Your best selection of top quality archery equipment and hunting supplies.
Click on Logo to go to
http://www.rmarchery.com/
It was a great day in the forest. Spring time in the Rockies always provides a great chance to get out and see a lot of wildlife. The elk are migrating back from their winter range, the deer will be next to show up.
As the grass becomes green and the flowers begin their spring ritual of blooming the forest comes alive with wildlife.
Please click on the link and help our CMDA youth board to implement change on behalf of all youth hunters both resident and non-resident.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/youth-hunting-recruitment-and-retention/
ESCANABA — Michigan hunters have been known to say that state’s growing wolf population is bad for deer. Their lament is about the diminished Upper Peninsula whitetail population. It’s not unusual to hear someone claim: “Wolf are eating all the deer.”
But what researchers found this past winter, the third year of a western U.P. deer mortality study, is that coyotes were the No. 1 predator followed by bobcats. Wolves came in fourth after a three-way tie among hunters, unknown predators and undetermined causes.
“I was somewhat surprised to see coyotes play as large a role in fawn predation as they did…,” said Jerry Belant, an associate professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at Mississippi State University. Belant oversees student researchers who are working in partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. He said coyotes were more prevalent than expected. There were also few rabbits and hares to feed upon.
Researchers got their data from 142 fawns fitted with GPS collars. The devices transmitted their location every 15 minutes. Eighty collared fawns died during the three year first phase of the study. Predators killed 73 percent of the deer.
The study aims to identify just what is killing UP deer. Phase 1 took place in a region known for “low snow” depths. Phase 2 and 3 will look at mid- and high-snow zones.
“We wanted to look at the role of predation and winter habitat on fawn survival,” said Dean Beyer, a wildlife researcher with Michigan’s DNR.
Agency staff have long said that wolves play a small role in deer mortality. Biologists estimate the UP deer population at 270,000. Cars and hunters kill roughly 64,000. Wolves kill 17,000 to 29,000 deer. An estimated 687 gray wolves live in the Upper Peninsula, according to the DNR’s website.
“We jumped into the UP because of the deer population trends,” Beyer said. “The herd did well in the early ’90s. Then we had two severe winters back to back (in the mid 90s) and the population dropped and stayed flat and hasn’t rebounded.
“Winter weather is a driver up there. Lake Superior is a snow making machine. It creates deep snows close to the lake and the snow depths decline as you move away.”
Severe UP winters can kill 30 percent or more of the deer population. So researchers collared both fawns and predators. The GPS data was plotted on a map. When a cluster appeared, students went out to the site to see what they could find.
Belant and Beyer discovered two packs of wolves in the area. But they also found something else: nine livestock pits where farmers dumped dead cattle.
“They (wolves) were hitting carcasses,” Beyer said. “That influenced the predation on fawns and might have reduced it. It will be interesting to see what happens in the mid-snow zone where there is no agriculture or cattle dump.”
Phase 2 begins next winter in Iron County, Phase 1, in Delta and Menominee counties, collected predator data points for 650,000 locations, Beyer said.
“We’re pretty pleased with how things worked out. The one thing that surprised us a little was finding that bobcats were very efficient predators. Their kill rate was higher than we expected.”
Wolves, on the other hand, were expected to score higher. That they didn’t has researchers wondering what will show up next year.
Brent Rudolph, the DNR’s deer program manager, said he expects wolves will play a bigger role in deer predation.
“We went into an area not as heavily used by wolves,” he said. “As we shift study sites into areas with more wolves there will be more wolf mortality. Coyotes won’t be as effective in those areas because wolves will outright exclude coyotes on the kill.”
It is fair to say that having wolves on the landscape stirs emotions for many. Wolves are feared, reviled and revered; the root of all that would take up another column — maybe two.
So let me say I am glad to see this study moving forward. The first phase results are enlightening. The rest will tell us what we need to know.
 |
|
Yesterday, Idaho’s legislature, passed a bill to place a “right to hunt” constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2012. Given the efforts to undermine the North American Wildlife Model in Idaho and in many other states, the timing of this constitutional amendment couldn’t be more critical. Governor Otter is expected to sign this bill into law in the next few weeks.
Here is what is happening: House Joint Resolution 2AA and related legislation supports a constitutional amendment to protect the right of every person in Idaho to hunt, fish and trap. A special thank you to Senator Lee Heider and other members of the Idaho Legislature for sponsoring this important legislation. This constitutional amendment will amend Idaho’s constitution to make it clear that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are part of our inalienable rights.
Multi-million dollar ballot initiatives funded by out-of-state anti-hunting groups like HSUS have been growing in recent years. At a wolf management hearing in Boise a few weeks ago, many of these out-of-state anti-hunting groups showed up in force. A recent email campaign to stop harvest of wolves in Idaho’s Lolo elk management area also has been making its way around the Internet. It is clear that major efforts remain to stop recovery of key elk and moose populations in Idaho.
A constitutional “right-to-hunt” bill makes it much, much more difficult for out-of-state special interest groups to undermine state wildlife policy. Misleading multi-million dollar anti-hunting campaigns and ballot initiatives will continue. This constitutional amendment requires any ballot initiative related to the right to hunt, fish, trap or other key wildlife policies to have a 2/3rds vote.
|
March 23,2012
UNDER THE SAME FLAG
The 2011 legislative session in New Mexico produced several law changes that negatively discriminate against nonresident hunters. Prior to NM SB196 (2011) nonresident hunters were allocated 22% of deer, elk and antelope licenses. Now, only 16% of those hunting licenses are allocated to nonresidents. Nonresidents are further deprived of the right to hunt cow elk on public lands and also deprived of hunting deer, elk or antelope on State Wildlife Areas – State Wildlife Areas which were purchased largely with Federal funds. Additionally, nonresident outfitters, for all practical purposes, are eliminated on public lands inasmuch as their nonresident clients are ineligible to participate in the drawings for deer, elk and antelope licenses.
All of these discriminatory and prejudicial laws were challenged in a lawsuit heard before Judge Armijo in Federal District Court, March 21 & 22, 2012, in Albuquerque, NM. The plaintiff action was brought about by a group of nonresident hunters and outfitters from Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming asking for injunctive relief from New Mexico laws which violate the constitution of the United States. Judge Armijo acknowledged certain obvious and blatant unconstitutionality and granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a portion of the laws. A final ruling will come within the next few months.
It is significant to note that NM SB 196 was inspired by resident hunters, represented by the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, who sought to eliminate 55% of nonresident hunting opportunity for deer, elk and antelope on public lands and , rather, to give those opportunities to the resident hunter. Their original Bill would have designated 90% of the licenses to the resident hunter and 10% to the nonresident.
It is also significant to note that resident desire for more of the available licenses is a common and dominate problem throughout the public lands States, i.e., all of the Western States. As a lifelong advocate of responsible wildlife management, a steward of the land and wildlife habitat, and as a past Colorado Wildlife Commissioner, I have long been aware of a basic tenet of the science of wildlife management. That tenet is; the three most important components required for good effective wildlife management are, Habitat, Habitat and Habitat. We ask ourselves, who owns and manages these most important “habitats” in the Western States ? Of course the Federal Government “owns” USFS and BLM thru all Americans ( each of whom has an undivided interest in every square acre of this Government managed “habitat”) The remainder of wildlife habitat in the Western states is largely private lands. Some is State lands, but much of that is State Wildlife Areas which were purchased with Federal funds mainly coming from the 11% federal tax, levied nationwide, on the sale of firearms and ammunition. The Pittman/Robertson Act of 1937 authorized this tax to create a fund for the restoration of wildlife and their habitats. For the past 75 years a disproportional amount of PR funds have been spent in the Western States. All Americans can take pride in these State Wildlife Areas that their PR funds have created.
We also ask, who funds wildlife management in the Western, public lands, States ? Of course it is the nonresident hunters with their higher license fees who have been historically the extremely important funding source for all western State Game and Fish Departments. We ask who funds the management of the very important wildlife habitat on Federal lands ? The answer is disturbing as very little of the millions of dollars in hunting license revenue collected by the various Game and Fish Departments goes toward habitat management on public or private lands.
It is accepted that wildlife belongs to no one (according to the North American Wildlife model) and is held in trust for the people of the various States (residents) by the State. It follows that the financial responsibility for sustainable habitat management should be borne by the people, who “own” the wildlife (i.e., the residents). In most Western States some attempt is made to mitigate the costs or impacts of hosting and producing wildlife on private land, but amazingly little goes toward public land wildlife habitat management.
In summation, the legal action illuminates several problems:
In 2005 Senator Harry Reid inserted a little known clause into the Iraqi War Funding Bill that provides for the various States to be able to determine who hunts within their respective State. The Reid amendment is being used to justify nonresident discrimination despite the fact that all Americans have a vested interest in wildlife habitat on Federal lands and in the funding, historically, for the recovery of wildlife species and their habitats (purchase of State Wildlife Areas).
The greatest threat to wildlife and their habitats on Federal lands is the resident, their growing populations (Colorado has over 5 million residents), their increasing demand for infrastructure needs for roads, homes, schools, etc. and their increasing year round recreation. The exponential increase in outdoor recreation in wildlife habitat – hiking (always with a dog), bicycling, ATVs, etc. is said to be “non consumptive to wildlife while hunting is “consumptive”. Yet, only 20 to 40% of the hunters harvest an animal, so aren’t the 60% who do not harvest an animal non consumptive ? On the other hand, the constant recreational habits of the newly arrived residents who moved to the western states to “love” the outdoors create a defacto “loss of habitat” by virtue of their constant presence within those habitats.
The North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation and the Public Trust Doctrine call for “a democracy in hunting”, i.e. an equality in access for all Americans to hunting opportunities. Hunting opportunity is granted through hunting licenses. What could be more fair, in the public lands States, than allocating 50% of the available licenses to residents and 50% to all Americans, to include residents if they are willing to purchase the higher priced licenses to help fund wildlife conservation and habitat management in their State. We would do well to remember that from the late 1800’s thru the early part of the 20th century our nation was fortunate in having conservationists with vision. When Theodore Roosevelt (a nonresident) and his colleagues sought to recover wildlife species and wildlife habitat thus creating National Forests, those Forests and that wildlife were to be for the benefit of all Americans. We are overdue to reevaluate the future of our wildlife, the funding of wildlife management and to seek sensible solutions.
It is time to collectively abolish greed, selfishness and shortsightedness regarding wildlife and their habitats. What you can do to help;
Email New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez, asking for her help to stop nonresident discrimination
Email your own Congressional Delegation asking that the Reid Amendment be overturned
Respectfully submitted,
Dick Ray
Past Colorado Wildlife Commissioner, 2005-2009
Past President, Colorado Outfitters Association, 2010-2011
Past Plaintiff in legal action involving nonresident discrimination, New Mexico, 1975 (we prevailed)
Past Plaintiff in legal action involving nonresident discrimination, New Mexico, 1995 (we prevailed)
Currently a Plaintiff in legal action involving nonresident discrimination, New Mexico, 2012
|
|
Folks,
We are very pleased to announce that important legislation to speed Mule Deer Recovery in the state of Utah were signed into law on Saturday, March 17, 2012. I was asked to represent the supporters of Big Game Forever at the signing ceremony. Just before both bills were signed, Representative McIff talked about the sharp decline in mule deer harvest in Utah over the last 30 years. In 1983, 85,000 mule deer were harvested in Utah. Last year, just 19,000 mule deer were harvested.
Now is the time to fix Utah’s mule deer herd. Coyotes are a major problem. Sportsmen are the answer. These two bills provide big dollars to incentivize sportsmen to spend more time in the field doing coyote control work. At $1 Million dollars, through targeted control efforts, 20,000 coyotes can be removed at $50 per coyote. This is enough to do control efforts in every part of the state. Over the next couple of weeks, recommendations on how this program may be implemented will be distributed. To sportsmen in Utah, please provide feedback on recommendations as the state of Utah goes through the process of developing this program to control coyotes. The goal is to utilize these dollars in a manner to most effectively increase fawn survival and mule deer recovery statewide. This program should also help predation on livestock across the state.
Below is an article from Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife on the signing of both SB 87 and SB 245.
–
Ryan Benson |
Big, Big News.
30 minutes ago, we found out that we have won in court when it comes to wolves and wolf delisting. The ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco clearly supported the legality of the Congressional action to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies. The opinion, written by Judge Schroeder, dated March 14, 2012, ruled that Section 1731 (the wolf bill) was constitutional and that this action by Congress to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies was fully legal. This is a huge victory for wildlife conservation and will allow wolf management to continue in Montana and Idaho. It also protects Wyoming’s legal victory and leaves the door open for a Wyoming delisting later this year.
As many of you are aware, Big Game Forever and other conservation organizations, including partner organizations Sportsmen for Fish and Widllife and Mule Deer Foundation are parties to this litigation.
Detailed Analysis
This particular legal challenge attacked various aspects of the constitutionality of the wolf bill in Congress. This particular case began last year in Judge Molloy’s court in the Western District of Montana. Judge Molloy ruled that Congress has full authority to amend its own laws, including the Endangered Species Act, and that the delisting by Congress was constitutional. The case was appealed to the 9th circuit, where the constitutionality of Section 1731 was once again challenged. The court also ruled that Congress did amend the endangered species act through this action to the extent it was inconsistent with the Congressional delisting language. While it is entirely possible that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, the victories at the district court level and at the 9th circuit are a great sign. We have believed throughout this process in the strength of our position and the legal arguments supporting that position. To this point, the courts have agreed with our position.
Here is a quote from the ruling:
Appellants’ arguments that Section 1713 is a repeal rather than an amendment must fail for a similar reason. Congress did not repeal any part of the ESA. Rather, Congress effectively provided that no statute, and this must include the ESA, would apply to the 2009 rule. Congress thus amended the law applicable to the agency action.
Appellants also contend that the meaning and effect of the 2009 Rule as reissued under Section 1713 are unclear, and that ambiguity prevents the court from finding an amendment. We cannot agree. The meaning and intended effect of Section 1713 are perfectly clear. The partial delisting was to take effect within 60 days, with no court review or interference….
…Finally, we observe that while Section 1713 bars judicial review of the reissuance of the 2009 Rule, the 2009 Rule does provide standards
by which the agency is to evaluate the continuing viability of wolves in Montana and Idaho. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 at 15,186.
Review of any regulations issued pursuant to the Rule or of agency compliance with the standards, does not appear to be restricted.
Section 1713 itself, however, ordering the Rule to issue without regard to the laws that might otherwise apply, is entitled to be enforced.
The bottom line is that once again, the courts have ruled in favor of wolf delisting. Wolf management will continue in the Northern Rockies by state fish and game agencies including regulated hunting by sportsmen.
Thank you for your ongoing support. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments as they arise.
A great victory for healthy wildlife populations and for our outdoor heritage.
–
Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
ryandbenson@msn.com
Big Dollars for Predator Control in Utah
Two bills before Utah’s legislature aim to use sportsmen and public/private partnerships to address challenges in mule deer fawn survival. Under these bills, sportsmen will once again be the key to fixing Utah’s Mule Deer herd. These bills would place over $1 million dollars in bounties and other incentives for private coyote removal. The bill S.B. 87 is entitled, “Predator Control Funding” and is sponsored by Senator Hinkins. S.B. 87 places a $5 dollar surcharge on big game tags to raise money for coyote removal by trappers and hunters. It is estimated that this S.B. 87 surcharge will raise an additional $500-600,000 for predator control.
The other bill, S.B. 245, is entitled “Mule Deer Protection Act” and is sponsored by Senator Okerlund. This bill provides a $750,000 state general fund match to the sportsmens dollars provided by S.B. 87. $500,000 of the S.B. 245 dollars will go to DWR and $250,000 will go to Wildlife Services to help fund a new helicopter for predator control work aimed at fixing Utah’s Mule Deer herds. These bills are yet another illustration of how the state of Utah and hunters cooperatively are contributing dollars for mule deer restoration. Collectively, these two bills provide $1-$1.1 million dollars of ongoing funding to fix mule deer populations in Utah. Funding will also be directed to USDA Wildlife Services to augment existing removal efforts in mule deer fawning grounds.
Bounties in Utah
Currently 12 of 29 Utah counties provide bounties to private individuals for coyote removal. These bounties are typically $20 or $25 dollars per coyote and are administered in various ways in the different counties. We suggest that coyote bounties be increased to $50 dollars and be implemented statewide in a consistent fashion to incentivize greater efforts by hunters and trappers to take more coyotes. Let’s make sure these dollars are being spent on Utah coyotes. It will be the responsibility of concerned sportsmen to not only make sure these dollars are utilized, but to ensure that these dollars are used to fix Utah’s mule deer problem.
Federal Removal Efforts
Currently, USDA Wildlife Services re
moves approximately 4,500 coyotes statewide. This important program targets coyotes impacting agriculture and mule deer fawns. This program is administered in cooperation with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Utah DWR using almost $950,000 in private and state funds. At an estimated cost of up to $600 per coyote on mule deer areas, due to the cost of these control efforts, consistent removal is not provided annually in most problem areas. By providing funding for a second helicopter, existing control efforts can be increased and mule deer and agriculture control work can be performed on the same days in different areas.
The Value of Private Removal
Hunters and trappers remove 8,000 coyotes annually from Utah landscapes in addition to coyotes removed by USDA Wildlife Services. At a cost of $20-25 per coyote (or in many cases at no cost), sportsmen actually remove more coyotes in this state than by any other program. If greater incentive dollars are provided to cover costs associated with private removal work, our goal is that this greater funding for private efforts will allow sportsmen to spend more time and effort on coyote removal, especially in mule deer fawning areas. Let’s make it our goal to remove approximately 20,000 coyotes annually. Just as importantly, these bills recognize key role of sportsmen in maintaining predator/prey balances and provide economic help and incentives provide more consistent private efforts. With targeted efforts in mule deer impact areas, dramatic increases in fawn survival and reductions in overall mule deer mortality are aimed at growing Utah’s mule deer herd.
Predator Control Coordination
Utah DWR is also exploring the possibility of employing two full-time coyote removal specialists to help administer these programs and dollars for maximum impact for mule deer. These individuals would be tasked with focusing full-time on finding ways to use predator control to increase mule deer fawn survival and overall population growth. Additionally, the specialists would be tasked with helping direct the effort of sportsmen to provide the greatest value to mule deer recovery. These specialists would also work to ensure that trouble areas are being targeted every year and to minimize overlap with the efforts of federal wildlife services. It should be noted that in some instances, collaborative efforts with federal wildlife services may prove to provide the most dramatic increases in fawn survival.
Conclusion
We are not ready to give up on Utah’s mule deer. It is time to once again have over 400,000 mule deer in the state of Utah. Not only is this a sustainable minimum population goal, but 400,000 mule deer will allow for more real hunting opportunity for families and more big bucks, even in general season areas. We owe it to Utah’s mule deer. We owe it to our kids, grandkids and future of wildlife conservation in Utah.
Myth: Wolves won’t attack humans
Fact: Documented -Wolves stalked several childrennear a bus stop in NM!
May 2007 -Two Catron County school children were followed home from the bus stop by 3 wolves.
December 2007 -Glenwood elementary school a wolf was seen on the playground after multiple reports of the animal seen in the town.
Jan 2008 -Wolf kill within 70 yards of a school bus stop in Idaho
Myth: Wolves are good for elkpopulations
Fact: US Fish and Wildlife Service Study
•Elk are the primary prey for wolves, comprising 92 % of kills during the winter.
•Elk decreased significantly from 16,791 in winter 1995 to 8,335 in winter 2004 as the number of wolves increased .
•Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 Elk per wolf per year –DOUBLEthe rate predicted in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Myth: Wolves are efficient killers
Fact: Wolves willeat their prey alive, or worse, eat a portion of the animal and leave it to suffer
Myth: Wolves only kill what they eat
Fact:Wolves are actually the most wasteful predator in theUS and kill for sport
Myth: Wolves only kill the old and weak
Fact:Wolves will kill any elk when given the chance and focuson elk calves
Average kill rate per wolf per month = 3.05 Elk
36 Elk Per Year/Wolf
~2,000 Wolves = 72,000 Elk Per Year
|
|
Folks,
Yesterday, US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a very interesting report on wolves in America. It appears that the service may be backing away from aggressive wolf expansion plans in most areas in America. There are a few exceptions where more wolves may be required by USFWS. Here is a quick summary:
(1) Expanded Wolf Delisting in the lower 48: The report suggests that gray wolves could be removed from endangered status in the lower 48 states (with a few notable exceptions see #2 and #3 below). Here is the quote, “The 5-year status review recommendation is that the Canis Lupus entity [gray wolves as a species]…should be revised…by removing all areas currently included in the CFR range. In other words, it is time to delist a bunch of states where wolves don’t belong or where they are already recovered.
(2) Notable Exceptions. The above sentence also makes clear that removal of wolves in the lower 48 states from endangered status does not include areas where “there is a valid species, or subspecies, or DPS that is threatened or endangered.” So where do wolves belong according to the report? Here are some potential areas being reviewed by US Fish and Wildlife Service.
a. Pacific Northwest (see pages 13-14 for more detail)
b. Eastern Wolves (see pages 14-15)
c. Arizona, New Mexico, Texas (see pages 9-13 for more detail)
Here is the quote from the conclusion, “Status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and for the eastern wolf…are also ongoing…the outcomes of these reviews will identify which, if any, gray wolves should continue to receive protections under the ESA.”
(3) Map for Mexican Wolves in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?
The report shows what appears to be a new Mexican wolf boundary which includes portions of Arizona, New Mexico and extends into Texas. See page 5 of the report to view the map.
This report was the result of a 5-year review of gray wolves in the lower 48 states, and included Mexico Gray wolves as well. While this report is advisory in nature, a few very interesting conclusions are included in the report. These recommendations come from the summary on page 22 of the report which can be found at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3978.%20lupus%205-YR%20review%20PDF.pdf
For those who want to read beyond the “cliff notes” version, here is the full written version of the summary on page 22.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5-Year Review of
Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Listing, as revised
Current Classification: Endangered
Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review:
The 5-year status review and recommendation is that the Canis lupus entity [gray wolf species] should be revised to reflect the distribution and status of C. lupus populations in the lower 48 States and Mexico by removing all areas currently included in the CFR range except where there is a valid species, or subspecies, or DPS that is threatened or endangered. A 12-month finding on the petition to reclassify gray wolves in the Southwest as a subspecies or DPS will be completed by September 30, 2012. Status reviews for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and for the eastern wolf, both initiated on May 5, 2011 are also ongoing and we anticipate completing these by September 30, 2012 as well. The outcome of these reviews will identify which, if any, gray wolves should continue to receive protections under the ESA. Because we are in the process of identifying subspecies or populations that may continue to warrant protection under the ESA, we recommend that the listing status of the gray wolf remain intact until these regional reviews are complete.
|