentalists to accomplish the goals of its agendas. This is another indication that something is wrong with the ESA. A classic example of manipulation and using of the courts by environmentalists is realized now that 12 groups are suing the government to overturn the decision to take the gray wolf off the ESA list of endangered animals. Their work became much easier with their ability to seek out a judge they know will side with them.

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial agrees that the courts will make a mess of things.

The greatest danger is that this ruling will be distorted by the courts, where it is inevitably headed.

The National Center for Public Policy Research released a statement yesterday. In that statement the Center also says the courts will be busy.

Environmental organizations will continue to try to use the Endangered Species Act to impose energy-use restrictions on the American public, but no climate policy should be adopted without the consent of the public as expressed through the votes of their elected representatives in Congress.

Sec. Kempthorne evidently believes he can utilize a loophole and institute a new ruling that will prohibit the environmentalists from using this listing to write global warming and environmental policy.

First, to provide clarity and certainty to those regulated under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service will propose what is known as a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.

The second thing he plans to do is make it clear that climate change can’t be blamed on any one specific event, entity, etc.

Second, Director Hall will issue guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.

I can’t envision that holding up in the courts but it’s a guarantee we’ll find out sooner or later.

This brings me back to what I referred to in the beginning of this piece. The fourth thing Kempthorne proposes is a clarification of the rules.

Fourth, the ESA regulatory language needs to be clarified. We will propose common sense modifications to the existing regulation to provide greater certainty that this listing will not set backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

Sec. Kempthorne said that the ESA is perhaps the most inflexible piece of legislation ever enacted by the American people. Many of us have screamed for years that changes need to be made along with clarifications. Can this be accomplished in time before the onslaught of lawsuits begin to change this ruling?

There are still many people who are naive enough to believe that this ruling is what the environmentalists wanted and will back off. Not true.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, almost immediately after the ruling on the polar bear was announced, sent out emails to members alerting them that the fight continues.

The bad news? The Bush Administration’s plan for “protection” is so full of loopholes for oil companies and other polluters that it could be the equivalent of sending a leaky lifeboat to rescue drowning polar bears — unless we move quickly to get it fixed.

Simply put, you and I have finally gotten the Bush Administration to acknowledge the gravity of the polar bear’s plight — and that’s crucial — but it’s NOT enough to ensure the polar bear’s survival.

So our fight must — and will — go on.

Make no mistake: the Administration’s attempt to water down protection for the polar bear is illegal — and it won’t hold up in court.

That’s why NRDC is already preparing to fight the next round of this legal battle and secure the kind of full-fledged protection that polar bears so desperately need and deserve. I’ll be in touch very soon with more details.

We don’t intend to back down or declare final victory until the polar bear is no longer facing the unthinkable threat of extinction.

Whether or not enough attention can be drawn away from the climate change debate to address serious flaws of the Endangered Species Act remains to be seen. Clearly it is time for some changes and clarifications that are in the best interest of saving species, habitat and protecting our economic investments and overall health and well being.

*Update* Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 12:54 p.m.

Hugh Hewitt says, “This was false hope dressed up as “guidance.”, when referring to Interior Sec. Kempthorne’s assurances that this ruling wouldn’t be allowed to manipulate green house gas emissions.

Tom Remington

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

Here’s an article in the Washington Post about obsessed people who try most anything to extend the distance they can go on a tank of gas in their cars - whether a conventional or hybrid.

You need to read the entire piece but here are the titles to “techniques” hypermilers use:

1). Driver the Speed Limit

2). Turn off Your Car and Coast (not recommended)

3). Optimize Your Route

4). Watch Your Tire Pressure

5). Change Your Oil (and use thinner oil)

Sound a bit absurd some of it? Don’t tell that to a hypermiler.

Tom Remington

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

Midwest retail giant Meijer, Inc. has decided to end its partnership with the Humane Society of the United States in a fund raising effort that would have sent up to $5,000 to the biggest anti-hunting organization in America. According to a release by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, Stacie Behler, Meijer vice president of corporate communications and public affairs, didn’t know there might be a problem.

“Our program was an outgrowth of our history of supporting local humane societies. We were not aware of the concerns that exist among hunters about HSUS. As you know, we have strongly supported the hunting community over many decades,” said Meijer vice president of corporate communications and public affairs, Stacie Behler. “We have discontinued our donation program as a result of the feedback. No new funds will be collected. The funds that were collected will be used exclusively for their Foreclosure Pets Fund, which is a grants program for animal shelters, non-sheltered rescue/adoption groups and animal care and control agencies to establish, expand, or publicize services or programs that assist families caring for their pets during the current economic crisis.”

As they would say up in Maine where I come from, “Ain’t too smaaht!” One has to question the intelligence behind Meijer’s decision to donate money to anything. From what I gather in this statement, they didn’t realize that there is a difference between local humane shelters and the Humane Society of the United States. Shame on them. Is it right to assume then that had Meijer known the difference they would have suspected there would have been some “concerns that exist among hunters about HSUS”? Doubtful.

The good part is hunters spoke up and Meijer listened. As USSA said,

“This once again proves that the sportsman’s voice is not to be taken lightly,” said USSA senior vice president Rick Story. “We hope that in the future, companies such as Meijer will consider how partnerships will be received before launching them.”

Tom Remington

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

I have been called a lot of things for my stance against the current administering of the Endangered Species Act. This includes the abuse through manipulation, the interpretation of the ESA through the courts, the abuse of it in order to stop hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities as well as the lack of any effort to change or eliminate it in order to provide a better means of accomplishing its initial goals. I have also been called colorful things because I think environmentalist, including animal rights groups, have completely gone off the radar and I have minced no words in saying so.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the RINO (republican in name only) governor of California, thinks the whackos have gone too far. You know it has to be bad when one of California’s own thinks so.

“It’s not just businesses that have slowed things down, it’s not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it’s also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down,”

These comments come from the governor in response to delays in the construction of solar energy generating facilities. One is particular is the one near Victorville, where environmentalists are adding delays to the construction because of the Mojave ground squirrel - a rare squirrel that doesn’t even live on any of the land to be used.

“Our Department of Fish and Game is slowing approval of a solar facility in Victorville. It’s because of an endangered squirrel, an endangered squirrel which has never been seen on that land where they’re supposed to build the solar plants. But if such a squirrel were around, this is the kind of area that it would like, they say.”

You read that correctly! Here we have a case of no threatened animal even living on this land and yet because the weirdos think the habitat is good enough for the squirrel, that’s reason enough. This is one classic example of what is wrong with our environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act, the interpretation and administration of the Act and proof all this needs to be changed.

For those who still believe that there’s nothing wrong with the Endangered Species Act and who think that the environmentalists are right in this, why don’t you head on out to California. I’m sure those squirrels are in need of a few more “nuts”.

Tom Remington

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

Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this coming November’s ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.

There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”.

“By allowing these operations, we’re basically bastardizing the hunting heritage,” he said. “I don’t care how they spin it … If you put a deer or elk in an escape-proof fence, that’s not hunting.”

To bastardize something means to corrupt it, reduce its quality or to lower in character. Kaseman says high-fence preserve hunting is doing just that. It’s difficult to argue with his opinion because it is his opinion and that of a handful of others like him. They believe that enclosure hunting is ruining the heritage of hunting. Certainly this group is entitled to their opinions and they have a right in a free society to petition the people to enact new laws. Why pick on a handful of ranchers trying to make a living in their almighty attempt to govern the lands of North Dakota?

If we go back in history and examine hunting, we will find that hunting was a necessary means of survival and a difficult task at that. Man used anything he could get his hands on for a weapon, i.e. rocks, sticks, etc. Since that time we can just as easily say that man has been “bastardizing” hunting heritage by someone’s standards of ethics and definition or ideals of what hunting heritage is supposed to be. Many can argue that when hunting became a sport, hunting heritage became bastardize, after all, true hunting heritage was a necessary part of survival. We reduced the quality of hunting considerably when we made it a sport and not part of survival. By Kaseman’s standards perhaps we should return hunting back to its rightful heritage.

And what have we as a society done with hunting since the days that sticks were made pointed with sharp pieces of flint and shale? That’s easy. Take a look around. It’s all right there in front of us to see but for people like Kaseman and his following, they choose only to set aside preserve hunting as the one thing that is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”. Surely there are more legitimate bastardizations his group could spend their time on.

Trampling on the rights of legitimate land owners and businessmen will do more to rip apart that one important element to assure the continuation of the sport. For without access to the lands of private individuals, hunting becomes diminished greatly. Some argue there is always public land to fall back on but in places where that is the only land to hunt on, interest is dwindling fast.

I believe it is one of the most selfish and self righteous things a group calling themselves a pro hunting group can do. They spit in the faces of the landowner because they think preserve hunting is unethical, all the while the vast majority of them practice the bastardization of hunting.

Personally, I resent their actions and condemn the reasons they use for taking the steps they have. I respect the rancher who is making every attempt at running a legitimate business. I am grateful for the generosity of all landowners that grant permission for hunters to access their land. When Kaseman and his ilk try strong arm tactics that fly in the face of landowners, this affects me and millions of other hunters nationwide who give countless hours and energy into creating hunter/landowner relations. They are destroying those efforts.

To bastardize means to reduce in quality and lower in character. The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have placed themselves above everyone else and are doing far more to bastardize hunting heritage than a handful of Americans trying to realize part of the American dream.

Tom Remington

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

I might be a rarity when it comes to the hunting and fishing industry, at least from the perspective of the “consumer”. Hey, I’ll cut right to the chase and come out and say that some? many? most? anglers and hunters aren’t that interested in sharing their fishing holes and highly productive hunting grounds with “outsiders”. Just pretend for the duration of this article that you actually did care and see if you can get beyond your personal feelings long enough to understand some odd reasoning. At least my form of reasoning is having trouble with this.

I would suppose that because I have a background in the tourist industry and that happens to be in Maine, it is difficult for me to get rid of that networking and marketing mindset that so much is a part of making it in the tourist business. With my background and this odd drive I have, I still find value in marketing Maine’s (or fill in your state) natural resources - in this case hunting and fishing.

I have a very good friend who lives in Maine. Her name is Wende Gray. I have a lot of respect for her expertise in the tourism/marketing industry in Maine because, 1) I think she understands it and, 2) she’s been at it for a long time. Wende wears many hats and one of those hats of late has been her involvement with the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance. The UAAA is a group of local businesses scattered throughout and along the watershed areas of the Upper Androscoggin. In this case from about the Maine and New Hampshire boarder south and westerly to the Rumford, Maine area.

The purpose of the Alliance is to promote the river as a destination fishery. Anyone who has been in and understands the tourism business knows that you are always scrambling for business and the competition can get fierce.

As Wende has done in the past, she invites prominent outdoor writers into the area and wines and dines them in hopes they will in turn publish some kind thoughts on their experiences. This all in hopes of luring others, often times “from away”, to the area obviously to spend some money and keep people employed and able to pay bills.

Wende recently contacted the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to inquire about obtaining some complimentary fishing licenses for visiting outdoor writers to the region. Here’s part of that email.

On behalf of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance I am requesting a dozen complimentary fishing licenses for travel and outdoor writers visiting our region this summer. UAAA has joined the New England Outdoor Writers Association and attended the Media Marketplace in New York City. There is great interest in our emerging destination fishery and we expect up to a dozen writers visiting this year-in particular for the Two Fly Contest and Drift Boat Competition in June. Our pr efforts in the past have generated articles in Cabella’s Sporting Journal, Gray’s Sporting Journal, New England Fish & Game, Outdoor Life, the Boston Globe, and New York Sun to name a few. It is our understanding that due to budget cuts at IF&W, complimentary licenses are no longer available. With the emphasis on Maine’s fishing product in promoting Maine tourism this summer, we are in hopes that the Office of Tourism would be able to assist us with our request.

Regis Tremblay, the new Director of IF&W’s Public Information and Education Division, responded to Wende’s request saying that she could forward her request on to the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Dan” Martin and then he took some time to explain to Wende about the new policy concerning complimentary licenses in addition to having to be approved by the Commissioner.

…..we’d like to have some certainty that the writers are aware of a lose quid pro quo…i.e. IF&W and our mission as stewards of Maine’s Wildlife and Fisheries does not go unmentioned. We would also expect to receive copies of the magazines in which mention of us might appear. Also, just for your information, these licenses are not free, but are paid for out of my budget. We are happy to do this, but are hopeful of some return on our investment.

I have no idea what Commissioner Martin’s expectations are regarding who he will consider worthy of a Maine complimentary fishing license. The other expectations laid out by Trembley I really have no issue with and actually think it is a great idea to have some kind of guarantee that this small investment sees some kind of return other than willy-nilly handing out free licenses to anybody.

*Note* - For clarification purposes and to be as transparent as possible, I have no stake in this as a writer. There’s no sour grapes because I want a free license to go fishing in Maine and can’t get one. I do fish in Maine when I am there in the summer but I gladly hop on over to the local agent and purchase a non-resident fishing license.

Getting back to the guidelines about comp licenses, I was struck by the comment made by Tremblay that the cost of these licenses comes out of his budget. So, I emailed him for an explanation. I wanted to know what the actual cost of administering a comp license was and how many, on average, did MDIFW issue in a given season.

Tremblay was kind enough to take the time to answer my email but I can’t say I actually got the answer I was looking for, only raising more questions. He told me the retail price of a resident and a non-resident fishing license in Maine.

* Resident fishing licenses costs $21.00
* Non-Resident fishing licenses costs $52

Does this mean that if MDIFW issues a complimentary license to a writer who lives in Maine, Tremblay gets hit for $21.00 and $52 if the writer lives out of state? How does the cost of issuing a comp license to a writer change depending on where the writer lives? Before you jump all over me, I understand about having resident and non-resident licenses but if the idea for a complimentary license is for the purpose of advertising and promotion, does it matter?

What I was hoping to find out was what the actual real costs were in issuing a complimentary license - $1.00, $2.00, $3.00 or $21.00?

And why is Tremblay getting nailed out of his budget the full retail price of each license? And the money gets extracted from his budget and then goes where? Inquiring minds want to know. Is this Martin’s way of reeling in (sorry) the public relations people at MDIFW because he thinks they are issuing licenses irresponsibly? If so, why can’t he just simply approve or not any complimentary licenses issued?

Tremblay also told me that MDIFW typically issues “a few dozen” licenses annually. For clarification purposes, I don’t know if that “few dozen” is all complimentary licenses or just those issued for outdoor writers and those only to fishermen outdoor writers.

So what is a few dozen? And how much does this really cost the state of Maine?

Not to get mired in the questionable administrative methods of MDIFW but one has to at least question the expense and return. Remember, I asked you to pretend you don’t mind if people “from away” come to Maine (insert your state) to fish. If Tremblay says a few dozen licenses are issued, let’s see if we can guess what a few is.

I asked Wende Gray again if she had any idea about how many in the past MDIFW has given out. Her interpretation of a few dozen most closely resembled between one and two dozen.

As a country boy growing up in rural Maine, I seem to recall my grandfather telling me that a few meant twelve. Let’s say Wende says two dozen and Grandpa’s definition is twelve dozen and split the difference to seven dozen or 84 licenses. You do the math. Is it not worth it? Should the Maine Office of Tourism pick up the tab for the 84 complimentary licenses? Is this all tit for tat while losing focus on the big picture? I don’t get it.

Either there is legitimate value in the process of utilizing outdoor writers for advertising and marketing, or there isn’t. I concur that somebody should “approve” complimentary licenses and if MDIFW can’t afford to issue those licenses because of budget shortfalls and somebody needs to pay, should they be paying full retail price for each license?

Recently MDIFW teamed up with the Maine Office of Tourism to promote fishing on the MOT website. Who paid for that? Did MOT charge MDIFW the full retail value of creating web pages for that purpose? Regardless, MDIFW must be showing an interest in luring in out of state anglers by undertaking this action. Another indication is they still are willing to sell non-resident licenses, so there must be some value in their eyes, to bringing in outsiders to fish the waters of Maine.

It all seems quite silly if you ask me. The reality is that it cost the state of Maine virtually nothing to issue a complimentary license. Is this a viable advertising and marketing scheme for Maine or isn’t it? If it is, let’s get on with it. If not, it’s time to end the charade.

Tom Remington

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

Just one week ago I took issue with Barack Obama’s comments he made in a closed-door fund raising event in San Francisco when he called many Americans bitter and that they clung to their guns and religion for those reasons. For many this has become another in a list of questions about Obama and his character that they deem important in this campaign for the democratic nominee.

Reuters, in their politics section of their website, has a section in which they go out and find global bloggers writing about important issues in this campaign. Shortly after my article was published here at the Black Bear Blog, Reuters linked to me and published my article on their news website.

It’s great to see the word getting out and that I somehow am contributing to that!

Tom Remington

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

Hunting with “Crazy Jim” is a new video blog site. Check this out!

Tom Remington

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

Chris Burget is a friend and is starting his own online business. Check it out!

SUN VALLEY, ID–(Marketwire - April 15, 2008) - Bulls & Beavers, LLC, www.bullsandbeavers.com, a leading provider of outdoor-related news and services, today announced the launch of BullsandBeavers.com, a new Web site for the outdoor sportsman. BullsandBeavers.com will be the most comprehensive, full-featured hunting and fishing web site aimed at outdoor enthusiasts.

“With BullsandBeavers.com, hunters and anglers will find everything they need to research, plan, and prepare for their next outdoor adventure,” said Chris Burget, Founder of BullsandBeavers.com. “From bow hunting, rifle hunting, fishing, travel, to buying recreational property, our site will provide instant access to a wide depth of tools, information, and resources including other outdoor magazines and websites. We aim to maintain a neutral business model so that we are able to provide the most comprehensive site by creating alliances and partnerships with content providers in all sectors of the outdoor sportsman market.”

Site Features:

BullsandBeavers.com is the first web site that will bring together all the features, content and resources relevant to hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts. Current features include news, guides and outfitters, community forums, as well as Bulls & Beavers’ prestigious “Best of the Best” awards. BullsandBeavers.com will also have an auction site that will focus on selling Firearms and Flyrods.

Best of the Best Awards - The Bulls and Beavers award is given out to various companies, products or services that qualify based on quality and integrity. The “Best of the Best” award will also be given out to premier sportsman properties that meet certain standards of quality, location as well as wildlife viewing opportunities.

Hunting/Fishing Articles - BullsandBeavers.com will offer articles pertaining to relevant current issues and events.

Hunting Guides and Outfitters - Users can search for hunting guides and outfitters by species and/or location. All listings include full contact information, species hunted, terrain, additional services, and more. BullsandBeavers.com also provides one of the most unique services in the hunting industry, a user guide rating system rating through actual users of services.

Hunting Community - Users can share photos, post messages, participate in online polls, and enter our product giveaways.

Breaking News - The latest hunting news and select fish and wildlife service releases are always at your fingertips on the home page. Under our Blog, features will focus on Hunting, Fishing and conservation.

In addition, BullsandBeavers.com will also provide field guides, wild game recipes, product reviews, hunting tips, hunting checklists, online shopping, and other online resources for the hunting and outdoor enthusiast.

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Some of the arch enemies of hunting and fishing are groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a entire host of other off the wall animal rights groups whose priorities are quite skewed, to be polite about it. To stay abreast of what the whackos are doing, I subscribe to alerts from some of these groups. Also on occasion I visit the sites and see what projects or movements they might be supporting at any given time.

This all takes me back the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase group who are trying to put a stop to high-fence hunting in their state. They have drafted a referendum they hope to put on the ballot in November of 2008 and are in the process of collecting some 13,000 legitimate registered North Dakota voter’s signatures. Am I to assume they are having a difficult time in accomplishing that?

On April 4, 2008, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States sent out a newsletter seeking help to stop canned hunting in North Dakota.

Dear Friend,

North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences — an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike — but only with your help. These “canned hunting” operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at rthunsh@srt.com or call 701-839-6210.

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Ooops!! This is not good for this elitist group, especially after having made these statements at the Bismark Tribune’s forums on February 26, 2008. Roger Kaseman heads up the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase and in this thread, he was spelling out what he referred to as the truth behind his efforts.

Here are the facts:

I am a lifelong hunter. I have been hunting for 47 years.

I am not, nor is the Fair Chase Hunters organization an anti-hunting group.

I am not, nor are any members of the organization anti-land owner right. A majority of the members are either hunters, or landowners, or both.

We have not and do not intend to seek the endorsement of any anti-hunting group.

Contrary to Show Me’s accusation, we are not in bed with HSUS, nor will we be.

I am sure anti-hunting organizations will offer financial support for the campaign when we qualify the intuitive for the ballot. The committee is unanimous; we will turn down that support.

What HSUS places on their web site is beyond my control.

Who HSUS or any other organization endorses is beyond my control and beyond the control of any member of the Fair Chase Committee.

If the NDHFFC will turn down the support of any anti-hunting group, then all of us are anxiously awaiting the public refusal of help from HSUS. Kaseman makes a good point when he says that he has no control over what organizations endorse his group or what they might put on their website but this might go a little bit beyond that.

According to what I have been able to dig up so far and what I found also at the Bismark Tribune’s forums, it appears that someone called the “Karen” listed at the phone number on the HSUS newsletter. According to the poster at the Tribune’s forums, Karen said she was working for Roger Kaseman and had been contacted by him seeking assistance.

From: Ron and Karen (rthunsh@srt.com)
Sent: Sat 4/05/08 3:54 PM
To: dewey curren (dcurren77@hotmail.com)
Cc: Roger Kaseman (lsrkbek@bektel.com)

Dear Mr Curren.

Enjoyed talking to you. As I stated when we talked I am a private North Dakota resident just trying to help get the fair chase initiative up to the voters. The Humane Society is just trying to help ensure that all residents…including non hunters get a chance to express their view on this issue. But it is a program solely of the Fair Chase Committee. Thank you so much for your inquiry on this important issue.

Therefore any donation you wish to give to support the right to vote on this unethical practice should go to:

Roger Kaseman, Fair Chase Committee

8120 17th Avenue S. E.

Linton, North Dakota 58552

701-245-4875

So, Karen is a private North Dakota resident just trying to the initiative up for the residents of North Dakota to vote on. Is it common practice to use HSUS resources for “private” citizens to “help get the fair chase initiative up to the voters”? She further directs Mr. Curren to send his donation to Roger Kaseman. Not HSUS mind you but directly to Roger Kaseman of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase Committee.

Anyone who has an ounce of respect for the hunting and fishing industry and everyone who supports and subscribes to it, would publicly deny any support of any kind from this group or any other like them. Kaseman is correct. He can’t control what HSUS puts on their site but he sure as heck can stand up in a public forum a denounce any kind of support from the likes of these people. Will it happen?

If Kaseman and the rest of the “unanimous” committee who said, “we will turn down that support”, were truthful and have not changed their minds, we can look forward to a public refusal of HSUS’ help. Any short of a complete disassociation from HSUS or any other animal rights groups will certainly tell the voters of North Dakota who is really behind this movement.

This link will take you to more articles on the North Dakota initiative and other fair chase issues.

Tom Remington

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

The National Wild Turkey Federation’s CEO turns in his resignation in conjunction with firings of some high level members

Wow, talk about a quick departure. Less than a week after National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) CEO Rob Keck was smoozing at the Alabama Governor’s One-Shot Turkey Hunt, the longtime organization head abruptly announced his resignation this morning during an all-staff meeting. The announcement, a complete surprise to the staff and industry alike, comes just a day after the federation’s board of directors forced Chief Operating Officer Carl Brown and Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing Dick Rosenlieb to step down.

Keck, who began his career as a high school art teacher, became a volunteer with the fledgling NWTF back in the mid 1970s. He joined the organization as an employee in 1978 and quickly rose to the ranks of CEO, a position he has held for 27 years. Under his leadership, the NWTF has grown to more than 550,000 members and stands among the most viably robust and visible conservation organizations in the outdoor world.

“I was at a point in my life were I decided it was time to make a change,” Keck said. He would not comment on if the firings of Brown and Rosenlieb led to the timing of his decision, citing health and family reasons for his decision.

Stabley Outdoors has the full story >>

Posted by Steve Remington

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

CamoSpace Geared to Unite Hunters, Fishermen in Online Setting

Rhodesdale, Maryland March 24, 2008 – Sporting enthusiasts across the globe now have an online spot to share their love of hunting, fishing and all things outdoors — thanks to a new social networking site developed just for them. CamoSpace, launched last summer by Eastern Shore native Denny Reid, is similar in structure to other popular social networking sites, and geared for those that love the outdoor lifestyle.

CamoSpace, named for the popular camouflage donned by many hunters and sportsmen, is meant to appeal to anyone interested in the great outdoors. Built by sportsmen for sportsmen, members share pictures, stories and videos while communicating with fellow outdoorsmen from all over the country. Users can ask questions, share tips, or just have a friendly chat either with individual users or groups – all without having any fees associated with membership.

“CamoSpace really focuses on the country lifestyle of hunting, fishing, anything outdoors,” said Reid. “We wanted a quick simple name everybody could remember. If you look around, you see that a ton of people wear camo. It really represents the outdoor lifestyle.”

For Reid, a University of Maryland graduate and avid outdoorsmen himself, the development of CamoSpace was an ideal way to meet the needs of a community close to his own heart.

“Since I was a kid, if I wasn’t working, I was looking forward to hunting season – it has been such a passion all my life,” says the lifelong farmer. “When someone kills a deer or catches a fish, they usually take a picture. It occurred to me there needs to be a place to post pictures or videos of their hunts.”

The CamoSpace team, composed of Reid and his wife April along with longtime friends Brandee Diggs and Jim Coulbourne, came up with the concept, domain name and interface and worked diligently to get the site ready for its launch last August. Located at CamoSpace.com, the niche social networking site features an easy-to-customize interface where users of all ages can interact with other users from throughout the world via standard and instant messaging, blogs and chat rooms. Users can post photos, upload videos and have the opportunity to enter deer cam contests put on by CamoSpace. Visitors can also find countless sporting resources, including vendor links, product reviews, classifieds and online games

Getting the site ready for its August launch was a labor of love to be sure, but the team’s hard work and grassroots effort to get the word out, which has included promoting it at sportsmen’s shows along the East Coast has proved to the team very quickly that they are onto something special.

“The response has been tremendous,” said Reid. “”Eighty-five percent of people who joined since day one come back and check out the site everyday.”

CamoSpace currently has 5,600 members and is growing daily, generating more than 200,000 ad impressions a day through its advertising banners. It boasts members in every U.S. state and has an international presence with members in several countries – momentum Reid expects to continue to generate buzz in the sporting community as faithful members recruit their own friends and fellow hunters to the site.

“It’s just a matter of them finding out about us. Once they find out about us, they’re hooked,” he said. “Where else can you enjoy yourself so much without having to shell out one penny?”

In addition to providing a free service to members, Reid and the CamoSpace crew are also committed to ensuring the site is a safe place for their younger members, too.

“We want to have a place where kids can safely use the Internet,” said Reid, a father of four. “It is a family-friendly site that is monitored to keep it that way.”

The CamoSpace team is excited about the prospects for the site as it continues to grow in popularity.

“The sky’s the limit,” said Reid. “If you go hunting and fishing, and you get on the Internet - you’ll want to be a part of CamoSpace.

For more information on CamoSpace, to register for the site or if you are an outdoor vendor who would like to advertise your product on the site, please visit www.camospace.com or contact Jim Coulbourne. at business@camospace.com.

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Every so often the Black Bear Blog updates the advertising prices to reflect the traffic. If you are interested in becoming a sponsor for the Black Bear Blog please take time to learn what packages we have to help determine what is best for you and contact us at ads@blackbearblog.com

We now have 4 basic banner sizes for advertising that are our hot spots. We allow banners that are the following sizes:

300×250 - This is the square looking banner on the top right of all of our pages.
728×90 - This is the larger horizontal banner that appears on the very top middle of the blog on every single page.
468×60 - This is a smaller horizontal banner that appears on the very top middle of the blog or it can appear directly above the content in the white area on every single page.
160×600 - This is a tall vertical banner that appears further down on the right side of every page

There are currently over 2780 pages (articles) that make up the Black Bear Blog. There are roughly 4 new pages added each day. Your banners will span all pages.

Now you have a couple options. You can purchase a spot which will rotate with other sponsors. Or you can buy out the spot for an alloted period of time. This will ensure that your banner will appear every single time. The Black Bear Blog sees over 40,000 impressions monthly which translates into over 27,000 unique readers every single month. The Black Bear Blog is one of the leading hunting and 2nd amendment related blogs on the Internet today. Also we have a place where you can purchase a link on the Blog which will appear on the far right side under Recommended Links. You can purchase a text link for $15/month

Here are the current banner prices…

Rotating Ad Options:

468×60 Banner - Top Center
1 month: $25
6 months: $135
12 months: $250

728×90 Banner - Top Center
1 month: $30
6 months: $165
12 month: $300

300×250 Banner - Top Right under Search
1 month: $40
6 months: $220
12 months: $400

160×600 Banner - Vertical Banner on Far Right
1 month: $20
6 months: $110
12 months: $200

Full Sponsor Ad Options:

468×60 Banner - Top Center
1 month: $100
6 months: $550
12 months: $1000

728×90 Banner - Top Center
1 month: $150
6 months: $825
12 month: $1500

300×250 Banner - Top Right under Search
1 month: $200
6 months: $1100
12 months: $2000

160×600 Banner - Vertical Banner on Far Right
1 month: $50
6 months: $275
12 months: $500

Please contact us at ads@blackbearblog.com

Steve Remington

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

On this past Thursday’s Open Air radio show, I shared with you an article written by Hugh Hewitt about the foreseeable troubles and real agendas behind the push by environmental groups to get the polar bear listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. You can get some information and listen to the radio broadcast here.

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.

When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.

If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?

As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.

* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.

* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.

* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.

* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.

* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.

* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.

Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.

Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.

If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.

What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back - namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.

This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.

As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.

In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?

Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.

Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.

How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?

I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.

There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put t