What Is Conservation? Who Are Conservationists?

Republished with permission from Hunter’s Alert.

There are many words that have double meanings, like “gay”, “coke” and “conservation”. Most people would argue that conservation only has one meaning. Through language deception perfected by government agencies and environmentalists (which has been so skillfully brought to our attention by Julie Smithson of Property Rights) words are of monumental importance in our perception of the way we view things and make decisions. Government agents (bureaucrats) and news media (journalists) like to refer to anti-hunting groups like Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and many others as “conservationists”. These anti organizations (environmentalists) spend much of their time and their money on lawsuits, suing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the government) thus establishing their agendas and imposing their will on the American people. Hunters were the first conservationists practicing sound conservation in America and they are still the best, spending their money for all forms of wildlife. These two words today, conservation and conservationists, have been usurped by these organizations, agencies and journalists from the true conservationists……..none other than the HUNTER and by so doing make the hunter appear as the problem and they are the saviors. Now, think it through, who gave us all the abundant wildlife we have known up to this day that we rapidly see disappearing all around us? These hunters did it with their dedication to wildlife and their money without having to sue the very government agencies that these hunters pay to represent them in ALL wildlife management. Enter these environmentalist organizations, paying virtually nothing, infiltrating our government agencies and you can see who and where the problem is. NOW……who are the real conservationists?

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Feds Decline To “Relist” Prairie Dogs

A story in the Billings Gazette today reports that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declined to act on the latest petition from an environmental group to put Prairie Dogs on the Endangered Species List.

You may be aware that MSSA has fought against Prairie Dog listing for years. We’ve seen such efforts as further attempts to hijack wildlife and land by the enviro-wackos. PDs could be the most numerous and widely-distributed animal in the U.S.; certainly one of the most. There are uncounted millions of PDs in 11 states, occupying (and decimating) vast tracts of land.

The original petition by the National Wildlife Federation made the ridiculous claim that PDs occupy less than 1% of their historic range, with zero facts to support that assertion. Well, they did offer one short observation about one location in Montana from the journals of Lewis and Clark that there sure seemed to be a lot of PDs, but that’s all.

PDs are rodents – rats. They are called “prairie rats” by many. They breed prolifically, and they carry the Bubonic Plague, a disease that wiped out half the human population of Europe twice in history. To sidestep the bad PR associated with Plague infestation in PDs, sympathetic biologists use a different name for this disease when it occurs in PDs – sylvatic plague, but it’s the same disease. PDs live in high-density towns where they turn their “habitat” into a moonscape of gravel and dirt. Hardly anything grows there. No wonder ranchers don’t like them.

The enviro-wackos claim that PDs are a “keystone” species – that they are a critical species that all other life depends on. Bull! It’s true that PDs are the chief prey for the enviro-wackos special darling, Black-footed Ferrets. There is an ongoing attempt to “reintroduce” B-FFs that is generally a dismal failure. The usual exercise is, biologists raise B-FFs in captivity at dramatic public expense, biologists release B-FFs, local coyotes eat the B-FFs, a tasty but expensive snack. End of exercise (except for billing taxpayers). This effort has supported a generation of otherwise-unemployable biologists, cranked out by the same academic institutions that churn out all the lawyers suing us over PDs.

One ongoing claim by the PD-lovers is that shooting of PDs by recreational shooters is a serious threat to PD populations. I can tell you that unless all the military of the World move their rifle training to U.S. PD habitat, shooting doesn’t even dent PD populations. Actually, shooting these rats stimulates their reproductive rate, just as would additional predation by coyotes and birds of prey (don’t tell this to the rancher you ask for permission to shoot PDs on private property). Shooting PDs does amount to a useful welfare program for the lazy coyotes and scavenger birds that clean up after PD hunters.

So, it turns out that shooting PDs is not the end-of-life-on-Earth problem the enviro-wackos have claimed, born out by actual studies of PD populations by actual scientists. And, since the National Wildlife Federation originally claimed that PDs were on the verge of extinction more PD counting has been done, documenting that there untold millions of PDs in the U.S. Then number of millions grows with each count.

MSSA did submit lengthy comment to the USFWS in opposition to this most recent attempt to put PDs on the Endangered Species List. We don’t know if they actually listened to us or just used common sense. At lease MSSA is on the winning side, again. We hope this recent decision puts the matter to rest for good.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

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

Tree Stand Tips

By Robert Lane

Bob Lane is a Licensed Master Maine Guide and photographer. He has also guided Caribou Hunters and Fishermen on float trips in Southwest Alaska.

July’s warm, sunny weather doesn’t provide much incentive to think about deer hunting to outdoorsmen who are trolling for deep swimming salmon and togue, whipping out the fly line during the drake hatch, or pursuing numerous other activities in the Maine woods this time of year.

This time of year I find myself occupied with trying to decide where I’m going to fish during the week and on the weekends, and trying to fit the kayaking and photography in to boot. Being an avid outdoorsman is no easy task. With the expanded archery season opening in September, rifle season for the elusive whitetail opening in November, now is the time to begin preparation to increase your odds for a successful hunting season. Rifles need to be sighted in, bows and arrows need to be tuned, and shooting practice begun in earnest, and, if you hunt from a climbing tree stand, it needs to be inspected and readied for the upcoming days afield.

Over the last 10 seasons, I’ve shot nine deer from my portable climber and I swear by the method. I’d no more go out without it than I would without my favorite rifle. However, I find that the tree stand is the most overlooked piece of equipment in the hunter’s arsenal. Its usually hung in the garage, or tucked away in the cellar and forgotten about until a few days before the season opens. That’s no time to discover a problem that may require a repair or replacement part. Now is the time get it ready for archery and rifle season.

First and foremost is to go over the stand and check the welds. Make sure that they are still solid. I had a crack in one on a stand a few years ago. Luckily I caught it before I went out. It was a simple matter to get it repaired.

If your stand attaches to the tree by cables, check these carefully for fraying and general wear. Any doubt about their integrity is reason enough to replace both of them. If one is bad, most likely the other one will be too. Most manufacturers sell these and a variety of replacement parts for their climbing and stationary stands.

If yours is an older climber and made of steel, attach it to a tree and get in it. Stand up, sit down, twist, and turn and listen for any creaking noises, squeaks etc. Nothing will alert a deer to your presence more than a noisy stand. I lost a shot at a nice buck years back because of it. This is critical if you are a bow hunter and are shooting at close range. The deer that busted me was almost 40 yards away when my stand creaked.

Noise isn’t such a problem with the new aluminum models. I have one of these, but I still get in it just to be sure. I have found that birch trees combined with a climbing stand will make noise even after the stand has been secured in place. Most noise can be cured by tightening a loose part and making sure that it is snug against the tree when reach the desired height.

On steel stands rust can be a factor. It gives off odor that an animal can detect. Ask any fox or coyote trapper about rust. They dye and wax their traps to keep them from oxidizing and emitting a smell. Just because you’re 15 feet off the ground doesn’t mean scent from you and your equipment will go undetected by a deer. A number of variables such as temperature, wind, air density will affect how scent is carried to the nose of a wary whitetail. Any rust should be removed with a wire brush and the area repainted to prevent further rusting during the season when the stand is exposed to the elements. Doing so will also increase the life of the stand.

Once I’m up in my stand I stay all day, and that requires that I be comfortable. Cushions will wear out and the covering will deteriorate over time making them uncomfortable, or unusable. Sitting over a prime trail or feeding area is no place to be moving around in a tree stand trying to get comfortable. Check those seats early in the season and if they aren’t up to the job, repair or replace them. Again most manufacturers carry these and other replacement parts.

I always go over my safety harness at the end of each season and again in the summer, and check for fraying and other wear. Most harnesses have a special tacking on the tether strap that connects from the back of the harness to the tree, and is designed to lessen the shock of a fall. Most of these are designed to be used only once. Check yours to be sure this tacking is still intact. If it isn’t, consult the manufacturer before you use it.

I keep two four point harnesses in my truck at all times in case one becomes unserviceable. If you forget yours, either go back home and get it, or hunt from the ground. The records of injuries incurred as a result of falls from trees stands are grim. Many a hunter has been crippled for life and others have been killed from falls from as low as ten feet up.
Under no circumstances should you use anything but a four point harness when hunting from a tree stand. The old type that consisted of a belt around the waste could cause a hunter to hang doubled at the waist, or inflict serious internal injuries. Last year I saw a guy in a stand with a hank of tow rope under his shoulders attached to the tree by two half-hitches with about two feet of slack in the tether rope. It was a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.

My harness is on and attached to the tree as soon as I’m in the stand, and before I start climbing, as the majority of falls occur when ascending and descending the tree. Once I’m up in position I take all of the slack out of the tether. This pretty much eliminates any shock when the harness fetches up should I fall. The shock of a two hundred pound body falling a foot or even six inches and then being suddenly fetched up is painful at best and could result in injury. No slack in my tether also allows me to use it as a stabilizer and lean out over the stand when bow hunting.

Always carry a cell phone and let someone know where you are and when you expect to be out of the woods when hunting from a tree stand. I have several emergency numbers pre-programmed into mine. My phone has a lanyard on it that is looped through the buttonhole in the flap of my shirt pocket, eliminating the possibility of dropping it. If you should have a mishap and are unable to climb back down the tree, the phone could mean the difference between a long stint and possibly an overnight hanging in your harness. Your chances of hanging up-right and being able to call someone on the cell phone are better if you are strapped into nothing less than a four-point safety harness. Over the last couple of years I’ve seen several devices on the market that are designed to assist hunters in getting back to the ground after they have fallen and are hanging in a safety harness. These can be found with a little searching on the web. Summit is a major manufacturer of tree stands, harnesses, and accessories. I’ve had good luck with their products. Check them out at www.summitstands.com

Tree stand inspections and proper safety procedures don’t take a lot of time or effort, or even cost much for that matter. They can save a day’s hunt or even a life. While not all falls are fatal, many, hunters have seen an abrupt end to their hunting days due to crippling injuries resulting from a fall from a tree stand that hasn’t been properly maintained, or used in conjunction with a safe, four-point harness.

When opening day rolls around, I want to be up in my favorite tree at daybreak, watching the shadows give way to the day, and listening to the sounds of the woods waking up. I’ll watch the edge growth, the hardwoods, and the thickets, confidently focusing on the hunt, knowing that my stand is secure and my harness safe, because I took the time to go over my gear well before the onset of the best season of the year.

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

Rocky Mountain Angoras

By Denny L. Vasquez

© Copyrighted

“Are you gonna make it?” my guide whispered in my right ear. I didn’t even make an effort to turn toward him, but just gave a slight nod of my head in response. I snickered to myself’ “Are you gonna make it?” he asks. Hmph, I thought! a fine time to ask me that seemingly senseless question now.

We were almost to the trailhead, and it didn’t matter that I was gulping air as if it were some type of coolant that could soothe the fire in my lungs or that my body felt like rubber from running across the face of this hell that he called a mountain. At that moment I couldn’t have held still for a steady shot if my life depended on it. And to top it off, we were up at a minimum of 10,000 feet in elevation; but it was probably closer to 11,000.

Now to some of you I am sure that 10,000 or 11,000 feet doesn’t seem like much. But it is a bit much for a flatlander whose usual habitat is 50 feet above sea level, even if he has exercised for six months prior to the hunt. (One thing I had learned on this hunt is that you are never fully prepared, no matter how much you exercise. Not when you go from 50 feet above sea level to 10,000 above sea level.)

“What”, some of you ask, “hunting Angora goats in the Rocky Mountains? Isn’t that what we used to have on the ranch when I was a kid?” Well, yes it is in one sense, but in another sense, it also isn’t. Let me back up a bit and explain how I got to be in this peculiar predicament.

During the summer of 1993 I received a call from an outfitter friend of mine inviting me to come hunt elk and mule deer with him on a Colorado ranch which he was considering purchasing. If things worked out, then he would be adding this ranch to his list of ranches that he has to offer his clients. Knowing how much I love to hunt, it didn’t really take very much to twist my arm into adding another hunting trip into my busy fall schedule.The ranch is located in the Grand Mesa region near Colbran, Colorado.

The area of the Grand Mesa’s northern slope, where we would be spending 10 days trying to find a good bull elk, is called Storm King Mountain. Even though most of the lower slopes of the mountain and the top of the mesa have fairly good roads, you must still do a lot of walking if you want to find the best game. During my stay not only would we use four wheel drive trucks and horses to get around over most of the mountain’s side in our hunting area, we would also use a lot of foot power to make our way through the aspen groves and oak brush. Read more

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

Dad’s Rifle – A Family Heirloom

By Bob Lane

Robert LaneIn many hunting families, guns are handed down from generation to generation. When a family member no longer desires to, is unable to hunt, or is deceased, the rifles, pistols, and shotguns are often passed on to the hunting offspring or grandchildren of the former hunter. The sentimental value and memories attached to the firearms often far outweigh the monetary value of the guns themselves.

My earliest hunting experiences consisted of tagging along with my father when I was around 5 years old. I’d sneak slowly behind him, emulating his stopping and scanning, until we got to an old stump that he liked to sit on at the edge of a swale that bordered Grant Brook. That jumbo sized base had once held what must have been a magnificent Hemlock tree. It had been harvested by the local paper company long before I had been thought of, perhaps before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, fourteen years prior to my appearance in the little town of Millinocket, Maine.

There was room on that old stump for three men and a boy, and once we got to it we’d sit on there until dark, watching the thickets that bordered the swamp. Dad would lay his old 8 MM Mauser across his knees, and I’d look on intently, looking forward to the fireworks the that was a sure bet when that “Big Old Baster” of a buck that Dad had been talking about, came huffing up from the swamp.

That Mauser was a bogtrotter’s dream. It was light enough to be carried all day through blow downs, thickets, swamps and every other Hell hole the Maine woods could throw up, and Dad hunted them all with that rifle in hand. Whenever I laid eyes on it, I pictured him prowling the perimeter of some swamp, or sitting in a stand of hardwoods as the sun rose and back-lit his breath on a blistering cold morning in November, while he “waited ‘em out” as he liked to say.

Dad shot a lot of deer with that old rifle. A lot more than I’ll ever shoot, and probably more than most people will ever see. He had it outfitted with a receiver sight that he removed the aperture from. It had the original, famed, German Mauser action. The stock had a very thin forearm, a low comb, and a slight cheek piece. In his hands it was a tack driver. I remember him shooting a huge buck one early fall morning with that rifle when I was just a kid. We were sneaking along the edge of the West Branch of the Penobscot River through an old burn when he turned to me and said “Don’t’ move”. I froze and watched as he pulled up, fitted the stock to his cheek, closed one eye, and settled in, taking his time for the shot as he was want to do. The scene was majestic. The newly risen sun cast a purple hue over Mt. Katahdin and softly illuminated the conifers and hardwoods that stretched from the cedar and alder lined edge of the river, to the base of the eminent peak.

Dad squeezed the trigger, and the Mauser roared, followed by the sound of slamming steel as he worked the bolt to drive another round into the chamber with the rifle still at his cheek. All was quiet again while he looked up over the barrel. He turned to me and said “Let’s go” I never saw that deer and didn’t believe he had either, until we got to it, dead in its tracks, 256 paces away.

Over the years the barrel on that rifle began to wear and the bullets were tumbling in flight. Dad finally retired it and returned it to his uncle Henry, who was the actual owner of it. He replaced that beloved gun with the first new firearm he had ever owned, a Model 100, 308 Winchester semi-automatic. Dad went on to kill many a lot more deer over the next 35 years, with that .308, enjoying many more hunts and several trips to Ungava Bay to hunt Caribou. It soon became as much a part of him as had the old Mauser. Read more

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

Broom Totin’ Woman

By A. Sayward Lamb

One night, during September of 1986, Mrs. Irene Stevens heard a loud commotion in the front yard of her home. Mrs. Stevens, a lady of small stature, lived on the former Greenwood Town Farm, located on the Patch Mountain Road, in Greenwood City, Maine. Checking out the noise, Mrs. Stevens discovered a very large black bear had just attacked and killed her pet goat, which had been sleeping underneath the front porch of her farmhouse.

She looked outside just in time to see the bear dragging the goat carcass across her dooryard, headed towards the woods. By this time Mrs. Stevens was very upset, so she went into her house, got her broom, then took afterthe bear! Her efforts proved successful, because the bear dropped the goat and climbed up a nearby tree! Mrs. Stevens
returned to her home, where she telephoned her neighbor, Albert Silver, asking him if he would come to her house and shoot the bear? Albert advised her to call the local game warden.

Mrs. Stevens placed the call to the game warden, who told her he would be down in the morning. Wanting no part of that suggestion, Mrs. Stevens requested his badge number, and the telephone number of his Supervisor. Confronted with her determined efforts, the warden decided it might be better if he came right down. Upon his arrival, Mrs. Stevens escorted the officer to the spot where she had “treed”the bear. They soon discovered the bear nearby, back down on the ground, with the goat. She kept urging the
warden to shoot the bear with his revolver. Upon seeing the huge size of the black bear, the warden wanted no part of that suggestion.!

He decided it would be better to retreat from the site and make a telephone call to Tim Farrar, of West Paris, and have him come over with his bear hounds, to track, and dispatch the bear. As soon as Tim arrived, the hounds were released in Mrs. Stevens dooryard. The dogs immediately caught scent of the bear and headed for the woods, with Mrs. Stevens and the others, close behind. Upon arriving at the scene, where the bear had last been seen, they discovered the bear had taken refuge in the very same tree that it had gone up when Mrs. Stevens had “treed” it with the broom! Tim dispatched the bear with a carefully placed bullet from his gun, to end the fracas. When the bear was weighed, it tipped the scales and well over three hundred pounds.

This true tale was told to me by a close friend, Milt Inman, who lives in Greenwood City. Milt heard the gunshot that night from his home, located just across the outlet of Hicks Pond, not too far from Mrs. Stevens home Some people, whom I have talked with regarding this incident, believe Mrs. Stevens was very fortunate thatthe bear did not attack her, especially while it had the goat in its possession. No doubt, that bear must have been some surprised to find it was being chased by a “broom totin’ woman who was as mad as could be! No wonder it dropped the goat and climbed up the tree!

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

Forty-Four Years in the Making

by Denny L. Vasquez

As the old cliché goes, the look of pure joy on David’s face as he held his buck for pictures was priceless. For the first time in his 44 years he had finally been given the opportunity to hunt a trophy whitetail buck that scored higher than 100 B & C. To say the least, he was a very happy man!

Living in east Texas most of his adult life had restricted the potential of the bucks that David could hunt on his father-in-law’s or uncle’s farms. The area of the Lone Star state around Crockett and Kenard just isn’t known as an area for consistently producing large mature deer. Because of the higher than normal hunting pressure, year round poaching problems and the small acreage of most properties in the area, any type of quality deer management program is all but impossible to implement, except in a high fence situation. Because of these and other factors, most hunters in the area have the attitude of “if it is brown it dies”, which eliminates the chances of most bucks surviving long enough to reach trophy status. So just where did David take his trophy buck, you are probably asking by now? Read more

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

Calling Elk Bow-Close

Guest blog by Michael Waddell, contributing writer for Peterson’s Hunting.

Whether hunting public or private land, the fundamentals of calling elk remain the same.

The “Professor”, Waddell’s largest bull came from the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. Public land bulls like this can be call shy and may require some double teaming with a separate caller to fool. Master the cow call and you will call in elk bow-close. Use the bugle to locate as well as seal the deal on an aggressive bull.

We heard the bull bugle at first light and snuck into his core area. When I hit a lick on my bugle, the bull simply came unglued and stormed our position like a tank, crashing through brush and small lodgepole pines like they were matchsticks. Before we could react he was in our lap and we were pinned down, me hiding behind a camera, too scared to touch the tripod for fear my shaking hands would ruin the footage. All I could see of my partner wedged against a stunted pine was the tip of his undrawn arrow quivering on the rest. Before a shot presented itself,the bull smelled a rat and disappeared as quickly as he arrived. While this experience didn’t result in a dead elk, it did hopelessly addict me to calling them.

It seems that in all walks of life, be it the animal kingdom or humans, communication is a key ingredient for all social interaction. However, not all living things communicate to the same degree. If you ask my wife, I am sure she will tell you I am lacking in the communication department; in fact, I’m sure she believes I don’t listen to her at all, but when it comes to communicating with animals I can barely shut up. Of all the animals I love to communicate with, elk rate right at the top.

By nature, elk are very vocal. The uninitiated often simply think of bulls bugling, but cows, calves and bulls make all sorts of noises year-round. If you encounter a large herd, while you might not hear anything from a distance, if you get close you will hear lots of subtle vocalization. Most of the time these are sounds of contentment, but depending on what’s happening the vocalization reflects it. Elk can convey contentment, danger, curiosity or a cow in heat.Bulls , for instance, only bugle primarily in the rut, but they also communicate to establish a pecking order. After spending a considerable amount of time chasing the mighty wapiti, I’m convinced every elk in the herd knows each other by sound alone. This happens with the cows as well as the bulls, and based on my evaluation, somewhere in this mix is the deadly secret to calling elk bow-close.

Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

It seems that the more vocal a herd, the better the odds are for success at calling them. Some cows call subtly, while others are loud-mouth ladies actively looking for a date. By listening, it gives you a better opportunity to imitate the particular tones and intensity of the herd.
Master the cow call and you will call in elk bow-close. Use the bugle to locate as well as seal the deal on an aggressive bull.

Master the cow call and you will call in elk bow-close. Use the bugle to locate as well as seal the deal on an aggressive bull.

By calling, we are automatically intruding into the social club without an invitation. The closer we can sound to a known elk and match that intensity, the better the odds are of filling a tag. Even though we may sound like an outsider to the herd, luckily for us, love-crazedbulls are not looking to be intimate with just one or two cows; they are looking for all the love of every cow in the world, so taking advantage of their sexual frustrations and promiscuity is our salvation.

It doesn’t take a world champion elk caller to trick bulls within range. By simply paying attention to the herd and understanding simple elk rhythm, tone and, more important, volume whencalling, a hunter can depend on an elk call to be a valuable asset to dulling broadheads.

Public Versus Private Land

Since I started hunting elk 16 years ago, on private as well as public ground, I’ve realized comparing these two different types of ground is like comparing night and day, and it is all about the amount of pressure each receives. Generally speaking, private ground bulls are way easier to call than public ground animals, but this is not always the case. Some private land gets a lot of pressure, which can make for some pretty tough calling duels with elk that can serve you up a humble pie every time you bust out a call. Conversely, some public land, either through sheer remoteness or hard-to-get tags, is like calling the best private land in the nation.

Hunting untouched land and cow calling to bulls that have never heard a Hoochie Mama would obviously be nice. It wouldn’t take long working over these uneducated elk to start feeling like an elk-calling pro, only to be deflated the first time we went to the national forest and mixed it up with bulls so well known by local hunters that they have nicknames. However, regardless of where you hunt, the basics of calling remain the same.

Start with mastering the cow call and all its various inflections. Your basic reed-type calls are the easiest to learn as well as get proficient with. You will find two kinds; both are bite-down reed-type calls, one being enclosed and the other having an open reed or reeds. These calls make a very realistic sound and before your wife can run you out of the house you will master the basics.

I rely heavily on the cow call and think most of the time hunters are better off sticking with it over a bugle no matter where they are hunting. However, learning how to make a basic bugle is important, especially for locating bulls at a distance before getting close and working him with your cow call. In addition, sometimes it is the bugle that finally provokes a dominant bull to commit, especially during the early season when bulls are still sorting out their pecking order.

This public land bull didn’t sound like much when he bugled, but he turned out to be a lot better of a bull when he responded to some subtle calling and snuck into 16 yards.

This public land bull didn’t sound like much when he bugled, but he turned out to be a lot better of a bull when he responded to some subtle calling and snuck into 16 yards.

Earning Your Public Ground Ph.D

Let’s face it, unless you have deep pockets much of the private ground in the West is pretty much off limits, so you have to learn to hunt public land. This is not a bad thing, as public ground comprises millions upon millions of acres across the West and happens to have some of the biggest bulls found anywhere. While it can be tougher than private, once you learn how to hunt it you won’t be disappointed. Over the years one of my favorite places to hunt is the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, and even though this is a trophy area, tags are fairly obtainable through application.

In the Gila, the trophy potential is off the chart, sporting some of the biggest bulls in the country, but just because the big ones live there doesn’t mean that you automatically make one call and they come running to get in the back of your truck. These mature jokers have a Ph.D in avoiding hunters.

Over the last six years I have hunted this area religiously and have had the opportunity to shoot some nice bulls, all by using elk calls as an aid to close the coffin.

Notice I said, “as an aid,” meaning the call was just one thing in a bag of tricks to help smoke these monarchs. My biggest bull that came out of the Gila was a 378 P&Y bull that earned the name The Professor because he always seemed to take you to school when you applied too much pressure. However, this bull was vocal and would bugle his butt off. He also seemed to be fairly easy to find, not only by his gnarly, raspy bugle that set him apart, but frequently he could be found early in the morning in a large meadow just south of a particular water hole that always attracted a large herd.

The Professor was not the only bull in the area that had large headgear, but it was the Professor that seemed to call the shots. I had caught this bull in the open several times, but calling seemed to really make him uneasy when you were in close. However, he would bugle hard to distant cow calls and seemed to be wholeheartedly interested, but he had a sixth sense when you moved in for the attack.

Finally, we decided to have a caller stay behind as we worked him coming off the meadow at daybreak. By doing this we could keep him interested and bugling as we stalked in closer. The caller always was no closer than 80 yards behind me. While the caller kept him occupied, I slid within 50 yards and gave him a G5 Tekan right behind the shoulder. This hunt was really a stalk, but the call and caller had a big part to do with his demise. Once we started quartering the bull, we found a piece of an old arrow lodged just below the backstraps, so obviously someone had him in close before and gave the teacher an education, which explained why he was so wary.

The Double Team

As this old bull showed, hunting with a partner can work extremely well. It not only puts the hunter out in front of the call, it gives the hunter a chance to move and adjust the angle based on where the bull might be approaching. Likewise, the caller has the flexibility to move and apply a lot of different calling techniques.

The double-team plan worked again on another hunt. It had been hot, and the bulls were only bugling early and late. As soon as the sun would rise the elk woods would turn into a ghost town.

Just after daybreak on the fourth day of our hunt we heard this bull bugle. He hit it only two times, both very weak. He sounded like the littlest rag horn in the land, but with no other game in town we went after him. Getting as close as possible to where we thought the bugle came from, I eased up and sat down by a pine stump while my buddy moved back and to my right about 40 yards.

Neither of us was very optimistic about our chances. My buddy made one or maybe two very soft cow calls on a two-reed diaphragm, then he started raking a tree and rolled a few rocks. We sat there for possibly 10 minutes in silence, then out of nowhere appeared a wide 6×6 coming directly to us.

At 25 yards the bull let out a soft chuckle, looked over his surrounding, and kept walking in the direction of where the last rock had been rolled, which led him 16 steps from my pine stump. By now I was at full draw, waiting for a broadside shot. When the arrow left my bow, I knew we had killed a call-shy monster by keeping it low-key and staying patient. Needless to say, I was never convinced by the two times he had bugled earlier that he was a shooter. This was a lesson in itself. Never judge a bugle until you can see what is making the sound.

The most exciting way to bag a bull elk is to get him in close, and the best way to do that is with a call. Confidence in your call is critical, because if you’re insecure about using your call, there is a good chance you will spook elk. Have confidence in your calling ability and become just another elk in the herd where you are hunting.

Find a call that works for you and not what works for someone else. Think like an elk and do as elk do. Realism, rhythm and volume control can make the difference between bringing them in or running them over the next ridge. Remember, it’s not always about calling. It can be about just patiently listening to the sounds around you and applying minimal calls while practicing good woodsmenship and stalking skills that could help you put that monster on the back of the truck.

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

New York Hunter “Outraged” By The “Unconscionable” License Fee Increases

Guest blogger, Richard Rizza

I am OUTRAGED by the callous disregard for we the NY sportsmen and women by the DEC’s (Department of Environmental Conservation) Peter Grannis. While a fee increase from time to time is expected, this is nothing short of RAPE and highway robbery. Can I pay it? Yes, I can pay it. Will I? Will you??

The cost of a single item license (ie: small game hunting; fishing; etc) was increased by a factor of OVER 50% That can not stand. The cost of an upper echelon license (ie: Supersportsman)factoring in doe permit fees and the new license for Marine fishing approaches a factor of 70%. I think we should scream bloody murder and call for the head of Commissioner Grannis. We must live within our means. So must the DEC. So must ALL governmental agencies. An end to the never ending upward spiral of fees, taxes and surcharges must be demanded!

We have the power to do this. I know that many have made statements by their refusal to purchase doe permits. That’s good. I am willing to go a little farther by calling for a BOYCOTT of sporting licenses until DEC backs down, and they will, quickly, as soon as they see that their attempt to raise their income by raping New York sportsmen has BACKFIRED in their faces. We don’t need to hunt or fish. We do it because we want to. DEC on the other hand does need us. We are the hand that feeds them, and they are biting us HARD! Raise your voices and close your wallets!

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to state that I have, up till now, been a regular annual purchaser of a Conservation Legacy license. This year, I will not be buying that. I do, however, want to put venison in my freezer, so it is likely that, despite my call for total boycott, I will at minimum purchase a big game tag with doe permit. I am also considering a lifetime sportsman license prior to Oct. 1 as this will place my money into the conservation fund which is untouchable save for it’s garnered interest and provide me without increased charge my recreational licenses (optional to me for bow and muzzle loader) and no charge doe permits for life, thus undermining Commissar Grannis’ attempted extortion.

I sent a letter to State Senator William Larkin to express my outrage. Below is a copy of that letter.

An open letter to:
Senator William Larkin
1093 Little Britain Rd
New Windsor, NY 12553

August 19, 2009

Dear Senator Larkin,

I am returning your recent mailing of the NYS Hunting Seasons. Kindly stop spending MY money on unnecessary items. I won’t be needing it, at any rate. I went to the DEC website to purchase my annual Conservation Legacy license, to find an unconscionable increase in the fee. This increase of 30 dollars has caused me, at great personal disappointment, to cancel my annual hunt and also to give up my fishing privileges for at least the coming year.

I am sick and tired of you, the ruling class, constantly and continually imposing increased fees, surcharges and new licenses (Now a MARINE license is required!!) upon we the people as if we are nothing more then an inexhaustible “fountain of money.” Enough!!!!! Although I will feel very bad and very sad for giving up my hunting and fishing, I would feel worse if I allowed myself to be RAPED by the Legislature and the DEC.

This “obscene overcharge” situation is not limited to any one thing, either. It is pervasive throughout every part of modern life in this state, from campgrounds to state parks to motor vehicle to property taxes. The property tax portion of a current mortgage payment is rising to the point where it EQUALS the actual mortgage!

Sincerely,

Richard Rizza
Cc: Times Herald Record

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

Wolves: When Ignorance Is Bliss

Editor’s note: The following article is being reprinted with permission from the author, Dr. Valerius Geist and The Bugle, a publication of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Wolves: When Ignorance Is Bliss

Wolves mustn’t be coddled if we hope to balance them with modern ecosystems—and to avoid becoming prey.

By Dr. Valerius Geist

Nothing convinces like personal experience! And I too am slave to it. As an academic I confess to this with some distress, because by training, experience and attitude I should be above it. That I am not alone in this habit is of little comfort. And so it was with wolves.

In my field research on mountain sheep, goats, moose etc. I also observed wolves, and my experience with North American wolves matches that of colleagues. Consequently, during my academic career and four years into retirement I thought of wolves as harmless, echoing the words of more experienced colleagues while considering the reports to the contrary from Russia as interesting, but not relevant to an understanding of North American wolves. I trusted my wolf-studying colleagues to have done their homework and I dismissed light-heartedly the experiences of others to the contrary. I was wrong!

I saw my first wolf in the wild early one morning in May 1959, on Pyramid Mountain in Wells Gray Provincial Park, British Columbia. I spotted an ash-gray wolf, with a motley coat, sitting and watching me from a quarter mile away with an eager, attentive look about his dark face. His red tongue was protruding, while golden morning light played on his fur. In the spotting scope his image was crisp and clear. I do not know if my heart skipped a beat, but it well might have. Whose wouldn’t?

Five months prior, in early January, I had had an informative brush with a wolf pack just a few miles from that spot. A friend and I were observing moose. We were in the midst of a migration and some two dozen, mostly bulls who had shed antlers, were dispersed over a huge burn. A few were feeding on the tall willows, but most were resting in the knee-deep snow. Suddenly we heard a low, drawn-out moan. When I glanced at the moose I saw that all were standing alert, facing down the valley. We were green then and perplexed about this unearthly sound.

As if to answer us, a high-pitched voice broke in, and then another and another. We realized we were hearing wolves. Within minutes a chorus was underway—and so were the moose. All were hastily moving up the valley and 10 minutes later the moose had vanished. I opted to stay at our lookout while my friend borrowed my rifle and went to search for the wolves. He saw them at dusk as they walked across a small lake, a pack of seven. Try as he may, the rifle would not fire; it had frozen in the great cold. This may have been kind fortune, for the first wolf I shot with that rifle instantly attacked me, but collapsed before reaching me. The second screamed, and that has triggered pack attacks in the past. Had the pack attacked, I would have been minus a friend in minutes. While a large man can subdue an attacking wolf, even strangle it, there is no defense against an attacking pack.

Two years later during my study of Stone’s sheep in northern British Columbia, I had exceptional opportunities to observe wolves in pristine wilderness. My closest neighbors, a trapper family, lived some 40 miles to the west, and the closest settlement of Telegraph Creek was about 80 miles to the north. Timberlines were low, and the wolves spent much time in the open, plainly visible. I watched them for hours on end. These were large, painfully shy wolves that on occasion even panicked over my scent. Though they killed a few sheep, their hunts were largely unsuccessful. However, I began to appreciate their strategies and tenacity as hunters. In traversing the valley I crossed a wolf track about every 50 paces. They were that thorough in scouring the valley for moose.

On rare occasions a wolf would follow my tracks and sit and listen to what I was doing in my cabin at night. (Grizzly bears did that, too.) One evening three wolves began to surround me on a frozen lake. One raced towards me, but scrambled madly to get away once he got downwind of me. Another cut my fresh track, then jumped straight up and raced back. Thus my early experiences with mainland wolves indicated they were shy and cautious. Moreover, they were few compared to the huge number of Osborn’s caribou. I then thought that this was normal. Years later a first doubt arose when a student of mine could hardly find a caribou where I had seen hundreds, and a wolf pack of 43 individuals was recorded where I had observed for years a pack of seven.

Evidently, my experiences with wolves were anomalous, for a decade earlier there had been massive broadcast poisonings of wolves to control rabies. The “pristine wilderness” had been tampered with; I had experienced a “rebound” of ungulate populations after they had been freed from severe predation. When my wife and I tell of forests of antlers as caribou bulls gathered on the Spazisi Plateau for the rut, colleagues look at us as if we came from another age. Maybe we do.

Nothing in my previous studies had prepared me for what I was to experience with wolves on Vancouver Island beginning in 1999. In my student days, in the late 1950s, wolves on Vancouver Island were so scarce that some thought they were extinct. In the early 1970s they reappeared and swept the island. The annual hunter-harvest of black-tailed deer dropped swiftly from about 25,000 to less than 3,000 today. There were incidents of wolves threatening people, and a colleague, treed by a pack, clammed up as nobody believed it. Wolves threatening people? Ridiculous!

According to my colleagues, massive clear-cutting of old-growth forests and the rapid spread and growth of the wolf population caused the carnage. Those who witnessed it tell of deer carcasses everywhere—and then no more deer. The loggers left standing small patches of mature timber as deer winter range. However, wolves, cougars and black bears discovered those patches and cleared out the remaining deer. The clearcuts also led to a population explosion of black bears; some became experts in killing elk calves and deer fawns. Deer are still so few and far between in the mountains that I see about three dozen bears for every deer. However, deer are common in towns, suburbs and about farms, where they are somewhat safe, at least from wolves. The elk population is holding its own, but at a low level compared to the vast amounts of food on the clearcuts. The bulls are huge, with massive antlers, but with a predator-induced silence during the rut. Enough calves perish so that there is little recruitment and we hunters are held to one permit per 40-150 applicants.

I retired to an agricultural area on Vancouver Island in 1995. During walks near our home I explored at all seasons a meadow system associated with dairy, beef and sheep farming. These meadows and adjacent forests contained, year-round, about 120 black-tailed deer and half a dozen large male black bears. In winter came some 60-80 trumpeter swans, as well as large flocks of Canada geese, widgeons, mallards and green-winged teals. Pheasants and ruffed grouse were not uncommon. In the fall of 1995 I saw one track of a lone wolf. I cannot recall seeing any wolf tracks in the four years following. Then in January 1999 my oldest son Karl and I tracked a pair of wolves in the snow, suggesting a breeding pair and thus pack-formation. A pack did indeed arrive that summer. Within three months not a deer was to be seen, or tracked, in these meadows—even during the rut. Using powerful lights we saw deer at night huddling against barns and houses where deer had not been seen previously. For the first time deer moved into our garden and around our house, and the damage to our fruit trees and roses skyrocketed. The trumpeter swans left not to return for four years, until the last of the pack was killed. The geese and ducks avoided the outer meadows and lived only close to the barns. Pheasants and ruffed grouse vanished. The landscape looked empty, as if vacuumed of wildlife.

Wolves attacked and killed or injured dogs, at times right beside their shouting, gesticulating owners. Wolves began following our neighbors when they rode out on horseback. A duck hunter shot one wolf and fatally wounded another as three attacked his dog. They ventured into gardens and under verandas trying to get at dogs, and ran after quads, tractors and motorcycles to attack the accompanying farm dogs. My neighbor warded off three such attacks on his dogs with his boots, and his hired man ran back to a tractor in panic after the wolves chased two dogs under it. One wolf approached within about 15 paces of my wife and a group of eleven visitors that were taking an evening stroll about half a mile from our house. The wolf howled and barked at the people. Our neighbor then went out armed with his dogs, and the wolf, a small female, promptly attacked the dogs and was shot at 50 feet. Nine days later my neighbor killed a second wolf that was following and barking at him. This wolf may have been defending a sheep it had dragged half a mile. These weighed between 60 and 70 lbs, small for wolves, a sign of poor nutrition.

A neighbor raising sheep lost many to wolves, so he acquired five large, sheep-guarding dogs. These dogs and the wolf pack had frequent, night-long barking and howling duels at the forest edge. I observed subsequently, on the evening of October 19th 2002, how the last of the pack, a male, fraternize successfully with the sheep dogs. He kept it up and was eventually shot March 12th 2003 while sitting among these dogs. However, before that he visited us when our female German longhair pointer, Susu, was in heat, and barked at my wife in our doorway. That is, he acted like other male dogs that were attracted to Susu in heat, only bolder.

Wolves had been seen in the neighborhood sitting and observing people; we know from captivity studies that wolves are observation learners. One male approached my wife, my brother-in-law and myself across a quarter-mile of open meadow and stood looking us over for a very long minute about 10 paces away before moving on into the forest. Along with my neighbors, I repeatedly saw wolves showing interest in humans.

However, the worst incident happened about 350 yards from our house when the second misbehaving pack formed. On March 27th, 2007, our neighbors went in the morning to inspect their dairy cattle and pastures. Their old dog ran ahead of them. Just as they entered the forest five wolves attacked the dog. My neighbor grabbed a cedar branch and advanced on the wolves, which turned towards him snarling. His wife jumped into the caboose of their excavator that happened to be nearby. My neighbor’s energetic counter attack freed the dog, and intimidated all but one wolf that advanced on him snarling. However, he too withdrew, even if reluctantly. While my neighbor ran home to get a gun, his wife ran to us, shouting for me to get a rifle. We did not see the wolves, though they were sighted briefly in the evening, and a neighbor walking his dog had an encounter with two wolves about a mile away. He was able to chase them away. The following morning our neighbors took a rifle along during their inspection trip of their property. The wolf pack promptly went for them again and my neighbor shot the most aggressive one, a male weighing 74 lbs. I saw the neighbors’ cattle, spooked by a wolf, crash through fences while fleeing for the security of their barn. I found two of the three cattle killed and eaten by wolves; the third was severely injured about the genitals, udder and haunches and had to be put down. I saw the docked tails, slit ears and wounded hocks on the dairy cows. Our neighbor’s hired man saw from a barn a wolf attacking a heifer with a newborn calf. He raced out and put the calf on his quad. As he ran to the barn the wolf ran alongside, lunging at the calf – and right into the barn! A predator control officer was called and 13 wolves were removed within a mile of our house from the first, and four from the second misbehaving pack.

That “tameness,” that “hanging around,” that increasing boldness and inquisitiveness, is the wolf’s way of exploring its potential prey, and the strength of its potential enemies. Coyotes targeting children in urban parks act in virtually the same manner. Two wolves in June 2000 severely injured a camper on Vargas Island just off the coast of Vancouver Island. These wolves became even tamer before the attack, as they nipped at the clothing of campers, licked their exposed skin and ate hotdogs from their hands. Our observations here suggested that wolves, attracted to habitations by the scarcity of prey, shift to dogs and livestock, but also increasingly, though cautiously, explore humans, before mounting a first, clumsy attack.

I reported such at a Wildlife Society conference on Sept. 27th 2005 in Madison, Wisconsin, in an invited paper on habituation of wildlife. That was about six weeks before wolves killed Kenton Carnegie on November 8th in northern Saskatchewan. I subsequently became involved along with Marc McNay from Alaska and Brent Patterson from Ontario, investigating this incident for Kenton’s parents. Also, a book manuscript on wolves in Russia came across my desk, written by an American linguist stationed in Moscow, Will Graves. It had integrity, and I proposed to edit it and find a publisher. Detselig in Calgary published Wolves in Russia: Anxiety through the Ages, in April 2007. We included into Will’s book as appendix A the English translation of Mikhail P. Pavlov’s chapter 12 of The Wolf in Game Management. This work had caused howls of outrage by environmentalists when translated into Norwegian.

Then a review of the Russian wolf experiences by Professor Christian Stubbe in Germany vindicated Will Graves’ writing. In the meantime Italian and French historians published papers and books detailing how thousands of people had died in earlier centuries from wolf attacks. Some historians rightly asked the question, how did North American scientists ever conclude that wolves were harmless and no threat to people? We now know the answer: In the absence of personal experience or sound language competence, they chose to disregard, even ridicule, the accumulated experience of others from Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Greenland, Sweden, Iran, Kazakhstan, India, Afghanistan, Korea, and Japan.

Is it not time we paid attention in order to discover how to manage wolves so as to have both, security and abundant wildlife?

The absolutely precious lesson from our North American experience with wolves in the 20th century is that at low wolf-to-prey ratios wolves grow into very large, shy specimens that shun humans, while greatly enriching our landscape and quality of life. Control will be seen as essential to maintain wolves and robust big game populations and minimize intrusions by wolves into human settlements.

There is a French saying that he who desires a beautiful park must have a very sharp ax, and a heart of stone. We should heed it—for the sake of elk, elk hunters, the wolves themselves, and for the future of wildlife conservation in North America.

Widely renowned authority on the world’s deer, Valerius Geist is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary, an award winning author and, among others, a recipient of the Elk Foundation’s Olaus Murie Award in 2003.

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

History 101 – Very Worrisome

Editor’s Note: This was sent to me by a reader. I haven’t confirmed its authenticity but regardless, I thought it worthy of reprinting.

David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities: Washington D.C. , Albany , New York, and Dakar , Senegal . He attended Harvard University , graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in 1976. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.

He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College and has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College and Harvard University . Kaiser’s latest book, The Road to Dallas , about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University Press.

Dr. David Kaiser

History Unfolding

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis.

Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back. Why?

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman). Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic.

To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) – the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.

It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary. Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No?

Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the “savior” was a former smooth- talking rabble- rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, w ere afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did with regularity. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand – the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think.

Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course.

How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military- industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and “change.” And the people surely got what they voted for.
If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It’s all there in the history books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me; others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

David Kaiser
Jamestown, Rhode Island

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

New Revelations about Reintroduced Wolves

Republished with permission by George Dovel, author.

In the early 1980s the 197-page unpublished research report, “Wolves of Central Idaho,” surfaced. In it, co-authors Timm Kaminski and Jerome Hansen estimated that elk and deer populations in six of the nine national forests in the proposed Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area could support a total of 219 wolves without decreasing existing deer and elk populations in those forests.

They based this on an estimated 16.6 deer or elk killed by each wolf annually, and on estimated increases in elk and/or deer populations from 1981-1985 in the two-thirds of forests where they had increased.

But even if their estimated prey numbers and calculations were accurate, their report said only 17 wolves could be maintained in the Salmon National Forest, five in the Challis NF, and none in the Panhandle, Sawtooth and Bitterroot Forests. Yet the obvious question of what to do when the number of wolves in any National Forest or game management unit exceeded the ability of the prey base to support them was not adequately addressed.

Relocating “Problem” Wolves in Idaho Wilderness

Although there were increased reports of sightings of single wolves or pairs in Idaho during the late 1970s and early 80s and credible reports of at least two wolf packs with pups, no confirmed wolf depredation on livestock had been recorded for nearly half a century. Realizing that livestock killing would occur as wolf numbers increased, Kaminski and Hansen recommended relocating livestock-killing wolves into the central Idaho wilderness areas.

That was written more than 25 years ago yet the recommendation was still followed by FWS and the Nez Perce Tribal wolf managers even after wilderness elk populations had been decimated by severe winters, excessive hunter harvest and excessive wolf populations.

In September of 2001, Idaho F&G Commissioner Alex Irby complained that FWS relocated two breeding pairs of “problem” wolves from Montana to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness despite the fact that the number of elk hunters there had “been capped for several years due to declining herds.” But Tribal Wolf Recovery Leader Kurt Mack responded that these and other livestock-killing wolves probably wouldn’t remain in the wilderness very long and were released there “to keep them out of trouble temporarily until they relocated someplace else.”

Wolf Impact on Big Game Populations Ignored

Tribal, FWS and State biologists all ignored wolf expert David Mech’s warning that relocating wolves that killed livestock did not stop their killing livestock. Transplanting even more wolves into areas like the Selway and Lolo Zones, with inadequate elk calf survival to support any wolves, guaranteed an accelerated decline in the elk population and the exploitation of alternate prey.

At a Predator-Prey Symposium in Boise, Idaho on Jan. 8, 1999, the featured speaker – North America’s top wild ungulate authority Dr. Valerius Geist – spent two hours explaining to federal, state and university wildlife biologists why wolf populations must be carefully controlled to maintain a healthy population of their prey species. Idaho biologists and members of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee appeared to listen carefully – but later invented excuses not to follow his expert advice.

“New” Wolf Plan Prohibited Hunting Wolves

In the 2002 Legislative session, Idaho Senate Resources Committee Chairman Laird Noh introduced legislation to approve his Wolf Oversight Committee’s seventeenth version of a proposed Idaho Wolf Plan. Previous similar versions had been rejected by both Idaho legislators and several former Wolf Committee members but alarming increases in wolf numbers convinced some groups that a state wolf plan that offered no solution was better than no plan at all.

The Wolf Plan promoted by Sen. Noh would not have allowed wolf hunting until five years after delisting occurred and Idaho assumed management. It included the statement, “The plan must satisfy the USFWS, wolf advocacy groups…and a diverse public,” and gave IDFG full authority to update the plan solely at its discretion without Legislative oversight or accountability.

Two reviewers of the Plan, each with several decades of wolf research experience (Mech and Boertje) both predicted that Idaho wolves would multiply far beyond the alleged management goal of 10-20 packs before delisting. Boertje added that conflicts with too many wolves was probably the greatest threat to the responsible future conservation of wolves in Idaho and said pre-wolf prey data was vital to estimate wolf impact on elk and deer.

Major Wolf Plan Flaws Corrected in Senate

Despite the pressure to pass the Plan that was written explicitly to please USFWS and pro-wolf extremists, a motion to amend it succeeded. Senators Bartlett (Judy Boyle), Brandt and Hawkins re-wrote parts of the Plan to shift the emphasis to protecting Idaho big game herds, livestock, property rights, and the physical and economic well-being of Idaho citizens as spelled out in the Idaho Constitution.

The Plan, which became official on March 15, 2002, directed the Idaho F&G Commission, with assistance from the Governors Office of Species Conservation (OSC), to: “begin immediate discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to define unacceptable levels of effect on ungulate populations by wolf predation; specifically, they will define how these effects would be measured, and will identify possible solutions.”

Even before amendment, the Plan directed the Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG) to conduct annual census of selected important prey populations to include at least total population estimates and age-sex ratios, along with the annual census of wolf populations. As Alaska wolf researcher Rod Boertje emphasized in his review of the Plan, comparison of that prey data with data from pre-wolf introduction was of paramount importance in estimating the impact of wolves on prey.

Increased funding was approved by the Idaho Legislature for annual deer and elk census flights yet they were not conducted every year. Instead, IDFG biologists continued an unsuccessful effort to prove that declining habitat – not wolf predation – was the primary reason for both declining elk numbers and unhealthy calf-to-cow ratios in a growing number of elk units.

Idaho Is Allowed to Kill Wolves Impacting Elk

In 2005 the Department of Interior announced that all of the criteria for delisting wolves had been met in December of 2002. On February 7, 2005 FWS promulgated a new version of the 10J (Nonessential Experimental) Rule which allowed states with approved wolf plans to take over management of wolves under the new provisions until wolves were delisted.

On January 5, 2006, four years after the Idaho Wolf Plan was adopted, Interior Secretary Gail Norton and Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) giving Idaho broad powers to manage wolves including the following:

“The State will begin to implement its federally approved Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan of 2002 to the extent possible as permitted by the 10(j) rule.

B. The State shall:

6. Implement lethal control or translocation of wolves to reduce impacts on wild ungulates in accordance with the process outlined in the amended 10(j) rule.”

Before the Wolf Plan was adopted in 2002, the Idaho F&G Commission had already significantly cut the number of elk hunters allowed to hunt in the Lolo Zone, the Selway Zone and the Middle Fork Zone by placing caps on the number of tags that could be sold in those three elk zones. Total elk numbers and the percentage of surviving calves were severely declining in the Lolo Zone by the end of 1997 and the Commission capped the number of B-Tag (rifle) hunters for the 1998 elk hunting season at less than one-third the previous seven year average.

Sales of both “A” and “B” Elk Tags were capped beginning in 2000 and 2001 in the other two Zones for the same reason. That is why the 2002 amended Wolf Plan required the F&G Commission, with help from the OSC, to immediately obtain any requirements from FWS to reduce the impact of excessive wolf numbers on elk.

Later IDFG Big Game Manager Lonn Kuck told the Commission and the media that a specific decline in an elk herd over a five-year period was the IDFG criteria for removing wolves. Although some Idaho big game hunters and their elected officials saw the 2006 Agreement with DOI as the answer to halt declining deer and elk populations, IDFG Large Carnivore Coordinator Steve Nadeau continued to insist IDFG had no evidence that wolves were causing the elk declines.

The following FWS charts of minimum fall (end-of-year) wolf population estimates and minimum breeding pairs by FWS provide facts to refute Nadeau’s claims:

The July 1993 Wolf EIS predicted limited impact on elk from a recovered wolf population in the Central Idaho (CID) Recovery Area (estimating a maximum 10% reduction in cow elk hunter harvest and no reduction in bull harvest). This was based on a recovered wolf population of 10 breeding pairs – about 100 wolves.

It was also based on a post-hunting season CID ungulate population of 241,400, including 76,300 elk and 159,500 deer; and on 100 wolves killing only 495 elk (only one elk killed for every 2.36 deer killed). But, instead, the wolves killed nearly four times as many elk as they did deer and that was only one of the flaws in the prediction.

As the FWS charts clearly show, by 2001 there were already twice as many wolves just in known packs as were supposed to exist in a recovered wolf population. And by 2005 there were at least five times as many wolves as were supposed to exist in a recovered population.

~~~~~~~~~~

# A donation in any amount will help defray our cost of printing and mailing The Outdoorsman to more than 250 state and federal elected or appointed officials. A donation of $25 or more will pay the cost of printing and mailing all bulletins to you, or to anyone else you designate, for the period of one year.
———————————————————————-
Mail to: The Outdoorsman
P.O. Box 155
Horseshoe Bend, ID 83629

Name__________________________________________
Mailing Address________________________________________
City______________________State_____Zip_________
Amount Enclosed_______ Phone___________________
(optional)
New ______ Renewal_____ Extension______ Gift_____

~~~~~~~~~~

If 100 wolves would have required a 10% reduction in cow elk harvest as predicted, five times that many wolves – each killing three times as many elk as had been projected – would methodically destroy the elk herds. And 15 times as much wolf killing of elk as had been predicted in the EIS is exactly what happened while IDFG officials continued to claim wolves were having no impact on elk. Read more

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

No Better Way To Bag First Turkey Than With First Gun

Editor’s Note: The following story was sent to me by a lifelong friend. The story is of her brother’s first wild turkey hunting success.

~~~~~~~

Take a minute for yourself!

After 65 hours of work last week, at 04:30 this morning I started out on my first wild turkey hunt. As I pondered which one of just a few shotguns I should take to the forest, I had a strange feeling come over me; it was like one of these guns was reaching out to me. “Take the old Stevens single-shot 12-gauge”, I could sense.

Well, that one comes with just a little history. Just after W.W. II my father gave this shotgun to then his farther ( Robert Gilbert) for his birthday. My Dad had once told me that the last time he saw his father alive he was carrying that gun into his house after an October grouse hunt. The hunt had been good and my grandfather said, “Shirley, you keep the game tonight.” Dad had told me several times that was the last words spoken with his father.

Upon the death of my grandfather, my grandmother passed this gun to Arthur Gilbert, my uncle. Many years passed until the time came that would be my first deer hunt with my own gun. Not having a gun that was suitable or one my father felt safe having me carry, he suggested that I go across the street and ask uncle Arthur if I may use the old single shot 12-gauge. The answer was yes. Leaving his house with shotgun and ammo in hand, I was as big as a tree.

Well, on the last day of November (1968) the snow had come early. With snowshoes and guns in hand, Father, Bob and I headed for Mains’ (Pine) Mountain looking for fresh deer tracks. By late morning we located a track coming up from the valley below. Dad sent Bob off on this tract as you would release a hound from a box.

After Bob had tracked this deer for nearly an hour, he started the deer on the run. Yes, you guessed it. He ran back to Dad and I in Bob’s snowshoe tracks.

Seeing the deer, I raised the old 12-gauge and fired, nearly scaring Dad to death. With only one shot, Dad had to help with the finish. I had my first BUCK.!!

After a few more days of looking at the old gun, I returned it with some fresh venison and a thank you.

Several years ago while helping uncle Arthur with a few chores around his house, the story of my first buck and the shotgun came up. He told me that he would not be using the gun again because of his health and went into the back room. A few minutes passed, as if someone was saying a goodbye to an old friend, when Uncle Arthur returned. He passed me the gun and said, “It belongs to you now.”

During this morning as the daylight was coming over the fields, birds singing, and turkeys gobbling, I somehow felt 41 years younger again with the old single shot 12-gauge in my hands.

Well back to reality, back to work, and fresh wild turkey for dinner tonight.

Reg Gilbert

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Marshall Sage: Government Control by “Eliminating The Sovereignty Of The States”

The following is a guest article. I asked Marshall Sage for permission to publish his response to a discussion on state sovereignty and the decimation of the United States Constitution by progressives.

Marshall Sage is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who has enjoyed the freedom to hunt and fish throughout much of the free world. Most recently radio host for “Outdoor Life” a hunting and fishing program in Southwestern Idaho. A life member of SCI and the NRA. Contact at msage22@gmail.com.

Our founding fathers gave our nation a blueprint on how to avoid a centralized, authoritarian government from taking away our individual freedoms (endowed by our Creator) and rights (Bill of Rights). This blueprint was our Constitution. It’s no accident that in less than 200 years of following this blueprint the United States of America became the most prosperous and industrious nation on earth.

Since the 30’s under the Roosevelt Administration the elitist, intellectuals have been advocating “change” to the Constitution. Incrementally they have selectively chipped away at the Bill of Rights to suit their progressive agenda. They found a “separation of church and state” in the 1st Amendment where there was none. They tried and persist in claiming that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of citizens to be armed. They have used an all encompassing “commerce clause” to render the 10th Amendment impotent.

When you think about it, how would you achieve a centralized authoritarian government controlling the lives of everyone? Well you could disarm the people and then control them by force as has been done through out history (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro). You could take away their faith in God and their belief that their is a higher power than the state (Roman Empire, USSR, Communist China). In spite of the attempts to take God out of the public square, public schools, public media and discourse, the majority of citizens in our country remain people of faith although not politically correct. But the progressives have learned that they can control the people rather effectively by eliminating the sovereignty of the states as granted by he 10th Amendment. It only took a compliant Supreme Court to take God out of the public schools; the 10 Commandments off of public buildings; a ban on “assault weapons” etc.

Without the Supreme Court protecting the Constitution the Congress and the President have been able to take more and more of the states sovereignty away. The environmental extremists ( the “green” movement worldwide became the new home for communists/Marxists idealogs after the fall of the USSR ) have used the ESA to exercise federal control over our land, water, and individual/property rights by federal mandate. They accomplish the same agenda through federal bureaucracies ( unelected officials ) like the EPA, BLM, US Forest Service, USFWS etc.

Finally, we the people are beginning to say enough is enough. Thanks to the brave elected representatives from states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Montana, the people are demanding the enforcement of the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights. My hope and prayer is that Idaho will join this fight with the full support of our state. We can win this fight and reclaim our Constitution and our heritage if we are willing to fight for it. Remember freedom isn’t free.

Marshall Sage

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

Alaskans Feed Themselves from Nature’s Abundance

By Craig L. Fleenor

Note: The following article appeared in The Outdoorsman No. 33, February 2009. I was granted permission from the author, Craig L. Fleenor and the publisher of The Outdoorsman, George Dovel, to republish the same article here.

Craig Fleenor is Director of the Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Once again Alaska predator management is in the national spotlight. With all of the hype, a very important perspective is often overlooked during this heated debate – that of the subsistence family.

As a young Gwich’in man I grew up in Fort Yukon, depending on wild resources for survival. This life was not a choice but an inter-generational way of life practiced by my family for thousands of years. Like many Alaskans, I was taught that we must manage wolves and bears to protect the local food supply, for safety and to meet other subsistence needs.

Most Alaskans know politics and clever ad campaigns are not what is important. For the subsistence family, acquiring enough food from the land is paramount.

Take the Fort Yukon fisherman who faithfully checks his fish-wheel twice daily, the Anaktuvuk caribou hunter who hopes the herd comes close to the village this year and the Haines moose hunter who spends 12 days hunting. Call it food security, subsistence or even barbarism, but to thousands of Alaskans who live subsistence, it’s about survival.

It’s the fundamental human right of access to high quality, renewable, locally grown, sustainable, affordable food. These needs can only be met if that food is managed for abundance.

In remote Alaska villages, where few roads and stores exist, are the highest commodity prices in the Americas. This country is home to thousands of the hardiest self-sustaining people in some of the harshest climates in North America, where temperatures can drop to minus 70, night can last for three months, and access to fresh food is limited by one’s ability to withstand nature’s conditions.

These people do not ask for handouts; they just want the opportunity to live on the land and provide for their families. All they ask is that we honor our mandate to manage our wild natural resources for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans.

Our push for statehood 50 years ago was rooted in the need for sustainable resource management. According to Article VIII of Alaska’s Constitution, that means managing our resources “for maximum use,” “for the maximum benefit of its people,” and “on the sustained yield principle.” Once the U.S. Congress agreed to allow our entry into the union, it was with the express condition that we manage our resources to provide for ourselves.

Alaska is one of the few remaining places in America where subsistence hunting and fishing is still practiced by a large percentage of its population and is protected by law. While many thousands of Alaskans were born into the subsistence lifestyle, many more have adopted it because of the benefits it provides.

This is why subsistence is the priority use in Alaska. This priority can only be fully realized if there are abundant resources for Alaskans to harvest.

The mandate to manage moose, caribou, fish and waterfowl in abundance comes directly from the people of Alaska. This is not an idea that was dreamed up in a faraway smoke-filled room by the good-old-gang. Alaskan managers and representatives are addressing the needs of subsistence communities by providing more wild food and creating more opportunity to harvest.

The rural subsistence family can’t buy fresh ground, grass-fed buffalo meat from the grocery store. Nor do they have access to freshly delivered vine-ripened tomatoes from the farmer’s market. With fuel prices exceeding $10 per gallon and frozen hamburger at $8 per pound, the subsistence family must rely heavily on the diversity of resources that nature provides.

Those who would prevent active management in our state demonstrate a preference for wolves and bears at the expense of subsistence and abundant natural diversity. Many of those at odds with the idea of abundance management have not lived the subsistence life in rural Alaska.

It is easy for them to stand outside and cast stones at Alaska’s wildlife managers or try to divide Alaskans in another battle over depleted resources. Platitudes regarding the hands-off approach to “natural balance” management sound very eco-friendly, but they fail miserably at providing the resources that tens of thousands of Alaskans need for survival.

(NOTE: Beginning the last week in February, 2009, the Alaska Board of Game met for more than a week to consider about 250 new proposals for wolf and bear control in various locations across Alaska. Representatives of local area Fish and Game Advisory Committees reported ongoing declines in both caribou and moose populations in spite of limited or closed hunting seasons in their areas for several years.

Many also reported human safety concerns with wolves invading their villages at night and cow moose moving into the villages to have their calves in an effort to escape the wolves. They also report excessive bear populations are adding to personal safety concerns.

The private land and shoot permits have not met wolf reduction goals and ADFG employees began shooting wolves from helicopters as this issue goes to press. – ED)

Posted by Tom Remington

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

Next Page »