Research that the Department of Interior is using to render a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered is critically flawed, according to Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School and others who were part of an audit group formulated by the State of Alaska.

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

According to Science Daily, Armstrong says that in order to list a healthy species as endangered, you have to have “valid forecasts”.

“To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

Armstrong says that his group examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports and found that the most relevant study, “properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles”. They also determined that these same studies showed that 69% of the information was “contravened”, to some degree.

The group further states that the studies failed to substantiate “assumptions” of melting sea ice or the ability of the polar bear to adapt to changing climate patterns.

In short, Armstrong has determined that any ruling, whether to list or not list, cannot be scientifically substantiated using the flawed studies the Department of Interior is using.

Next!

Tom Remington

climate change, Department of the Interior, endangered species act, global warming, polar bear research, prof. j. scott armstrong, science daily, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey

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

I guess if Black Bear Blog readers had their chance, they would just as soon put Al Gore on an iceberg and set him adrift, somewhere…..anywhere. The latest not-so-scientific Black Bear Blog poll showed 58% of readers (at total of 73) thought Al Gore should be sent sailing.

Just as interesting though is that 39%, a total of 39 readers, want the polar bear listed as endangered - not threatened but endangered. As far as anything in between, there wasn’t a lot of interest.

Here are the results of the Polar Bear Poll!

Should The Polar Bear Be Further Protected With Endangered Species Act?

* List the bear as Endangered.: 31% (39)
* List the bear as Threatened.: 6% (7)
* Leave well enough alone.: 6% (7)
* Put Al Gore on an iceberg and set him adrift.: 58% (73)

Total Votes : 126

Thanks for participating and check out the latest poll to the right.

Tom Remington

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

Idaho is planning a wolf hunt in the fall of 2008. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen as no less than 12 environmental/animal rights groups have filed suit to reverse the decision earlier this year that took the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming off the endangered species list. Couple that with some of the same groups seeking a court injunction to stop all killing and hunting of the wolf immediately, it is probably doubtful there will be a fall hunt.

Regardless of what I think, there are some fuzzy math issues involving the Idaho Fish and Game Department that I can’t quite figure out. For those who don’t know, the IDFG is seeking public comment on rules and regulations concerning a proposed fall wolf hunt. Go to their website and you can register a comment. Preceding the comment box, this is the information IDFG has for you to read.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking comments on proposed 2008 wolf hunting season and rules framework available here.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission approved the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, and the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains was removed from the endangered species list – both in March. The management plan calls for managing wolves at a population level of between 500-700 wolves for the first five years following delisting. The plan includes hunting as part of the methods of maintaining the population levels.

Fish and Game recommendations call for a total mortality quota of 328 wolves in 2008, which includes all reported wolf kills – from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills. Reaching the quota would result in an estimated end-of-year population of 550-600 wolves.

When the statewide quota is reached, all hunting would stop. When quotas in individual zones are reached, hunting in those zones would stop.

Details for the fall 2008 hunting season are scheduled to be set by the commission at the May 21-22 meeting and season and rules brochures should be out to the public in July.

IDFG says that the management plan approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is to manage a population of gray wolves of between 500 and 700. They propose a kill quota, this includes all forms of mortality on the wolf not just hunting, of 328 wolves, claiming this will result in an estimated population at the end of the year of between 550 and 600 wolves.

I’m no rocket scientist but I figured out from this mathematical equation, IDFG is estimating the population currently, or prior to the fall hunt, at between 878 and 928 wolves.

This seems to disagree with information that IDFG has made available. I did some of my own math using figures available from the IDFG website and other “official” documents. To be as up front and honest as possible, let me say that IDFG has for the most part made it known that their wolf population estimates are in fact just estimates but they feel comfortable enough to use them in official documents, etc. With that said, my calculations are then estimates being that I am using their data.

In 2005, IDFG estimated a wolf population of 512. Using that estimate, I went back to 1995 and 1996 and calculated out that to have that number of wolves after the reintroduction of wolves back in 95 and 96, worked out to a survival and growth rate of right around 33%, give or take a % fraction or two.

Using this same survival and growth rate, 33% and 512 wolves in 2005, that calculates out to an estimated wolf population of 1204.55 wolves by the end of 2008. Whatever anyone choses to factor into this equation - i.e. carrying capacities, current mortalities, etc. - that’s a substantially higher estimate of wolves than the 878-928 IDFG is saying the state currently has.

Once again using IDFG information, they say they want to have a kill number of 328 out of their estimation of between 878 and 928 wolves, leaving a total of 550 and 600 wolves. If we average numbers and say the current wolf population is 903 and the kill quota remains at 328, that’s a reduction of wolves of 36%, average.

If the real wolf population more closely resembles my calculations, 1204, then the reduction rate stands at 27%. Using a continued survival and growth rate of 33%, then the wolf population continues to grow at a rate of 6%. Using IDFG figures, they will for all intent and purposes maintain their wolf population or exact figures say an average reduction rate of 3%.

The fuzziness in the math comes from how and why IDFG opted for a current wolf population of between 878 and 928? Those numbers seem a bit arbitrary. Nearly every report that has come out of Idaho claims the current wolf population in the 1200-1500 range with some reports considerably higher than that.

Whether you’re an Idaho citizen for or against hunting wolves and delisting the animal, it would seem that for IDFG to win support from anyone, they need to do a little bit more to explain their fuzzy math.

Tom Remington

endangeres species act, Idaho Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wolf hunting, wolves

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

A federal judge this past week told the Department of Interior it had until May 15, 2008 to make a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And the environmentalists went wild!!!

If you follow the link category to the right under “Endangered Species“, you’ll find plenty of articles and links to the ongoing debate about whether the polar bear is in danger, whether the world is in danger and if it’s all caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from carbon dioxide.

I laughed out loud a few days ago, when Al Gore, during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes said that those of us who won’t jump on his flim-flam bandwagon, were like the Flat Earth Society people and that we believe the lunar landing was staged on a lot in Hollywood. What was hilarious about it was that the Flat Earth Society was made up of people like Al Gore, who refused to listen to any kind of reasoning whether logical or scientific, that showed the earth wasn’t flat. I know of hundreds of people personally that are not sold on Al Gore’s theory of man-made global warming but are open to listening to debate on both sides of the issue. So who’s a Flat Earther?

Without debate, media, politicians and American citizens are blindly plowing ahead, often times willy-nilly, to save the planet - in this case the polar bear. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle provided readers with an editorial about the plight of the polar bear. 100% of the piece (and yes I realize it’s an editorial) was presented as fact that ice is melting everywhere in the arctic, that this is caused by man and that the polar bear is dying off. They even repeated projections from recently discovered to be faulty models that said the bears would be extinct by the year 2050. There is just as much scientific evidence, particularly the newest data, to refute everything the Chronicle repeats as climate change facts.

But what I find as the most disturbing part of the editorial is their position on what they deem to be more important to the American people; affordable energy and a healthy economy or swallowing a politician’s theory on global warming.

It’s unlikely that in its final year in office, the administration will reverse its policy of protecting business interests instead of the environment and endangered species. The courts should not have to tell the administration to enforce environmental statutes rather than undermine or ignore them.

Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act isn’t a simple matter of adding it to a list and then we hope it gets better. There has to be intelligent discourse among sane people in order to realistically determine the all-encompassing affects of making such a move.

I have worked some in my past articles that I hoped would, if nothing else, get readers to ask questions and think more about this issue other than how it is going to affect next Christmas’ Coke commercials. Huge Hewitt of Townhall has also covered more in depth as to what actually can happen to our economy, through the federal permitting process for growth and development. He offers more thoughts on that today.

The short version: If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort –even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases– those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Hewitt practiced Endangered Species Act law for two decades and should have a pretty good understanding on how administering the Act works. In several of his articles about the polar bear listing, he refers to Section 7 of the ESA(pdf - scroll down to find Section 7) often. The first part of Section 7 I believe spells out quite clearly, even to those of us without a law degree.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementationof such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

The two biggest remaining questions which may never get answered are; Is the polar bear really threatened and to what degree should we as a society carry out the protection of an animal species while putting our own well being at risk?

I know of nobody who wants to see the polar bear disappear. Many scientists don’t believe it will nor that it is threatened. What the Houston Chronicle failed to reveal, as has many other media sources, is that only two areas of polar bear populations are decreasing somewhat in size. The remainder are holding steady or growing. It is my opinion that we have as yet to scientifically determine whether the bear is in danger.

Remember that should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list the bear, it will be because they think man-made climate change will destroy the bear down the road somewhere. This has never been done before. Hewitt, from a perspective of having been there and done that, clearly points out that we don’t know what we are in for. The courts can only make rulings that are based on the content of the Endangered Species Act.

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington

60 minutes, Al Gore, carbon dioxide, CBS, climate change, endangered species act, flat earth society, global warming, Houston Chronicle, huge hewitt, judge claudia wilken, man made climate change, man made global warming, polar bears, section 7 endangered species act, townhall, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

A federal judge in California has ordered the U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to render its final decision on whether to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Judge Claudia Wilken of Federal District Court in Oakland, California said the USFWS has no legitimate reason to continue delaying its decision on what to due concerning the listing of the polar bear. The judge ordered the Service to make its decision by May 15, 2008.

The New York Times and Associated Press have more.

On January 9, 2008, the U.S. Department of Interior published a proposal (pdf) to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Under the process of this proposal, the Service announced that is would begin a 12-month “finding”, meaning it will take one year to receive public comment and confer with scientists and all relevant entities in an attempt to determine is the loss of sea ice (polar bear habitat) is a long term threat that in turn will threaten the survivability of the bear across its range.

At the conclusion of that 12-month period, the DOI announced it would need another 6 months to complete its investigation in order to make a determination. Environmental groups files a lawsuit in order to force the DOI to render its decision immediately. The ruling by Judge Wilken is the result of that lawsuit.

No one completely understands the entire ramifications if the DOI opts to list the polar bear as threatened. This would be the first time a decision was made based on projected climate change. If it is determined that such climate changes are a result of man, just how far ranging restrictions will go to protect sea ice is anyone’s guess.

We will now wait until May 15 and see what Sec. Kempthorne has to say.

Tom Remington

endangered species act, judge claudia wilken, polar bears, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

Arnold Schwarzenegger, endangered species act, mojave ground squirrel, solar power

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

America’s ongoing hatred of big oil companies may be at an all-time high. Gas prices are rising steadily, hitting record highs and the price of crude oil now easily tops $100 a barrel. Analysts and the media are predicting gas prices to top $4.00 per gallon on average nationwide by summer. To tone that down just a bit, I’ve heard the same kind of predictions the past 10 years and so far none of those predictions lived up to the hype. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting hit hard at the pump.

It’s easy to blame oil companies for everything and I suppose to some degree they play a role in the pricing of most of our goods that we buy but is this hateful relationship Americans have for oil doing any good?

Last night on my way home I was listening to talk radio. I listened as one man with animated speech, berating George Bush for having taken no action to thwart the rising oil prices. As a matter of fact he described President Bush as assuming an Alfred E. Newman look while shrugging his shoulders as if to tell the people, “I dunno what to do!”

I did listen to the suggestions made as to what the President could be doing about oil and I did have to agree mostly to what he said. One of the suggestions was that Bush has to take the lead and insist that this country begin drilling for the oil we so snuggly sit upon as we bitch and complain about oil prices.

We’re an odd lot, us Americans. We love to express our anger at big oil because they make billions of dollars - by the minute using some people’s reasoning - yet we refuse to do anything about it. Basic supply and demand mostly controls the prices so wouldn’t it make sense to produce more oil?

That’s probably not going to happen and part of that reason goes back to our hatred of big oil, the Federal Endangered Species Act and our odd desire to swallow every ounce of man made global warming hype being crammed down our throats.

Follow any discussion today about the future of the polar bear and what you will hear is startling in more ways than one. It’s frightening to listen to what people have chosen to believe about what climate change is doing to the white bear. It’s also scary to listen to those who hate oil companies so much they will spitefully do anything they can to make sure they don’t drill for more oil anywhere - in the world.

Al Gore wants us all to follow him like sheep to the slaughter. He scoffs at any suggestion that there are just as many scientists in this world who can easily disprove his global warming theories as he has them to support it. He may get what he wants but not from anything he has done, directly.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced over a year ago that it would consider placing the polar bear on the “threatened” or “endangered” list of the Endangered Species Act. The basis for listing comes on the assumption that Al Gore is right and climate change or more accurately a continued rise in air and water temperatures over the long haul, will destroy polar bear habitat (melting sea ice) and consequently rid the world of polar bears.

Bruce Woods, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was quoted in a recent interview about the polar bear as saying,

“There has to be a direct, scientific line between your gas pipe and this dead bear,” he said. “And frankly, climate science and pollution science aren’t developed to the point to make that kind of connection.”

As I understand it, if the USFWS were to list the polar bear, it would be the first time such an act was taken that didn’t have a scientifically proven direct link to cause and effect. But that might not matter at all.

Huge Hewitt, of Town Hall, thinks that the administering of the Endangered Species Act toward the polar bear might accomplish most everything that Al Gore is trying to do - stop the emissions of anthropogenic (man made) carbon dioxide he says will destroy the bear and humankind.

As I noted a fortnight ago, the listing of the bear is just the first step in an elaborate dance that will result in the imposition of extraordinarily expensive and delay-inducing permitting requirements on any industrial or commercial activity that (1) requires a federal permit of any sort and (2) emits greenhouse gases.

Hewitt is referring to his article he did recently about what effects listing the polar bear will have on the U.S. Economy, etc.

He refers to an article that appeared in the Environmental Law Reporter called, “”Conserving Species in an Era of Global Warming” by the Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation, John Kostyack, and Professor Dan Rohlf of the Lewis & Clark Law School. According to Hewitt, this article first talks of the perils of certain species because of global warming but goes further to support Hewitt’s claim that the ESA could play a very important role in how we deal with carbon emissions.

Kostyack and Rohlf first review what they see to be the climate change perils confronting many species, including the polar bear, and then chart how the Federal Endangered Species Act (”FESA”) could be brought to bear upon the issue of global warming via the section of the FESA that compels “consultations” between any part of the federal government proposing to issue a permit that could impact a threatened or endangered species and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Again, this is all important and interesting things to consider but the remaining question still is whether there is a direct scientific link between the theory of global warming and the need to list the polar bear or any other species because of it? I’ve pointed out a few times that it doesn’t much matter what the USFWS decides to do, people have made up their minds already and are demanding that the bear be listed, even if there is no science to support it.

Part of this decision making by the people has to be influenced by their hatred of big oil. Environmentalist are claiming that the reason the feds are dragging their feet on making any announcement on the fate of the bear is so that oil and gas drilling can continue in the regions that would be included as polar bear habitat. The hatred has people only thinking of finding ways to stop oil and gas companies from making money and not thinking about ways to lower the price of fuel at the pump. Makes me wonder what kind of decisions will be made based on hatred rather than science.

The actions of the USFWS pertaining to the listing or not of the polar bear will have substantial consequences. Those who support the global warming theory will show their anger at this current administration and big oil if the feds opt not to list. If the bear is listed, the events that follow could be more devastating than we can surmise at this point.

To set a precedent that a theory will have future affects on wildlife species, could open a door none of us can comprehend.

Tom Remington

Al Gore, big oil, bruce woods, climate change, dan rohlf, endangered species act, environmental law reporter, gas, global warming, huge hewitt, john kostyack, lewis and clark law school, national wildlife federation, oil, polar bear, president bush, Town Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife conservation and global warming

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

Essentially, it was LD823 of the Maine Legislature that created the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force. Their mission was to find out why there are very few deer left in Northern and Eastern Maine and make recommendations as to what to do about it. Before anything else is said, the 11 members of this task force where given a commission that others before them had yet to accomplish and the time put into this effort is to be commended. Thank you!

Having said that, brings me back to the main question I have had since I heard of the Deer Task Force’s commission and the task given to them. What can they do that nobody or entity before them has been able to accomplish?

It certainly didn’t take hours of hard work from any task force to know that two major obstacles face the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in attempting to fulfill the deer population goals in the MDIFW Deer Management Program - loss of habitat and predators.

Although many more issues that do have some degree of effect on the deer herd were discussed, quickly winter deer yards and predators, such as coyotes and black bear, became the front issue. Let’s jump immediately into the final recommendations of the task force and then we can look back as some of what drove them to those conclusions.

*Note* - The full report of the Task Force can be found on the MDIFW website by clicking this link. (pdf)

Task Force Recommendations:

1. That MDIFW work cooperatively with landowners to protect deer wintering areas in Northern and Eastern Maine to gradually increase the deer population in conjunction with land carrying capacity. This recommendation was a majority vote as some felt that a forced land-use zoning regulation would work better.

2. That MDIFW establish a Deer Predation Working Group, in short, to figure out how it is going to control predators, namely black bears and coyotes, that are killing too many deer.

3. That MDIFW establish a Deer Research Working Group whose function will be to figure out better science in managing winter yards and the species.

Obviously, each of these recommendations come with much more detailed procedures for carrying out the recommendations.

Long before this Task Force met, Maine hunters have known what is causing the loss of deer in these affected areas. From what I read in the report, there certainly was not consensus on how to go about trying to protect deer wintering areas (DWA). Some advocate for a land zoning initiative that would force landowners that have DWA on their property to preserve it, tying their hands from full use of their property. According to representatives of the Maine Forest Products Council, landowners are opposed to land zoning for this purpose. They said landowners understand they have certain responsibilities “but are very resistant to zoning.”

John Gilbert of JD Irving says that of the 1.3 million acres of forest its company manages, 6% or nearly 82,000 acres are cooperatively set aside for DWAs. He says one of the problems facing deer management is that these are historically DWAs but the deer aren’t going there anymore. This makes them reluctant to be forced into setting aside such areas.

I think it was mostly agreed upon that any work with protecting and establishing deer wintering areas was a long-term goal and efforts wouldn’t yield positive results for some time.

One of the recommendations of the DTF was to use money from Land for Maine’s Future to buy up easements and land for wintering habitat.

On the issue of predators, part of what made this effort even more difficult than it already was, was because Maine was in the middle of a lawsuit filed against it by the Animal Protection Institute to stop trapping in Canada lynx habitat. Near the end of the meetings of the Task Force, Maine reached an agreement with API and thusly gave up many of the tools being used in the trapping of coyotes.

It has been said by trappers that earlier on when snaring was outlawed on coyotes, the major tool of controlling the coyote was taken away. Reports are that better designed traps might provide a better means of trapping the coyote but that has of yet to be revealed.

Between coyotes, black bears and bad winters, like this year’s, mortality rates on deer have skyrocketed. The Task Force made several recommendations for controlling and reducing bear populations. They included lengthening the bear season, increasing bag limits, among others, most of which require either legislative action or implementation through the MDIFW.

Probably the one most effective recommendation that could have some effect on predation is the recommendation of the Task Force that the MDIFW renew Animal Damage Control, a tool to use to target known areas of predator problems and work to reduce coyotes and bears.

The Task Force in recommending to set up the Deer Predation Working Group, effectively shuffled some of its responsibilities to establish methods to reduce coyotes off onto that perhaps-to-be group. Gerry Lavigne, former Maine deer biologist and a representative of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, who sat on the Task Force, points out that this needs to be addressed. This in a letter addressed to the Task Force from Lavigne with his recommendations on it.

Finally, we note that the Deer Task Force failed to tackle one directive of LD 823. There is a provision directing the working group to: “establish methods of controlling coyote populations and set goals to manage the populations.” While the Task Force clearly deferred discussion of control methods to the proposed Deer Predation Working Group, the task of goalsetting
was never addressed. This is unacceptable, because serious efforts at predator control require the same attention to harvest intensity, data collection, and monitoring of efficacy as is required for other big game management.

The Dept. requires the use of management systems to guide harvest and other management actions for most hunted and trapped species, as well as for many non-hunted species. Yet, no management system has ever been implemented for eastern coyotes, since the Dept. initiated the management system approach 23 years ago! SAM believes the DIFW is long overdue for creating a management system for coyote that will guide recreational harvest, ADC activities, and public outreach, as these activities pertain to achievement of clearly defined population objectives. We urge the Dept. to accomplish this task without delay, and with the scientific competency it accords other important wildlife.

I think Lavigne nails it pretty close but I’m wondering, as I’m sure many more are as well, just how is this going to be accomplished? It’s easy to say the MDIFW needs to do this and that but we also must remember that by them giving in to the animal rights groups, many good effective tools used to keep coyote populations in check, were given away.

Trappers that I talk say they could easily target deer wintering areas with their snare traps catching the coyotes as they bear down on deer in the yarding areas. They say what’s left for tools is quite inadequate to do a good enough job.

I don’t want to sound like an excuse maker looking for ways to fail but I can’t say that I have any real suggestions either and I’m sure this has played a significant role in the past with those trying to find ways to deal with coyotes.

MDIFW will have their work cut out for them, especially when it comes to dealing with the public, namely the environmentalists and animal rights groups. Two issues talked about as possible methods of dealing with predators was opening up a spring bear hunt with a “cub clause” - meaning no bear with cubs could be harvested. In states that do have spring hunts, there has been opposition to them because cubs are involved.

Going along with that same social outcry, is talk of targeting denning coyotes in the early spring. This would involve destroying coyote pups while still in the den. This is not an easy task to locate dens and is highly controversial as animal lovers can only see that these are cute little puppies. This method has been discussed in Alaska in their efforts to control overgrown wolf populations. They have seen strong opposition to this method, yet again, they’ve seen strong opposition to anything they are trying to do to reduce wolf numbers.

MDIFW personnel think nothing of killing every fish in a pond in order to “reclaim it” and restock it with game fish, yet can’t deal with denning coyotes? One of the problems I think the department has had in the past is not taking a firm enough stand. They must stand behind their science in wildlife management, even if it gets grief from the public or a handful of noisy activists. If their science behind what the do is real and necessary, then they must, from a position of strength, stand firm. I’m not sure they can accomplish that. Surely they understand that giving a little here and a little there isn’t going to make the noisy ones go away?

The facts are, Maine has a serious deer management problem in the Northern part of the state and Downeast. This has been exacerbated by a record-breaking winter dumping in excess of 200 inches of snow in parts. It might not be too far fetched to claim that there are probably more Canada lynx in some of these areas than deer.

It’s tough to suggest asking hunters to give up their deer hunting opportunities but it might come to that. This of course would be tragic, coming at a time when some economic leaders are officially saying this country is in recession and MDIFW is cash strapped, struggling now to make ends meet. Losing valuable license fee money would just make matters worse.

One thing is for certain. I have faith that hunters and trappers are the real true conservationists and they’ll roll up their shirt sleeves and do what needs to be done to bring the deer herd back. We can’t control the weather but there are many more things that we can do, which might require a fight.

Tom Remington

Animal Protection Institute, Canada lynx, deer management, gerry lavigne, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, northern and eastern maine deer task force, severe winters, Sportsmans Alliance of Maine

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

Back last October I reported on the agreement reached between the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Animal Protection Institute on the incidental trapping of Canada lynx.

Maine was only one state targeted by animal rights groups. Minnesota was also the recipient of a lawsuit filed by the same Animal Protection Institute. Jeremiah at “Trapping Today” reports on what has happened in a court’s ruling in Minnesota and like Maine, Minnesota reached an agreement with API about the incidental take of Canada lynx.

Trapping Today reports that another lawsuit filed again by API, this time along with the Center for Biological Diversity, has been dumped in Minnesota’s lap to further restrict trapping in the Canada lynx habitat area. Trapping Today asks these questions.

This new lawsuit raises a number of questions that we, as concerned trappers, should be asking ourselves. For instance, do lawsuit settlements work, and should trappers compromise their rights? How far are these groups willing to go? Is their goal really to protect lynx, or will they continue to use the Endangered Species Act to further regulate trappers and hunters until these activities are all but eliminated?

Some of those questions get answered.

Tom Remington

Animal Protection Institute, Canada lynx, Center for Biological Diversity, endangered species act, trapping today

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

Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns - the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

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