Pennsylvanians Launch New Chapter in Elk Conservation

MISSOULA, Mont. – Pennsylvania has broken into a Top 10 list of places to find monster elk, an historic indicator of successful habitat and management efforts. Keeping that conservation momentum going, both at home and across the U.S., is the goal of a newly launched Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chapter in Bloomsburg/Danville, Pa.

“Elk have roamed the Keystone State since 1913 after a successful restoration effort led by a young Pennsylvania Game Commission, but this is Pennsylvania’s first-ever Top 10 appearance in Boone and Crockett Club records, and that’s a big deal,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

The Boone and Crockett Club has kept trophy records of North American game since 1830. In the 169 years preceding 2000, Pennsylvania produced zero record-class elk.

In 2001, Pennsylvania held its first elk hunt in over seven decades. Between then and now, the club’s prestigious records book has gained four bulls from the commonwealth, which ties it with California as America’s 10th most productive trophy elk state in the new millennium. See full lists of Top 10 Boone and Crockett elk states below.

RMEF has played a key role in the growing success of Pennsylvania’s elk herd, says Carl Roe, executive director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

“The Game Commission?s efforts to improve habitat within the elk range in Pennsylvania has been greatly supported by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and its numerous Commonwealth chapters,” Roe said. “We welcome the newest RMEF chapter and look forward to working with them as partners for elk habitat.”

Additionally, Roe recently announced that Pennsylvania’s special elk tag will be auctioned at the RMEF Elk Camp & Hunting, Fishing and Outdoor Expo in Reno, Nev., March 4-7, 2010. Funds raised will support the agency’s conservation programs.

Since 1991, RMEF has partnered with the Pennsylvania Game Commission to complete more than 175 different projects to enhance and protect over 14,800 acres, open 8,088 acres for public access, fund research and management initiatives, educate some 33,000 students and promote Pennsylvania’s strong hunting and conservation heritage.

Sample highlights:

Land Acquisitions – RMEF funding helped purchase 1,533 acres now included in State Game Lands #311 in the heart of Pennsylvania’s elk country. Another acquisition added 217 acres at the confluence of Hicks Run and the Bennett Branch to lands managed by the Bureau of Forestry. RMEF helped purchase and reclaim mining sites on the 4,100-acre New Garden property between the Sproul and Moshannon state forests. A 1,378-acre property, Kettle Creek, was purchased by RMEF and conveyed to the state for inclusion in the Sproul State Forest. In two separate acquisitions, RMEF helped secure 536 acres of key habitat in Cameron County between the Driftwood and Sinnemahoning branches of Sinnemahoning Creek, now part of the 200,000-acre Elk State Forest.

Elk Herd Expansion and Monitoring – RMEF helped fund a 3-year trap-and-transfer project to relocate elk, expand elk range and reduce conflicts with other land uses in the Sproul State Forest. RMEF also helps develop and maintain forage openings for elk.

Economic Impact Study – RMEF funded a 4-year study (1997-2001) in partnership with Penn State to identify economic impact of elk on tourism in north-central Pennsylvania.

Elk Habitat Research – In 2006, RMEF helped fund research on preferred calving sites, forage and ranges of elk in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Elk Country Visitor Center – RMEF helped facilitate, launch and fund $2.4 million for construction of?the largest elk watching and conservation education center in the eastern United States, located in north-central Pennsylvania.

Conservation Education – RMEF helped establish wildlife viewing sites, purchase and equip a mobile exhibit to increase public awareness of elk and elk hunting, award scholarship funding to the Pennsylvania Institute for Conservation Education, and fund more than 100 workshops, clinics and programs for Pennsylvania youths and women.

Statewide, RMEF and its partners have spent over $14.4 million on these and other conservation and education projects in Pennsylvania.

None of these efforts would be possible without fundraising by local RMEF chapters, and the newly chartered Bloomsburg/Danville chapter is planning its first annual banquet for Feb. 20, 2010. For more info, call Allen Wetzel at 570-374-2588, or visit www.rmef.org.

Like more than 550 other volunteer-led fundraisers nationwide, the Bloomsburg/Danville event will help raise awareness as well as funding for future RMEF efforts.

A portion of local proceeds will fund a state grants program for continuing conservation and education projects in Pennsylvania.

“Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation banquets are always a good time for a great cause, which is why the organization has grown to over 150,000 members, impacted over 5.7 million acres of habitat nationwide, and become one of America’s premier forces for conservation. We’re proud that Columbia and Montour counties are now an official part of the movement,” said Dan Honaberger, volunteer chairman for the new chapter.

Montana based, RMEF focuses on habitat conservation and was a major partner in restoring wild elk herds to Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Pennsylvania is the only eastern state or province on the Boone and Crockett Club’s Top 10 lists.

Here are those lists, along with actual entries into Boone and Crockett records (typical and non-typical combined):

American Elk, 1830-1999
1. Arizona, 135
2. Montana, 128
3. Wyoming, 90
4. Idaho, 69
5. Colorado, 62
6. New Mexico, 52
7. Alberta, 38
8. Utah, 32
9. Nevada, 27
10. Oregon, 21

American Elk, 2000-2009
1. Utah, 120
2. Arizona, 86
3. Montana, 49
4. Nevada, 47
5. Wyoming, 45
6. New Mexico, 38
7. Alberta, 10
8. Idaho, 8
9. Washington, 7
10. (tie) California, 4; Pennsylvania, 4

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

Ohio Introduces Their Version Of “Firearms Freedom Act”

Ohio now lists among several other states to introduce their own version of Montana’s “Firearms Freedom Act”. Montana’s act, which has been signed by the governor and took effect on October 1st, states that any guns or gun products manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana are not subject to federal regulations.

Ohio’s bill, HB315 states:

To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.

According to Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Ohio now joins with eight other states who have either passed or introduced a cloned version of Montana’s bill – Texas, which has passed a bill, Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Other states are working on them.

Marbut says that with more states passing and introducing similar legislation, this should help Montana in their litigation efforts in validating the Montana Firearms Freedom Act bill. A court hearing has been scheduled for later this year in which the state of Montana hopes to get a ruling that states have this right as stated in the Constitution.

Tom Remington

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

Pennsylvania Woman Mauled To Death By Pet Bear

Hat tip to reader “Jim”!

A 37-year old Kelly Ann Walz entered the bear cage that housed “Teddy”, a pet bear kept in a cage near their home. She tossed some food into the corner of the cage to “distract” the bear while she cleaned the pen. The bear attacked and killed her. A neighbor came and shot the bear.

This is a tragic accident and our thoughts and prayers go out to Walz’s family at this time. As a teachable moment, we all need to be reminded that no matter what we think about animals, they are still unpredictable. It appears Kelly Ann Walz’s decision not to move the bear to a segregated area was a fatal one.

Tom Remington

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

Pennsylvania Joins “Firearms Freedom Act” Movement

Add the Keystone State to the list of states who have decided to challenge the federal government’s authority to regulate every particle of guns and gun manufacturing. House Bill 1988 has been introduced.

Tom Remington

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

RMEF Conveys Share of Visitor Center to Pennsylvania

MISSOULA, Mont.?With construction well underway and a grand opening scheduled for summer 2010, a planned state-of-the-art conservation education facility is now wholly owned by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) following a transfer from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The 7,000 square-foot Elk Country Visitor Center will sit on a 245-acre site in Benezette Township, Elk County. When completed, it will be the largest elk watching and conservation education facility in the eastern U.S.

The project began as a public-private partnership between the Commonwealth and RMEF. The Elk Foundation conveyed its share of the facility to DCNR on Sept. 15.

?The Elk Foundation has been a great partner in open-space protection and restoring the elk herd in the Pennsylvania Wilds, and we thank them for their help getting the Elk Center project off the ground. This project would not have been possible without their early partnership with DCNR,? said John Quigley, acting secretary of DCNR.

RMEF landed major support for the project from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, Dominion Foundation, Thoreson Foundation, Safari Club International, Eastern Chapter Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and many individual donors.

Additionally, Elk Foundation chapters across the country made special contributions toward the new facility.

?As it turns out, this project worked much like a land protection project?we facilitate and fundraise, then transfer the asset to a public agency that is better equipped to manage in perpetuity. We?ve never applied this model to a conservation education facility before but we?re pleased with the outcome,? said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

Going forward, RMEF will help promote the Elk Country Visitor Center and use it for special conservation and education events.

As RMEF conveyed its share of the visitor center, DCNR announced a new partnership with the Pennsylvania Parks and Forests Foundation (PPFF).

Allen said, ?We?re confident that this important project is in good hands and that the new partnership is well positioned to help this landmark facility accomplish its goals.?

Marci Mowery, PPFF president, said, ?The Pennsylvania Parks and Forests Foundation appreciates the work that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has done to restore elk habitat and educate the public about elk. We look forward to working with the DCNR through the Elk Country Visitor Center to reach out to new visitors, give them a wonderful outdoor experience and share the story of the conservation efforts that have restored many of the natural and wild areas in Pennsylvania.?

Allen said Elk Foundation volunteers tackled fundraising for this project with the same gusto that annually supports traditional RMEF projects. Since 1984, RMEF and its partners have spent $14.4 million to complete 199 conservation and education projects that have protected or enhanced more than 14,800 acres of wildlife habitat in Pennsylvania.

DCNR will erect a bronze elk statue, acquired through the efforts of the Pittsburgh RMEF chapter, dedicated to the passion of all Elk Foundation volunteers.

The center also will include educational exhibits, trails, story theater, wildlife viewing blinds, meeting rooms and display areas.

Allen said the Elk Foundation remains focused on its core mission of habitat conservation for elk and other wildlife.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.6 million acres?a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. RMEF also works to open, secure and improve public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Get involved at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

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

Should We Have To Provide SSN To Obtain Hunting License? – Open Discussion

I recently received an email from a reader/friend in Pennsylvania. Here’s what he wrote me.

Tom, I just went to apply for my seasonal hunting license for myself and Grandson. Here in PA the game commission has revamped it’s system to an electronic data base. Your SSN is what the system stores for correlating information. I was told, some years back when this SSN requirement was added as a requirement to purchase a hunting license that the information would be used to track down Dead Beat Dads. Yet this year my 13 year old had to supply his SSN or he could not get a hunting license. The first I heard about this was yesterday. It appears as though the SYSTEM is gathering information on potential gun ownership by the back door! Cause the 13 YO is not a Dead Beat Dad. Are other States imposing this stipulation. Or just Eddie Rendell’s Commonwealth?

From the Pennsylvania Game Commission website, we find this information:

Customer Identification Number (CID): If you already have purchased a hunting or fishing license through PALS, you were assigned a CID number which was printed on your license. Please use this number when applying for a license through PALS since this will identify you in the database and speed the license issuance process. If you have never purchased a license through PALS, you will need to provide your social security number when applying. This is a one-time only requirement, and will not be needed again unless you don’t have or can’t remember your CID.

The problem appears to be that in order to get that “Customer Identification Number” you have to initially provide your Social Security Number as part of the process. Once that is completed, in subsequent applications for a license, you need only provide the CID.

Is this a necessary step in obtaining a game license? Do other states do this? Please pitch in here so we can get an idea if this is commonplace or something new that is starting.

I checked into Maine’s requirements. Maine’s online application process appears similar to Pennsylvania’s except that I do not believe you have to provide a SSN, only personal information such as date of birth, address, etc. Once you have obtained a license one time in Maine, you can use the MOSES ID# you get first time to obtain additional licenses and permits.

It would seem obvious that the state could track your personal information to get what they wanted should they be looking for guns, as the reader might be suggesting. Giving a SSN for a license application would probably make their job easier if this is what they were after.

So tell us what your thoughts are. Do you agree that the state should have your SSN to get a license? Does your state now do this? Is this a backdoor invasion of privacy?

Tom Remington

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

PA Deer Harvest Up 4%. Why? Open Discussion

Confused? The Pennsylvania Game Commission announced that this year’s dear harvest was up 4% from last season. Here’s a look at the past 11 years total deer harvest numbers.

2008-2009 = 335,850
2007-2008 = 323,070
2006-2007 = 361,560
2005-2006 = 354,390
2004-2005 = 409,320
2003-2004 = 464,890
2002-2003 = 517,529
2001-2002 = 486,014
2000-2001 = 504,600
1999-2000 = 378,592
1998-1999 = 377,000

This calculates out to an 11-year harvest average of 410,256. I should also note that the 517,529 deer taken in the 2002-2003 season was a record.

It’s been roughly over the past ten years that Pennsylvania has implemented a new deer management program to reduce the number of deer. Many have complained that there just aren’t any deer left in Pennsylvania anymore.

We know that weather and hunter participation play as big a role as any in fluctuating deer harvest numbers. Do the figures shown above actually reflect that there are no deer left in Pennsylvania to hunt?

Use this forum to discuss what you think the numbers mean. Please keep it rational.

Tom Remington

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

Pennsylvania Record Bear Taken By Pistol

Hat tip to reader Jim!

A Pennsylvania man bags his first bear in 35 years during the recent state bear hunt. He took it with one shot from a .44 magnum Smith and Wesson pistol.

Tom Remington

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

Bear Hunting Seasons In Tennessee And Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania yesterday opened its annual 3-day bear hunting season and Tennessee is in the middle of their season that is a considerably more extended season than that of Pennsylvania. Both states believe they have an abundance of bears and if the weather holds favorable, record harvests could be reported.

To date, Tennessee has reported 246 bear taken with 17 days left in the season. The later part of the season into December allows dogs for bear hunting. Officials predict as many as 400 bears could be harvested if the weather doesn’t get too cold too quickly. That would be a record.

Meanwhile Pennsylvania officials are reporting a bumper crop of bears and they too think that if the weather holds for the next two days, as many as 3,500 bears could be taken. Last year 2,360 bears were taken and the weather was not good on opening day.

Tom Remington

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

Wildlife Counting. How Important Is It?

In management of wildlife, shouldn’t it be considered imperative to have accurate and reliable population counts? After all, many a lawsuit that involves millions of dollars and just as many people have been decided on data that includes herd counts, especially Endangered Species Act lawsuits.

“I’ve been in the woods for over a month now and I can tell you there are at least 100 does for every buck!” This is a comment I received one day when attempting to communicate with fellow hunters about buck to doe ratios and the management plans Maine has in monitoring and manipulating the whitetail deer populations.

Whether that statement is true or not is not really up to me to decide but when I contacted a wildlife expert, I was told that in Maine, having a buck to doe ratio of 1:100 was nearly biologically impossible unless it was intentionally skewed.

I’m sure most of you at one time or another participated in the old “count the jelly beans” contest. This is where someone fills a glass jug with jelly beans and then formulates a contest in which the one who can guess closest the number of beans in the jar wins a prize.

In this scenario, you can see the beans through the glass but because it is three dimensional and the beans are stacked from all sides, one has to envision how many groupings of a selected number exist in the jar and then do the math.

Have you ever attended a concert or any kind of large gathering of people and been asked to estimate how many people in attendance? You might apply the same principle as the jelly beans – determine the size of say 50 people and see how many chunks of 50 people there are and once again do the math.

I have friends who are wildlife biologists. Often they volunteer to go on bird counts in Mexico during migration. I’m no expert on bird counting but I recall one of them briefly describing the process. The birds are flying in mass in the same direction. At certain places, the birds enter areas where the air rises. The birds get into these rises until they reach a certain height and then fly away headed for their final migratory destination.

The biologists make a determination of how many birds can fill up this “elevator” of updrafts. Each counter picks out one bird as it enters the elevator, watches it until it reaches the top and exits. At this time the counter moves eyes back to the bottom of the elevator, picks another bird and counts “one”.

This entire process gives biologists a “count” of the number of that species of bird. I have no hard data but it might be plausible to guess the counting would be off by several thousand but when counting millions of birds, it is probably within tolerance.

In all of these cases I’ve mentioned, someone or group of people are attempting to count objects they can see, not necessarily individually but in groups, a lot of groups in some cases. So, how do we count species not in groups, not confined to small areas but spread out over huge areas of land and forests? Sometimes in the open, sometimes in dense forest?

There are several ways and not everyone uses the same methods and all produce varying degrees of accuracy. How accurate should it be?

If there are an estimated 1,000,000,000 sparrows, I’m not so sure that being real accurate on numbers is that important. On the other hand, if there is an estimated 100 of a particular “protected” species, it would seem imperative that we know exactly how many exist and where.

I can’t and won’t get into the exact methods used to count wildlife, but let me give a few examples to show the varying ways and degrees of effort put forth in determining herd counts in some states.

Let’s start first with whitetail deer in Maine. Maine has deer that live in areas throughout the entire state. Deer densities in southern Maine far exceed those in northern Maine. How do we know that? Biologists have formulated equations that by inputting data, comparing it to many years of previous data, they come up with an answer. Examples of data used would include: weather, habitat, predation, fawn survival rates, disease, hunter harvest and hunting pressure, open land, among others. The use of aerial surveys is also used but not on a regular, extensive basis. (For those interested in finding out more about how Maine manages and counts its deer herd, visit the website of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.)

Another state that is having a war over deer management is Pennsylvania. A few years back, biologists and state agencies announced that there were too many deer and as a result was destroying the habitat and creating a serious ecological imbalance. Pennsylvania began a program to reduce the deer population. Some don’t agree with the approach. The question for us today is how do they know how many deer they had and how many they have now?

The state of Pennsylvania Fish and Game offers a Deer Management Plan and an update to that that addresses the new plan of herd reduction.

From an examination of the Deer Management Plan and assuming it is being followed, we can see that Pennsylvania utilizes similar methods as Maine in counting their deer. Obviously, due to different geography and climate, certain methods are different.

I think Maine has an excellent system of data collection and utilization that gives most biologists a healthy degree of confidence in the outcome. The reality is it is still educated guessing but the key is increasing the level of confidence. When hunters discover that their biologists are producing accurate results, this level of confidence in the fish and game grows.

Gathering this information and determining how many deer live in states like Maine and Pennsylvania is good and serves not only to provide a professional means to manage the species but in so doing solves many social problems as well, i.e. keeping hunters and wildlife viewers satisfied, maintaining healthy forests, reducing human/deer encounters/accidents, etc.

But in both Maine and Pennsylvania, the whitetail deer is, for all intent and purposes, plentiful. Most people’s concerns about them involve avoiding running into them with their cars or being able to spot one occasionally in the field.

This is not the case for other species in other states. Let’s head west to Idaho. Idaho is home to mule deer, whitetail deer, elk and moose. It is also home to the gray wolf, an endangered and protected species that has created emotional conflict, to say the least.

The wolf was once native to Idaho and surrounding regions until it was nearly exterminated many years ago. The wolf had been found in northern areas of the state, having migrated down from Canada. But in 1993 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unloaded imported wolves into the forests of Idaho as an “experimental” population. Since that time, the wolf there has been relabeled endangered and is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year the USFWS removed the wolf from protection of the ESA and immediately lawsuits were filed by no fewer than 11 environmental, animal rights and anti-hunting groups to stop the process. A judge in Montana agreed and ruled in favor of a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under federal protection.

Since that time the feds have withdrawn their original proposal to delist and are now in the process of putting forth a new delisting proposal in hopes of getting this done by the first of next year. Once again, most of the same pro wolf groups have filed suit to stop the process until the new administration (Obama’s) has taken over.

Within Idaho there are varying degrees of emotions – satisfaction, dissatisfaction, anger and happiness – over the wolf issue. Ranchers have lost livestock due to wolf predation and hunters, along with some non-hunters, are angry that the wolf is killing more elk, deer and moose. To what extent this “decimation” of elk and deer is taking place, we don’t really know or perhaps we don’t know who to believe or what is accurate.

So, we should then conclude with the amount of controversy over the wolf, the assumed destruction of elk and deer herds, the loss of ranchers’ livestock and the reduced production due to the presence of wolves, combined with the mere number of Idaho citizens directly and indirectly affected by the wolf, that Idaho must have one of the best systems in place in the country to monitor wolf, elk, deer, moose, sheep and every other kind of wildlife populations. We mustn’t forget the mere millions of dollars spent on wolf reintroduction, managing the animal once it was placed there and the countless lawsuits past, present and future. How can lawsuits be determined fairly unless Idaho’s population monitoring isn’t flawless? And how can we administer the Endangered Species Act with faulty information?

I figured then that I would see if I could find out about how Idaho Department of Fish and Game monitors its animals.

I sent an email to Brad Compton, Idaho’s big game manager, and asked him if he could explain or provide me with information that specifically explained the processes IDFG uses to count and monitor its mule deer, whitetail deer, moose, elk and wolves. This is the complete response I got.

Tom,

Idaho is currently using “Aerial Survey” to estimate mule deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep populations. Information on the technique is available at:

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/fishwild/Garton/tools

I couldn’t really find out anything from this link except to be able to get a download of the computer software I presume IDFG uses to tabulate the results of the endless data they must collect.

I began asking around from people in that area who have had experience with aerial surveys, wildlife management, etc. When I asked one gentleman about this response from Brad Compton, this is part of what was said.

His (Ed Garton) computer models were used to estimate deer and elk populations and harvests in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery area in the 1993 Wolf Recovery EIS and his average overall estimate for the 20,000+ square miles exceeded known deer and elk populations in the three highest producing units in that area by more than 600%.

These were the figures presented to Congress and the general public to justify introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.

You know what they say about computers and the programs designed to run on them? Garbage in, garbage out. If it was true that deer and elk populations were inflated by 600%, was this the fault of the computer program, the information used in the program or a combination of both?

It didn’t take long before I came to the conclusion that Idaho relies very heavily on aerial surveys to estimate game populations. I also began finding out that aerial surveys alone may not be very accurate and can lead to some serious problems involving game management.

Articles archived in the Lewiston Tribune from 1997 and 1998 offer a disturbing revelation. In the Clearwater Region it was feared that elk took a hard hit from the deep snows of 1996-97. The then regional manager said nothing they had found indicated anything out of the “normal” range.

“There’s no doubt we had some losses,” Crenshaw said, “but we haven’t seen anything to suggest it’s outside the normal range.”
About 5 to 10 percent of the elk herd dies off during the winter most years, Crenshaw said, adding this year’s losses might be pushing that upper end of the range.

He further went on to explain that he didn’t predict that there would be any changes to the number of elk permits to be issued for hunting in the coming fall. That was in May.

In December of that same year, 1997, hunters began complaining that the Clearwater Region didn’t have any elk in it. Also from the Lewiston Tribune:

Some Clearwater Region hunters have complained about finding fewer elk this fall, particularly in units around Dworshak Reservoir. Hunter success also was off in that region. Aerial and ground surveys of elk in northern units of the Clearwater Region last spring showed no signs of unusual winter kill.

Two months later in Feb. 2008, the Tribune reported that IDFG was reporting elk numbers in the Clearwater Region had dropped drastically since 1994 and blamed it on the severe winter of 1996-97. The total number of elk had been cut in half. These is the kinds of discrepancies that drive sportsmen nuts.

Aside from the computer software link Mr. Compton gave me, I found that Idaho Fish and Game website provides a Mule Deer Management Plan. Hoping to find more precise methods used to count deer and elk, I really only found a brief reference to something called, “sightability model”.

Because not all animals are observed during aerial surveys (Caughley 1974), IDFG developed a “sightability model” that corrects for those deer not observed (Unsworth et. al. 1994). Beginning in the mid-1990s, annual aerial surveys, using the “sightability model,” were conducted on 28 discrete winter ranges across southern Idaho. These winter range surveys provided reliable information on population composition, but were inadequate for determining overall abundance. Additionally, limiting monitoring to these winter ranges failed to detect potential changes occurring on the many smaller or peripheral winter ranges throughout Idaho.(I provided the hyperlink)

In theory, what this “sightability model” does is correct for what animals, and in this cited case, elk, are not seen in an aerial survey. This sightability model may not be accurate but will account to some degree on the number of elk counted. The model has to take into consideration as many factors that will effect the habits of the elk due to weather, ground conditions, time of year, terrain, habitat, etc. I would suppose one could say that the model is only as good as the data that gets dumped into it, provided of course that the basic model is sound.

I have communicated quite extensively with one man who has years of experience in aerial surveys and understands them well. He also shared thoughts with me about “sightability models”.

Instead of counting only under ideal conditions – or skipping the count that year if such conditions did not exist – IDFG Research Biologists spent years designing and re-designing this so-called “sightability” model in which the biologist enters a combination of data including precipitation, cloud cover, type of vegetation, snow cover, etc. to estimate the percentage of animals that exist versus those that were observed. In my experience almost every version of such a sightability model exaggerates the number of bucks and bulls or fawns and calves, and does nothing to improve the inability of a desk-bound biologist to spot and count wild animals – especially under less-than-ideal conditions. In my opinion, aerial counting under less than ideal conditions is a waste of time and sportsmen’s license money. Yet in many, but not all, areas it is possible to achieve up to 95% accuracy under the proper ideal count conditions. Accurate counts conducted every few years combined with accurate hunter harvest reports and other data provides far more accuracy than IDFG’s “sightability” surveys.

In the Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan, it states that in the future the department needs to develop a monitoring plan that uses less aerial surveys. This would seem to run contradictory to the statement made above by one experienced aerial surveyor.

I always hear from hunters disgruntled with the management efforts of fish and game biologists. The degree of distrust between hunter and biologist varies greatly from state to state and I believe this to be directly proportional to the trust factor or level of confidence I spoke of earlier. But we cannot disregard the evidence presented to us by those on the ground.

Many biologists that I have spoken with tell me that they put a lot of credibility in what the experienced hunters, guides, trappers, etc. are telling them they are seeing. After all, they are often the only eyes and ears on the ground in the woods and fields. To disregard this information would be foolhardy.

I also came across a person who has become part of a group of sportsmen who have decided to take a little game management into their own hands. About 12 years ago, a group of sportsmen and pilots began doing their own aerial surveys utilizing trained surveyors. This happened due to continued frustration on the part of the sportsmen that IDFG was attempting to do their own surveys with untrained personnel and coming up with data on herd populations that didn’t satisfy them from what they were observing on the ground. As one member of this group told me, “Around here we fly year around and spot what little game is left. You don’t just do it for a couple weeks in the year and then go back to your computer.”

The same gentleman told me that their frustration level grew when IDFG was reporting there were 5,000 elk in the zones they fly on a regular bases. This group had recorded their own count of 2,000 elk in two zones. They finally convinced IDFG to fly these two wildlife units and they counted 1,900 elk.

What was pointed out to me also was that with this effort of doing aerial surveys of their own, they have been able to convince IDFG to reduce elk tags in order to get the population of elk back up and they have since seen marked improvement. This is a direct result of accurate population monitoring and being able to adjust management tactics to meet known needs.

I digress to my original question about how important it is to have accurate information especially in regards to Idaho and their controversial problems with wolves and claims by sportsmen that the wolves are killing off all the deer and elk.

I have no way of really knowing exactly everything IDFG does to monitor their herds but I’ve presented some examples that certainly seem to prove that what is getting reported isn’t matching what’s on the ground.

Can we then have much confidence that data being presented is accurate? And if that confidence is low, how can a court rightfully pass judgment on the wolf and directly affect the lives of Idaho’s citizens based on guess work?

Wouldn’t it be historic if one of these judges, instead of overstepping their legal bounds and disregarding science in passing judgment, would go the other way and order the federal government and all those who filed the lawsuits to pony up the money and have a complete audit done of Idaho’s elk, deer, moose, sheep and wolf populations. Would we then not have answered the real questions and faced the issue head on?

Better yet, why not require the Department of Interior i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with anyone proposing a listing of any species, first spend the money to do a complete audit before any consideration can be given for listing?

Tom Remington

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

I Went On A Hunting Trip And……….

I went on a last minute whitetail deer hunting trip to Maine and didn’t see any deer! At least in the woods while I was hunting…….More details to follow!

But that didn’t stop at least one person in our hunting party! Of the eight of us at camp during the week, one deer was seen, total, and one deer was taken.

Dennis, pictured above with his deer, persisted in his tree stand until last legal light. He had placed a combination of scents around and near his spot and waited. Just before dark, this prize appeared with nose to the ground, determined in his quest to find the source of the compelling odors.

He was a 10-point, weighing in at 193 pounds.

So where were all the deer? Good question. We know that last winter’s deep snows created a “blood bath” in some locals, as was described to me by one game warden who flew over the region last winter where we hunt. Ironically, the same warden believes there are still ample deer although not like the past couple seasons.

As for me being sick most of the week, I managed only to see a gathering of wild turkeys one day and a ruffed grouse on another. Ironically as it may seem, our trip north and the return trip south provided moments of great entertainment spotting deer.

The most deer that we saw in broad daylight was about a 30-minute drive from downtown New York City. The second most deer we see were in Pennsylvania, where all I have heard for the past couple of years is that Pennsylvania’s deer have all been killed as the result of poor management by the PA. Game Commission.

To spend six days in the woods of Maine hunting for deer and seeing nothing and to spot perhaps hundreds of deer from a car in broad daylight in Pennsylvania, doesn’t conjure up a whole lot of sympathy to those Pennsylvania hunters who say it isn’t worth hunting anymore. Try spending $105.00 for a non-resident Maine big game hunting permit and seeing nothing.

I’m back and am sorting through my 60,000 plus emails. Depressed as I am over the results of the election, I’m putting my nose to the grindstone and will be back to posting information, stories and entertainment again.

Thanks for keeping the site active with your comments!

Tom Remington

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

The Rednecks Of Pennsylvania……Bitter, Clinging To Guns

It just doesn’t want to go away does it? As a reminder to readers, below is a photo once again of my bitter friends from Pennsylvania, all of whom are now labeled rednecks by one John Murtha.

And to add to this continuing saga of the non-tolerant left, Doug Giles of TownHall, shares “Pennsylvanian Voters: You Might Be a Redneck If . . .”

• If you bitterly love your guns, Jesus, apple pie, deer hunting, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girls, baseball, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, then you might be a redneck.

Giles offers a complete menu of “you might be a Pennsylvania redneck if…” scenarios. Don’t miss it!

Tom Remington

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

Hot Peppers To Keep Deer Away

A formula used by Barry Davis in Pennsylvania to keep deer away from his crops may have managed to keep more people away than deer. Some concoction he’s created using a combination of hot peppers, pepper spray and insecticide intended to keep the deer from eating his crops, managed to make some of the neighbors hurl their lunch and experience some breathing difficulties.

Davis said that deer have become so prevalent that where they once would eat a row of a crop they now can destroy an entire field.

This can’t be in Pennsylvania! I thought the Pennsylvania Game Commission had mismanaged the deer herd in that state so poorly that there were barely any deer left. Oh, wait! Is Montgomery County in the Southeastern part of the state that is overrun with deer? That must be it.

Tom Remington

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

I Don’t See Deer Everytime I Go Out Therefore There Are Not Enough Deer

I hear this all the time. I hear it in the middle of the deer management controversy in Pennsylvania and now I’m reading about it in a Vermont newspaper.

Where I once found it nearly impossible to spend a day in the woods of Vermont without seeing a deer, I now may go an entire deer season without seeing so much as the flicker of a whitetail.

Is this what we hunters have come to expect? And is this the way it should be? It’s a difficult walk to make. Most states mandate that fish and game manage game to provide hunting opportunities for its license holders. That same law doesn’t express how many deer we are supposed to see in a day or a season.

In Pennsylvania, authorities say there have been so many deer they are destroying the ecosystem and therefore the numbers must be reduced. This has angered hunters who say this is not true and Pennsylvania fish and game are caving in to the foresters and other special interest.

From the perspective of the game managers, it looks like a losing proposition no matter what they do. If they are using the best available science in the creation and implementation of a deer management plan which then calls for a reduction in deer numbers, some hunters cry foul. If they allow numbers to grow, landowners, foresters and automobile owners get worked up as well.

It appears that as each state has opted to manage wildlife, especially game, for everyone not just hunters, there has ensued controversy. States created fish and game departments for the purpose of regulating the hunting, fishing and trapping industry. Unregulated hunting was putting the animals being hunted in danger of extinction in some cases. But now, politics and money rule the day and wildlife management doesn’t very much resemble what it once did.

Fish and game manages its game for hunters and wildlife gawkers, yet the hunter is asked to pay for it. Wildlife watchers demand to see animals and some get angry because hunters kill them. Fish and game has to find ways to fund the great demand being put on them which often forces them to sell more licenses, up the cost of licenses or become creative in finding more ways to dupe the would-be hunter out of more fees for more licenses.

I have said this many times before. Our management of game species is heading in the wrong direction. Maine is even considering a move to integrate the fish and wildlife department in with other departments in order to save money. This will resemble other state’s larger, less efficient and less caring toward game management, natural resources departments.

People cry asking that we find ways to charge those who reap the benefits of the money and efforts of outdoor sportsmen. I say move the fish and game back to its original focus of managing game for the purpose of providing hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. If others want to build wildlife viewing platforms and place demands on the state to provide them their opportunities, then find other ways of funding it other than on the backs of sportsmen.

There is seldom a lot of love between the hunter and fish and game. One of the biggest reasons I think is that all too often, the hunter believes he/she knows better than the game expert. In the case referred to above and much of what I have heard in Pennsylvania, hunters demand to see deer on nearly, if not every, trip to the forest to hunt. Is this demand reasonable?

Deer densities vary in every state and within those state’s regions. Ideally biologists want to manage numbers at what is called carrying capacity – that is the amount of deer that can live in an area that can be sustained by the habitat they are in. This amount can vary between 8 as a low and perhaps as high as 25 or 30 per square mile.

I have hunted my whole life in areas where deer density probably runs around 10-12 per square mile on average. I am not a sitter but a stocker or still hunter. Seldom do I see deer every trip out, although I would like to for the excitement. Seldom am I successful in bagging a deer as well in those areas. Should I then demand that the state do more to provide me the opportunity to see more deer and shoot more deer? Some would say yes.

There is one thing for sure. There will never be complete satisfaction between the hunter and those who have been given the authority and are paid by the fees hunters pay, to provide the opportunities.

We, the sportsmen, need to continue to learn and gain a better understanding of the complexities of wildlife management, especially in dealing with the politics, yet at the same time question the actions of our managers and biologists to make sure they are looking out for our best interest. After all, it is our investment and we need to protect it.

Tom Remington

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

Unified Sportsmen Of Pennsylvania Suing PGC Again

Not successful in their first attempt to sue the Pennsylvania Game Commission to stop their implementation of the deer management plan, the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania got the go ahead from a state court to sue the PGC. PGC now has 30 days to reply to the charges.

In essence, USP claims that PGC did not use scientific evidence in the issuing of antlerless deer permits resulting in drastic reductions in deer numbers. They want this to stop until such time that PGC can prove they are following the law in issuing the permits.

Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe says he welcomes the opportunity to explain the procedures they use.

‘We look forward to Â…the opportunity to have our many expert witnesses expound on the scientific basis and soundness of our management plan,” Roe said. ”At the end of the trial, we are confident that this debate over the scientific validity will be resolved once and for all.”

The deer management plan PGC has implemented has been a controversy since day one with no real end in sight. Some see the plan as a good thing while others complain of too few deer. With the onset of another lawsuit, others are complaining that USP are just wasting the PGC’s money, which is mostly collected from license fees, fearing it will result in increased fees.

It will probably be months before the case will actually make it to the courts.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »