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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington

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

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

We are rapidly closing in on what many of us hope will be the end of “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. If you’re not familiar with Bush Derangement Syndrome, it is a disease that afflicts millions of Americans and has for nearly eight years now. The major recognizable symptom of BDS is a continuous blame for everything bad in the universe on George W. Bush.

But for those who fear an end to the circus, fear no more. Bush Derangement Syndrome is being replaced with Global Warming Addiction. There really is very little difference between the symptoms of the two afflictions, including those things people insist on blaming on one or both people/things.

Global Warming is being blamed for everything under the sun. If you don’t believe me, have a look at this list of news stories where global warming has been blamed for the outcome.

And it only gets better or worse depending on perspective. The American Thinker shares with readers that what might appear to be “naturally occurring” weather patterns are in fact to be blamed on? You guessed it. Global warming.

Tom Remington

bush derangement syndrome, climate, global warming, jet propulsion laboratory, NASA, weather

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

As I was heading out the door late yesterday afternoon, my good friend Kevin from Congressman Don Young’s office sent me the below email. Congressman Young, from Alaska, is the ranking republican member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. I couldn’t help but have a laugh…….for more reasons than one.

Dear Colleague,

Is this Speaker Pelosi’s “commonsense plan” for reducing Americans’ energy costs?

NO! to ANWR’s 30 year, 1 million barrel per day supply of American oil

NO! to 2 Trillion Barrels of American oil shale

NO! to more clean burning natural gas

NO! to Clean Coal.

NO! to more energy exploration in the 85% of OCS off-limits to energy development

NO! to more energy exploration in the Intermountain West

NO! to more Nuclear Power

NO! to more Hydropower Energy

NO! to expediting alternative energy development

NO! to any form of energy that will provide meaningful relief from record high energy prices

NO! to 90% of the energy that fuels America’s economy

NO!! IS NOT AN ENERGY PLAN

Tom Remington

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

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

The New York Times and Associated Press have more.

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

Obama continues his effort to convince voters that he believes that the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms but when he further explains in detail what that means, it becomes clear he doesn’t believe an individual or anyone for that matter, has a right to arm themselves.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun Times last week Obama was answering questions more specifically directed at the rising gun violence in Chicago. This is what he had to say about the pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington, D.C. versus Heller.

My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules.] The truth is, obviously, the ban here in Chicago, the ban in D.C. is not keeping the guns out of our cities, and so I’m interested in just figuring out what works and I’m confident we can come up with laws that work and that pass constitutional muster and don’t infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners whether it’s in Downstate Illinois or rural Montana.

Obama says what most intelligent people have known for a long time - that the gun bans don’t do anything to stop crime. All it does do is prohibit people from their God-given and constitutional right to self protection. He once again talks about “common sense” restrictions on guns. A common tactic of the left when debating “reasonable” gun control, is to cite their idea of reasonable controls over the First Amendment - always the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” scenario. What they refuse to understand is that it is a far cry from comparable reasonableness in not allowing someone to protect themselves through gun ownership and somebody yelling fire in a crowded theater. One could argue that a reasonable or common sense restriction on gun ownership might be a weapon of mass destruction.

But Obama goes on to further explain a question about why as a state legislator he voted against giving people known to have been threatened, a right to own a gun.

I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

We have to question Obama’s actual knowledge of “evidence” concerning gun ownership. He says there is no evidence that allowing people to carry concealed makes anybody safer. Common sense would tell us that that is bogus and why do politicians get to decide which parts of the U.S. Constitution they want to allow us to experience?

Mike Adams at TownHall.com in his article this morning states that there is in fact 15 studies that suggest that concealed carry reduces homicide rates. Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Next, I calmly let him know that 60% of the refereed studies indicate that CCW laws reduce homicide rates while 40% show they have no effect. And none provide evidence that they actually increase homicide rates. I owe the professor an apology because I actually misquoted the number of studies indicating CCW laws reduce homicide rates. The number is actually 15, not nine as I had claimed. Thus, he was right to predict I would present a biased argument. But it was biased in his favor.

Obama says that he wants to make sure that local communities can toss aside their state’s constitution and that of the U.S. Constitution, well, at least the Second Amendment because he doesn’t like it, and let the communities like D.C. and Chicago prevent people from being able to protect themselves. They are effectually saying that it is alright to allow lawful, innocent residents in those communities get killed as long as we can stop the crooks from killing themselves.

Do you suppose that Obama would uphold that same kind of reasoning when applied to the First Amendment or any other Amendment for that matter?

One of the first signs of insanity is to repeat an action over and over without ever trying to change anything. The actions of the far left, Obama and Clinton being a part of that, is to continually repeat the action of disarming lawful citizens while denying the fact that it does any good. This is insane.

Tom Remington

Barack Obama, chicago sun times, concealed carry, D.C. gun ban, First Amendment, gun control, gun rights, guns, Hillary Clinton, mike adams, Second Amendment, Town Hall, u.s. bill of rights, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, washington d.c. vs. heller

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

Remember I asked you the other day if we were carrying this global warming thing just a bit too far? At issue was whether or not the cover of Time Magazine was an insult to American veterans who fought and died to keep our country free. It seems that this illness of global warming hysteria has people thinking that their “war” on global warming is the equivalent of WWII.

Here’s a reminder of what that cover looks like and now you have a chance to sign a petition asking for Time to apologize and to ask the media to report issues on global warming in an unbiased fashion.

Tom Remington

american veterans, global warming, iwo jima, media research center, time magazine

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

I might be a rarity when it comes to the hunting and fishing industry, at least from the perspective of the “consumer”. Hey, I’ll cut right to the chase and come out and say that some? many? most? anglers and hunters aren’t that interested in sharing their fishing holes and highly productive hunting grounds with “outsiders”. Just pretend for the duration of this article that you actually did care and see if you can get beyond your personal feelings long enough to understand some odd reasoning. At least my form of reasoning is having trouble with this.

I would suppose that because I have a background in the tourist industry and that happens to be in Maine, it is difficult for me to get rid of that networking and marketing mindset that so much is a part of making it in the tourist business. With my background and this odd drive I have, I still find value in marketing Maine’s (or fill in your state) natural resources - in this case hunting and fishing.

I have a very good friend who lives in Maine. Her name is Wende Gray. I have a lot of respect for her expertise in the tourism/marketing industry in Maine because, 1) I think she understands it and, 2) she’s been at it for a long time. Wende wears many hats and one of those hats of late has been her involvement with the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance. The UAAA is a group of local businesses scattered throughout and along the watershed areas of the Upper Androscoggin. In this case from about the Maine and New Hampshire boarder south and westerly to the Rumford, Maine area.

The purpose of the Alliance is to promote the river as a destination fishery. Anyone who has been in and understands the tourism business knows that you are always scrambling for business and the competition can get fierce.

As Wende has done in the past, she invites prominent outdoor writers into the area and wines and dines them in hopes they will in turn publish some kind thoughts on their experiences. This all in hopes of luring others, often times “from away”, to the area obviously to spend some money and keep people employed and able to pay bills.

Wende recently contacted the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to inquire about obtaining some complimentary fishing licenses for visiting outdoor writers to the region. Here’s part of that email.

On behalf of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance I am requesting a dozen complimentary fishing licenses for travel and outdoor writers visiting our region this summer. UAAA has joined the New England Outdoor Writers Association and attended the Media Marketplace in New York City. There is great interest in our emerging destination fishery and we expect up to a dozen writers visiting this year-in particular for the Two Fly Contest and Drift Boat Competition in June. Our pr efforts in the past have generated articles in Cabella’s Sporting Journal, Gray’s Sporting Journal, New England Fish & Game, Outdoor Life, the Boston Globe, and New York Sun to name a few. It is our understanding that due to budget cuts at IF&W, complimentary licenses are no longer available. With the emphasis on Maine’s fishing product in promoting Maine tourism this summer, we are in hopes that the Office of Tourism would be able to assist us with our request.

Regis Tremblay, the new Director of IF&W’s Public Information and Education Division, responded to Wende’s request saying that she could forward her request on to the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Dan” Martin and then he took some time to explain to Wende about the new policy concerning complimentary licenses in addition to having to be approved by the Commissioner.

…..we’d like to have some certainty that the writers are aware of a lose quid pro quo…i.e. IF&W and our mission as stewards of Maine’s Wildlife and Fisheries does not go unmentioned. We would also expect to receive copies of the magazines in which mention of us might appear. Also, just for your information, these licenses are not free, but are paid for out of my budget. We are happy to do this, but are hopeful of some return on our investment.

I have no idea what Commissioner Martin’s expectations are regarding who he will consider worthy of a Maine complimentary fishing license. The other expectations laid out by Trembley I really have no issue with and actually think it is a great idea to have some kind of guarantee that this small investment sees some kind of return other than willy-nilly handing out free licenses to anybody.

*Note* - For clarification purposes and to be as transparent as possible, I have no stake in this as a writer. There’s no sour grapes because I want a free license to go fishing in Maine and can’t get one. I do fish in Maine when I am there in the summer but I gladly hop on over to the local agent and purchase a non-resident fishing license.

Getting back to the guidelines about comp licenses, I was struck by the comment made by Tremblay that the cost of these licenses comes out of his budget. So, I emailed him for an explanation. I wanted to know what the actual cost of administering a comp license was and how many, on average, did MDIFW issue in a given season.

Tremblay was kind enough to take the time to answer my email but I can’t say I actually got the answer I was looking for, only raising more questions. He told me the retail price of a resident and a non-resident fishing license in Maine.

* Resident fishing licenses costs $21.00
* Non-Resident fishing licenses costs $52

Does this mean that if MDIFW issues a complimentary license to a writer who lives in Maine, Tremblay gets hit for $21.00 and $52 if the writer lives out of state? How does the cost of issuing a comp license to a writer change depending on where the writer lives? Before you jump all over me, I understand about having resident and non-resident licenses but if the idea for a complimentary license is for the purpose of advertising and promotion, does it matter?

What I was hoping to find out was what the actual real costs were in issuing a complimentary license - $1.00, $2.00, $3.00 or $21.00?

And why is Tremblay getting nailed out of his budget the full retail price of each license? And the money gets extracted from his budget and then goes where? Inquiring minds want to know. Is this Martin’s way of reeling in (sorry) the public relations people at MDIFW because he thinks they are issuing licenses irresponsibly? If so, why can’t he just simply approve or not any complimentary licenses issued?

Tremblay also told me that MDIFW typically issues “a few dozen” licenses annually. For clarification purposes, I don’t know if that “few dozen” is all complimentary licenses or just those issued for outdoor writers and those only to fishermen outdoor writers.

So what is a few dozen? And how much does this really cost the state of Maine?

Not to get mired in the questionable administrative methods of MDIFW but one has to at least question the expense and return. Remember, I asked you to pretend you don’t mind if people “from away” come to Maine (insert your state) to fish. If Tremblay says a few dozen licenses are issued, let’s see if we can guess what a few is.

I asked Wende Gray again if she had any idea about how many in the past MDIFW has given out. Her interpretation of a few dozen most closely resembled between one and two dozen.

As a country boy growing up in rural Maine, I seem to recall my grandfather telling me that a few meant twelve. Let’s say Wende says two dozen and Grandpa’s definition is twelve dozen and split the difference to seven dozen or 84 licenses. You do the math. Is it not worth it? Should the Maine Office of Tourism pick up the tab for the 84 complimentary licenses? Is this all tit for tat while losing focus on the big picture? I don’t get it.

Either there is legitimate value in the process of utilizing outdoor writers for advertising and marketing, or there isn’t. I concur that somebody should “approve” complimentary licenses and if MDIFW can’t afford to issue those licenses because of budget shortfalls and somebody needs to pay, should they be paying full retail price for each license?

Recently MDIFW teamed up with the Maine Office of Tourism to promote fishing on the MOT website. Who paid for that? Did MOT charge MDIFW the full retail value of creating web pages for that purpose? Regardless, MDIFW must be showing an interest in luring in out of state anglers by undertaking this action. Another indication is they still are willing to sell non-resident licenses, so there must be some value in their eyes, to bringing in outsiders to fish the waters of Maine.

It all seems quite silly if you ask me. The reality is that it cost the state of Maine virtually nothing to issue a complimentary license. Is this a viable advertising and marketing scheme for Maine or isn’t it? If it is, let’s get on with it. If not, it’s time to end the charade.

Tom Remington

Androscoggin River, bethel, fly fishing, Maine, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, maine office of tourism, mainenewsbrief, outdoor writers, Upper Andro Anglers Alliance, wende gray

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