Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns - the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

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

A child who cannot be expected to have the reasoning capabilities of full-grown adults, will cover their eyes with their hands and believe that because they can’t see, they can’t be seen. When adults do the equivalent, the results can be disastrous.

Are we to believe that diseases that affect elk and the rest of our ungulate species can only be spread in one direction? It seems that forever, the discussions about the prospect of diseases such as chronic wasting disease and brucellosis being spread are always from the domestic populations out to the wild ones. And why is that? Simple really. Someone told people that that is how it happens. We accept that theory and move on without any further discussions it seems.

This is eerily similar to the debate on global warming. Those who insist on keeping their hands over their eyes say that global warming is settled science. They don’t want to talk about it anymore because they are afraid of hearing something they don’t like.

For those who may not know, chronic wasting disease is far from settled science. As a matter of fact there is only one theory, never proven by science, that has been attached to any discussions on chronic wasting disease. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people that I talk to believe that CWD is caused by animals congregating in pens and that it is spread through one animal “kissing” another. Kissing is a term that has been used to describe when two animals touch in and around the nose/mouth/head area and fluids are exchanged.

The finger is always pointed at the domestic cervid ranches as the cause of CWD and the danger that might exist with our wild elk herds. Of course this finger pointing is the result of the ongoing campaign to convince people that the ranches is where it all starts.

Covering up your eyes will not change facts and will put all elk, whether domesticated or wild, at greater risk because we don’t want to hear about other ideas, facts, studies and research. Doing so is dangerous and doesn’t allow science to move ahead in a rapid and prudent manner.

Because someone is saying that domestic elk just one day out of the blue becomes infected with CWD, we have to make sure these animals never get out of their pens or the wild populations will be in danger. Most people don’t realize the continuing spread of CWD is being done throughout the wild populations in some states and is not showing up in domestic herds. Is that because we have built double fencing around the elk herds so their noses can’t touch? No. It is because the ranchers are learning how to test and prevent the spread of the disease. Not all fish and game departments can say the same thing.

In many cases reasonable steps have been taken with domestic elk ranches to detect and control CWD. Compare that with the efforts that many fish and game departments have put forth and it becomes troubling. Fish and game departments are still importing known diseased elk into their states from others. Very little testing of harvested deer and elk during the hunting seasons is being done, yet all the attention is being put on domestic cervid ranches to stop spreading the diseases.

Ranchers understand perhaps more than anybody else the importance of maintaining disease-free livestock. After all their entire livelihoods often depend on it. They’ve stepped up to the plate to test for and stop the exporting and importing of diseased animals. What has your state’s fish and game done to stop the spread of CWD in your state?

Oregon cervidae ranchers are facing opposition from several directions. Some want to run these people out of business because they fear disease. CWD has not been found in Oregon but some believe the natural progression of the spreading will eventually bring it there. By focusing all the attention on ending elk ranching, what is being done to ensure the wild herds aren’t being put in danger other than from these ranches?

The Baker City Herald in Oregon has a short article today that is actually quite misleading to the majority of people who are basically ignorant about disease and ranching. The first thing the article does is lead the reader to believe that because elk ranching contributes less money to the Oregon economy than the wild elk population brings into the state, it is somehow expendable.

Why has our society reached a point where if you are in the minority you are not worthy of equal treatment?

The article then goes on to explain how the domestic elk ranch is a threat to wild elk.

Trouble is, those elk ranches pose a potential threat to the valuable herds of wild elk.

Domestic elk can spread fatal diseases to their wild cousins — notably chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. This has happened in other states but not, fortunately, in Oregon.

To the average reader, this statement will lead you to believe that the diseases only come from the ranches and without these ranches, Oregon would be free from the threat of CWD or brucellosis.

Oregon is proposing to require double fencing around elk ranches to stop escapes and prevent a wild elk from touching noses with a domestic elk. The Baker City Herald says this is a reasonable solution.

This seems to us a reasonable precaution. Domestic elk don’t have to escape a fence to spread disease — nose-to-nose contact through a fence can transmit germs, too.

When I visited Idaho last spring, I spoke with several elk ranchers and we talked about fencing. As a matter of fact, I did an article about the fencing and explained quite a bit about it.

The fencing, I was told, costs between $25,000 and $50,000 per running mile depending on terrain. I guess because some feel the domestic elk industry is expendable, this is a reasonable cost for the rancher to incur and for what reason?

R.A. Forrest of StopCWD.org in studies researched indicates that while contact between domestic and wild elk is possible, the chances of transmitting the disease is unlikely.

While nose-to-nose contact is possible between wild elk and domestic elk, the seemingly transitory nature of exposure would be in contravention of the perceived intensive exposure necessary to infect older animals as determined by Miller (1998).

Furthermore, Forrest’s research seems to indicate that ingestion is the likely cause of the spread of CWD and not nose to nose contact.

Baker City Herald suggests that if there are less costly options that adequately protect the wild elk, they should be used. I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that when officials have already made up their minds as to what causes and spreads CWD, what are we to do.

People shouldn’t take me wrong in this discussion. There is nothing I want more than to find ways to stop the spread of CWD to all ungulates, wild and domestic. We can’t do this when we think like the global warming alarmists. The science isn’t closed. As a matter of fact it’s not been discussed much at all.

Even studies from years ago suggest that transmitting CWD via nose-to-nose is difficult and unlikely. Ranchers have done remarkably well to care for their livestock. Testing is ongoing and the presence of disease is non-existent. On the same token, my fear is that while officials and others focus their time and energy in a direction where there is little or no real threat of disease, it will creep in the back door because we didn’t pay close enough attention.

I think it is safe to conclude that one of the best ways of controlling the spread of disease is to control the movement of diseased animals. Recently the state of Idaho imported known diseased elk from Wyoming to be slaughtered. Until science has determined all the ways this disease is spread, we have to stop these kinds of irresponsible and hypocritical events from occurring.

If, as Forrest indicates, CWD is spread through ingestion of infected food supplies, we should also be focusing our attention on better tracking possible diseased hay and preventing grazing in areas known to have been part of an endemic area.

Further, we can’t allow hunters transporting game from one state to the other and more testing of wild harvested game should be done. There are states now that do no testing at all and CWD is all around them, yet states like Maine where the nearest cases of CWD showed up in an isolated place in New York, do extensive testing and have stopped all importation of wild ungulates, dead or alive, into the state, including anyone passing through.

CWD is an unsolved mystery. Running ranchers out of business in hopes it will help will do nothing to stop the spread of disease. Actually, these disease-free ranches may be our best friends years down the road. We should work with them and not against them, while focusing our energies to stop the spread of the disease via reasonable methods we have control over. We need to expand our research of the disease to first be able to discover how it is formed and then exactly how it is spread and stop the guessing. Then we can move toward finding a cure.

Tom Remington

brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, domestic ungulates, elk management, Idaho Fish and Game, oregon domestic elk ranching, oregon fish and game, r.a. forrest, stopcwd.org, wild ungulates

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

Fascism takes on many forms some of which are difficult to spot. I see far too many groups and individuals attempting to force ideals onto others. When this happens an assortment of tactics are employed in order to manipulate the system and sway public opinion to achieve an end result.

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first - the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence - an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington

chronic wasting disease, domestic elk, elk ranching, express times, fascism, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Elk Breeders Association, north dakota elk industry, Oregon elk ranching, trexler game preserve

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!

The Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional. It is nothing more than a strong arm tool used by out of control animal rights groups and power hungry administrators. It strips Americans of their constitutional rights and is probably doing our wildlife more harm than good in many ways.

The ESA when it became law in 1973 was a plan to help protect disappearing species of wildlife. I can’t believe that it was designed to do what history has shown are the results of such an act. Because of extremists and special interests an American landowner is forced to give up their rights to prosper and protect their own property in order to save an animal. Not only is this wrong, the landowner has to do it at his/her own expense.

Animal rights groups continue their assault on Americans by filing lawsuit after lawsuit while using the ESA as the basis of many of their attacks. What’s sad is that too often they are winning.

Let’s take a moment and look at a few of the more recent events taking place across the country that should give readers a chance to at least ask if the ESA needs to be reworked.

Today in the Colombian, a newspaper out of Washington state, Erik Robinson shares examples of how twisted the ESA interpretation has become and how extreme views are becoming costly to innocent wildlife species at the behest of saving another.

In the far west, the U.S. has been protecting the spotted owl for some time. Forget that some scientists believe the owl was never endangered to begin with. Its protection has cost American industry millions of dollars. It has gotten to the point where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is prepared to start shooting barred owls in hopes of saving a few more spotted owls.

Another incident involves the saving of salmon. Sea lions are hanging around the Bonneville Dam looking for an easy meal of salmon as they work their way up the fish ladders. Government officials are considering killing many of those lions in order to save some more fish.

Is this how it’s done?

In Maine the Animal Protection Institute has filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine in order to stop all trapping in most of that state where the Canada lynx habitat is. In 8 years, trappers have inadvertently trapped and killed two lynx and API wants all trapping to stop. Reports have been circulating that if API is successful in winning this suit, they will file a similar one to stop fishing in any waters in Maine where endangered species of fish live - namely the Atlantic salmon.

Is this the intent of the ESA?

Crosswalk.com republished an article from CNSNews writer Randy Hall about a Montana rancher who has been charged with violating the Endangered Species Act because he shot and killed two wolves that were part of a pack destroying his livestock. As many as five head of cattle had been consumed by this pack of 13 wolves.

The owner of this particular ranch, Roger Lang, has spent huge sums of money in order to protect his property all for the sake of protecting a wolf that no longer needs protecting. This is out of pocket money, an expense he should not have had to incur in order not to infringe upon the ESA.

I am not alone in calling for the ESA to be either abolished or completely revamped. Brian Seasholes, an adjunct scholar with the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), says that the main threat to all wildlife is the encroachment by man into their habitat. For wildlife to be protected, agencies such as local fish and game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depend on the landowner’s cooperation. Clamping down on a landowner like Lang will have very negative effects.

“Wildlife authorities can’t be everywhere, and more often than not, they aren’t,” added Seasholes, the author of an NCPA report entitled “Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong With the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It.” As a result, “landowners are the ones who bear the true cost of living with wildlife.”

Because farmers and ranchers tend to be “land rich and cash poor,” they may decide to quietly “shoot, shovel and shut up” or, more detrimentally, “make their land inhospitable to wildlife by erecting high fences or eliminating sources of water, he stated.

“That’s the great tragedy of the Endangered Species Act,” Seasholes added. “If one had deliberately tried to write a law that would do enormous harm to wildlife, it would be hard to top the ESA.”

As this assault on landowners rights continues, who can blame a landowner for “shoot, shovel and shut up”? I have often said that animal rights groups have very little real interest in what is best for wildlife. Their target is the end to all hunting, fishing and trapping nationwide - at whatever the cost.

We see first hand that this insane influence on our authorities now has them easily willing to shoot and kill other species in order to save another. Is there science behind that? Is this what the creators of the ESA had in mind when it was written?

In Maine, the API wants trapping stopped in order to protect three species - the bald eagle, the Canada lynx and the gray wolf. The bald eagle has been removed from protection in Maine because it is thriving and there are no confirmed cases of any wolves living in Maine. That leaves only the lynx but this brings me to another point which the way the ESA has been administered creates another bad situation.

Those who spend perhaps the most time in the woods are the hunters and trappers. They are the ones who see what’s really out there. Tell me what incentive is there for any hunter or trapper to report or help to document the existence of gray wolves or mountain lions in the Pine Tree State? It would be a death sentence for the hunter and trapper.

Once anybody can document that these animals exist in Maine, groups like the API will move in with more lawsuits to end many hunting and trapping opportunities. This is a clear example of Seasholes’ “shoot, shovel and shut up”.

I have all but gone public in telling people I know to keep your mouth shut if you see any wolves or mountain lions in the woods of Maine. While I wouldn’t condone the needless shooting of these animals, I certainly don’t consider shooting them for self protection and the protection of my property as being wrong. In those cases, I believe a shoot, shovel and shut up method would be in order.

The way the ESA is being administered is wrong, it’s unconstitutional, and if allowed to continue, will have a complete opposite effect than what its written intent was in 1973.

Tom Remington

Animal Protection Institute, animal rights, atlantic salmon, bald eagles, Bonneville dam, brian seasholes, Canada lynx, cnsnews, endangered species act, gray wolves, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, mountain lions, national center for policy analysis, property rights, randy hall, roger lang, salmon, self protection, spotted owl, trapping, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

Or so it seems. I have been reading two articles in the Oregonian about the spotted owl, that little creature that cost thousands of people their jobs and closed many logging industries, when President Bill Clinton signed into law the protection of the spotted owl.

Environmentalists then knew, beyond a doubt, that if they could stop the cutting of old growth timber, they could save the spotted owl, a creature they knew very little about.

They stopped the cutting and even in places where no cutting ever took place, the spotted owl’s population is racing toward extinction while at the same time, the barred owl population is growing leaps and bounds.

Some scientists attribute the loss of the spotted owl to the influx of barred owls but they’re not exactly sure why.

Makes you wonder how many of these environmentalists and scientists ever stop and think how much of this stuff is just going to happen anyway?

For those wishing to learn more about what is going on out in Oregon with the spotted owl, you can read these two articles.

So much for saving the spotted owl

and

To Oregon timber towns, it was the owl that roared

Tom Remington

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

The badly decomposed body of a wolf that had been shot was found in Union County, Oregon on May 25th. Officials are investigating. This is the fourth confirmed case of discovering wolves in Oregon and all four have come from Idaho, believed to have migrated.

Read more here.

Tom Remington

Oregon wolves, wolf migration

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

Deer

80,463 deer tags, virtually the same number as last season.

Elk

53,851 total elk tags, a 1 percent decrease form last season.

Pronghorn (Antelope)

3,094 pronghorn tags, a 2 percent increase from last season.

Bighorn Sheep

92 bighorn sheep tags, a 12 percent increase from last season.

Rocky Mountain goat

7 tags, a 17 percent increase from last season.

Spring bear

7,375 tags, a 1 percent increase from last season and 1 percent decrease in youth tags.

Tom Remington

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

Oregon lawmakers, with the encouragement of the Humane Society of the United States, are systematically going about stripping landowners from their rights to own property and have the freedom to do as they choose on their land. This is another disgusting attempt by government and out of touch with reality animal rights psychopaths to bully their way into private lives and private enterprise.

Not only do these groups and individuals think they have a right to sidestep the United States Constitution, they also think it is their duty to legislate my personal ethics by telling me how I can hunt and where I can hunt according to their standards.

It appears that the ranchers in Oregon are not well organized nor do they have powerful lawyers and money behind them to fight this governmental tyranny. Yesterday, I discovered one lonely website, Friends of Hunting, making an attempt to get the word out that they were being railroaded by the Oregon government. Please go over there and offer your support, even if it’s only moral support.

This foolish domino effect of one state following the lead of another to outlaw ranching and hunting on ranches has got to stop. Each state are like “sheeple”, following the last flock to slaughter because they are ignorant of facts and groups like the HSUS lie and saturate the media with their campaigns of hate and fear because they believe animals and plants have more rights than human beings. How sick and disgusting. To me what they do is no better than domestic terrorism. Shame on them.

If you live in Oregon, call your Congressional representative and tell them you thought you were living in America where people had rights. Don’t let a few mislead the rest of the people down a path that is one step closer toward governmental slavery.

Tom Remington

canned hunts, Clover Creek Ranch, exotic game ranches, game ranches, high fence hunting, Humane Society of the United States, Oregon hunting ranches, property rights, tyranny

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