Black Bear Blog » Indiana Hunting News

Indiana Introduces Three “Firearms Freedom Act” Bills

Tom Remington — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:11:33 +0000

Three different Indiana State Senators have introduced what appear to be identical versions of the Indiana Firearms Freedom Act:

Senator Walker has introduced Senate Bill 0200
Senator Holdman has introduced Senate Bill 0276
and
Senator Waterman has introduced Senate Bill 0416

This now makes 19 other states with introduced bills, including: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Another 12 states are expected to introduce FFA clones within the next few weeks. More info at:
http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com

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

Did Feds Address Court Rulings For Wolf Delisting?

Tom Remington — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:36:42 +0000

Yesterday Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett announced the intentions of the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Western Great Lakes region and portions of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Following legal procedures, the USFWS will post the Final Rule in the Federal Registry next week and then 30 days thereafter, the rule takes effect.

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

More Confusion On Feds “Distinct Population Segment” Creations

Tom Remington — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:51:03 +0000

The Western Institute for Study of the Environment (WISE) has a story this morning covering information they found on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Register that officially places the gray wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list. This includes the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oregon and Washington. Areas of Idaho south of I-90, southern Montana and all of Wyoming remain part of a “Nonessential Experimental Population”. Minnesota’s wolves remain listed as “threatened”.

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

Pittman-Robertson Act Provides Funds For Hunter Safety

Tom Remington — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:37:33 +0000

On Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were going to request grant monies available through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as Pittman-Robertson, in order to conduct studies on tree stand safety. The article I wrote generated some discussion and comments, one coming from reader MadJack.

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) \1\ of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

Alabama Hunter Encounters “Two-Headed” Deer

Tom Remington — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:56:01 +0000

It may not be exactly what the title describes, but it is quite and incredible story anyway – one that deserves a read.

And when you’re done with that story, check out the one of the guy who found two “locked” bucks that drowned in a lake. Combined dressed weight of the deer, 400 pounds.

Tom Remington

EHD A Bit “Ho-Hum” In The Deep South

Tom Remington — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:12:12 +0000

We are at a point where it would be safe to say that this year’s outbreak of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) is quite widespread. Here’s a list of states that have confirmed cases of the virus that is carried to deer by biting midges or no-see-ums: Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Montana, Mississippi and Georgia. In addition, some states are waiting for test results to confirm what they already suspect – South Carolina is one such state.

To confirm the presence of the disease, blood and certain tissue has to be analyzed.

According to both the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and the Alabama Department of Conservation, dealing with EHD is quite routine. Charles Ruth, Deer/Turkey Project supervisor for the South Carolina DNR says flair-ups in that state seem to run in cycles of 3-5 years and there’s a reasonable explanation.

“This is probably related to the fact that once deer are exposed to the disease they are more resistant to it. Therefore, if you have disease one year the deer become exposed or inoculated to the disease and you do not see much disease activity until there is turnover in the deer population. After several years you are dealing with another cohort of deer and their systems are ‘naÃ¯ve’ to the disease. The last time there was significant hemorrhagic disease activity in South Carolina was in 2002, therefore, disease activity could be relatively high this year.”

This theory is confirmed by a spokesman for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“We have some cases every year,” said Keith Guyse, a whitetail specialist with the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division in the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. “In the Coastal Plain, the virus is there frequently enough that deer have been exposed to it and have some resistance to it.

Both representatives indicate that EHD in their respective states is pretty much routine only because of the build up of a certain degree of immunity. Therefore, these southern states don’t see wide outbreaks of the disease that often. When EHD hits the more northern climes, EHD seems to grab harder. Ruth explains.

Deer likely die in South Carolina each year from hemorrhagic disease, however, there is no indication that a major outbreak has occurred in the state since the mid 1970s. The disease is part of life for deer in the Southeast and fortunately it appears that Southern deer have acquired some immunity to the disease, said Ruth. Northern deer, on the other hand, are not exposed to the disease as frequently since the insect vector is not as common in cooler climates. For this reason, significant outbreaks and mortality from hemorrhagic disease are more likely in northern deer populations.

Guyse from Alabama makes reference to the same theory.

“Typically in North Alabama and above the fall line, they’re not exposed to it as often. So over a period of time you have a population that doesn’t have much resistance. When you have (outbreaks) up there, it tends to be more noticeable.”

This helps us understand why some states may have more severe outbreaks, killing larger numbers of deer, than others but why this year are outbreaks so widespread across the landscape of the country? Some have related it to the summer heat and drought. That may be true, I don’t know. It would be logical to assume that being that the virus is carried and spread by tiny midges or gnats, a larger than normal population of that insect would be directly proportional to the spread of the disease. Of course science isn’t that simplistic and we know that there are probably many more factors to consider or it could be just merely a coincidence.

However, Guyse from Alabama eludes to the theory of increased numbers of midges, somewhat.

“Auburn (researchers) had traps out to catch the flies and they might catch a few every once in a while, and then all of a sudden they catch hundreds,” Guyse said. “Much of that still is a mystery.”

Obviously, they don’t have a good handle on it either.

Hunters and others should be aware of the symptoms they may find on deer suffering from the disease.

Symptoms of hemorrhagic disease include poor physical condition, sloughing hooves, abrasions or sores on the brisket and legs, and ulcerations on the mouth, tongue, and rumen (stomach).

As I said earlier, verification of the disease has to be done in the lab.

If you see sick or dead deer in your travels, please report it to the appropriate authorities. It is highly recommended that nobody eats any of the meat from deer sickened by EHD.

Tom Remington

EHD Outbreak Widespread And Following Drought

Tom Remington — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:51:01 +0000

As most hunters are aware, several states are experiencing outbreaks of EHD (Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease). To date, states involved are, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey and Montana. In those states, some are experiencing widespread outbreaks while others are sporadic. Either way, it appears that this year’s outbreak is one that could be classified as the most widespread in some years.

J.R. Absher, the Newshound, and I sent a couple emails back and forth this morning about what’s happening with EHD. In one of my emails, I asked J.R. if this was what he would consider a large outbreak from his years of experience in the field. What he told me was that in a previous article he mentioned that he had talked with a friend of his, Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, about this year’s outbreak.

My good friend Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, dropped me an email over the weekend saying itâ€™s as bad as heâ€™s ever seen it in his 20 years with the agency.

Some especially hard-hit areas of the Volunteer State could lose half their deer to EHD this year, Markham speculated.

One other thing that J.R. mentioned was that it seemed that the EHD outbreak was following a similar path as this summer’s drought. I’ll have to do some investigating to see if I can find out if that is a common occurrence.

In the meantime, we all need to be praying for some frost and freezes to kill this thing off.

Tom Remington

Further Spreading Of EHD And Troubles With Water Contamination In Pennsylvania

Tom Remington — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:06:20 +0000

We can now add Montana to the growing list of states confirming outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease, EHD, or blue tongue. EHD is contracted by the bite of insects called “biting midges.” The virus usually kills the animals within five to 10 days. It is not spread by deer-to-deer contact and is rare in domestic cattle. States already having confirmed cases of EHD are: Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and New Jersey.

Montana officials have confirmed the presence of EHD in the southeastern part of the state.

So far â€œhundredsâ€ of antelope and deer carcasses have been reported.

The heaviest concentration of the disease appears to be in the Melstone area east to Ingomar and Sumatra.

There really is not much that can be done about the disease. We just wait until the first good frost or freeze that will kill the midges that carry the virus.

In the meantime, troubles from dying deer in Pennsylvania are raising concerns about the possible contamination of drinking water supplies. In Beaver, Greene and Washington counties estimates are that over 1,000 deer carcasses are lying about rotting and stinking up the air. For some, there is concern that the decaying carcasses, many of which are lying in water, are contaminating the water supplies.

Russell Morgan is a Greene Township Supervisor and a farmer. He’s concerned about the water problems but is getting no help from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to get the carcasses cleaned up.

Already, Morgan said, he has confirmed 17 dead deer on and around his property. Township secretary Sandy Wright said one resident found 50 dead deer within a short distance of each other. Another resident reported finding 35 dead deer, Wright said.

Morgan said the game commission should at least help remove the remains from water sources. Instead, he was told removal of the deer is the responsibility of the homeowner,

“No one wants to take responsibility for what’s going on,” he said.

One of the side effects of the disease in deer causes the body temperature to rise, thus sending the deer to water to cool off. This is often where they expire.

Game Commission Supervisor Barry Zaffuto says it isn’t the responsibility of the PGC to take care of the dead animals and that the rotting deer are not contaminating the water.

“A deer is 100 percent natural,” he said. “This virus is not transferable, so it would be just like a deer that dies in the water naturally, because it does happen.”

The commission, he said, does not have the resources to search across a three-county area for deer and then remove them, especially when nature is taking care of that for them.

“That would just be totally impossible. What would we do with them?’ he said. “Deer decompose naturally and rapidly.”

Morgan isn’t buying Zaffuto’s explanation about deer being all natural and wouldn’t ruin the water. As a farmer, he is required by law to remove any of his livestock if it should dye in or near water. Under the watchful eye of the Department of Environmental Protection, he is made to clean up the carcass immediately because it will contaminate the water. Morgan wants to know what the difference is between a cow and a deer?

Morgan isn’t the only one concerned about the dying deer and how to clean up the mess. According to the PGC, it’s the landowners’ responsibility but this is angering citizens because of the double standards being exemplified in this video.

Tom Remington

EHD Or Blue Tongue Showing Up In More States

Tom Remington — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:52:34 +0000

Epizootic hemorrhagic disease or blue tongue is affecting whitetail deer herds in several states now. On the list are Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and now New Jersey. There may be more.

Fred J. Aun of the Star-Ledger, in reporting about the discovery of the disease in New Jersey, describes EHD this way.

EHD is not uncommon and it’s not dangerous to humans. It is caused by the bite of certain midges and results in high fevers and hemorrhages in the mouths, noses and eyes of deer prior to death. Fish and Wildlife said deer usually expire within 10 days of getting EHD.

Vice President of Global Operations for Skinny Moose Media and U.S. Hunting Today, John Stabley, called Dr. Colleen Oâ€™Keefe, IDOA division manager of Food Safety and Animal Protection, in Illinois to ask her specific questions about the disease, its affect on deer and other animals as well as humans. You can read the entire interview at Stabley’s blog, Stabley Outdoors.

J.R. Absher, the Newshound, has been keeping his readers abreast of the locations and severity of the disease.

In the meantime, as we hunters head into the woods to do our scouting or for the start of any of hunting seasons, keep an eye open for the possibility of EHD being present in deer. If you encounter any cases you are encouraged to contact your fish and game department with the information.

Tom Remington

EHD Found in Indiana And Pennsylvania

Tom Remington — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:01:16 +0000

Thanks to my good friend J.R. Absher, the “Newshound” at Outdoor Life for providing me the link I was looking for that confirms the presence of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease, also referred to as blue tongue, in the whitetail deer population.

Yesterday I reported that EHD had been confirmed in Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama. Today, Pennsylvania officials report 100 deer found dead in the southwestern part of the state was due also to EHD.

Here’s a bit more information about EHD from the Indiana DNR website.

The disease is transmitted by biting insects called midges. EHD is not transmitted to humans and is not normally found in domestic animals, which generally contract a related disease commonly called Blue Tongue instead.

EHD poses no danger to humans from handling, processing or eating the meat of an exposed animal. Hunters should take normal precautions handling all deer. As always, deer meat should be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacteria present.

This disease should not be confused with the unrelated brain disease in deer, Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which has never been found in Indiana.

EHD causes severe, flulike symptoms, plus a high fever in deer, apparently causing those infected to seek open water to cool. Sick deer may lose their appetite, coordination and their fear of normal dangers. The animals become dehydrated and progressively weaker as the disease progresses, with mouth and eye tissue often showing a rosy or bluish color. A sick deer will be obvious to someone familiar with what a healthy deer looks like.

EHD is a common virus found in whitetail deer and will run its usual course until the first hard freeze, when insects that carry the disease will die off. It is not always fatal to the deer.

Tom Remington

Black Bear Blog » Indiana Hunting News

Indiana Introduces Three “Firearms Freedom Act” Bills

Related Articles

Did Feds Address Court Rulings For Wolf Delisting?

Related Articles

More Confusion On Feds “Distinct Population Segment” Creations

Related Articles

Pittman-Robertson Act Provides Funds For Hunter Safety

Most Commented Posts

Alabama Hunter Encounters “Two-Headed” Deer

Most Commented Posts

EHD A Bit “Ho-Hum” In The Deep South

Most Commented Posts

EHD Outbreak Widespread And Following Drought

Most Commented Posts

Further Spreading Of EHD And Troubles With Water Contamination In Pennsylvania

Most Commented Posts

EHD Or Blue Tongue Showing Up In More States

Most Commented Posts

EHD Found in Indiana And Pennsylvania

Most Commented Posts