An Earmark + “K Street” Lobbyist = Massive Federal Land Grab

by David A. Ridenour

With his signature on May 8 to S. 2739, the ‘Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008,’ George Bush has now signed on to the establishment of de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Charlottesville, Virginia. It’s one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this massive, pork-laden bill that included a provision creating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area. Debate was limited to just 40 minutes.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local elitists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict property rights and move property ownership beyond the means of the less well-to-do.

Environmentalists and preservationists love heritage areas, because they can be used to curtail development.

Local elitists like them because they can help keep people they consider to be undesirable out of their communities. Minorities are harmed disproportionately when land-use restrictions cause home prices to soar. (It is perhaps no coincidence that lily-white Waterford, Virginia was at the epicenter of the effort to create the JTHG Heritage Area. Waterford has a rich black history — and history is apparently where the village would like to keep it.)

Politically well-connected developers like heritage areas because they can be used to establish near monopolies on real estate development opportunities. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt discovered, that’s precisely what the JTHG Heritage Area would do.

And federal bureaucrats love heritage areas because they allow them to get around little inconveniences to their central planning — inconveniences such as local elected officials.

House passage of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area was hailed by its chief sponsor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation, the chief lobby organization behind the effort. Both noted the overwhelming vote in the House, 291-117.

The bill received support across party lines. In the House, supporters included Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Don Young (R-AK), William Jefferson (D-LA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and John Doolittle (R-CA). (Now all these gentlemen can say they have a second thing in common.)

But it is unlikely that support for the land grab was as great as the tally might suggest, as it was buried in an omnibus bill of over 60 other proposals — some enjoying wide support.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) noted during the limited debate, “Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny… this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line.”

Approval of the JTHG Heritage Area is a case study in what is wrong with American politics.

The JTHG Heritage Area wasn’t approved by Congress due to overwhelming public demand for it. Borrowing from the Beatles, perhaps it got by with a little help from Wolf’s friends — a lot of Ben Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Abe Lincolns and George Washingtons.

You see, Congressman Wolf slipped a $1 million dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill — buried among 6,372 other earmarks — for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Foundation. This is the very group that has led the lobbying effort for Wolf’s bill. More unusual still is that at the time of the earmark, the foundation had yet to even be incorporated and was operating out of the personal post office box of its executive director, Cate Magennis Wyatt.

It appears as though Congressman Wolf used taxpayer money to fund the lobbying campaign for his own bill. (Read more about his here)

Then there’s the unseemly Wolf-”K Street” lobbyist connection. Wolf’s land grab bill was written by Don Pongrace, who runs the Indian practice (yes, a lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a large law firm with offices in D.C., London, New York and Moscow.

Not only that, but Pongrace apparently was authorized to speak for Congressman Wolf in meetings about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area.

It turns out that Pongrace serves on the board of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation — the group receiving Wolf’s earmark largesse — and Pongrace’s wife has served the group as vice president.

Apparently, the concept of a conflict of interest is lost on the mega law firm of Akin Gump.

Interestingly, at the very time Frank Wolf was collaborating with Akin Gump on his bill, he criticized the firm for working for the Chinese government in its bid to acquire Unocal.

Wolf wrote to Akin Gump, “I question the appropriateness of an American firm… being on the payroll of the Chinese government… I immediately thought, ‘Is there no bright line to separate who lobbyists in Washington will and will not represent?’”

Is there no bright line, indeed.

Congressman Wolf introduces a bill written by a “K Street” lobbyist, arranges a $1 million earmark for the group lobbying for that bill — and employing the lobbyist’s wife — and he asks about bright lines?

Congressman Wolf also received help pushing his bill from National Park Service employees, who acted contrary to the Service’s official position, which calls for the creation of no additional heritage areas until a formal NPS program is created through legislation. Nonetheless, the NPS’s Brenda Barrett and Alma Ripps were dispatched to defend creation of the JTHG Heritage Area.

The full extent of the National Park Service’s assistance with the legislative effort is still unknown, as the Service has so far failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. In violation of the FOIA law, it provided only incomplete records and documents that obviously had been altered (helpful hint for NPS employees: if you plan to alter documents, you might want to avoid using ruled paper).

Ethical questions surround the process through which this national heritage area was approved. A presidential veto was warranted.

-David A. Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

akin gump strauss hauer & feld, consolidated natural resources act of 2008, david a. ridenour, don pongrace, earmarks, journey through hallowed ground national heritage area, National Center for Public Policy Research, National Park Service, omnibus bills, rep. alan mollohan, rep. don young, rep. frank wolf, rep. john doolittle, rep. rick renzi, rep. rob bishop, rep. william jefferson, U.S. House of Representatives

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!

Aren’t political campaigns sooooooooooooooooooooooo much fun? Here’s the deal! Obama is a Marxist who has no use for guns anywhere in this society as near as we have been able to determine. Clinton is a socialist who has no use for guns anywhere in this society as we have all come to learn. But that doesn’t stop her from epitomizing the pot calling the kettle black…..ooops, no racial epithet intended.

Check out the photo of the front and back side of a mailer that Clinton and her campaign sent out in Indiana in an attempt to attack Obama on his anti-gun position and how he changes his position in order to get a vote. She accuses Obama of telling people “he was for the 2nd Amendment in order to get their votes.” That’s laughable coming from the master chameleon, the one who learned from hubby Bill, or maybe the other way around, how to morph into something you’re not just for a vote.

Back to the photo. Ben Smith at Politico.com says the gun, as it is presented in the photo, doesn’t exist. What’s worse, it is a European import and the image was reversed for some reason when printed onto the flier.

Tom Remington

Barack Obama, campaign 2008, democratic primary, gun control, gun rights, guns, Hillary Clinton, Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

canned hunting, high fence hunting, hunting in enclosures, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, preserve hunting, Roger Kaseman

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

I suppose in Barack Obama’s eyes, I too fit his stereotypical bitter rural American who clings to my guns and religion and possess “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Then again to him, maybe I am a typical white man bred to be bitter because I live in rural America and my government hasn’t taken care of me.

It has become clear that Barack Obama is a typical politician whose glowing halo is getting dimmer with each passing “I’ll admit I didn’t chose my words correctly” excuse. He promised Americans he was different. He boasted he was going to pull us all together, mend fences, make America respected in the world again.

Part of Obama’s problem is he thinks we’re all dumb - at least those who aren’t following him like sheep gone astray. He thinks us bitter country folk can’t see through his facade of fakery.

He is elitist. This morning on the Today show, Matt Lauer was interviewing James Carville, self-proclaimed best friend of Bill Clinton. Lauer asked Carville about comments being made that Obama was an elitist and Carville responded that he didn’t really know what that meant.

Let me help. An elitist is someone who readily scoffs at the heritage of others different than themselves. An elitist profiles others into categories seemingly inferior because they are different or misunderstood. Elitist is appearing before a group of wealthy people in a closed-door reception/fund raiser and describing people in Pennsylvania and the West as being bitter with nothing left to cling to except their guns and religion while having antipathy toward people not like them or having anti-immigration and anti-trade sentiment.

Elitist is then going before the public the next day in an attempt to explain why he said what he did and tell the world that now we are all bitter because the truth was told. *Note* - The press reports it that he said he erred in not choosing his words more carefully. Why is it they miss such blatant snobbery from Obama when he admits he believes in what he said?

Elitist is also telling the same crowd that “bitter” is a word used in the Bible. Maybe that’s one word used a lot in his pastor’s, Jeremiah Wright’s, bible. There are a lot of words written in the Bible. Some of them far worse than “bitter”. Now, have our politician found that they can say anything they want and justify it because it’s written in the Bible?

Obama is alienating himself, along with his party, with anyone who doesn’t think and believe as he does. He has come to realize that the group of Americans he just insulted will not vote for him anyway and evidently, because he admits he told the truth, doesn’t care much about these people. He certainly doesn’t understand them and instead of taking some of his own cheap advice, he mocks them, ridicules and places them on a tier far below his uppity, angry attitude. This is a man who understands?

Little by little the real Barack Obama is being discovered. We now know what most of us suspected from the beginning, that he is very much an anti-gun candidate. He has come right out and said that he does not believe in concealed carry, that guns should be used only for hunting purposes and that he supports the current Washington, D.C. gun ban.

Perhaps what Obama is mistaking for bitterness because of lost jobs is that Americans that are not like him, are fed up with people like him. Obama wants to continue to strip away our rights and we are tired of that. We are tired of liars. We are tired of out of touch politicians, of which Obama is no different than any other. We are tired of losing our country and constitution that our ancestors, friends and family have fought and died for. We are tired that history isn’t being taught in our schools anymore. We are tired of political correctness. We are tired that our sovereignty no longer has value. We are tired of big government. We are tired of increased regulation. We are tired of being taxed out of existence. We are tired that politicians, just like him, don’t have the slightest clue what a dollar bill is.

I’m willing to stake my reputation on the fact that the Pennsylvanians, Westerners and all other Americans Obama looks down his nose at, aren’t bitter that they lost their jobs 25 years ago. These people are hard working and intelligent. What makes them the true Americans that they are is because when they get in trouble, they don’t look to the government of come bail them out. They take after themselves. They are what made America great. People like Obama don’t like that in Americans. When we don’t suck off the teet of the government, he loses his control, his power and his job security.

These Americans he so dislikes don’t have anti-immigration sentiment. They are filled with anti-illegal immigration sentiment because people like Obama want to give anyone asking, citizenship to this country without making requirements to insure our security and maintain our sovereignty.

This man, I’m afraid, is an angry, out of touch elitist who called his own grandmother a typical white woman that was bred to fear a black person walking down the street. I don’t think these Pennsylvanians, our friends in the West or any other American who chooses to own guns and go to church, would even entertain the thought that their grandmothers were typical in anyway and the suggestion that someone has had fear bred into them makes me wonder what really is in this man’s heart.

I think that it is a shame that because I love my country, grew up in rural America, I choose to own guns and I choose to make God and religion an important part of my life, that somehow I am bitter and these are the only things left of value in my life. I resent that and will pray to God that I will not be bitter toward a man that is misguided and thinks he’s better than me or my family.

Tom Remington

Barack Obama, bible, Bill Clinton, gun rights, guns, james carville, jeremiah wright, matt lauer, patriotism, politics, religion

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!

Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research is warning sportsmen that the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), “would do more to threaten the cherished pastimes of hunters, fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts than it would to ensure the cleanliness of our nation’s water.”

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest - some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation - a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

boating, clean water act, clean water restoration act, fishing, hunting, National Center for Public Policy Research, Peyton Knight, pollutants, rep. james oberstar, shooting sports

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

Clayton Cramer is running against a republican incumbent for Idaho’s District 22 Senate seat. Why? He puts it this way, “I’m running for Idaho State Senate seat 22 against the Republican incumbent, who I don’t see as conservative enough for our district.” This immediately grabbed my attention. As most of you know, I am a conservative, proud to be one and will help trustworthy people at all levels to attain positions where they can further conservative teachings and values. I believe Mr. Cramer does just that.

I was quite impressed as I learned more about Clayton Cramer. He contributed his knowledge and expertise in drafting an amicus brief in the recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing of District of Columbia vs. Heller. As most of you know, I spent a considerable amount of time following and reporting on that case.

A visit to Cramer’s website reveals much about him. He says he moved from California to Boise, Idaho because, “the California that I grew up in–where patriotism wasn’t a dirty word, and where family values still mattered–doesn’t exist anymore“.

On the Second Amendment:

For many Idahoans, the need for a gun rights activist in the state legislature might not be obvious. Idaho is fortunate to have a very strong guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in our state constitution. We are also fortunate that the Idaho Supreme Court has spoken clearly about this matter–unlike some other states. But make no mistake about it: there are people in Idaho who, if they had their way, would restrict gun ownership so heavily that many law-abiding adults would find it difficult to own a gun.

Cramer’s beliefs in gun rights seem to be firmly grounded into an understanding learned from a very young age.

When I was growing up, I used to get my ice cream cones from a woman with a tattoo. It wasn’t pretty or fashionable; it was just a letter and some numbers. Like a valuable piece of machinery, she had a serial number. She was fortunate that her value as a piece of machinery exceeded her “scrap value,” or she would have been gassed and “parted out” for her hair, clothes, and dental work, like millions of others.

The Holocaust, unfortunately, was not unique. In the twentieth century, more than 56 million people were killed by their own governments, because of their ethnicity, their race, their religion, their political beliefs–and sometimes for no reason at all. Restrictive gun control laws, while not the only cause of these genocidal actions, certainly made it much easier. On a smaller scale, lynching and oppression of the freed slaves was made possible at least in part by post-Civil War gun control laws that greatly simplified the terrorizing of blacks into submission.

Never again! There are certainly risks that Idaho’s relatively loose gun control laws cause us–but those are nothing compared to the risks of government out of control. Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

On the environment:

This will probably be a surprise to you–but the evidence for global warming is far less certain than you think. Even if it is happening, it is not clear that mankind is the major force behind it. We may not even be a minor force.

I will not support any public policy action to deal with “global warming” until we have clear evidence of its magnitude, and that we know how much of it is the work of man, and how much is factors beyond our control. Some of those who are advocating that we “do something” before it is too late have financial interests in making sure we “do something.” As usual, there are business interests looking to make money off this–and if they destroy the economy and jobs of millions of people, so what?

I have many readers and a lot of friends in Idaho and in the District 22 region. I ask you to consider the merits and qualifications of Clayton Cramer as your next state senator.

Judy Boyle, who is a friend of mine and is running for Idaho House District 9, thinks Clayton Cramer is better than a good candidate. I contacted Judy to ask her what she could tell me about Mr. Cramer and her response pretty much said it all. “He’s awesome!”

To learn more about Clayton Cramer, visit his website. Also check out this information on Judy Boyle.

Tom Remington

clayton cramer, district of columbia vs. heller, gun rights, guns, idaho house district 9, idaho sentate district 22, Judy Boyle

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

Some Pennsylvania deer hunters have yelled a lot ever since the Pennsylvania Game Commission began its current deer management program. This program calls for the reduction in deer populations throughout the state, mostly based on what has been deemed a destruction of forest habitat by too many foraging deer. Some hunters don’t like the reduction. They say now there aren’t enough deer and the program is not working. Perhaps their yelling has paid off.

Rep. David Levdansky of Allegheny is proposing House Resolution 642, which calls for an audit to be done of the deer management program by outside sources. According to the Morning Call, the audit requests specific tasks be accomplished.

To that end, Levdansky’s resolution includes a litany of specific topics the audit will address, including deer population trends for the past 12 years; a current deer population estimate for the entire state and each Wildlife Management Unit; a scientific review of the agency’s modeling techniques for deer harvests, deer health and forest health; the potential impact of acid rain in relation to deer on forest regeneration; a comparison of Pennsylvania’s deer management techniques to other states; and an evaluation of the current size of existing Wildlife Management Units.

The cost of the audit will run an estimated $100,000 to $200,000 and then that will put an end to all the yelling, fighting, back stabbing, bickering and lawsuits, right? Well, probably not exactly and in reality, it probably won’t change much of anything.

At least some hope that the audit will give hunters and the PGC a more accurate estimate of the existing deer population. One of the tasks of the auditing people will be to make recommendations as well as deliver hard facts. At issue also is the size and number of Wildlife Management Units. Some say the units are laid out wrong and/or too small or too big. Perhaps the auditors will make recommendations in that way.

But to quiet the masses, I don’t think that will ever happen. There’s some hope that it may help ease the dissatisfaction but in my opinion the majority of those unhappy will more than likely always remain unhappy for a host of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of one reason. There just is bad blood between some sportsmen and the government agencies who make the decisions. Some of that bad blood is a result of dissatisfaction over the new deer management plan and some if it has always been there and probably always will be.

If approved, which would only take the approval of the House vote, as per a resolution not a bill, once signed would have to be completed within one year.

I hope the audit proves to be a good thing for the Pennsylvania hunters, landowners and game personnel.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

Dear Friend,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Here are the