That is how a retired New Jersey school teacher, Carol Rivielle, described a deer cull in South Mountain Reservation in Essex County, New Jersey. She is also a member of Save Our Wildlife. According to Joseph N. DiVincenzo Jr., the Essex County executive, there are too many deer destroying the ecosystem and causing property damage.

After years of protest, the cull has been going on for five days and 155 deer have been eliminated with a goal of around 200. It is unfortunate that things have gotten to the point where this tactic has to be employed to save the deer and the ecosystem but as long as there are anti-hunters and animal lover groups who insist that it is more humane to let animals starve to death and die of disease while ridding a region of several other species of wildlife, we end up with communities having to hire sharpshooters to systematically kill the deer.

But what has always angered me are the tactics by those who oppose hunting or in this specific case, a culling operation. I guess it shows their real colors of intolerance and hatred when they resort to violence and death threats in order to sway public opinion and get their way.

The retired school teacher describes the cull as “a barbaric slaughter of our animals”. I wonder how she would describe these acts in an article published in the New York Times about the cull?

The hunts are so controversial, Mr. DeVito said, that he has received nasty phone calls, his vehicle door locks have been glued and his car spray-painted with the words “Bambi Killer.” Mr. DiVincenzo, too, said he has been bombarded with nasty phone calls, letters and e-mail messages. “I have gotten death threats,” he said.

Emile DeVito is manager of science and stewardship at the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Is this not a barbaric act? Give me a break. Where’s the outrage? Human beings are threatened and their personal property damaged or destroyed and the only outrage seems to come from the media presenting the event as “The bloody aftermath of the shooting was grisly enough” and other descriptive terms, once again showing that these sick and perverted people are more concerned about the welfare of the deer than the safety of county officials having to deal with a situation these same people created.

What is wrong becomes right and what is right becomes wrong! The beginning of the end.

Tom Remington

carol rivielle, deer culling, ecosystems, emile divito, essex country, joseph n. divincenzo, jr., New Jersey, new jersey conservation foundation, New York Times, save our wildlife, sharpshooting, south mountain reservation, wildlife management

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

Whether Lisa Jackson, New Jersey’s head of the Department of Environmental Protection, wants to admit it or not, New Jersey may be on the verge of a serious black bear problem. If you will recall, shortly after Jon Corzine, anti-hunter extraordinaire, was elected to the governorship of New Jersey, he appointed his puppet Lisa Jackson to take over the DEP and as a result she promptly canceled a court-approved black bear management plan and effectively told the Division of Fish and Wildlife they were no longer needed to manage wildlife and took over making all the decisions.

By tossing the bear plan in the garbage can, along with it went plans for a bear hunt in 2006. The last time New Jersey had a hunt for bear was in 2005. Jackson and Corzine say wildlife needs to be managed non-lethally by implementing things like bear proof garbage cans, use of contraceptives, wildlife harassment and public education. The Division of Fish and Wildlife says hunting is the only way to control wildlife populations and in this case bears.

Since the cancellation of the bear hunt in New Jersey, officials (I hope it’s not just the DEP)(Hat tip to the NewsHound) are keeping a close watch on the number of reported bear and human encounters. According to an article in Newsday by Associated Press writer, Rebecca Santana, reported incidents are up BUT and according to Lisa Jackson, the BUT is a very big one, appearing more to disregard all other information and focusing on the statistic that says the worst kind of bear encounters are down.

What are the worst kind of bear encounters? That’s a good question and one this article doesn’t adequately describe.

Bears in the most serious category are considered to have lost their fear of humans and can be euthanized, Jackson said, including bears who attack bee hives and rabbits.

With Jackson and other non-lethal advocates focusing on this one statistic, one in which we really don’t know how it was calculated, they say this is proof their management methods are working.

I’d like to take a moment and look, well let’s call it “differently”, at the bear numbers.

First of all, I once was a math major and now I’m getting older and my math is quite rusty. Thanks to the opportunity to pick up my 8-year old granddaughter each day, I get to take her home and help her with her homework, sometimes involving that “new math”. There is one place in the article that begins using percentage to describe differences in bear encounter numbers from one year to the next whereas before, she was using numbers.

We all, except for those occasional math nerds, hate percentages and fractions but still, I struggled with this calculation.

The most serious bear-related problems dropped 13.8 percent from 2006 numbers. There were 32 reported incidents of bears breaking into homes in 2007 compared to 40 the previous year.

I’ll admit it if I’m so rusty in my math that I’m wrong here, but if there were 40 “serious” bear incidents in 2006 and only 32 in 2007, isn’t that a drop of 8 reported incidents? 8 now should become a fraction of the original number, which is 40 because that’s what we are comparing this too. So, a reduction of 8 events from the high of 40 then becomes a 20% reduction not 13.8 as is written. Am I wrong?

Not to be led off track here. I’m not picking on the writer because I don’t know if she was handed these numbers or took it upon herself to do her own calculations, but there are two big reasons I want to bring this to your attention. The first is to give readers a chance to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Unless I am purposely trying to lead readers astray (not that I would do such a thing), I think it only right when comparing changes in events to make the comparisons using the same criteria. In other words, if I am showing strictly numbers, as is the case in this article, then I’ll stick with making comparisons all the way through my article with numbers. (Sometimes percentages or a change from one to the other might be used to inflate or reduce impacts.)

For whatever the reasons, Santana opts to change in mid-stream and use a percentage comparison and one that appears in my old math calculations to be incorrect.

So, because the writer opted to use the percentage comparison for the more “serious” bear encounters, I’ll go back and convert the other incidents to percentages for you.

As I showed, “serious” incidents, according to Jackson’s figures, dropped 20% from 2006 to 2007. Total bear bear-related incidents rose by 8.148% from 2006 to 2007. Bear sightings increased by 7.826% from 2006 to 2007 and I’ve saved the best for last, “nuisance” bear incidents rose quite significantly by 14.931% from 2006 to 2007.

I also think using percentages gives readers a clearer picture as to what is going on with increases and decreases. In other words, I’ve done the math for you.

In fairness, my old math should help play into the hands of the bear protectors because instead of an increase of 13.8% as reported, it’s actually 20% which is a huge increase, well, 8 fewer than a year ago. And is that decrease the result of bear education, etc.? I’m guessing at least some of it is but I’m a bit skeptical that it dropped by 20% when that number stands out quite a bit from others, particularly “nuisance” bears. I wonder if criteria to determine what a “serious” bear encounter was changed mid-stream. I would like to look at that data.

But let’s forget that for now and focus on something that, if I were the one responsible for public safety and wildlife management, would be taking a close look at.

The article states that nuisance reports rose almost 15% in one year. What do they describe as a nuisance bear?

when a bear repeatedly comes back to the same area

This event is one that needs to be watched closely as those bears that are getting quite comfortable with people will not suddenly opt to stay away. When spring arrives in New Jersey, and the bears come out of hibernation, all hell is about to break loose and I predict bear and human encounters will sky rocket. Officials and residents of New Jersey need to be prepared.

Tom Remington

Associated Press, bear management, bear/human encouters, Gov. Jon Corzine, Lisa Jackson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, new jersey division of fish and wildlife, newsday, rebecca santana

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

Several concerned readers have been emailing me and leaving comments asking for information about who to contact about AB1202, a bill I wrote about yesterday that if it passes, would remove virtually all control of fish and game from the Division of Fish and Game and place it in the hands of environmentalists and animal rights organizations.

Below is a list of key people and contact information. Don’t be shy about it and don’t worry that you may not be a resident of New Jersey. If enough people hear from enough of us, it could help change their mind.

Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone (sponsor of the bill). Follow this link and you will find contact information.

Governor Jon Corzine

Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protect, Lisa P. Jackson - Address and phone numbers and to email a message.

Division of Fish and Wildlife

Assemblyman Douglas H. Fisher - Chair of Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (that’s where the bill sits currently)

Assemblyman Nelson T. Albano - Vice Chairman Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee

Assemblyman John F. Amodeo - Member Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee

Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. - Member Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Assemblywoman Marcia A. Darrow - Member Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

You can also go through the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Legislative Action website to contact those in New Jersey. You can contact your legislator about this issue or others. If you don’t know your legislator, this site will help you find them.

Tom Remington

ab1202, anthony chiappone, assemblyman douglas h. fisher, assemblyman john f. amodeo, assemblyman nelson t. albano, assemblywoman macia a. darrow, Gov. Jon Corzine, lisa P. jackson, new jersey agriculture and natural resources committee, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, new jersey division of fish and wildlife, New Jersey Fish and Game Council, U.S. Sportsmens Alliance

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

A new bill sponsored by Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone (AB1202) is remarkable piece of proposed legislation. It tips the scales far beyond anything that I can recall ever presented before a state to consider. This bill, if passed, would give sole authority of fish and game issues to the head of the Department of Environmental Protection. It would move the fish and game council out of the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife and put under the complete control of the DEP Commissioner.

The same bill would provide that the Commissioner then can pick and choose, shut down or open any and all hunting and fishing seasons, set bag limits, etc. without anyone else’s approval.

But get this. The 13-member fish and game council which is a part of the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, as proposed by this bill, would now run by the DEP Commissioner and would be comprised of members with the following make up:

One person will be the Commission of DEP.

A second member will be the chairman of the council “of the committee established pursuant to section 7 of “The Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act,” P.L.1973, c.309 (C.23:2A-7)”

Two members will be farmers, recommended to the governor via the agriculture industry.

Two members will be sportsmen as recommended by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

Two members will be “individuals with experience in environmental protection, recommended to the Governor for appointment to the council by the New Jersey Environmental Federation.”

And five members will be “individuals with experience in environmental protection or other fields relevant to animal welfare and with a background in the preservation of wildlife, recommended to the Governor for appointment to the council by the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, The Bear Education and Resource Group, and the Humane Society of the United States, and chosen with due consideration to achieve balanced geographic representation of all regions of the State.”

So there you have it. Sportsmen, who for decades have funded and ran the fish and game, would be under this bill, relegated to a 2-person representation of a 13-member panel basically dominated by animal rights and animal protection groups and environmentalists dead set against hunting, fishing and trapping.

The bill also seems to focus on giving the Commissioner the authority to stop any and all seasons on any game and substitute it with other “nonlethal” means of wildlife management, at the commissioner’s discretion.

The make-up proposed in this bill is completely absurd and I believe is a reflection of the societal problems that face the state of New Jersey. It is expedient that everyone notify their representatives and tell them that the Humane Society of the United States, et. al. cannot be the managers of New Jersey’s wildlife.

There is simply no way that this bill should ever make it out of committee.

Tom Remington

ab1202, anthony chiappone, bear education and resource group, Humane Society of the United States, new jersey animal rights alliance, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, new jersey division of fish game and wildlife, new jersey environmental federation, New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmens Clubs

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

Below is the press release issued by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department concerning its latest audit of efficiency. I have highlighted one area of which I will comment on below.

CONCORD, NH — At its monthly meeting today, the Fiscal Committee accepted the Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant Audit Division’s Performance Audit Report of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.

According to the report, the purpose and scope of the audit was to “assess the efficiency and effectiveness” of the N.H. Fish and Game Department. The report concludes that New Hampshire state government has assigned responsibilities to the Fish and Game Department in an efficient and effective manner. The report contains 30 observations that address a wide variety of issues, including governance matters associated with the Fish and Game Commission, strategic and operational planning, revenue generation, organizational structure within the Department, and fleet management and controls. Due to the financial situation of the Department, the audit focused on the program areas most dependent on unrestricted revenues.

“The Department concurred or concurred in part with 90% of the audit observations,” said Acting Executive Director Donald S. Clarke. “The overall audit process provided us with an opportunity for self-examination in responding to the observations and, looking ahead, it will give us an opportunity to make changes that will improve our ability to achieve our mission.”

Clarke noted that N.H. Fish and Game will prepare an action plan to address the recommendations. To the extent resources are available, priorities will include:

* Revising Fish and Game’s strategic plan, documenting Department priorities and developing operational plans for the Divisions;
* Conducting a vehicle utilization review with an eye toward efficiency;
* Working closely with the state Office of Information Technology to improve data management through various database improvements; and
* Developing a cost-accounting system for use by all Divisions.

The report suggests that the Legislature may wish to look at a number of issues, including:

*New revenue streams to fund the Department’s work into the coming years;
* A change to the name of the Department to better reflect the broadening responsibilities and constituency now served;
* Making the Fish and Game Commission advisory; and
* Broadening representation on the Commission.

“The Department will work closely and cooperatively with the N.H. Legislature to review the relevant laws and implement the recommendations made by the Audit Report,” Clarke said.

When posted by the LBA, the full report containing the specific observations and responses will be available online at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/LBAAuditReports.html.

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department works to conserve, manage and protect the state’s fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as providing the public with opportunities to understand, use and appreciate these resources. Visit http://www.WildNH.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Hampshire, like many other states, has struggled of late to find ways to fund the increasing demands put on it by the state legislature above and beyond the normal duties of a fish and game department. New Hampshire, like many other states, are heading in the wrong direction, in my opinion, if they follow this part of the recommendations suggested by the audit recently completed. (highlighted above)

The recommendations are that New Hampshire consider renaming the Fish and Game Department to better reflect the constituency it represents and herein lies at least one of the problems facing budget problems. I think it would be wrong for New Hampshire to continue down this path of turning their fish and game department into a “natural resources” agency or whatever politically correct name it wants to come up with, as non game related representatives seek to take over the department.

Fish and game department’s purpose should be for what they were originally intended - manage for fish and game to provide opportunities for residents to hunt, trap and fish. The vast difference, as I see it, with managing fish and game as opposed to providing search and rescue, policing the waterways and ATV/snowmobile trails, etc., deals with politics. Managing wildlife is not a political or law enforcement activity, or shouldn’t be anyway. Politics and science are like oil and water. They just don’t mix. Fish and game needs to be as far removed from the usual politics in order for it to function as it was designed.

The other suggestion being made is to change its representation on the Commission to also accommodate non-game services, etc. Once again, these two “opposites” do not attract. Other states have tried this method and failed miserably. Swallowing up fish and game under environmental departments and/or natural resources departments then become governed by heads of department with political agendas and attitudes toward anti-hunting.

Maine’s governor John Baldacci just the other night announced in his State of the State Address, that he will seek to swallow up some of the existing departments into larger departments in order to save money. This is the same thing New Hampshire has been told it should consider.

It is my opinion that states should move in the complete opposite direction. Fish and game departments should be whittled back down to functions that concern only the scientific management of game for the purpose of providing hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities for its citizens. All other activities, many of which are now administered by fish and game, should be moved to other departments like conservation or agriculture. These departments can then come up with creative ways to fund their interests other than placing the demand and responsibility on the shoulders of the license buyers as they have in the past.

Enlarging commissions with this move to better represent the departments function, will further erode the fish and game part of the department. It’s been proven time and time again that when those commissioners, with little or no interest in the activities of fish and game, make decisions, they will work to undermine and take money away from game management. Politics rule the day and fish and game suffers.

We are struggling to find answers and cures to a dwindling hunting and fishing fraternity. Taking away or reducing the effectiveness of the outdoor sportsmen to be able to lobby their fish and game, is another wedge that discourages and drives participants away.

New Jersey, a state whose fish and game is a part of the Department of Environmental Protection, is suffering a great deal due to politics and a governor who is anti-hunting. Appointing a puppet head of the DEP has essentially stripped those within the fish and game department of any say or authority - just as they intend to do. Now, Gov. Corzine and DEP head Liza Jackson, along with other animal rights activists and anti-hunting groups, are lobbying to change representation on the commission to reflect that of New Jersey’s citizenship. This means essentially that if 5% of the population are hunters, they get 5% representation on the commission. This spells trouble. Big Time!!

Some have called this tactic of pushing fish and game departments into “Natural Resources” or “Environment”, incrementalism - a systematic step by step approach at ridding the state of hunting, fishing and trapping and it probably is.

Outdoor sportsmen have battled for years to be able to effectively challenge our fish and game departments to do the jobs they were commissioned to do. Adding another political barrier for us will further erode our power to protect what we all enjoy so much.

Some have argued that the politics already exist and because we are in such dire straights over money, we should change and then allow tax dollars from general taxation to better fund the departments. I argue it will further increase political pressure and in the long run will actually take money away from fish and game projects, with little change and less representation weakening our resolve.

If we can keep our fish and game departments smaller, functioning only for the purpose originally intended and funded totally with fees from licenses, we can maintain our control and have a better, healthier working relationship between outdoor sportsmen and members of fish and game.

Tom Remington

donald s. clarke, fish and game budget problems, Gov. Jon Corzine, Governor John Baldacci, hunting politics, Liza Jackson, maine governor, New Hampshire Fish and Game, new hampshire fish and game audit, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

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

On today’s Open Air with Tom Remington broadcast on Skinny Moose Radio I talk in detail about what I believed to be the top ten stories that most affected our hunting, fishing and outdoor lives. These stories may not have been the most written or talked about but they deal with issues that I think has or has the potential to have the most effect on our lives. I thought I would list out the top ten with a brief comment.

10. Pennsylvania Deer Management Problems - There are nearly one million licensed hunters in Pennsylvania and that is reason enough to list this issue as one that has broad consequences. If you will recall, Pennsylvania decided a few years ago to change the whitetail deer management program in order to reduce the deer herd to save the ecosystem and restore the forests. Not all hunters have liked the idea - enough so that one organization sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The debate rages on and the success or failure of this deer management plan could have sweeping affects on many other states that are watching.

9. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease - EHD or blue tongue is a virus carried by small biting insects that can kill deer, sometimes in large numbers. This year’s outbreak was larger than normal and hit states in northern climes not accustomed to the disease. Thousands of deer nationwide were wiped out covering more than a dozen states. Drought and dry conditions were blamed for the increase. In some locales, dead and decaying deer carcasses were feared to be contaminating water supplies.

8. Increased Bear Attacks in the West and Bear Spray - A prolonged and severe drought and hot temperatures resulted in a substantial reduction in natural food supplies for black and brown bears. The result was more human/bear conflicts. Of course this had to become a political issue when groups tried to blame elk ranchers for causing the increased bear encounters because of improperly caring for their animals. In one instance, the USFWS was considering a suit against a photographer who regularly feeds wildlife in order to get pictures.

To go along with this increased activity, officials in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming began telling people that using bear spray was a more effective way of dealing with attacking bears than a gun. This set off a controversy particularly among hunters who vowed they would not put down their gun and pick up a can of spray should they be attacked by a bear.

Vic Workman, a member of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, made enemies within his ranks when he went public after being attacked by a grizzly saying that if he had tried to put his gun down and take out his spray, he more than likely would be dead.

7. Wolf Delisting - The announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it plans to remove federal protection of the gray wolf via the Endangered Species Act, will have broad consequences on millions of people. Most people believe that when the feds make the official announcement, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups will file lawsuits tying the process up for years. It has been reported that as many as 27 groups are already prepared to bring suit against the USFWS.

However the outcome falls, this entire process will end up costing taxpayers millions, maybe billions of dollars, in fighting lawsuits and implementing management plans that will continue to include some kind of private property compensation to ranchers and livestock owners. This process will continue to test the structure and viability of the Endangered Species Act as it becomes clearer that the Act needs help. It is being abused and manipulated in order to achieve personal agendas.

6. Sunday Hunting - A topic that just will never go away, has worked to divide the people. It has been shown in debates recently over Sunday Hunting in North Carolina that it is a divisive issue for various reasons. From religious convictions to the demands for equality under the law, hunters and non-hunters aggressively continue this debate and it isn’t going to end.

Pennsylvania is once again attempting to get a bill passed in the Legislature that would give the Game Commission the authority to permit Sunday hunting. Once again that debate is dividing the people of the Keystone state.

It’s an interesting debate that affects a lot of people but in a strange way. There are only 11 states that don’t allow Sunday hunting. In the other states that do allow it, there is no debate to end it nor are there any significant outcries about Sunday hunting. As a matter of fact, Sunday hunting goes about its business quite nicely with very little fanfare, yet in these states that don’t allow it, the outcry is very loud on both sides.

This is sure to continue to be an issue that affects many people.

5. New Jersey Bear Hunt - Probably until New Jersey ever sees fit to elect an new governor who is not dead set against hunting, there will not be any bear hunting the the Garden State. Corzine and his puppets have successfully managed to convince enough people not directly effected by the overgrown black bear population to support his anti-hunting agenda.

Shortly after Corzine took office, his newly appointed head of the Department of Environmental Protection, Liza Jackson, took the court-approved Black Bear Management Plan and tossed it in the garbage. Corzine having the backing of the courts managed to get rulings in his favor and instead of a hunt that would generate revenue for New Jersey, they opted for millions more in tax dollars in order to continue wasting it on non-lethal bear management practices that don’t work.

The antis have a very strong foothold in the state of New Jersey. I’m sure they will continue their “end all hunting” campaign there and try to put an end to other species of hunting.

4. Supreme Court To Hear District of Columbia vs. Heller - In a move that is sure to have perhaps the most affect on the citizenry of this country in decades, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear the appealed case of District of Columbia versus Heller, more commonly known as the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.

Earlier last year a District Court ruled that Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns was unconstitutional, setting the stage for a debate within the land’s highest court. How the court will rule remains only speculative but it is believed they will take up the case in the spring or early summer.

This ruling will, one way or another, effect every person living or visiting within the boundaries of this nation. The ruling should come right smack dab in the middle of the presidential race for the White House and could actually determine who becomes the next president.

Yes, this is big - bigger than most people are thinking.

3. Scent Lok Clothing Lawsuit - A class action lawsuit was filed this year against the makers of Scent-Lok clothing charging that the company knew the product didn’t work and continued its advertising campaign claiming it as being 100% effective. The suit also claims that Scent-Lok conspired with major companies that sell the products to cover up their knowledge about the failures of the product in order to deceive consumers.

This lawsuit will be tied up in the courts for sometime and could lay the ground work for how other companies will be allowed to advertise their products.

2. Jim Zumbo - The Jim Zumbo fiasco showed us several things, two of which I would like to touch on. The first is that it showed all of us the speed and power of the Internet. A tool that Jim used to communicate to his readers was also the razor-sharp weapon that pierced his femoral artery causing near instant death of a career.

Zumbo posted a blog condemning the use of “military-style” weapons for hunting and within hours he was crucified. Outdoor Life refused to stand behind him as was followed by his sponsors and other companies. The actions by those using the Internet to condemn Zumbo’s words were quick and powerful.

The second issue that surfaced from this debate was one that addressed freedom of speech. Many were outraged because Zumbo spoke his mind and was fired because of it failing to comprehend that his responsibility was to those who signed his check.

The bottom line here was that within a flash, millions of Americans were wrapped up in a debate over Second and First Amendment issues.

1. Rex Rammell and the Chief Joseph Elk Ranch - Clearly for me, this was the most written about issue for 2007 and one that I feel mushroomed into a cloud much bigger than a few escaped elk. What began as elk getting out of the confines of an elk ranch in southeastern Idaho has not found an ending yet.

What many of us thought was a simple event of a rancher needing to go find his livestock turned out to be a political and social quagmire. Politics got ugly when then Gov. Jim Risch ordered his people to go to the areas around the Chief Joseph Ranch and shoot to kill any elk that belonged to owner, veterinarian Rex Rammell of Rexburg, Idaho. Standing on the unfounded fears of inferior genes and disease, Risch justified his actions. A lawsuit brought by Rammell over the loss of his elk is still pending.

This set off a firestorm of events with politicians and members of some animal rights and hunting groups mounting campaigns against the Idaho domestic elk industry trying to strong arm them out of business. What began some time ago to shut down the elk industry almost overnight now had just the tool they were looking for to scare the public into believing that raising elk on ranches is a public health issue.

This debate is not over as it is expected that many of the same players will launch a citizen’s initiative to put an end to elk ranching once and for all. How far these groups and individuals are prepared to go remains to be seen. In an event last spring, an anonymous source witnessed leaders of well-known Idaho conservation groups discussing the prospects of creating a public health scare in order to promote their private agendas.

Ranch hunting has raised the level of debate several levels and has moved from Montana through Idaho and on to Oregon and North Dakota. Groups in Oregon are waging a campaign to shut down the cervidae industry and another group in North Dakota is seeking signatures as I write in order to place an initiative on the November ballot to stop elk and deer farming.

A simple elk escape has spread to states where some are seeking to legislate ethics and others are contemplating overstepping their own bounds of ethical behavior to create public health scares to promote agendas. This debate is far from over and will prove to be more of a dividing block for the hunting community than anything constructive.

Tom Remington

assault weapons, bear attacks, bear spray, blue tongue, canned hunting, district of columbia versus heller, EHD, endangered species act, Epizootic hemorrhagic disease, First Amendment, gov. jim risch, Gov. Jon Corzine, gun rights, high fence hunting, hunting ethics, Idaho elk ranching, Jim Zumbo, Liza Jackson, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, New Jersey bear hunting, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Open Air With Tom Remington, Outdoor Life, Pennsylvania Game Commission, pennsyvania deer management problems, Remington Arms, Rex Rammell, scent lok, Second Amendment, Skinny Moose Radio, Sunday hunting, top ten news stories, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, united states stupreme court, vic workman, wolf delisting

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

New Jersey’s current administration is being described by some as “revenue-hungry”, looking for ways to pad the coffers to keep their social programs going. On the other hand, it appears that maybe they are more interested in personal agendas than taking advantage of an opportunity to put more dollars in the bank.

Bob Magnan is a retired U.S. Navy commander. He holds an MBA and works for an insurance company. But what many of us would consider most important, he is a hunter. Magnan also has suggestions as to how New Jersey’s governor Corzine can do some real good for the residents of the Garden State.

“I understand that the Governor is in favor of monetizing a substantial portion of the state’s long-term assets in an effort to alleviate public debt,” wrote Magnan. “Allow me to suggest that given the current policies of the Corzine administration, we may be missing an excellent opportunity to monetize a public asset that is self-renewing.”

Magnan’s suggestion isn’t one that would be typical when sitting around the table discussing money issues like budgets and finding creative ways to increase revenues. He wants the governor to consider an approach to bear hunting from a business perspective instead of one laced with emotion and driven by politics.

When Magnan crunches a few numbers, something I would guess he might be pretty good at, he figures the state spends upwards of one million dollars each year dealing with bear issues, issues that never get resolved and are a growing problem to many New Jersey residents. He has a method that would eliminate those expenditures and add around a million dollars in revenue to the state. It’s simple really. Allow hunters to spend their money and hunt bears.

“I’m aware of monetization,” said Magnan in an interview. “If you are looking at institutional investments, you realize the monetization of infrastructure is becoming a whole class of investments. We need something to sell. … The fact of the matter is, the DEP is spending money on ineffective means of controlling something for a political objective when instead, if they would treat it like everything else — and let the hunters hunt — they’d have a source of revenue off of a renewable resource.”

This may be too sensible for New Jersey. Their agenda is clearly anti-hunting while finding more ways to tax its people to promote their socialistic programs of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It sounds to me like Bob Magnan is too much of a capitalists to be living in New Jersey.

Tom Remington

bear hunting, bob magnan, Gov. Jon Corzine, monetizing bear hunting

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

It makes you wonder sometimes how certain lawyers can sleep at night. Do you remember the animal rights activist/terrorist from New Jersey who tried in 2005 to interfere with bear hunters in New Jersey? And then again this summer, he poured a one-gallon jug of human urine on and around a trap set up to catch a nuisance bear by the fish and wildlife people?

His name is Albert “Ali” Kazemian. During the 2005 bear hunt, he told an undercover game authority,

that he would go get his Arab friends and they would come and kill him.

One report says that Kazemian was actually put on a terrorist watch list.

Kazemian was ordered to spend 30 days in jail for his actions this summer trying to stop authorities from dealing with a nuisance bear. The guy is an obvious nut job who has yet to learn any lessons from his actions and the consequences for such actions. He will continue his unlawful ways and practice terrorism and maybe someday a judge will actually recognize the idiot for what he is and what he does.

But a very laughable moment came when Kazemian’s lawyer had this to say about his client.

Kazemian’s attorney, Gina Calogero, argued for a penalty of community service, saying, “Mr. Kazemian is a very gentle, loving person. He does not need to be taught a lesson.”

Are you kidding me? Here’s a moron who has been charged with terrorizing and before the ink has dried on that charge, he’s charged again for similar actions. And his lawyer says he doesn’t need to be taught a lesson? Give me a break!

He’s also described by his legal representative as “very gentle”. Gentle? Gentle, as in he pours his urine softly upon the ground? Or gentle meaning, when he gets his Arab friends he’ll kill you with love in his heart? He’s a terrorist! Excuse me while I go vomit some place!

Tom Remington

albert ali kazemian, animal rights, bear hunting, domestic terrorism, New Jersey bear problems, terrorism

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

Depending upon where you live in these here United States will depend upon what time of the year the whitetail deer mating season, also called the rut, begins. Generally speaking it is in the fall to early winter months. During this time of year two major events for deer are taking place. One is the natural process of extensive foraging for food in preparation for the coming winter and two is the rut. With a combination of these two events deer are on the move more than at any other time of the year. This explains why auto/deer accidents are at their highest during this same time period.

I get frustrated (understatement) when people say and in particular, newspapers report that deer crashes with cars jumps up in the fall because hunters are chasing deer. I’m not a total idiot and I understand that there is a chance that under some circumstances of hunters in pursuit of deer, could cause a deer to run out into traffic to escape danger. This is rare. Besides, when looking at the same information about auto accidents, we find that the vast majority of these fall-time collisions happen at night.

So why then do newspaper writers make these statements?

Thousands of hunters took to the woods Monday for the start of deer season, and crashes involving the animals increased as a result.

This writer makes it sound as if these “thousands” of hunters purposefully forced the deer out into the highways causing widespread damage to cars and people. Oh, maybe that was their intent?

But it’s bad enough when some newspaper reporter is uninformed or misinformed but when law enforcement makes statements that paint equally bad images in the minds of the non-hunting public, it’s even worse.

“From October through January, deer are on the move, particularly at dawn and dusk,” Lt. David Cardana said. “But with hunters in the woods driving deer you can encounter one or more of the animals at any time during the day or night.”

While it is prudent to instruct drivers to always be on the lookout for wildlife in the roadways, it is irresponsible to make a statement that indicates to readers that hunters are driving deer into the roadways at night. Give me a break!

The article where I got this information makes no attempt in anyway to educate the readers to the facts about why deer are out more this time of year than at any time. It’s all about blaming the hunter. Unless there are special regulations in New Jersey that I am unaware of, hunting at night is prohibited.

Tom Remington

colliding with deer, deer car accidents, deer hunting, deer mating, deer rut, new jersey deer problems

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

Statistics show 1 percent of the state’s residents have a license to hunt. The composition of the state Fish and Game Council should reflect this. This is a fact of the democratic process and not “slick maneuvering in order to satisfy a political agenda.”

This piece of work came from an opinion rebuttal in the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey. This also reflects the ignorance of those who choose to pretend they understand wildlife management.

I’m not sure where the writer came up with the 1% figure but it is really irrelevant to the statement made. First let’s clarify something. Even if it were true that only 1% of New Jersey’s population has a license to hunt, there is a reason for that. Those in government in New Jersey are so anti-hunting, they have for all intent and purposes stripped the residents of any opportunity to hunt.

A more accurate fact that the writer doesn’t want readers to know is that nationwide there are approximately 12-15 million licensed hunters, depending upon whose data you choose to use. That reflects an approximate 5-10 percent of the total population - not eligible hunters (meaning of age). People, like those who write such nonsense, don’t want to tell you that around 90% of the population support hunting and understand it as viable means of managing our wildlife.

Now, the totally biased and those ignorant of facts, want to blame hunters and fish and game biologists for creating overgrown wildlife populations in New Jersey. I’ve not heard anything so ridiculously absurd in all my life. Excuse me a moment while I lie down on the floor and beat my head on the tile in hopes that I am heard and get my way.

Bill Anderson at Muskoga Outdoors reminds the opinion writer that there are consequences that need to be paid for actions by anti-hunters.

My question to the writer is (as in my post title), How do you manage wildlife without hunting and fishing? Allowing wildlife to max out the carrying capacity of their particular environment has consequences that should be known to anyone who knows (and understands) basic ecological principles. The writer must have missed those classes.

Wildlife managers also know these principles. That is why in areas where hunting or fishing is not allowed they also initiate the following expensive (meaning cost to the state or province) measures:

* culling - Called in government ‘Trained’ snipers (usually expensively payed hunters)
* poisoning - as the name indicates poison is left in strategic are