Proposed New Jersey Bill Would Bring Back Bear Hunting

Assembly Bill 181, proposed by Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R- Frankford Township) and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R- Franklin), would allow for the reinstatement of bear hunting as part of a scientific approach to wildlife management.

Under the rule of Gov. Jon Corzine and his appointed director of the Department of Environmental Protection, Lisa Jackson (now with Barack Obama’s administration), bear hunting was canceled, along with the state’s court-approved bear management plan.

AB 181 would put control and authority of wildlife issues back in the hands of the wildlife commission. The bill would prohibit any authority the DEP head had to this point to stop or overturn any commission approved wildlife management plan, including hunting.

Sportsmen in New Jersey are strongly encouraged to contact your representative in support of this bill.

Tom Remington

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

Montana High Court Says SSNs To Hunt And Fish Necessary

Gun Group Frustrated with Supreme Court Privacy Opinion Constitutional Rights for Sale?

MISSOULA – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) was handed an unfavorable decision by the Montana Supreme Court in MSSA’s lawsuit claiming that it violates the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution for Montanans to be required to divulge a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to legally hunt and fish in Montana.

This MSSA lawsuit has been percolating through the courts since January of 2006. While MSSA argued that the requirement to provide an SSN to hunt and fish was unconstitutional, the State of Montana contended that it must collect SSNs to remain eligible under federal law for federal funds for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

The lawsuit was handled by attorney Quentin Rhoades of Missoula.

In an Opinion released on January 19th, the Supreme Court sided with the State, holding that the SSN requirement to hunt and fish does not violate the constitutional right to privacy because the plaintiffs’ expectation that their SSNs be kept private is, as the Court put it, “unreasonable.” The Court held that SSNs are a government-issued identifier, not the personal property of the citizen to whom an SSN attaches, and that because the federal government issued the identifier, it is not reasonable to expect that it should be kept private from other government agencies, like the Montana DFWP. The court was further persuaded by the State’s argument that the federal money made available because of SSN collection was too important to risk.

MSSA President Gary Marbut commented, “While members of the Court talk a good game about constitutional rights, what they’ve said in this decision is that the constitutional rights that the people have reserved to themselves from government interference may be sold to a high bidder by state government if the price is right and the court-determined impact is low. We had hoped for relief for the people of Montana from the judicial branch. But, it appears that the judiciary is simply another governmental entity willing to support the legislative branch which passed the SSN requirement, and the executive branch which lobbied hard for the Legislature to pass the law.”

Continuing, Marbut said, “It will be interesting now to see what other constitutional rights will be sold to the high bidder, and how soon that will happen. How much federal money will the state get for tolerable infringement on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms? Certainly in this time of economic difficulty the state will be desperate for additional sources of revenue. Watch for other constitutional rights on Ebay as cash-strapped state agencies scratch for funding.”

MSSA was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Individual named plaintiffs were Gary Marbut of Missoula, Robert Clark of Ryegate, and Carol Latta of Whitehall. Clark, a former Montana Highway Patrol officer and former legislator, quit buying hunting and fishing licenses when an SSN became required for that purchase. Latta suffered identity theft and tens of thousands of dollars of expense because her SSN was stolen. Marbut objected to surrendering his right to privacy in order to exercise his right to hunt.

The only remaining alternative for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will be to ask the Legislature to respect the right to privacy by repealing the state law requiring SSNs to hunt and fish. However, it is predicted that the Department of Public Health and Human Services will use taxpayer funds to fiercely lobby the Legislature in opposition any such proposal.

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

Intellectuals And Wildlife Management

There exists a divide between the “educated” wildlife biologist and the hunter, fisherman, trapper and outdoors person. It is unfortunate that this divide prohibits better wildlife management. Let’s call the divide what it is. On the one side you have the college educated intellectual who can prove most anything he or she wants to using data and computer modeling. Generally speaking, these intellectuals look down their noses at the average “Joe” who spends far more time in the field than the biologist. And of course on the other side of the divide, is the outdoor sportsmen, some of whom have spent countless hours and years witnessing first hand what’s going on in the woods. One would think putting the two together would be like dipping your chocolate into the jar of peanut butter. Such is not the case.

Today, Thomas Sowell writes:

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

Sowell’s article of course is about the impact that intellectuals have had on the world’s societies – good and bad. Ideas are great and God only knows where we would be without those who can produce ideas. But as Sowell points out, only time can tell whether those ideas are for the better or the worse.

Wildlife management these days is born in the field of academia, where once it seemed more important to rely on the experience of the man in the field. With an ever shifting to the left within our educational industry, wildlife biologists are coming fresh out of school indoctrinated with a host of ideas, many of them idealistic and not grounded in sound scientific facts or matching what exists on the ground. With the passing of each successive generation it seems we are witness to snotty-nosed graduates bucking up against seasoned outdoorsmen. Instead of the forces working against each other, they should be working together as both sides can contribute valuable resources.

There is an organization in Idaho that has a website called Save Our Elk. Their mission is to educate and draw attention to the facts of what is really taking place in the field. Their goal is simple – saving elk. As part of their strategy, they send out emails containing news, stories, studies and just about anything to inform and educate. I am privileged to receive those emails.

It seems that one of the leaders of Save Our Elk, Tony Mayer, received an email from a professor at the University of Idaho, who works for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, requesting that Mr. Mayer remove her from his “repulsive email campaign”. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, sometimes the truth is hard to take.

What is most disturbing and yet telltale about this action/reaction is that an academic of fish and wildlife, would be so close-minded to other thoughts and information being collected from those who spend so much time in the outdoors. Bear in mind that this person is responsible for some of the education and teaching that our young wildlife biologists are getting. Dare we question why these young biologists choose not listen to the crusty old veterans of the woods?

One gentleman responded to the professor’s lack of interest in “repulsive” facts this way:

Even if you don’t like, or disagree with, the message in the article, I would think that a mature, curious scientist, who had an interest in the “interface” between science and policy – particularly in the very area of her expertise -, would actively seek communication with an existing, robust, substantial community of interest, such as Idaho hunters. The opposite appears to be the case.

Steve Alder, President of Idaho for Wildlife, reminded his members that it took two years from the time that a seasoned outdoorsmen began informing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that the severe winter of 1996-1997 had destroyed the state’s elk herd in the Lolo Region, until they were willing to admit he was right.

This same man informed the IDFG in the Spring of 1997 that they had lost over 50%,(Approximately 10,000) of the elk in the Lolo zone alone due to the horrible winter of 96-97 and he was quickly enlighten how wrong he was and that the elk had suffered an average winter kill and a warm thaw had saved the elk that year. This man was led to the computer where he was shown in the monitor that the elk were doing just fine.

The same has held true in reports of elk and mule deer being destroyed by wolves and other large predators. These people are valuable eyes on the front of where it all happens. This divide between idealistic computer modeling and true to life events in the field needs to disappear before more damage is done.

Alder also quotes one of those experienced outdoor sportsmen and what he had to say about wildlife management.

The late legendary Montana and Idaho Cowboy, outfitter, Outdoor writer and gun expert Elmer Keith, (1899-1984), in his biography, “Hell I was there”, (1979), wrote, “Here in this Country, (Salmon, ID region), Our biologists labor under the delusion that the predators kill off the old, crippled and sick game which could never be farther from the truth.” “These ecologist have never seen a mule deer out in the crusted deep snow up to its belly as it floundered along and a pack of coyotes or wolves crowding along beside eating the poor animal alive.” “First the guts hurtle out and they eat them up and pull them out.” “Finally the poor thing goes down and they literally eat him alive with no attempt to kill him clean first.” “With proper management, game can be brought back but it requires proper management by men who have lived with the game and understand it and not by some biologist with a four-year degree from college alone.”

Idaho is not alone when it comes to problems with wildlife management. Maine is currently in the midst of a major whitetail deer problem. Hunters have been complaining for several years that portions of the state didn’t have any deer. I think the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) agreed that in the northern, eastern and portions of western Maine, the deer herd was struggling. What I think they didn’t realize is just how bad it was. But those in the field knew. Is this a case of this same divide causing the demise of Maine’s deer herd because the “intellectuals” didn’t want to listen?

I remember that it was right after the deer hunting season in Maine, December 2006, when I first was notified by some disgruntled hunters in Northern Maine. They wanted to start a petition drive asking MDIFW to close down the deer hunting season until the herd had been rebuilt. Whether that would work is really immaterial. This issue is that the hunters already knew there was a problem and MDIFW hadn’t admitted it.

As a matter of fact, MDIFW wants to lay the biggest part of the blame for the decimation of the herd on the two back-to-back severe winters – the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As you can see, the complaints I began receiving from unhappy hunters was prior to those two severe winters.

We can point fingers and spread the blame everywhere but it won’t do much good until we can shrink the divide. I have written about this before. The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen and everyone who ventures afield have to be the eyes and ears of the fish and game. Fish and game has to be accepting of this.

We can’t have academia refusing to consider facts because they find them “repulsive”, or probably more accurately defined as in disagreement with one’s ideals.

Intellectuals float ideas, some good and some bad. Those in the field come armed with what they see. Meshing these two together could be quite productive.

Tom Remington

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

So Why Not “Predator Free Zones” In Maine?

Open for discussion! Please use the comment section at the bottom of the page.

I tossed out a suggestion a few days ago as one of several on ways to help protect and rebuild Maine’s depleted whitetail deer populations. That suggestion was to create predator free zones, mainly around deer wintering areas. My idea is a modification of predator zoning suggested by Dr. Valerius Geist.

I thought about this idea a bit more this weekend. It seems that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants to put the blame on the deer demise on two specific occurrences: harsh winters and loss of wintering habitat. While I know of nobody who disputes that assessment, I also know of few who think that’s the ONLY problem.

We can’t do much about the weather and trying to tell private landowners what they have to do with their land is a touchy subject. We know some winter deer yards have been destroyed but many still exist. George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says that some of the winter deer yards on the state’s public lands don’t have any deer in them. This tells us that the problems with the wintering yards isn’t that they have simply been cut down. Why are there no deer in these yards?

There is a situation in parts of the state where the deer are reported to have been depleted beyond sustainable levels. In these areas and others, the state is no longer looking at maintaining population numbers and certainly not reducing. The deer need to be replenished. At these levels saving one or two deer might make the difference.

Smith (SAM) has asked MDIFW if they will map out the deer wintering areas. If this can be done, then why can’t we use the same mapping and designate predator free zones around those wintering areas that are low on deer and high on predators? Of course this would take a strong commitment on the part of MDIFW to stand by such a decision as being one of necessity in order to save a species. They can’t start the project and then back down at the first threat of a lawsuit aimed at stopping predator control.

These predator free zones would receive immediate and priority attention and resources. The goal here wouldn’t be to kill off all predators but to keep them away from winter deer yards. Gerry Lavigne, retired deer biologist for MDIFW, believes that targeted predator control will work. He is not alone. Dr. Valerius Geist says that creating predator zones should be an integral part of wildlife management.

Reducing the number of predators around winter deer yards will save some deer and will help with fawn survival rates. If we are staring down the barrel of extirpation, I see saving one, two or six deer as well worth the effort. What do you think?

Do you think predator free zones can work? What are your ideas on how to implement a predator free zone? Please use the comment section of this article to express your thoughts and ideas.

Tom Remington

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

Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding”

This is another in a series of responses to George Smith’s email about the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s (SAM) commitment to seek action in stopping the further demise of Maine’s deer herd and attempts to restore it back to something sustainable. Smith is the Executive Director of SAM.

Please find the entire email of Smith’s at this link. I will also attempt to provide all the links to all the articles pertaining to this debate at each of the sites where posted. Yesterday’s response can be found here.

Let me begin this article by first making some general comments about Smith’s and SAM’s efforts, etc. I have been reading George Smith’s recent articles published in newspapers and magazines, along with his blog at the SAM website. I believe he has a pretty good handle on the condition of Maine’s deer herd and the overall atmosphere and attitude of Maine’s angry licensed hunters. I think he also grasps the negative effects the loss of hunting will have on Maine’s economy and private business. I appreciate Smith’s work on this issue.

As pertains to the email I posted previously, I have a couple of comments. I am going to assume that where this email was only a draft to be considered by the Board of Directors for SAM, that what appears in the SAM newsletter may not be exactly the same, although overall content should remain similar.

The second thing I’d like to point out is that most all of what Smith writes is good stuff and should be considered by all of us. My attempt is not to find fault with his information but to expound on it and offer my own perspective and solutions to this sensitive issue. As is always the case, I welcome comments and responses from readers below in the comment section.

As we plod ahead, all ideas and observations need to be explored. A faithful reader on a previous article made a comparison of Homeland Secretary Janet Nepolitano’s comments about the “Pantie Bomber” terrorist and the failure of Maine’s deer management.

Nepolitano’s comment was that the “system” worked. Nobody could understand how the system worked if a terrorist was successful in getting explosives on a plane. The only failure was the “Pantie Bomber’s” inability to detonate the bomb.

The comparison comes when people in Maine begin saying the system of whitetail deer management works. If the “system” had worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That doesn’t however mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It simply means some things need to change.

So, let’s further examine the ideas suggested and see if we can expand on those and make the process work better.

“Fact Finding” – Smith offers that fact finding “need not take long”. I can’t say that I agree with that sentiment.

Job one is to fully understand the facts of this situation. Many are casting blame in all directions. It’s time to step back and gather all available facts. This need not take long. We look to landowner organizations like the Maine Forest Products Council and to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the information needed to properly assess the situation. I’ve already learned a lot in meeting with these interests over the past few weeks. We’re not looking to cast blame. But we must know as much as possible about the situation.

The information needed includes: 1) an evaluation of the system of voluntary deer wintering area management agreements between DIF&W and large landowners, and LURC zoned deer yards; 2) a report on the amount and quality of deer wintering habitat now available in the unorganized territories on private and public land; 3) an evaluation and explanation of the 2009 deer season including harvest and license sales; 4) an accurate estimate of the current deer population by WMD; 5) an explanation of the major challenges in restoring deer numbers to DIF&W’s population goals for each WMD.

He begins well by saying that we all need to fully understand, stop casting blame and gather all available facts. What I am troubled with is it appears Smith believes the fact finding mission is easy and tells us from what sources we should get our facts from.

In yesterday’s article, I expressed real concern about the need to be all inclusive, that every licensed hunter in the state is a stakeholder. They are a source as well.

I don’t believe Smith is suggesting that the Maine Forest Products Council (MFPC) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are the only places we should get facts from. However, we can’t imply this either. From experience I can tell you that anytime I employ MDIFW data in support of my statements, it doesn’t always carry a lot of credibility. It should but it doesn’t. More on this in a bit.

If Smith is honest, and I believe he is, that “we better be together on this”, then we need to look out beyond just MDIFW, MFPC and the Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM), for facts. The best way I know of to be all inclusive is to not disregard somebody’s ideas but to be receptive and eager to hear and understand everyone’s frustrations. We all can learn a lot from those angry hunters.

It’s easier to collect information and responses from known entities, often by overlooking each individual hunter. That is a fact of how things operate and I’m not suggesting it should change or is wrong. I mention it because I think hunters need to find or formulate a local sporting club, get involved and become a very loud voice in the game management process. It’s your money and investment we’re discussing here.

Smith goes on to explain what he thinks the “information” needs to be. It would have been better had he added just a few words to his opening paragraph. He said, “The information needed includes:”. This would have been much more effective it had read, “The information needed includes, among other things – a list that will grow as we reach out to all concerned:”

Five items are listed. You can read them above. The list is good but incomplete. Troubling again is the fact that the information being sought comes from government agencies only – MDIFW amd Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). We shouldn’t disregard this information but once again, the system isn’t working the way hunters want it nor is it meeting the goals of the Maine Deer Management Plan. Therefore, something must change. It’s time to consider other ideas, perhaps those not so strongly influenced by politics or job security, etc.

It would appear to me that included in this list should be the following: (Note: Some may perceive this as finger pointing and blaming MDIFW. Not at all. To this point it is only MDIFW “facts” that have fueled the deer management machine. If we are to continue to use MDIFW “fact” then certain questions need to be answered. I am challenging for those answers, seeking honest dialog.)

1). What is MDIFW’s official statement about the impact of large predators on Maine’s deer herd. Hunters in Maine aren’t interested in what is written in outdated studies from coyotes that don’t share the same habits and characteristics as Maine’s larger coyote – more than likely a hybrid of wolf and coyote. Maine outdoor writer Bob Humphrey wrote in an earlier article that an MDIFW report done in 1995 stated that coyotes accounted for 30% of deer loss statewide. Is this accurate information? Is there more updated data?

We hear from some at MDIFW that coyote depredation on deer is insignificant. This information suggests otherwise and as Humphrey begged the question, what is that mortality rate in places like Northern Maine where the deer numbers are down around extirpation levels?

Some honesty would go along ways here. If MDIFW’s official position is they aren’t concerned about coyotes, which appears to be their position, then Maine hunters want to know precisely what that is being based upon other than worn out and unproven rhetoric.

2). Would MDIFW please tell licensed hunters in Maine exactly how terrified they are of dealing with lawsuits from animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups? Maine hunters want the truth about how much time and expense this is costing us and exactly how much effect this has had on their ability to properly manage the deer herd? We know that it has had some effect because the most effective means of trapping coyotes around winter deer yards was taken away from us via lawsuits.

3). How much of Maine’s licensed deer hunters’ money is going to pay for non-game programs at MDIFW? Along with that cost analysis could we also be given an evaluation of how taking license fee money away from game management has hindered the ability of MDIFW to properly manage the deer herd and other game species.

4). Could Maine hunters get a breakdown of how much of their dollars goes toward search and rescue? And at the same time could we have an evaluation of how the loss of those dollars shifted to search and rescue has hindered the MDIFW’s ability to manage the deer herd and other game species properly.

I think you are getting my point. We are hearing and have heard for some time how that a lack of resources has kept MDIFW from doing the job they would like to do. My contention is that the lack of resources is the result of MDIFW, either willingly or forcibly, shifting dollars and manpower away from game management and into non-game programs. With a reduction of license dollars going toward good deer herd management and no income coming back to MDIFW from non-game beneficiaries, how can MDIFW properly manage Maine’s deer herd?

Remember, it’s Maine’s license buyers who fund MDIFW. Also realize that all employees of MDIFW are not hunters. It would naive to think that all employees at MDIFW are looking out for the best interest of hunters. Hunter’s interest headed south as soon as Maine fish and game became MDIFW, whose job it became to do many things not at all related to hunting, fishing and trapping.

Let’s keep going!

5). Could someone, anyone, please come up with an explanation as to how Maine’s Any-Deer Permit system works? I have tried as I’m sure many others have but it is next to impossible to convince licensed Maine hunters, especially angry ones with no deer to hunt.

While I’ve only scratched the surface, my contention still remains that fact finding will take a long time if this is to be done right. My facts don’t necessarily mean George Smith’s facts, or MDIFW’s facts. Maine hunters need convincing the source of these facts is reliable. That’s the task we face. How do we do that? If we can’t convince the angry hunters about our “facts”, I question how much success this effort will realize.

Being honest would be a great place to start. We all make mistakes. MDIFW has made some mistakes. They do a lot of good things but when something goes this awry, it’s time for adjustments. What better way to make those adjustments than done through honest dialog. Making excuses is just as bad as pointing a finger.

I suggest we take a deep breath for a second. We know that the longevity to a structure is a great foundation. I believe the foundation to “effective action”, as Smith calls it, is an honest and complete compilation of all the facts, not just the same one’s from the same sources. If we can build the best foundation possible, that meets the standards of all licensed hunters, putting in place an “effective action” will be made much simpler.

There is one other issue that needs mentioning and one that I hope doesn’t become lost in the rush to “effective action”. MDIFW can’t get a free pass on this. It appears to me they are too eager to pass the responsibility off on SAM and/or anybody else willing to take up the flag. We paid our fees and expected game management in return. Most are not satisfied with that effort.

Smith says we all need to step up and be responsible. I concur but not in order to give MDIFW a free pass. If they have forgotten who pays their bills, we need to rattle their cage. If we, the angry hunter, have to go about managing our own game, then maybe it’s time to dismantle and seriously downsize the fish and game department.

The managerial operation and structure of MDIFW comes from the governor and legislature on down. Remember that next time you go to vote.

Tom Remington

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

Top Ten Black Bear Blog Stories Of 2009

It’s that time of year once again to recap the year in stories…..that is stories that I believed to be important issues for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts in general. The importance of these events may not be measured in the number of articles written or the extent to which I covered them but more by what I deem to be of primary concern to all outdoors people.

10). Spent Military Brass – It was a short-lived story but one that exemplified the power that exists behind the firearms and ammunition industry in the country – perhaps the last stronghold against the tyrants working to rob us all of our rights.

The U.S. Government sent out a notice that all spent military brass would be destroyed rather than recycled, a move that would have reduced the ability of companies who reload that spent brass, creating a shortage of ammunition to the American people.

For the whole story, start with this link and follow links in the story for updates.

9). Sonia Sotomayor – The appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court holds potential ramifications for all of us. We know that she is a non supporter of Second Amendment rights and has ruled in lower courts that states do not have to abide by federal gun laws, including the Second Amendment.

We may have a chance early in 2010 to see Justice Sotomayor in action as the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the gun ban in that city is being challenged as unconstitutional, much the same way as District of Columbia v. Heller.

For articles pertaining to Justice Sonia Sotomayer, follow this link and scroll through.

8). “To Catch a Wolf” – As many of you know, I spend a great deal of time discussing wolves here at the Black Bear Blog. It’s not so much about some kind of infatuation with the creature as the political ramifications that effect all Americans.

As a bit of a spin off on the sometimes old and tired topic of wolves and other predators and the onset of wolf hunting seasons in Idaho and Montana, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching more of the world wide history of wolves.

This research included not only the struggles people had with wolves throughout history but also the difficulties encountered in trying to hunt and trap these creatures. The stories ranged from unbelievable, to sad due to loss of life.

I thought it only fitting that with wolf hunting seasons scheduled for the first time in 70 or so years in America, that it would be educational to see how wolves were taken care of many years ago.

“To Catch a Wolf” Part I can be read from this link. There you will find links to all five parts.

7). McDonald v. Chicago – While little has been written about McDonald v. City of Chicago, the importance of this future event becomes Chapter II in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chapter I of course being District of Columbia v. Heller.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case March 2, 2010. Chicago bans guns much the same way that Washington, D.C. did prior to the Heller case. Almost immediately after Heller, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legal right for the City of Chicago to deny its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I suspect that this story may make the top ten stories next year. For more on McDonald v. Chicago, follow this link and scroll through the stories.

6). New Jersey Bears – No, this is not a football team. New Jersey hunters and concerned residents have battled the state of New Jersey over the management of its bear population. New Jersey had a bear hunt to help reduce bear numbers and reduce bear/human encounters. When Jon Corzine became governor, he appointed Lisa Jackson to head up his Environmental department. Under Corzine’s direction, she threw away a court-approved bear management plan and banned all bear hunting.

When Barack Obama became president, he appointed the same Lisa Jackson to head the federal environmental department and Governor Corzine was recently defeated in a run for governor and will be leaving office in January.

At this point in time, the citizens of New Jersey can only wonder what will become of the black bears. Fortunately for everyone, bears have slipped away into winter hibernation but come spring, bears will be awakening. How will the new administration handle its bear management?

Follow this link for stories and information on New Jersey bears.

5). Delta Smelt – The delta smelt is what’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA was designed to protect an animal or plant species but not at the expense of humans. Water, necessary for growing crops and keeping residents of California employed and fed, has been withheld in order to hopefully protect a tiny fish.

Questions surround whether the efforts being employed are doing anything to protect the smelt while thousands of Californians are out of work and businesses are failing. The withholding of water has caused a man-made drought that now will take years to recover from the damages done.

Read about the delta smelt with this link.

4). Maine’s Deer Problems – The state of Maine has a shortage of whitetail deer in much of the geographic territory of the state. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been quick to blame a couple of bad winters for the problem, but many question whether that’s really it.

Most will admit that loss of habitat and access to hunting grounds has played a role but little attention is directed at a rapidly growing coyote population and the role of other large predators.

Debates are ongoing and actions are lacking but the future of Maine’s whitetail deer remains in the balance. Some have indicated that the vast majority of the northern half of the state can no longer sustain a whitetail deer population and until efforts are made to rebuild wintering deer habitat, it will be decades, if ever, before that happens.

This past year I did a four-part series on Maine’s deer management problem. You can follow this link to Part I. There you will find links to the other parts and also check out the “related articles” links at the bottom of each page.

Other key articles can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.

3). Firearms Freedom Act – It all began in Montana. With the support of the Montana Legislature and the signature of the governor, Montana had passed into law a bill that essentially said that any gun or accessory manufactured in Montana and remained in Montana was not subject to federal firearms regulations.

This brings to the forefront the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and a reclaiming of state sovereignty. The passage of this bill will be challenged, no doubt, but Montana took extraordinary steps seeking the ear of the court and requesting a ruling on their bill.

With the overreaching new Obama administration, many people fear the tyrannical pressures being put on states to relinquish their state powers and sovereignty. This has set off a domino effect and now there are 29 states that have either passed, introduced or are planning to introduce a clone of Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act.

Follow this link for more information on a movement that could have overwhelming implications on all Americans.

2). Wolves – Wolf Delisting, Wolf Hunt, Wolf Disease – The topic of wolves in America remains big and emotional. The reason I continue to focus my efforts on this is because it’s strong political ramifications effect all of us. It challenges the core of the Endangered Species Act, it highlights the hypocrisy of the environmentalists who make their living by suing the federal government, while stealing away Americans rights, it has revealed corruption at many levels and without proper constraints, treads on the very rights of free Americans.

Lawsuits affected the delisting of the wolf but eventually Idaho and Montana, if only temporary, gained custody of wolf management and implemented wolf hunts for the first time in about 70 years. Idaho still has a hunt going on as I write this. Pending lawsuits threaten to once again shut down the wolf hunts and take the management away from the states, allowing wolf numbers to grow unchecked while the people sit by watching their elk, deer and moose herds disappear, while giving livestock owners major headaches.

And if all this wasn’t enough, testing of wolves has revealed the animals are full of worms and are spreading the diseases feared by some and ignored by others, before reintroduction.

It appears there may never be an end to this debate. In the meantime Wyoming has been shut out of the delisting process because of politics being played. Lawsuits are pending for Wyoming as well.

You can spend weeks reading the seemingly unending articles on wolves by following this link.

1). Climate Change/Climategate – Although not everyone will admit it, Climategate may prove to be the biggest revelation not only to the world of climate science but the entire scientific community.

Global warming and its causes have been a hot button topic for several years now. As a matter of fact, it has been around long enough now that a majority of people have been indoctrinated to believe that climate change is the result of the influence of man living on this planet. This indoctrination took place in such a way that by the time the entire scientific community became involved, convincing “believers” that the science wasn’t settled became a daunting task.

Aided now in that effort was what is now becoming apparent a whistle blower’s release of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that showed fraud, conspiracy and cover-up of scientific data.

Whether you buy into the theory that man’s influence on this planet is warming it or not, or whether you want to believe that the information contained in the emails and documents proves or disproves anything, the fact is that it is quite likely to change how science and specifically scientific research, especially that funded by governments and special interest groups, is conducted and perceived.

For more on Climategate and global warming in general, follow this link.

Tom Remington

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

Wolf Hunters “Kill With Abandon, Glee”

In a concrete jungle far, far away from where any wolf should roam (but perhaps where they ought too) people feel the need to demonize all who would oppose the irrational over-protection of wolves. From the midst of New York City, we all become enlightened by some of the most slanted editorials about wolves and wildlife management in general.

The New York Times on December 1, 2009 had an editorial, “Wolf Hunt” in which it was quite clear the editors are completely ignorant of what they speak but yet felt compelled to continue the environmentalist brainwashing they can so feverishly perpetuate in their daily rag.

“Wolf Hunt” says:

Nothing lays bare the true point of the wolf season more than Idaho’s recent decision to extend its hunt by three months, ending on March 31. The reason is that hunters have simply not killed enough wolves — only half of the state’s quota of 220 so far.

Unfortunately, this is a poor representation of the truth, not that that ever stopped an editorial. What the writer(s) is attempting to do is influence the reader to believe that the only reason a wolf hunt was extended was so that evil hunters could get in some more killing. How far from the truth.

Quotas on wolves weren’t randomly drawn from a hat. It was all based on projected goals of wolf populations within specified wolf zones or wildlife management areas. Tags were issued in numbers that represented the sought after number of wolves that best would biologically and socially be supported in that zone. The fish and game departments readily admitted the quotas were low in order to err on the side of caution.

The wolf hunt was therefore extended in regions where quotas had not been met based on science and wolf management goals not in order to fill the blood lusts of hunters. This same idiotic mentality is displayed in another letter to the editor in response to “Wolf Hunt”. The writer says,:

This small but fervent group (hunters) sees wolves not as part of a complex ecosystem but rather as an enemy to be conquered, a demon to be exorcised. Thus, they kill with abandon and, often, glee.

Talk about broad strokes with a brush. And of course this is as far from the truth as one can get. Yes, there are those who would probably illegally kill a wolf for no real reason at all, just the same as there are environmentalists who would burn buildings, turn over cars, destroy property and harm people to perpetuate their agendas.

It is quite unfortunate that few of the environmentalists and wolf lovers are at all interested in discovering the truth about wolves. If they did, they would be better armed to know how to protect them. In their fervent love affair with the romantic and iconic wolf, much of what they promote is more harmful to the overall protection of the animal they strive to protect.

The information being used to sway readers to their side of the aisle is often inaccurate. But they don’t know that and don’t want to. In “Wolf Hunt” the editor writes:

What matters is the survival of not just a few token wolves, but strong, genetically healthy wolf populations.

Sounds great! But it’s a myth. What was deliberately kept from everyone, including most wolf lovers before reintroduction, was the fact that it had been learned that 1). the Canadian gray wolf to be introduced was not the same wolf that roamed this area before extirpation; 2). wolves were already established in Northern and parts of Central Idaho and Northwestern Montana; and 3). there really are no such thing as pure wolves. Testing that has been done has determined that wolves and coyotes regularly interbreed and have been for a long time. Combine that with the interbreeding of domestic dogs, both intentional and unintentional, and what we have dotting our landscape are populations of hybrid dogs, some of which we are spending millions of dollars on to protect.*

*See, “Wolf Recovery and the Corruption of Government Science” by George Dovel – The Outdoorsman; Bulletin Number 35; July-November 2009 issue; pages 14-21

It’s an uphill battle for sure. While virtually every major media outlet in this country and scores of smaller independent media sources, espouse to environmentalism and readily reprint the propaganda put out by these groups, the task of educating the public to the truth becomes enormous. Most people do long for the truth and they have yet to learn that their sources might not be giving them what it is they want.

Tom Remington

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

Maine Hunters Are Mad And Justly So……..For Many Reasons

Better communication can resolve a lot of problems in our world. In the converse, lack of such can cause things to spin drastically out of control. Maine hunters, particularly deer hunters, are quite angry and I believe they are justified in at least some of their anger. All they are getting are excuses.

It is no secret the past winters of 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 were tough on the Maine whitetail deer herds. I think I read someplace recently that these two winters, back to back, ranked 3rd and 9th worse in the state’s history, but they obviously weren’t the worst.

The causes for the lack of deer in Maine are complex and hunters don’t feel they are being given the courtesy of a better explanation other than winters are tough, habitat is shrinking, excuses ad nauseum. While both bad winters and shrinking habitat are as true as true can be, hunters feel more could be done to protect the deer herds and should have been done before now. This order of frustration has been building over the past two deer hunting seasons in particular, culminating this year with one of the most dismal of seasons that old timers can recall.

Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, predicted this passing deer season would be bleak. He was right.

But that still isn’t cutting it for the hunters.

I have written in previous articles about things I think at least might be considered as ways of helping to recover a whitetail deer herd. I won’t take up space in this post to go through them again. Click here for the latest article on this issue and links to previous posts.

Let me hit briefly on the excuses being thrown out to Maine hunters about what happened to their deer herd or would I be more accurate to say the MDIFW’s deer herd, as ownership seems a bit fuzzy?

1). Severe winters
2). Loss of Habitat and Winter yarding areas
3). Predation

It should be made clear that in my opinion, I think the biggest reason hunters are mad is because they are not getting their questions answered satisfactorily and in some cases are not being treated in the manner they should be. Let’s face it, MDIFW has an uphill battle to maintain a good relationship with the public. It’s way beyond that when it comes to dealing with the license-paying hunters. They demand action for the dollars they’ve invested. But lest we forget who pays the bills? And therein lies perhaps the biggest rub.

It is my feeling, and I am far from alone, that the hunters, who have forked over the money for years for game management are being taken advantage of or at least they are perceiving it that way. This comes out in several ways but let me touch on a couple very quickly.

You don’t have to be a college educated researcher to understand that MDIFW spends way too much time addressing non-game issues, i.e. search and rescue, non-game wildlife, catering to wildlife viewers, who don’t give a dime to the cause, and spending far too much time in litigation with animal rights groups. Some of that comes from taking up a position of weakness from the MDIFW but that’s another day.

When license-paying hunters see this, combined with the reality they’ve spent a lot of money and can’t even imagine a deer in the woods, they want answers not excuses.

What this is all boiling down to is a simple matter of communication. Stop with the excuses nobody wants to hear anymore. Address the hunters as real people. They may not be all college educated but they are nobody’s fool either. Some greenhorn, wet-behind-the-ears biologists has years to go before he’ll grasp as much knowledge as some of these seasoned, crusty old Mainers.

What matters is us license buyers give fish and game people a job and too often it is forgotten. These hunters deserve more than they are getting and I’m not talking about bigger deer herds. They want officials in Augusta to tell them, we believe what you are seeing in the woods is real. They want a biologist to admit that mistakes have been made. Instead of a wildlife official telling the hunters if they don’t like the coyote situation, that’s your problem. Go do something about it. Perhaps MDIFW would be well served to assume a little ownership too. Maybe for once they could just admit that there are too many coyotes, especially now that our deer herds are in trouble. They could better support efforts to focus predator reduction around winter deer yards instead of echoing the same hollow rhetoric that predator management won’t work. If a handful of deer can be saved this way, the resulting effort is far more positive than sitting in Augusta waiting for the weather to change but more importantly, it gives hunters back their sense of inclusion and ownership. Is that all bad?

One of the biggest complaints I hear from hunters when states absorb their fish and game interests into bigger government bureaucracies, like natural resources or conservation departments, is their loss of being a part of the wildlife management process. Communication disappears and nobody in the BIG government listens.

Travis Barrett, a public relations representative for MDIFW, has his own blog now. In a post dated 12/8/09 Barrett attempts to address hunters about their concerns over an overgrown population of coyotes and what MDIFW is going to do about it. His answer, while truthful, certainly didn’t use a very good approach if he really thought it would appease the angry hunters. I think he actually thought it more of a joke. His answer was, “Coyotes can be controlled by you.”

Maine has a year-round, open hunting season on coyotes during daylight hours (1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset). It also has a more than 6-month night hunting season on coyotes.

For just $4 for the permit, you can kill as many coyotes as you wish. Day after day after day after day…

There is also an extended opportunity to trap coyotes, again with no bag limits.

Notice there is no ownership of this problem by MDIFW. Nope! The thrust of the answer is, quit your complaining. If you don’t like there being too many coyotes, go kill some. While hunters need to do exactly as Barrett is suggesting, this is poor public relations.

George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his blog dated, December 3, 2009, he shares with us his notes and observations from the latest meeting of the Deer Task Force. If you haven’t read it all the way through yet, you should. The tone of the meeting that I derived from Smith’s blog certainly wasn’t encouraging as it pertained to Maine’s northern deer herd. In fairness though, there was a lot of good discussion about positive initiatives, etc.

I went away from reading this information feeling quite frankly as though MDIFW has no interest in putting any effort or resources into recovering the Northern Maine deer herd.

Stadler said lack of wintering area, including fragmentation of habitat, is the primary biological fact and “the forests of northern Maine are no longer biologically capable of supporting deer.” The driving factor is the poor winter cover.

We have coyotes in central and southern Maine, but winter cover is better in those areas so we have more deer, reported Stadler.

The reality seems to be that we will not rebuild the deer herd in the north in the short term.

Representatives of MDIFW made it a point that they have no resources available anyway; another excuse hunters want answers for.

George does bring up something he addressed the group with.

I offered the group these thoughts. Deer hunters are angry, casting blame widely, demanding fast action on all problems. Nonresident deer hunters have abandoned Maine causing severe economic loss in the outdoor industry and damaging DIF&W. It’s not good enough to say we’ll come back in a year and see what’s happened. We need real accountability and commitments now. Sportsmen also want to know what they can do and we need to provide that information.

Hunters don’t want to hear that MDIFW has no resources to do this. This is what they pay their money for and now there are no resources. Why? Because in my opinion, too many resources are being used on non-game issues. Lawsuits and the screaming, demanding wildlife viewers get the attention because MDIFW doesn’t want to deal with more lawsuits. Resources are drained and diverted away from game management.

We hear repeatedly that MDIFW has to consider all the “social” ramifications of its wildlife management decisions. It is true we can’t ignore the general public about such issues but when hunters see their investment being hijacked because of “social” issues, its going to make them angry.

While much of the information discussed at the Deer Task Force meeting that George Smith has shared with us all, is probably factual, how it is being dealt with is not doing anything to keep the hunter happy. When MDIFW loses sight of who pays their salaries, perhaps it’s time for major changes. Maybe Maine needs new leadership from the governor on down.

The question also becomes, why has it come to the point of staring down the barrel that Northern Maine’s whitetail deer population is gone? Did it have to come to such a drastic crossroad? We cannot control the weather but let’s be honest. Maine has always had stretches of bad weather and we’ve hung on.

Kantar points out that in the bad snow years of the late 60s and early 70s, the Northern Maine herd survived better then because there was more wintering habitat. Nobody will argue that fact, but still the question remains, did MDIFW plan for bad winters AND the loss of habitat other than talk about it? The fact is those winter deer yards didn’t just disappear last week. We all should have been more proactive, more aggressively dealing with the issue. The truth is we weren’t and now we are paying for it.

Here’s another factor that I’m sure will anger some and begin driving a wedge between hunters and outfitters; something that can’t happen. According to Smith’s accounting, it was asked if MDIFW planned on doing anything about reducing the bear population in areas where deer herds are suffering to help alleviate the predation; a suggestion I have had for some time.

Jim Tobin asked why we aren’t expanding bear hunting opportunities or bag limits. The answer is that the bear hunting outfitters oppose an increase in the bear harvest, and fear anything that opens up bear hunting to another referendum. Stadler said DIF&W was simply following the recommendations of the Predation Task Force.

We’re all in this together, aren’t we? I have no issue with outfitters trying to make a living and I certainly understand their concerns about being fearful of lawsuits and referendums but doesn’t anyone else see the anger that will arise when regular “Joe”, who’s mad as hell because the deer are gone, discovers the outfitters are making the decisions as to what is best for the protection and rebuilding of a seriously depleted deer herd? Now hunters will question the make up of the Predator Task Force. Perhaps Baldacci needs to form another “task force”. And doesn’t Stadler’s response sound more like a cop out?

These are only some of the issues that hunters see and are angry about. They are not getting any satisfactory answers. An employee of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, it would seem, would be seriously concerned about keeping a job. Are they not biting the hand that feeds them?

George Smith is right. Out-of-state hunters will not come to Maine and hunt, at least not for a long time. That’s big revenue loss. Without it, someone has to go at MDIFW.

But what could be worse than losing all that license revenue from out-of-state hunters? Simple. Losing resident hunters as well. They will get fed up with spending money each year to go walk around the woods looking at coyote tracks and recalling the days when there used to be a lot of deer around. Maine hunters are very supportive of fish and game interests and are willing to cough up more money when they are convinced the money is well spent. Trust me. They are not convinced!

Maine should be very happy they have Gerry Lavigne. He understands the problems and he sees Maine hunters are not going to get any help from MDIFW. They don’t see coyote predation as a problem. Travis Barrett was right. Hunters need to take this matter into their own hands and go kill coyotes. This is no joke! They need to kill as many as they can. They are like rodents and need to be kept in smaller numbers. They carry and spread disease and in numbers too great, they destroy other parts of our ecosystems.

Lavigne is taking positive steps to do something about predation. He spells it out here and here. My advice to you is to stop looking at MDIFW for help. They have their agendas and it isn’t necessarily the same as yours. If you think coyotes are killing all the deer in your favorite hunting grounds, it’s time to do something about it.

I wrote back last May what has now become the obvious. I said that the reality was that MDIFW did not have the resources to manage whitetail deer in Northern Maine. I’ve explained what I think is the reason, so what are we going to do about it? Should we let Baldacci create a bigger governmental kibosh by combining several agencies or are we going to demand that our investment into game management be better looked after?

I will repeat myself. Managing deer in Maine is a serious and complex undertaking. I am willing to believe that what the majority of Maine’s wildlife officials are telling us is true, even though I know many readers will not concur. Winters can be severe and will be again. Habitat has been reduced and efforts are underway to find a cure. I think MDIFW discounts the negative effects of large predators on our deer. I don’t. But the two biggest issues I have right now are these.

1). What got us to the point we are at now?, and
2). MDIFW needs to do a far better job in public relations than they are.

They need to stop putting down the hunters and ridiculing them for sharing their frustrations and on-the-ground observations. The also need to spend less of our time and money on non-game issues and get back to the business of managing game.

Maine cannot afford to lose its deer herd and it will never survive without the average “Joe” buying his license every year. Make all the excuses in the world as to what happened to the deer herd but there is no real excuse for poor communications and lousy public relations.

Tom Remington

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

George Smith, SAM: Where Have All The Deer Gone?

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his article in the Kennebec Journal, asks, “Where have the deer gone?” Smith reflects that this is only the second time in 30 years he hasn’t “gotten his deer” during the regular firearms season and believes it to be his first that he never saw a deer. He asks again, “Where have the deer gone?”

Smith actually answers his own question……….well, sort of!

In central Maine, the last two severe winters have taken a terrible toll on whitetails, exacerbated by coyote predation.

In the North Woods, the situation is much worse. Gerry Lavigne, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s retired deer biologist, fears that deer have been “extirpated” in some areas of northern Maine.

Up in the north country, tough winters made even tougher by the loss of wintering habitat, and predation by coyotes and bears, have left deer on the edge of elimination, if not gone forever.

A great deal of research has proven that coyotes and bears feast on deer fawns and Maine has record numbers of those predators.

All these things are true but the bigger question than “where have the deer gone”, is what is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife doing about it? It appears they are sitting waiting for a few mild back to back winters to roll around again so they can boast of the success of their deer management plan to increase deer numbers for hunters. Short of what seems a faux effort by a Baldacci Deer Task Force and a few feeble efforts to save deer wintering habits, most of MDIFW’s efforts seem to be more focused on appeasing the wildlife watchers and doing what it can to modify any descent from the socialites who seem to carry the power through lawsuits backed by out of state money.

Some of us would even feel a tad bit better if MDIFW would just do a few simple little things that would help even a tiny bit. It is wrong for MDIFW to continue to fall back on bad winters as the reason for a drastically reduced deer herd. Maine is Maine and will always be Maine. We sit on the northern fringe of whitetail deer range. We’ve always had “bad” winters and it is certain we’ll have more.

You have your head in the sand if you think coyotes are not a problem. I have hunted from the same hunting camp in Western Maine for 35 years. During that time, on occasion we would hear a coyote or two howling during the night or yipping and yapping probably running rabbits or something looking for a meal. This year the howling was ongoing and not coming from only one location. They were all around us.

And what was the in-the-field consensus from a week of hunting by 6 experienced hunters? Not one deer was taken and two hunters caught a glimpse of what they thought might have been a “jumped” deer.

More on predators in a moment.

Smith points out what many of us who hunt in Maine have heard before. Gerry Lavigne is afraid that in some regions of Northern Maine deer may be gone forever, wiped out, extirpated and the reason can’t all be laid on bad winters.

Predators kill deer. We can argue how much that occurs but the truth is it happens. Coyotes kill deer, bear kill deer, bobcats kill deer, etc. etc. If there are wolves and mountain lions around, rest assured they’ll take down as many deer as they need too to survive.

If bears contribute to deer kills, has the MDIFW offered anything like extending the bear season in order to reduce bear populations down to minimum levels in areas where deer are feared extirpated?

Moose compete with deer in many aspects for food, etc. Maine has ample moose, particularly in the north. Has MDIFW offered a more extensive plan to reduce moose populations in the north to ease the pressure and help save an exterminated deer population?

Has the deer season been shortened? Has the number of “Any-Deer” permits been reduced statewide or have they been reduced only in certain areas and increased in others in hopes of salvaging license revenues? Is this what’s best to save a dying deer population?

Has the MDIFW began a process to bring back snaring and other methods to get rid of coyotes in winter deer yard areas? Are we to wait until whitetail deer are extinct and then place them on the threatened or protected list of the Endangered Species Act? Isn’t it the responsibility of MDIFW to make sure what is happening doesn’t happen? Who controls MDIFW? Is it the license holders being taken care of or is MDIFW more interested in not making negative social waves? It’s time to make a legal case for protecting all wildlife species not just a handful targeted by environmentalists. This is another reason Maine needs a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to hunt, fish and trap, with a requirement that MDIFW manage game accordingly, but that’s a whole other discussion.

In Alaska, predators threaten game animals like moose, caribou, etc. They do what they have to do to make sure these game animals thrive and it is controversial but it is also their legal duty to do it.

In the latest issue of “The Outdoorsman”, Dr. Valerius Geist wrote at length about predators and how that a lack of proper management was destroying game populations as well as basic ecosystems. His contention is that predators have to be managed in small numbers. The myth that Mother Nature can do this is not what responsible wildlife management is. People who espouse to this theory do not have an understanding of what happens when predators are allowed to grow and run in numbers unchecked.

Dr. Geist suggests managing predators in a way that preserves the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

All wildlife conservation policies should aim to sustain native, unadulterated genetic stocks in environments that support the continuation of adaptive processes. Wildlife conservation policies also need to engender tolerance, acceptance, and public support; without this, wildlife cannot thrive.

History teaches that political support accrues to species that are either used by a large segment of the population, or revered as an icon. In North America, wolves maintained at very low levels do not pose a threat to livestock, pets, or humans; moreover, they become romantic icons.

At high densities, however, wolves may severely reduce or destroy wildlife populations. This has been demonstrated by the Japanese experience and other historic accounts, by rigorous studies, and by my personal experience. Large predators in North America kill more game than do hunters by an order of magnitude. I’ve come to understand that unregulated predator populations threaten the very institution of public ownership of wildlife.

Wildlife in North America has a long history as a treasured resource that generates substantial wealth and employment. It has been vigorously defended by its owners, the citizens of the U.S. and Canada.

As the public’s interest in wildlife diminishes, I see conditions developing for the transfer of wildlife resources and habitats to private ownership. Already in some states and provinces we’re seeing the privatization of deer and other big game. In the future, the public may have no more say over private bears and wolves than it has currently over private deer.

Our goals must aim to maintain genetically pure stocks of predators in native landscapes, sustain game abundance for public use, and provide for public safety. We need a comprehensive policy for carnivore conservation. The ideal policy will be a prescription for diverse and abundant game populations, viable populations of native predators, and high levels of hunter participation.

This approach would safeguard the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation by insuring that a large fraction of the population is actively engaged in the policies, politics, and pastimes that enable a secure future for wildlife.

In managing wildlife, one is reminded of the French proverb that says, to have a beautiful park, one needs a very sharp axe and a heart of stone!

Dr. Geist also talks about “zoning” in which we work to provide an area where large predators are allowed to be predators but keep them away from areas where they cause trouble.

We need to take seriously the matter of zoning, determining where large predators will and won’t be conserved. This is an old, but important, conception most recently realized in the Wyoming wolf management scheme. More fundamentally, we need to discuss the whole matter of so-called ecosystem rehabilitation.

During this process of re-establishing regional biodiversity there are three major steps, the return of herbivores, followed by the return of carnivores, followed by the return of parasites and diseases dependent on the preceding processes.

We have experienced the heady return of large herbivores and game as well as the biodiversity clinging to their coattails. Do we really need the diseases and parasites potentially dangerous to public health and agriculture? If not, then zoning is the answer.

We have to take seriously means and ways of coexistence where we can very fruitfully look to history. If we can agree on zoning for large predators, then we can take advantage of the lessons of history—North American history in particular: where there has been a high ratio of prey to predators, wolves are shy, avoid humans and are the very image of romantically idealized wolves.

As long as there is an abundance of prey surrounding wolves, they stick to such and avoid humans and their livestock. As long as there is a buffer of game and livestock between wolves and humans, they do not target humans as alternative prey.

Obviously this is not a feasible method in all locations but cannot we modify it? Maine trappers used this method, albeit perhaps by default, until the environmentalists got their way and snaring of coyotes was outlawed. It is my understanding the most effective way to snare coyotes was in winter, surrounding deer wintering yards. This “zoning” effort did two things. It protected some of the deer in their winter habitat and reduced coyote populations.

We hear so much that it is nearly impossible to control predator populations like the coyote. Fact or fiction, as long as we continue to look at the big picture with a lack of focus on important “zones”, nothing will get accomplished.

Wildlife managers tell us the best available science for wildlife management is to manage in smaller, more manageable wildlife districts or zones. This is the same approach we need to take for managing large predators. I might even suggest that within each of Maine’s Wildlife Management Districts, MDIFW begin mapping out predator-free zones. These will be areas where large predators, that are destroying our deer populations are strictly controlled……whatever it takes and there is scientific evidence to support such an effort. It will have to be an ongoing commitment and not something we do on occasion.

The truth is Maine has to do something, even if it’s small and appears insignificant. Yes, we would like to get the biggest bang for our buck but at this rate there will be no “bucks” – both literal. Sitting by offering excuses with a continuation of blaming winter isn’t going to get the job done.

I hope we have not given up on trying to save and manage deer in Northern Maine and other areas where the obstacles seem difficult.

Tom Remington

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

Judge Woodcock To Lynx Lawsuit Plaintiffs: “Circumstances Have Not Changed”.

In actions that can only be described as badgering of the court, animal rights and anti-hunting groups relentlessly show themselves to be the obnoxious brats they really are. The Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute have been trying to get a federal judge in Maine to end all trapping because of the Canada lynx. It appears, as has been shared time and again by trappers and hunters, that these two groups aren’t going to quit until they get what they want – an end to all trapping in Maine.

Maine sits on the out fringes of Canada lynx habitat. Its population varies as much and as quickly as Oprah Winfrey’s waste line. Habitat for the lynx is only one issue. The other is the cottontail rabbit, its main source of food. History shows us when the cottontail population is strong in Maine, so too is the Canada lynx. When the rabbits go away, shortly thereafter it’s bye-bye to the lynx. This makes for the perfect opportunity of groups such as WAM and AWI to make false claims as to what negatively affects the lynx and in this case it is carried to the extreme of demanding an end to all hunting.

Changes have been made to the trapping methods in order to comply with previous court rulings in order to make every attempt to avoid the inadvertent trapping of a Canada lynx.

On December 16, 2009, Judge John Woodcock ruled against the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, stating that the AWI and WAM failed to show that Canada lynx were being harmed through lawful trapping measures.

But Woodcock’s ruling didn’t cause even the slightest blink from these two groups as they waged on with another lawsuit to end trapping claiming that any inadvertent trapping of lynx violates the Endangered Species Act. Arguments in that case were heard this past Spring into Summer. Judge Woodcock has yet to make a ruling in that case.

In the meantime, true to form and exemplifying their real personalities, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute filed another lawsuit seeking to get Judge Woodcock to halt the early fox and coyote trapping seasons that began October 18, 2009.

If you think this action by these groups is obnoxious, it gets even worse. It seems they didn’t have the patience to wait for Woodcock’s court ruling or even the lawsuit they just filed to force an immediate stop to hunting, they filed another lawsuit seeking an immediate restraining order to stop the trapping season.

It appears Judge Woodcock has had just about enough out of these guys and yesterday, issued the following statement as part of a five-page ruling on both of the last two lawsuits.

“The record in this and the predecessor case should confirm that the Court has conscientiously attempted to give careful and thorough attention to the issues the parties have raised. Just last December, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction following the DIFW’s court-ordered tightening of its trapping regulations. The circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. The regulations remain as they did in December and, as there has been no trapping, the facts on the ground are the same. The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to provide a justification for revisiting the December 16, 2008 Order. Although the Court can appreciate Plaintiffs’ frustration, the issues before the Court are unusually complex, require shifting through a voluminous record, and applying nuanced, intricate and contested principles of law. The Court assures counsel for the Plaintiffs that it is acutely aware of their desire for a speedy decision, but has opted for a considered, rather than an immediate opinion. At the same time, the Court reminds counsel for the Plaintiffs that their case is not the only one the Court has pending before it.”
“The Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the Early Fox and Coyote Trapping Season for 2009 (Docket # 107); and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to Enjoin the Early Fox and Coyote Trapping Season, and, if Necessary, Postpone the Regular Trapping Season (Docket # 109).”

I’m not one to fully understand all the legal speak that we are sometimes subject to reading in these rulings, but it doesn’t take a law degree to understand what Judge Woodcock is saying. He’s telling these guys to get off his back and leave him alone.

He spells out quite nicely that since the last time he has made a ruling about Canada lynx and trapping, and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have complied with court orders, there has been no trapping – NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

Judge Woodcock has heard the arguments in the case pending and will render “a considered, rather than an immediate opinion.” As a parent would have to remind a young child, the Judge also had to tell WAM and AWI that they aren’t the only one’s in the state waiting on court rulings.

The actions of these two groups will have no effect on the final opinion of Judge Woodcock in the Canada lynx case. It is, however, important to point out to readers the make-up of these anti-hunting and animal rights groups. Arguments are made incessantly that the ultimate goal of these groups is to end hunting and trapping. This is only one indication of their bent in accomplishing those goals.

Their actions are inconsiderate and make a real mockery out of the court systems in this country. Shame on them!

Skip Trask, head of Maine Trappers Association shared his immediate thoughts on Woodcock’s decision.

Although both of the latest motions have been denied, which is great news, we still have no indication as to when we’ll get a decision on the lawsuit itself. Based on the comments in the latest decision, it may be quite a while before we hear anything further.

Tom Remington

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

What’s Driving Possible Decision To Prematurely Close Wolf Hunt In Area Near Yellowstone?

I wonder if I even need to ask that question. Last week Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials opted to close the wolf hunt in Wildlife Management Unit 3, which abuts the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park, stating that although the quota they had made for that unit was 12 wolves, 9 had been taken earlier than they thought.

According to the Los Angeles Times the reason for stopping the hunt then was:

But with nine animals having been killed surprisingly quickly in the backcountry zone, the agency decided to suspend the hunt until the general season begins, to ensure some hunting occurs elsewhere in WMU 3 before the quota of 12 is met.

To make sure readers understand, Montana, in a very similar fashion to Idaho, created wolf hunting areas and set quotas to limit the number of wolves that can be killed within an area. Such was the case for the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness area near the northern boundary of Yellowstone. The quota was set for a total of 12 wolves. Once 12 wolves were taken, the hunt would be closed.

The wolf hunt in that area opened September 15th, as officials decided it should coincide with the elk and deer hunts in the same area. Nine wolves were taken in what officials say was a surprisingly shorter period of time than they had anticipated. They then decided to stop the hunt and then reopen it at the later date, October 25, when the general wolf hunt begins.

As per the reasons given above, this decision was based on the idea that officials hoped hunters would be taking wolves in other parts of WMU 3. Now, officials are considering canceling the wolf hunt in that zone completely even though the quota hasn’t been met yet.

One has to wonder if the real reason for stopping the hunt isn’t driven by politics. Officials had to have known that opening up a wolf hunt in that region to coincide with elk and deer hunting seasons would increase the odds on wolves getting shot. They also had to consider that wolves will be where the deer and elk are. Assuming that Montana’s game officials thought this all through, isn’t that why they came up with a wolf quota of 12 instead of nine?

Environmentalists are trying to argue that killing the wolves will stop the wolves in Yellowstone from spreading out to other parts of the state. This argument is the same one that is part of their lawsuit to relist wolves. Caroline Sime, Montana’s lead wolf biologist, refutes that claim.

Sime said that with wolves firmly established in many areas of Montana, Yellowstone’s importance as a source of wolves had diminished.

There were 89 packs in Montana at the end of 2008, including 18 in the part of the state that borders Yellowstone.

“From a biological perspective, it’s a non-issue,” Sime said, noting the death of nine wolves was unlikely to hurt the overall population.

So, biologically speaking there is no real reason to suspend the hunt for this season not allowing the quota to be filled.

Is Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks under pressure from environmentalists and this is an attempt to appease them? It may be so, either directly or indirectly. Remember, the environmentalists lost their lawsuit for an emergency injunction to stop the wolf hunts but they still are suing to put the wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list. Is MFWP concerned that this event will influence Judge Donald Molloy when he renders his decision? Just maybe.

Nobody expected the wolf hunts to go off without a hitch or that lessons would not be learned and from this adjustments would be forthcoming for subsequent hunts. Officials in both Idaho and Montana expressed that they would err on the side of caution when setting quotas and not allowing them to be too high. My concern is that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks make their decisions based on science and not the politics of this case.

Whether this WMU only harvests 9 wolves instead of 12 is immaterial to me. If MFWP believes that from a scientific perspective they better stop the hunt, then so be it. It would be a travesty to wildlife management to discover the decision was driven by politics.

Tom Remington

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

New Legislation Will Protect Recreational Hunting and Fishing on Federal Land

(Columbus) – Two bills introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R- AK) and U.S. Representative Dan Boren (D- OK) will protect recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service.

Backed by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), HR 3749 and the Senate legislation are companion bills collectively known as the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. They will prevent situations from emerging where public land is closed arbitrarily for hunting, fishing and shooting, mandating that such closures be done through a reasonable and transparent process.

Specifically, both bills would ensure that:

* Federal public land managers with the U.S. Forest Service and BLM provide for the use of and access to public lands for hunting, fishing and shooting,
* An “open until closed” policy is established for the lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM unless public and Congressional notification is given,
* Land managers are urged to lease land for shooting ranges by having the lessee offer suitable assurances to remediate leased lands at the termination of the lease, thus remedying concerns expressed in the past by the BLM over damage to land used for shooting,
* Skilled volunteers be used on federal public lands not open to hunting when wildlife management requires the culling of animal populations,
* Congress receives an annual report detailing any closures of land to fishing, hunting, or shooting and the reasons for the closures.

“Both bills will guarantee that access for America’s sportsmen to prime public land won’t arbitrarily be denied,” states USSA President and CEO, Bud Pidgeon. “The USSA wholeheartedly supports these bills and urges sportsmen everywhere to contact you members of Congress and urge them to sign on.”

Cosponsors of the Senate legislation are Senators Mike Crapo (R- ID) and Ben Nelson (D- NE).

Cosponsors of HR 3749 are Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R- TN), Kevin Brady (R- TX), Ginny Brown-Waite (R- FL), Paul C. Broun (R- GA), Dan Burton (R- IN), Bill Cassidy (R- LA), Kathleen Dahlkemper (D- PA), John D. Dingell (D- MI), Brad Ellsworth (D- IN), Ron Kind (D- WI), Larry Kissell (D- NC), John Kline (R- MN), Donald Manzullo (R- IL), Thaddeus G. McCotter (R- MI), Jeff Miller (R- FL), Thomas Perriello (D- VA), Ciro D. Rodriguez (D- TX), Mike Rogers (R- AL), Mike Ross (D- AR), Paul Ryan (R- WI), James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R- WI), Heath Shuler (D- NC), Bill Shuster (R- PA), Michael K. Simpson (R- ID) and Zach Wamp (R- TN).

Other organizations supporting both bills include the National Rifle Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, American Sportfishing Association, and Safari Club International.

*Editor’s Note*

The above is a press release sent out by the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance. While I certainly support such action it should be noted that these bills, should they pass, will not “guarantee” or “protect” anything to do with hunting, fishing, shooting, etc. on federal public lands. What it does do is slow down any efforts to arbitrarily shut down federal public lands. The process is still in place to shut down and/or prohibit public use of federal public lands. It just make’s it a bit more difficult to accomplish.

The other issue which is encouraging is that of “skilled volunteers” being used to cull overgrown game herds on federal public lands “not open to hunting”. While this is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, it fails to define “skilled volunteers”.

Tom Remington

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

Is It Time For USFWS To Appeal ESA Cases?

It becomes apparent to any onlooker that when it comes to Endangered Species Act cases in the Greater Yellowstone Area, that Judge Donald Molloy is chief cook and bottle washer. He is the envy of any environmental group seeking to further their special interests. It matters not whether they want to protect a particular species they have found tugs at the emotional strings of those with deep pockets or simply to further hamper the heritage of hunters who take to the field during their favorite season. Judge Donald Molloy is their go-to guy.

Yet through all the lawsuits filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the Department of Interior, the feds seem lacking in willpower to seek the ruling of a higher court. Maybe it’s time.

With each passing lawsuit Molloy hands victory to the environmentalists, the feds seem eager to run and hide, only to appear again in a few months walking down the same street and falling into the same hole. Maybe they know something about the higher court (Ninth Federal Court) that we don’t. Maybe they figure if they can’t get one over on Molloy, an appeal to the Ninth would be wasted. Then again maybe not.

The Department of Interior’s lack of confidence? to appeal leaves us with several questions, the biggest one making me wonder who they are working for? But we’ll save that discussion for another time.

We know that back in July of 2008, an 11-member panel of judges at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted that judges needed to use science in rendering these kinds of decisions. Their words were to “give discretion to expert scientists”.

We also remember that shortly after Barack Obama was elected President he made the statement that he was eager to “return science to it’s proper place” in making decisions about endangered species and the environment. Let’s call them on it!

But let’s not be naive. It’s easy to declare that science will be used but whose science? We can’t really control the rulings of an activist judge who is going to rule based on his personal preferences rather than the strength of the arguments made for and against an issue, if he is allowed to do so. So, maybe it’s time to go find another judge or judges who might see things a bit differently.

I say that it is time to find out. I say, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to appeal the recent grizzly bear decision Molloy made that returns the bear back to the control of the feds. If, as Molloy alluded to in his ruling, the “science” the feds presented wasn’t convincing enough, then the USFWS needs to decide two things.

First, they need to decide if the science exists to convince any court that grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area should be delisted and would be better off if they were. The second thing the feds need to decide is whether or not they and their lawyers actually believe in that science and honestly desire to have the bear put under state management. If they can’t muster up both of those elements in this case, those of us hoping for better state management have little hope it will ever happen. As a matter of fact, if this case is not appealed and stricken, it sets a precedence that could have sweeping negative consequences.

So, what’s it going to be? Is the Department of Interior going to cower and run and hide as they have in the past? Will they do as they have with the gray wolf of late, staying out of sight for awhile and then reappearing with a new proposal, hoping against hope that somehow it will satisfy the courts? Or will they do what they should do and get their act together and appeal this case? They need a strong effort at convincing the court that it is the accurate and proven science the wildlife management people have used for decades that rules the day. How difficult is it if you have a proven track record? Either the feds lawyers have yet to present their cases in a convincing way or Judge Molloy is never going to be convinced.

It appears to me that being that these cases have all involved the same judge, all with the same results, that it is time to walk down a different street and avoid the same hole they have fallen into before.

Tom Remington

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

The Gray Wolf Lawsuit Yo-Yo

In court, out of court. In court, out of court. The entire gray wolf issue all through the United States is nothing but a legal yo-yo that benefits only the lawyers. While many of us had our eyes on the legal wrangling and the current gray wolf hunts taking place in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment region, the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment has, once again, been placed back under federal protection.

Last September, 2008, federal judge Paul Friedman, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. remanded a lawsuit brought against the Department of Interior back to the USFWS “for further proceedings”. This, according to Friedman’s ruling, was because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to show that they had authority under the Endangered Species Act to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in order to delist a population of wolves. (Also known as a clerical technicality that really has no bearing on the case, in my opinion.)

According to the USFWS, they took care of their “further proceedings” and printed a Final Rule in April 2009, removing, once again, the gray wolf from federal protection. I know it may be difficult to fathom, but immediately a lawsuit was filed by The Humane Society of the United States, et. al., against the Department of Interior. Their claim being that USFWS violated the ESA by not providing a proper 60-day comment period before publishing the final rule.

A settlement was reached between the USFWS and HSUS and signed by Judge Paul Friedman that halts the delisting of wolves, places them back on the endangered and threatened species list and, should the USFWS decide to proceed again to delist the wolf, they must abide by the rules of administrative procedure, including a 60-day public comment period. (As well as be subject to paying plaintiff’s legal fees.)

I think you can clearly see the Yo-Yo effect here. I’m not a lawyer and am surely no expert on legal affairs but it would appear to me that the USFWS should have known that once Judge Paul Friedman remanded the case back in September 2008 and ruled that wolves be returned to federal protection, that any movement toward delisting again would require the same fundamental ESA administrative procedures. Give me a break. Are these guys wasting the courts time and taxpayer money?

But here’s the bigger question that I have. Judge Paul Friedman, in his September 2008 ruling, says he cannot see where the USFWS has the authority under the ESA to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in the Western Great Lakes for the purpose of delisting. He says the ESA is ambiguous and does not provide a definition. He also says the USFWS failed to present evidence that they could do this. This was all part of the “further proceedings” that Friedman remanded back the the Department. The question I have is what did the USFWS do about this defining of and creation of DPSs?

Because the Final Rule of April 2009 is no longer valid, we can only go by what the USFWS said about this.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because, in the judge’s opinion, the Endangered Species Act is ambiguous on the issue of whether a DPS can be identified and delisted simultaneously and, therefore, the Service should have provided an explanation for their interpretation of the ESA. To address the court’s concern, this Rule explains why simultaneously identifying and delisting DPSs of currently listed species is consistent with the ESA’s text, structure, policy objectives and legislative history, and relevant judicial interpretations.

The way I see it is that if the USFWS once again, attempts to delist the wolves in the WGL DPS, and they follow the procedures correctly, they will have to rely on the fact that they presented a good enough explanation in any Final Rule to satisfy Judge Friedman. My guess is that this is simply another court case looking for a place to happen.

This is all quite asinine really and a waste of resources, time and money. We have judges in different portions of the country who seemingly are not in agreement on rulings. It’s becoming a dog and pony show making a complete mockery of the Endangered Species Act and its intentions.

Now the Department of Interior will have to decide what they want to do. They must love this Endangered Species Act as it chews up their budget and the valuable time employees could be spent doing something productive. But hey, that would run contrary to big government now wouldn’t it.

One final thought that I really don’t want to explore. If this Yo-Yo effect continues, one would have to wonder exactly what the agenda is for the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I’ll leave it at that.

Tom Remington

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

Grizzly Bears Back On ESA List. Molloy’s Science Trumps USFWS’ Science

Major press sources got Molloy’s ruling all wrong!

Once again we are witness to everything that is wrong with the Endangered Species Act. Judge Donald Molloy, the one judge all the environmentalists seem to run to when they need a court to support their agendas, has decided that grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area, should be put back on the Endangered Species Act list of protected species.

It is a waste of my time and energy to attempt to explain why Molloy’s science is in disagreement with that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Science. None of it really matters. It is incredible that the science used by the USFWS is regularly disregarded by Molloy in favor of either his own interpretation or that of the environmentalists. It really blows my mind. The out for the judges becomes whose science fits the case.

The short of this ruling is that there leaves little hope of ever recovering any species from endangerment. When one judge gets to make all the decisions, it all becomes very predictable and to be honest, quite boring.

I would however like to take a few moments to point out some interesting aspects of Judge Molloy’s ruling and other issues. First, let’s look at the press, also so affectionately known as the mainstream media. Nearly every headline about this ruling states that grizzly bears in the Yellowstone are were put back under federal protection because of global warming. This really is not the truth at all.

In his ruling, Molloy mentions that the USFWS did not adequately consider what effect the reduction of the whitebark pine nut would have on the survival of the grizzly. In that assessment, Molloy stated, along with other aspects, what was having a negative effect on the pine nut.

Plaintiff next asserts the Service did not adequately consider the impacts on whitebark pine from global warming and other causes…………

The identifiable best available science indicates that whitebark pines are expected to decline due to a variety of causes, including climate change, increased forest fires, the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and infection by white pine blister rust.

I would suppose presenting this information doesn’t make for as good a headline as claiming bears are endangered because of global warming, a la the polar bear.

Nowhere in Molloy’s ruling do I see whether his reference to global warming is natural or anthropogenic. The idea of global warming, whether natural or man made, being the root cause of endangering the grizzly is absurd, yet it never stops a good headline does it.

A second point to discuss is Molloy readily accepting of the USFWS designating a Distinct Population Segment in the Yellowstone area for the purpose of delisting the grizzly bear. Molloy acknowledges that the USFWS designated a DPS for the grizzly.

…….the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) designated a Distinct Population Segment (“DPS”) for the Greater Yellowstone Area grizzly bear population and removed the population from the threatened species list under the ESA.

The plaintiffs lawsuit claims the USFWS violated the ESA on four counts, none of which mentions anything about the legality of creating a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species. This of course is interesting and should bear some fruit in the upcoming lawsuit that Molloy will hear in attempts by environmentalists to put the gray wolf back on the Endangered List. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs contend that the USFWS violated the ESA when it excluded Wyoming from the delisting process – in other words carving out another DPS for the purpose of delisting. We also know that in a separate case, Judge Paul Friedman, ruled in regards to delisting wolves in the Western Great Lakes area, that the ESA does not provide the legal authority for the USFWS to designate a Distinct Population Segment in order to delist a species. It appears that we have before our eyes a clear example, readily acceptable by Judge Molloy, of designating a Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bears for the purpose of delisting them.

I might also point out that in Molloy’s ruling that he spends quite a bit of time explaining that there are several grizzly bear populations that are outside this Yellowstone DPS that remain protected under federal law. This tells us that Molloy is willing to accept a DPS for bears for the purpose of delisting, carved out from the greater population of bears. It will be interesting to see if he carries that same feeling over when he rules on wolves.

A third item to take note of in Molloy’s ruling is that of a “significant portion of its range”. The fourth part of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition’s lawsuit contends that the USFWS:

did not properly consider whether the grizzlies are recovered across a significant portion of their range.

In this part of the lawsuit, summary judgment fell to the side of the Defendants as Judge Molloy deemed that the USFWS provided a “reasonable” explanation of what it called “a significant portion of its range”.

Many an argument has been waged in regards to that ambiguous phrase used within the Endangered Species Act and many a man has asked that as part of any change that might ever be considered in the ESA, a better definition of what a significant portion of its range means.

The plaintiffs argue that the grizzly bear is absent from 98%-99% of its “historic” range and therefore removing grizzlies in Yellowstone defies the notion that bears are recovered across a significant portion of its range. However, Molloy, citing previous cases, says this notion has been rejected before and he rejected it here.

The USFWS’ explanation was as Molloy put it, reasonable, and gives us some hope of carving out a better definition of the term. The USFWS contends that when they got done excluding from the “range” uninhabitable areas for grizzlies, that the amount of habitable range for grizzlies is 86% occupied.

While this may give us some hope in that area, it does not address the fact that grizzly bears as a species, much like polar bears, Canada lynx, gray wolves and several other species, are not in danger of going extinct.

While it seems that judges these days are pretty much given free reign over wildlife management, I hold out little hope that gray wolves will remain delisted. In reading Molloy’s decision on the grizzly bear, it becomes quite clear that he could have just as easily accepted the USFWS’ science in rendering his decision. For the USFWS to regroup in an attempt to remove the bear again, is basically a crap shoot. Perhaps it’s time to appeal to another court.

Whether we will ever get clear definitions in administering the Endangered Species Act remains doubtful. In the meantime, the environmentalists pour their money into continued lawsuits, knowing the odds are very much in favor of them winning. Not because they have science on their side but because they have progressive judges eager to pitch in to the “cause”.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »