FWS Declares Hyenas Threatened In U.S., Establishes Critical Habitat

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced it would place the striped hyena, most readily found in northern and eastern Africa as well as in Asia from the Middle East to India, on the Endangered Species Act list. Once the Final Rule is published, USFWS will designate much of Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona as critical habitat for Hyaena hyaena.

After months of pressure from environmental groups, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Preserving the Rights of Hyenas, the USFWS buckled and proceeded with the listing. The three environmental groups claim they have unearthed some mysterious scientific evidence that unquestionably proves that if hyenas were introduced into these regions, they might survive. It would require removing all ranch land and the bulldozing of several towns.

Hyenas have never inhabited these regions of the United States but the groups feel, and now the Obama Administration is convinced, that there is an outside possibility that if they had of inhabited these regions and if they were there today, they just might survive. It is for those reasons the USFWS has administered the Endangered Species Act to help save the hyena.

Barack Obama stated this weekend while touring about the U.S. trying to find something the American people might believe him about, that when he said he would bring science back to its rightful place, this is precisely what he had in mind.

“Let me make myself clear. America has turned a corner. And I want to say that with the help of such qualified, honest and outstanding scientists as Al Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Michael Moore, I am convinced that ranchers and citizens in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona have no need to prosper and protect their private property. And I want to say, they have too many livestock now and it is time they shared a little of their wealth. Let me make myself clear, again. The hyenas, if they ever find their way from northern Africa to this region, will be granted unprecedented protection and be allowed to ravage any and all livestock and other wildlife species in those regions. We are finally returning science to its rightful place. And one more thing. I just want to say, I will appoint a hyena protection czar.”

For those of you who have chosen to read this far, I hope you have been intelligent enough to realize this is nothing but an outrageous and ridiculous story. It is however not that far from the truth. Take for example this New York Times editorial one of my readers was kind enough to send me the link to.

It seems that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under pressure from the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, has opted to designate the jaguar as an endangered species in the United States and has designated critical habitat in parts of the region along the United States and Mexico border. No jaguars live in this region but if the habitat could support jaguars they might.

In prehistoric times, these beautiful cats inhabited significant areas of the western United States, but in the past 100 years, there have been few, if any, resident breeding populations here. The last time a female jaguar with a cub was sighted in this country was in the early 1900s.

But somehow magically after repeated lawsuits from the federally funded environmental groups, the feds have “evaluated new scientific information” and opted to designate critical habitat.

This is nearly as absurd as my hyena story and it’s really only about one step away from reality. Once an environmental group or groups can pester the USFWS with lawsuits and “evaluated new scientific information”, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that striped hyenas once roamed parts of the United States. With the continued abuse that has been allowed of the Endangered Species Act, we have learned that a species doesn’t have to be extinct, only missing from U.S. territory. Whether present climate and habitat can support these species anymore is irrelevant.

Actions by environmental groups and decisions being made by the USFWS on such issues has to be brought in check. If not, we just may be designating parts of the U.S. critical habitat for more things than just hyenas.

Tom Remington

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!

Is USFWS Authorized To Create Distinct Population Segments?

We learned on Tuesday that federal judge Donald Molloy refused to grant an emergency injunction to stop the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. What we also learned is Judge Molloy believes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot “carve out” the state of Wyoming from the rest of the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf population. Molloy suggests that by excluding Wyoming from the removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list is a violation of the Act.

“The Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science,” Molloy wrote. “That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious.”

To Judge Molloy and others, that may well appear “arbitrary and capricious” only because they are entrenched in the politics of the gray wolf issue and are perhaps refusing to take the entire ESA into account with its scientific intent to conserve and protect species…….all of them.

The ESA, like most bills constructed in Congress are long and complicated. When lawyers get into the act, intent of laws sometimes get muddled and lost. The intent of the ESA is to preserve and protect species from becoming extinct to what is considered practicable. I contend the Act gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to do what is in the best interest of protecting species. Again, I reiterate that in all discussions of protecting species, consideration has to be given to all species. It is “arbitrary and capricious” to endanger one or more species while utilizing the ESA as a heavy-handed weapon to achieve personal agendas – in this case, protection of the wolf at all costs.

There is argument to make that excluding Wyoming is “arbitrary and capricious” if one is focused on politics. I don’t recall anywhere in the 47 pages of the ESA where it factors in politics. It speaks mostly in reference to the best science and information available at the time decisions are made. Sometimes protecting species requires the isolation of political problems.

Excluding the politics, doesn’t it then become in the best interest of the people and the other wildlife species that state fish and wildlife officials have determined are in danger in certain areas because of the wolf, to remove the protection of the ESA in order to protect and preserve all the species? Wyoming is excluded because of politics and that issue needs to be solved separately.

The question still remains, at least according to Judge Molloy, is whether the USFWS has the authority to exclude Wyoming from the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves delisting? The Secretary within the Act has been given the authority to protect species and past history has shown us that it is a common practice for the USFWS to create certain “Distinct Population Segments” or DPS.

The courts seem to be hung up on the issue that the ESA says very little about DPS. From that it seems they deem the action illegal. The only reference within the Act about DPS is this:

(16) The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

The Act itself proposes that we set up programs to protect a species from going extinct. To make that determination, the Act also sets up guidelines that must be met before a species can be considered for an endangered or threatened listing.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In 1978 the United States decided to declare the gray wolf an endangered species in all the lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota – gray wolves there were listed as “threatened”. Because of previous court rulings, one has to question whether the USFWS had the authority to list wolves in the lower 48. More on that in a bit.

In 1994, the USFWS created the Yellowstone Non Essential Experimental Population (NEP) of gray wolves. It’s intent was to bring wolves back to the park. A NEP listing, according to the ESA, is such that it is considered not essential to the protection of the species but with a goal that it could one day be recovered and delisted. In NEP areas critical habitat is not designated. Another criterion of the establishment of a NEP is that it must be isolated from an existing species of the same.

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘experimental population’’ means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

Argument has been made that the creation and expansion of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population, all declared NEPs, was illegal as known populations of gray wolves existed in Northwestern Montana and portions of Idaho. (Another story)

In 1998 another NEP was designation in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and into Mexico. By April of 2000, the USFWS set up three Distinct Population Segments for administering the ESA and protecting wolves.

Those DPS did not last long. In 2005 in National Wildlife Federation, et. al v. Department of Interior, Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled the creation of the three DPS in violation of the ESA.

In February, 2008, the USFWS created the Western Great Lakes DPS and set out to delist the wolf in this region.

In February 2008, the USFWS designated the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS and set out to delist the wolf in that region.

July 2008, Judge Donold Molloy rules against the removal of the gray wolf from endangered protection. Molloy’s ruling was for an emergency injunction. The full case brought against the USFWS was never heard as the USFWS withdrew its plan to delist the wolf. It was later revived.

In July 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the USFWS did not have legal authority to create the Western Great Lakes DPS for the purpose of delisting the wolf. In his opinion he stated that this was in violation of the ESA, the same as Murtha’s ruling but using different reasons.

And most recently, the same Judge Molloy, ruled against the injunction and indicated that in the upcoming lawsuit of Defenders of Wildlife v. USFWS, the plaintiff’s claim that it is a violation of ESA to exclude Wyoming, may have merit.

We now have two judges who have ruled that creating DPSs are a violation of the ESA and a third considering such. What’s interesting is the Murtha ruling is based on the “DPS Policy” used by the National Marine Fisheries as reason to declare the creation of a DPS in violation of the ESA.

Friedman, on the other hand, remanded the case back to the USFWS (an unusual move) in order that they provide him with a clearer definition of a DPS.

What will Molloy use? Rulings are all over the place with neither of the two previous rulings citing the other. It really appears more like a case of ruling against a DPS because they wanted to than a finding of law violation.

Politics aside, science and evidence are telling us some of our other wildlife are suffering as a result of too many wolves in certain locations. State borders should have nothing to do with this. States manage their wildlife according to zones or districts. It has become the best available scientific method to do so and provides for better management broken down into smaller more manageable areas. This same principle should apply to the management of wolves throughout the entire NRM range.

To declare that carving Wyoming out of the picture as being “arbitrary and capricious” is showing one’s ignorance of the best wildlife management practices. The statement itself is political. As I said, the reason Wyoming is excluded is political. That problem needs to be resolved separately. In the meantime, wolves and all other wildlife species need to be managed. Delaying that process is irresponsible and is in itself a violation of the ESA.

This entire debate has become nauseating and a waste of time and money. Molloy has through his ruling, admitted that there are plenty of wolves and killing a few isn’t going to hurt anything. If he is to claim he must rule by the law, then be the first judge to actually rule using something substantial found in the ESA. Judges are supposed to interpret the meaning and intent of laws and rule accordingly. The ESA did not intend for wolves to run amok throughout Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, destroying other species putting them at risk and in need of protection from the same ESA. That’s ridiculous.

Tom Remington

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

Montana’s New Gun Law Going Viral

H/T to reader Greg Farber on the Global News Post article.

Montana’s HB246 is the talk of the states it seems these days. It didn’t take too long I suppose but with each passing day, more media, not the main stream though, and new Internet media are picking up on the brazen and testy new gun law bill that Montana signed into law last month. I first brought you that story right here on the Black Bear Blog.

I’ll dispense with all the proper speak and get to the nitty gritty of the bill. Montana’s HB246 says that any guns or gun parts manufactured in the state of Montana and sold exclusively in the state of Montana cannot be regulated by the federal government.

Back on April 20, 2009 I made this comment.

While several states are calling for legislation that reaffirms their state sovereignty in opposition to a federal government that is out of control, Montana, it appears, has taken this step a little bit further. No one knows how this will play out in the courts as it is sure to be challenged.

We know that many states now have taken some degree of assertiveness, if only to make a statement in protest of too much governmental control. Montana seems to be the first to draw a big and bold line in the sand, while at the same time dropping a grenade into the court (figuratively speaking) of the U.S. Government.

The Global News Post describes Montana’s bold move this way.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama’s face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Speaking of secession, if you will recall back during the U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the state of Montana was hinting that should the Supreme Court rule against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms as an interpretation of the Second Amendment, then the U.S. Government would be in breech of the contract Montana had with the U.S. Government when it agreed to join the union. Some legal authorities believe that Montana has that “ace up the sleeve” while other states don’t.

Which brings me to an additional point in this discussion. Since Gov. Schweitzer signed Montana’s bill, at least two other states, Alaska and Texas, have drafted similar bills.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, says he’s not really sure how all this would play out in court. As a matter of fact, Marbut says the MSSA is looking into the possibility of taking a proactive approach and filing a suit in court in order to prove the legal principles within HB246.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Reinstates Protection For Wolves “In Compliance With Court Orders”

On December 11, 2008, recorded in the Federal Register, the Department of Interior, more specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published the final rule that places the gray wolf in nearly all of the lower 48 states, under federal protection of the Endangered Species Act. What this final rule does, I doubt 99.999999% of Americans understand.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with three court orders which have the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing at 50 CFR 17.11 to reinstate the listing of wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North
Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, the northwestern portion of Ohio, the northern half of Montana, the northern panhandle of Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and in north-central Utah as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat in 50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) for the gray wolf in Minnesota, and special rules in 50 CFR 17.84 designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho and all of Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations. This action revises the CFR to comply with three court orders. In addition, this final rule takes additional
administrative action that removes archaic provisions from the gray wolf special regulation at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and makes corrections to the gray wolf special regulation at § 17.84(n) by removing language referring to a Western DPS.

How I understand this is that the Department of Interior (DOI) has cranked the clock back in time to 1978. My question now becomes, why stop there?

Quick history: In 1978 the United States declared the gray wolf “endangered” in all lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota. Wolves there were classified as “threatened”, essentially creating the first Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolves. Map 1 below shows areas shaded in gray as wolf protection areas. As you can see, Minnesota is listed as “threatened”. Map 1 also shows two areas of “nonessential experimental populations”(NEP) for gray wolves.

On November 22, 1994 (period of wolf reintroduction) the feds created the Yellowstone NEP, shown in the dark shaded area of the map. Again on January 12, 1998 a NEP was created in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

On July 13, 2000, the USFWS proposed changes to the listing of the gray wolf that would have created 4 Distinct Population Segments. On April 1, 2003 what the USFWS ended up with was 3 DPS as can be seen in Map 3.

February 8, 2007, the USFWS published the final rule creating the Western Great Lakes DPS, in order to remove that segment of the wolf population from federal protection.

On February 27, 2008, the USFWS published the final rule designating the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS, in order to remove federal protection of the gray wolf in that area.

If you’re following along, you will now notice that within the lower 48 states there are no fewer than 5 DPS for gray wolves.

Lawsuits followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in a moment.

On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy, in a federal court in Montana, ruled the basis for delisting the wolf incomplete (he demands “genetic connectivity”) and also declared Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan was inadequate to ensure the sustainability of the gray wolf in that state.

The third lawsuit dates back to 2005 when courts in Oregon and Vermont ruled that the Final Rule of April 1, 2003 (that created the three DPS shown on the maps above) violated the Endangered Species Act. Subsequently the ruling invalidated the three DPS created in that final rule. What isn’t clear is whether these two rulings apply to the two NEPs.

If we take a closer look at Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling, we see that he also believes that the feds’ creation of the Western Great Lakes DPS was an illegal act. Here is what I wrote back in September.

Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.

What the Department of Interior has been forced to do is comply with the rulings of the three lawsuits. As a result the USFWS describes what is left for protection of the wolf.

As of the filing of the respective court orders, any and all wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, except in Minnesota, are listed as an endangered species under
the ESA. Any and all wolves in Minnesota are listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The reinstated regulations found at 50 CFR 17.95 designate critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, and the reinstated special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) govern the regulation of gray
wolves in Minnesota. The provisions of these regulations are the same as those in the prior regulations that were removed per our February 8, 2007, final delisting rule (72 FR 6052).
The reinstated special rules found at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) designate part of the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains as nonessential experimental populations. The provisions of the special rules are the same as those in the prior special rules that were removed per our February 27, 2008, final
delisting rule (73 FR 10514).
This means that wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Oregon, Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana are hereby listed as endangered (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in Minnesota are listed as threatened (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in southern Montana, Idaho south of Interstate 90, and all of Wyoming are hereby listed as
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA (50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n)). The maps in the rule portion of this document illustrate the boundaries of the nonessential experimental population areas.

*Note* The Final Rule contains maps that show NEPs as described above.

What is becoming distinctly clear in all of these cases combined is that the DOI and USFWS have no legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for any species.

In the Vermont court case, part of the two lawsuits that essentially rendered the three DPS of wolves in the lower 48 states illegal and a violation of the Act, Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s ruling stated the following:

The definition of “species” includes “any distinct population segment of any species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The ESA does not define “distinct population segment” (“DPS”), nor is it a term used in scientific literature.

Judge Murtha recognizes that the “DPS Policy” “allows” for the USFWS to protect species based on the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population. This policy takes into consideration the “discreetness”, “significance” and “conservation status” of species. But Murtha obviously doesn’t think creating a DPS for management purposes and in this case, delisting purposes, is legal.

Judge Paul Friedman, who ruled that the WGL DPS was illegal, also stated that there is no definition of a Distinct Population Segment.

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

Judge Friedman tells us that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, is ambiguous when it comes to defining a Distinct Population Segment.

(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

Friedman claims that the USFWS has the authority to declare any area a Distinct Population Segment based on the above as described in the ESA. But most telling is that he says the USFWS cannot create another DPS within the broader DPS. Which of course makes no sense at all as would pertain to proper and quality wildlife management. (Note that most states through “best available science” practices, have learned that in order to properly manage wildlife, they must create wildlife management districts.)

As a result of the three court cases discussed above, I have to ask why the Department of Interior stopped their clock rewinding at 1978? Why not go back to pre-ESA. As we have seen by court rulings of Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne and the twelve parties that sued Kempthorne to put the wolf back under federal protection in the NRM DPS, tells us that creating DPSs is an illegal act. Any reasonable person would now question whether the federal government had the authority to create the first Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves in 1978 when it classified wolves in all the lower 48 states.

The confusing mess this has created now extends beyond just the gray wolf. It involves every species in existence in the United States. This is a clear example of the courts having inadequate knowledge of the issues making rulings that have now put the very species we may be wanting to protect in danger as well as stripping management powers from the USFWS.

I wrote recently of the efforts taking place as we speak to list the Atlantic salmon in Maine as endangered or threatened under the ESA. From this information we now ask, can the USFWS and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) create a Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon? The feds are attempting to expand the listing and define critical habitat. This, according to the court’s interpretation, is creating a new DPS within a DPS.

Surely the Department of the Interior, in issuing this final ruling to return the gray wolf protection to 1978 levels, is telling us their hands are tied. They should have taken it one step further and rescinded the original declaration of a wolf DPS within the U.S. from the beginning. (Perhaps they knew that would actually get someone’s attention.)

This also raises some very serious issues with regard to the “Nonessential Experimental Population” of gray wolves in the Yellowstone National Park area and Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Was it a legal act to create these NEPs? The broader question becomes whether the federal government had legal authority to reintroduce wolves into these regions? Surely if they can’t create segmented DPS of a species for management purposes, they have no legal right to dump species into these illegally crafted NEPs.

Obviously the power and authority of the Department of Interior, which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage wildlife has evaporated. Any so-called environmental or preservationist organization, with money behind it, can control the courts and get what they want. The Endangered Species Act is only as good as the lawsuits permit it to be. Perhaps it is time for the states to reclaim their sovereignty.

It appears the DOI has lobbed the ball back into the courts, figuratively and literally.

Tom Remington

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

Duck Texas! VP Cheney’s In Town For Some Bird Hunting

Two years almost to the day, Vice President Dick Cheney is returning to the famed 50,000 South Texas ranch of Anne Armstrong, the site where he accidentally shot his hunting partner Harry Whittington.

Rumor has it he’s traveling and hunting alone. One report said that Cheney could not make the trip last year but Whittington did and this year Cheney will be there and Whittington can’t.

Yeah, right!!

Tom Remington

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

Texas Deer Breeding – Sixth Most Profitable Agricultural Industry

Everything is big in Texas they say and breeding deer, both whitetail and mule deer, has become big business. Last year the industry boasted a $652 million economic impact to the state. The Gazette-Enterprise has more on this story.

Tom Remington

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

One Big Alligator Caught In Texas

Justin Wells of Lufkin, Tom Bass of Dallas, Jarrett Hanus of Spring and Ryan Haltom of Houston set baits to catch an alligator by hook and line. They had scouted the area and knew there was a big alligator lurking about the area where they set their bait. When they returned to check on the bait, they found they had hooked a gator. But which one?

As reported in the Lufkin Daily News:

“We’d gotten word back in the spring time that there was a big gator out there,” said Haltom, a wildlife biologist and land management consultant, “so me and Tommy had gone out there several times and scouted and seen quite a bit of gator activity and videotapes of gators.”
Ranch manager Larry Denson had spotted the big gator, prompting them to get tags for the season, and Thursday night was just “kind of a last-minute deal before the season was over,” Haltom said.
Using the hook-and-line method, the group anchored a rope to a tree, left enough rope so the gator could run with it, and hung a 14-ought treble hook about a foot above the water with their own “secret recipe of chicken and some other stuff.”
“We can’t let too many secrets out of the bag,” Haltom said.

Returning on Friday to check the bait, they assumed a gator had taken the bait, run off and probably drowned.

“He drowned himself,” Wells said. “We believe he just dove underneath the water and got tangled up in a stump, and gators have to come up for air every 15 minutes, so we were pretty sure he was dead, but we still weren’t sure.”
“Once we figured out he was dead and he wasn’t going to get us,” Haltom said, “we started diving down and feeling on him and we realized he was big. We could stand on top of him and we were head and shoulders above the water. That’s when we knew he had to be a big guy.
“The scales kind of change. On his belly there’s big, slick scales, or tiles, and as you get toward their mouth it gets into some softer leather, and we got to feeling around and thought, ‘OK, this is his mouth.’ But when we got to tying him up, we realized it wasn’t his mouth — it was his leg.”

Discovering a truck and a rope (400-pound test that broke) wasn’t going to help, they eventually got it out of the water with a tractor and chains.

The gator measured 13 feet, 10 1/2 inches and weighed 880 pounds. They think it has the potential to be a Texas state hook and line record. They are waiting to see.

The men plan to have the gator mounted and donated to a museum or some such thing.

Tom Remington

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

Texas Big Horn Sheep Growing In Numbers

The last known native Texas big horn sheep was spotted in October of 1958. Today, with the help of many, big horn sheep number 991 in the far western reaches of the Lone Star state. The Jasper Newsboy is reporting that the census tallied a one-year increase in sheep of 169.

“It’s still kind of hard to believe,” said Mike Pittman, who oversees the three state wildlife management areas that form the nucleus of Texas’ bighorn sheep program. “We used to bust our tails trying to see 100 sheep in the Sierra Diablo Mountains because that meant we had what we considered a viable population.”

This year’s survey recorded more than 400 bighorn sheep in the Sierra Diablos, birthplace of the restoration effort more than 60 years ago after more than 11,000 acres were acquired by the state as a sanctuary for the last remaining bighorn.

Once protective measures were put in place, efforts got underway to see about the possibility of restoring the big horn sheep to the west Texas area.

With the help of private landowners willing to protect bighorns and their habitat on their ranches, support from the Texas Bighorn Society and hunters, the desert bighorn sheep has made a comeback. Stocking of sheep obtained from other western states during the last two decades and transplanting animals into suitable habitat have nudged the natural recovery process.

As part of the overall management of the sheep, officials will issue hunting permits to target what they call surplus sheep. A surplus ram is one that is older and “He becomes more reclusive from the herd and his physical appearance may be deteriorating. We know that he’s already contributed to the herd for several years. That’s what we consider a surplus animal.”

This year 13 permits will be issued, most of them going to private landowners.

Tom Remington

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

Tell Texans The Number Of Hunters And Fishermen Declining

It seems that not all the news coming out about the declining number of hunters and fishermen nationwide is bad. I reported last week that Maine was bucking the national trend of reduced numbers but someone forget to tell Texans there seems to be a lack of interest.

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that hunting and fishing license sales are extraordinarily rapid paced.

Over the five-day period Aug. 30-Sept. 3, Texans purchased a little more than 385,000 hunting and fishing licenses, pumping about $12 million into TPWD accounts used exclusively for wildlife and fisheries programs.

Aug. 31 — the day old licenses expired and the day before the start of dove hunting season in most of the state — saw more than 136,000 licenses and other documents (public hunting permits, special-use stamps, etc.) purchased.

“That’s the biggest single day (of license sales) we’ve ever had,” Newton said.

Texans spent about $4.6 million on hunting and fishing licenses that day, Newton said.

And at the peak of sales, Texans were buying almost 250 licenses every minute — more than 14,000 an hour.

What’s also interesting is that officials are estimating that they will exceed license sales from last year, which was a record year.

This past year, TPWD issued a record 3.2 million hunting and fishing licenses.

And the state seems on a road to improve those numbers this license year.

“Last year was our best year,” Newton said. “So far this year, we’re about 2 percent ahead of where we were at this time a year ago.”

Is there something going on in Texas that other states should be looking at?

Tom Remington

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

Texas Deer Association Swears in New Leadership

SAN ANTONIO — The state’s only non-profit organization solely dedicated to Texas deer, the Texas Deer Association passed the torch this weekend and ceremoniously installed newly elected officers on its executive committee. The all-new executive committed was officially sworn in during the Ninth Annual Texas Deer Association Convention & Trade Show held at the Westin La Cantera Resort in San Antonio.

Leading the new executive committee is President Jimmy Hasslocher of San Antonio, who has previously served as vice president for the TDA’s Region Four, as well as in several leadership roles in his community. Also taking office were newly elected executive committee members Brian Carter of Driftwood, Texas, as vice president; Bobby Marburger of Columbus, Texas, as secretary; and Gilbert Adams III of Beaumont, Texas, as treasurer.

“Our members are our real strength,” said Hasslocher, who addressed more than 1000 TDA members attending the convention. “Communication will be my top priority, making sure our new members feel valued and ensuring that all members have timely and accurate information as we move forward together.”

All of the new TDA executive committee officers expressed a keen interest in creating a growing membership for the TDA, as well as for greater involvement with government activities and legislation that might impact the deer and hunting industries in Texas.

The TDA is the only non-profit organization solely committed to improving the quality of Texas deer herds through improved habitat practices, modern harvest strategies and use of superior deer to enhance the deer herds. As a part of its public education efforts, the TDA publishes a full-color bimonthly magazine, Tracks, which updates TDA members on current legislative news, deer genetics and game management issues. The TDA also hosts an annual convention and trade show every August featuring fund-raising auctions, a deer auction, golf tournament and other events.

To learn more about the Texas Deer Association or for membership information, visit www.texasdeerassociation.com or call 210.767.8300.

Tom Remington

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

You Ever Had Deer For Breakfast?

Probably not this way!!!!!

Tom Remington

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

It’s Obvious States Are Gearing Up For Hunting Seasons

All across the country talk is increasing along with excitement as several hunting seasons are upon us. With this increased chatter, it’s easy to browse the Internet and find countless articles loaded with information concerning the upcoming seasons. Here’s a few I have selected for you.

In Minnesota, warnings are up for dog owners, including waterfowl hunting dogs, that a blue-green algae outbreak can kill your dog. With the low water levels and high air temperatures, it is prime breeding for the algae. Dog owners are cautioned.

Shannon Tompkins of the Houston Chronicle is saying that this year’s waterfowl season in Texas should be a good one.

In Skowhegan, Maine, the local chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation sponsored a free field day for kids. The events provided opportunities for the kids to shoot clay pigeons with shotguns, try their hand at a rifle or a BB gun as well as archery. It was a great event and is retold in an article in the Morning Sentinel by Colen Hickey.

In Pennsylvania, Ron Tussel of the Pocono Record, reminds bobcat hunters that the deadline for applying for a permit is nearing. He also has some great information about bobcats.

The first ever alligator hunt is scheduled to begin soon in Arkansas and all permit holders are required to take an orientation class.

The state of Washington is also gearing up for a great waterfowl season. Get the highlights from Mark Yuasa of the Seattle Times.

If you’re planning a dove hunting trip to Texas, Steve Knight of the Tyler Morning Telegraph tells readers, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Dove Hunting“.

Alabama sets bag limits.

Indiana opens for squirrel hunting on Wednesday. Bill Scifries of the Chronicle-Tribune has an article on some of the changes hunters should be aware of for the upcoming seasons.

And for all dog owners preparing their canines for the fall hunting season, Kurt Mueller of the Sheboygan Press gives owners tips on getting your dog tuned up for the fall hunting season.

Let the games begin!

Tom Remington

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

Some People Have Too Much Sensibility

I read Steve Knight’s article today about how anti-hunters and hunters both argue too often with twisted facts. In the end, I felt a bit disappointed in the simple fact that most of what he said made sense without a whole lot of emotion.

Maybe I should take a lesson……………………………….nah!

Tom Remington

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

Mexico Calls On U.S. To Alter Boarder Plans To Save Animals

The L.A. Times has a short snippet this morning saying that the Mexican government is asking the U.S. to change its plans of building a fence because it may effect animals. Instead they want to build bridges and such done in a way so as to “be less attractive to smugglers”.

Let’s get this right. The Mexican government wants most of their people to go to the U.S. and make American dollars and ship them back to Mexico and we should listen to their recommendations? These illegals are currently destroying the ecological systems that support all of these animals they say need protecting, yet they have no interest in addressing that problem.

And we must remember that when illegals come into this country, they consider areas that are “less attractive” to cross the border. Please!

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »