Mule Deer Fanatic

As quoted from the Wyoming Game and Fish :

———————————–

On March 28, 2008, wolves were officially removed from the Endangered Species List in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This includes the entire states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, as well as portions of Utah, Oregon, and Washington. However, a number of groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Those same groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to restore Endangered Species Act protection to wolves while the lawsuit is being heard. On July 18, 2008, a federal judge in Montana granted this injunction, returning management authority for wolves to the federal government.

News Release
Contact: Eric Keszler
eric.keszler@wgf.state.wy.us
July 18, 2008
Cheyenne Headquarters
5400 Bishop Blvd.
Cheyenne, WY 82006
Phone: (307) 777-4594 ▪ Fax: (307) 777-4600
http://gf.state.wy.us
Federal Court Decision Changes Wolf Management in Wyoming
CHEYENNE—A decision issued today in federal court will have significant impacts on the way
wolves are managed in Wyoming. Judge Donald Molloy issued an injunction to suspend the
removal of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from the federal Endangered Species List.
Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were removed from the Endangered Species List in
March 2008. A number of environmental groups are challenging the US Fish and Wildlife
Service’s delisting decision. Today’s injunction effectively returns management authority for
wolves in the region to the federal government while these legal challenges are heard.
Under state management, wolves in Wyoming were classified as Trophy Game animals in the
northwest corner of the state and Predatory animals in the rest of the state. In the Trophy Game
area, wolves could only be taken by hunters with a wolf hunting license during an open season or
by ranchers who had been issued a lethal take permit by the Game and Fish. In the Predatory
Animal area, wolves could be taken by anyone at any time.
As a result of today’s injunction, wolves can no longer be taken anywhere in Wyoming except in
cases where wolves are in the act of attacking livestock. Ranchers who are experiencing
livestock depredation problems anywhere in the state should contact their local Wyoming Game
and Fish office.

This email just in:

————————————

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife in the US. After a sweeping victory in the November elections, animals that were formerly self-sufficient are already modifying their behavior to take advantage of what they expect to be a new set of societal norms in the next four to eight years. This black bear from Montana has ceased hunting for a living and is sitting outside the US Fish & Wildlife Service office in Kalispell, apparently waiting to be fed and to have his winter den dug by government employees. The residents of Kalispell are calling him “Bearack Obama”.

Beary Punny

This fellow was kind of screaming from his soapbox, but what he says of Pennsylvania certainly holds true for the west and for mule deer, namely: low deer numbers, hunters paying the way but having their money used against them, policy makers being manipulated by special interests, trendy methods of mis-estimating deer numbers, a younger generation losing interest, and agencies losing sight of whom they serve.

———————————–

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 11:25 PM EST

To the editor:

In response to several letters to the editor on the subject of support, or lack of it, for the Pa. Game Commission’s request for a license fee increase, it would seem that some folks are still in the dark.

I am speaking only my opinion, but I believe the majority of sportsmen in Pennsylvania do not want to bankrupt the PGC. Yes! Even most deer hunters! They realize that 99 percent of employees who work in the field and offices are doing a good job. That said, there are handful of policy makers that make one wonder what the real agenda is for the future of our State Game Lands in Pennsylvania.

It would be a good bet that the special interest groups who drive the current PGC policies on the drastic reductions in the deer herd are the very ones who stand to gain the most if the PGC is eliminated. Both PGC and hunters have a lot to lose in this battle.

If, as Mr. Robert Gratson and Mr. Wes Waldron’s letters would lead you to believe, that a majority of hunters are behind the deer policies of the PGC . Then, what’s all the fuss about! With just a “minority” of “greedy,” “ignorant” and “self-centered” deer hunters to contend with, the PGC should have all the support it needs!

Despite new and “trendy” methods of estimating deer numbers by “population trends,” large areas of the state have extremely low deer populations. And a “large number” of the deer hunters have been screaming their collective heads-off.

Ever hear of the Pennsylvania deer wars, guys? The PGC’s message to you fellows who hunt and live in areas of the state where there are severe “down trends” are, shut-up and hand over the money! Thousands upon thousands of letters have been written by hunters, some quitting the sport, some just plain disgusted.

And with a younger generation of hunters, who are unwilling to spend days in the woods without seeing any deer, a person might wonder what they are missing? One might also wonder why, with so many supposedly behind the current deer management policy that hunting license sales are falling at an alarming rate? Mr. Waldron, in true bureaucratic fashion, states that managing a deer herd “goes beyond the understanding” of most sportsmen.

There is a lot of truth in this, there are many factors to take into account for healthy and diverse habitat management. But one thing sportsman do completely understand is more often than not, when bureaucrats and special interests get involved, the problem gets worse!

If you question this, start doing a little research on what has happened with the wolf reintroduction out west! With all the “science” and “biology” and millions upon millions in research funding, game managers have created a nightmare for hunters, hikers, pet owners, ranchers and the local ecosystems.

The damage that has been done to elk and mule deer populations has been tremendous. But of course, big brother always knows what’s best for us, right? And there in lies the problem with the PGC, and the deer hunters of Pennsylvania.

A large part of revenue is provided by deer hunters through license sales. When policies that directly affect the future of our deer herd are enacted, hunters take a back seat and are told they are not really smart enough to understand the “big picture.”

What they are seeing with their own eyes, just isn’t so! The picture that hunters see, in a lot of areas of the state, is a bleak one. There is no doubt that some areas still have large populations of deer, private property and limited hunting around the suburbs are special issues and certainly need to be addressed. But what would it really take to bring the PGC and deer hunters together for the benefit of all involved? Again, I can only speak for myself but I think if the PGC should step forward and own up to the facts that current deer-control policies have been too drastic in a lot of areas, and acknowledge there is a problem!

Admit that the management areas may be too large and diverse to be effectively managed. And most important to sportsmen impose a two to three-year moratorium on the two-week concurrent seasons, until some accurate herd data can be compiled to support claims on both sides of the issue.

If the PGC would reach across the aisle with meaningful solutions, instead of lip-service and suspect studies, they would find that all the sportsmen of Pennsylvania would rally around them! Deer hunters included! But don’t hold your breath that will happen. The handful of people who are driving these policies will succeed by driving a wedge between hunters and the PGC.

And in dividing us against each other, both PGC and hunters lose! The extreme environmentalist movement is at work here and we all know where hunting as a whole stands with them ! The PGC has done a lot of good things over the years, and there are many more success stories than failures. It will be the end of another era in Pennsylvania hunting history, most likely for the worse. But when any organization loses sight of who they are supposed to be serving, they cannot survive. But then again, maybe that’s been the real plan all along, to destroy the PGC from with in. Hmm, do you think the people who help accomplish this will get jobs when administration of Pa. Game Lands goes to DCNR?

It has been said that “In England, only the kings men hunt the kings deer”

What do you think of this scheme? Are we heading this direction in the good ol’ US ?

————————————

Devon project to promote wild venison

Posted: 23 Mar 2008 04:40 PM CDT

Deer Management in the UK (United Kingdom) may not be all that different than the way we do it. Ever body has their own way of doing things but the end result can be more closer than you think.

A pioneering project has been launched to promote wild venison and other deer-related products and activities in the region.

The South West Forest Deer Management Programme aims to get wild venison into the local food chain, and also to encourage tourism by offering deer-related activities such as photography and tracking.

The first stage of the project focuses on forecast target areas around Holsworthy, Rackenford and North of Barnstaple. The project aims to encourage retailers, restaurants and hotels to serve venison as a high-quality, locally-sourced meat.

But the project is not just about the consumption of venison, as Mick Bracken, Rural Development Forestry Adviser from South West Forest (SWF) is keen to point out. He says: “We will focus on raising awareness of the need for deer population control for environmental and economic reasons as well as for the health of the herds.”

Mick also says that the project has long term benefits: “There will be an accreditation and tagging system to assure customers of the high levels of food hygiene for the scheme, and the project will be monitored by Deer Management Groups set up by SWF in each of the targeted areas with managed plans for deer culling in order to supply the scheme.

“In this way we hope to create a model which, over a longer timescale, will be rolled out to the whole of the South West Forest area and eventually other parts of the region.”

Over half of the £100,000 project cost has been met by Devon Renaissance, the rural regeneration programme for the county. Simon Mallett from Devon Renaissance says that the project will be a welcome boost to the region’s rural economy. “The project will supplement rural incomes within the region, as well as providing accredited training opportunities for those seeking a career within the deer trade.

“The increased tourism opportunities and the potential to distribute venison to outlets within and outside the region will also have a positive impact on the economy.”

South West Forest is a partnership hosted by Devon County Council, which manages forest and woodland in the Culm joint character area bordered by Exmoor, Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. It seeks to support and boost farm businesses and rural incomes, by helping to establish new areas, and manage existing areas of forest encouraging integrated, sustainable rural development.

From: FarmingUK

Idaho Fish and Game claims another trophy Mule Deer.

—————————————

A Wisconsin man, aided by a friend from Jerome, Idaho and hunting on a highly visible Idaho Super Tag,  shot this buck with a rifle in a unit that was open for muzzleloader hunting. When questioned, the men claimed to have shot at the deer, with a muzzleloading rifle, in the correct unit, only to have it run across the road where it was finished off with a rifle. The kill was reported by another man who had hopes of killing the buck himself and who had been keeping track of the monster for some time previous to the hunt. This story does go to show that there was at least one good buck still left in Idaho at the time.

Lesson: Don’t finish off your archery or muzzleloader buck with a rifle.

What is the world coming to? What direction are we headed? Anti-hunters need only wait a few more years and the state wildlife agencies will have taken away all hunting privileges and confiscated all weapons.

Antlers confiscated by Utah DWR:

A Utah man picked up a set of trophy antlers in Colorado and was prosecuted in Utah because it is illegal in Utah to possess antlers naturally attached to a skull unless those antlers were legally harvested. The antlers were confiscated through court action and the man was fined $217.00.

Who says wolves only kill the weak? If a hunter had done this there would be a price to pay.

The wolf-huggers have pulled off a slick trick. By taking their lawsuit before a liberal Montana Federal judge, they have succeeded in getting an injunction against wolf hunting in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana for the 2008 season.

The judge decided that the wolves in the three states had not interbred enough. He doesn’t know it, but that is only because they are too busy eating to have sex.

Anyway, read about it at Wolf Crossing

Biologists work to verify wolves are back in the state
————————————–

YAKIMA — State Fish and Wildlife biologists and wolf experts from Idaho captured what they believe are two wolves Friday in western Okanogan County, a development that could confirm the first wolf pack in Washington since the animals were eradicated decades ago.

The biologists fitted both animals with radio collars to track their movements and learn more about them. They also took fur samples for DNA testing to confirm that the animals are not hybrids, state Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Madonna Luers said.

However, one of the wolves was a lactating female nursing pups, Luers said, and domesticated hybrid animals are not known to reproduce in the wild.

“We’re always cautious,” Luers said. “But if we do get results back and they show these are actual wolves, this will be solid confirmation of Washington’s first resident wolf pack since the species disappeared from the state in the 1930s.”

Test results are expected in a couple of weeks.

After being hunted to near-extinction and listed as an endangered species in 1974, gray wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rockies in the mid-1990s. They thrived, and the wolves in that region were removed from the endangered species list in March.

Environmentalists sued to overturn that decision and on Friday, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Billings, Mont., restored federal protections for gray wolves in that region. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have an estimated 2,000 wolves.

Wolves are considered endangered in Washington and were never reintroduced here.

Wildlife biologists have known from radio-collar transmissions that wolves sometimes roamed into Washington from Montana or Idaho, and individual wolf sightings have been reported in the state. But resident wolf breeding pairs or packs have not been confirmed.

In recent years, packers made numerous reports of wolves in Okanogan County’s high country, and the number of resident reports in the county’s Methow Valley also grew.

On July 7, biologists conducted a “howling survey” in the area in search of a wolf pack and heard both adult and juvenile howls in response.

“Howling was the first step. This is the second step. The third step will be getting the DNA results,” Luers said. If confirmed, the findings would be historic, she said.

“The species has been gone, in terms of a reproducing animal or species, something that’s actually going to build a population and be a part of our wildlife heritage again,” Luers said. “That’s what’s exciting about this.”

DNA tests also could provide information about their home territory.

DNA tests on an animal that was found dead on state Route 291 about 25 miles northwest of Spokane early last month showed that it was genetically similar to wolves in northwestern Montana and southern British Columbia. The tests confirmed that the animal was not a hybrid.

State officials have been working with biologists, environmentalists, ranchers and other interested citizens to develop a wolf conservation and management plan. A draft is expected to be released for public comment in early 2009

By SHANNON DININNY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Legislature and Governor’s Office swept $7,560,695 from the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) to balance the 2008 budget deficit. The funding sweeps included $4,732,700 from the Watercraft License Fund, $395,000 from Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $2,827,600 from the Game and Fish Fund (La Osa Sheep Settlement money). In addition, another $5,600,000 ( $1,500,000 from the Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $4,100,000 from the State Lake Improvement Fund) were swept from the State Parks Department.

The Legislature is now struggling with an enormous budget deficit for 2009 estimated to be in the range of $2.2 to $2.5 Billion. Where will the money come from? That is the $64 question.

Arizona’s sportsmen feel strongly that “No Money be Swept from the Arizona Game & Fish Department”. Why should these funds be held harmless? First and foremost, AGFD monies are not general fund money. The primary source of AGFD funds is sportsmen’s dollars. Except for $10 Million annually from Heritage Fund (funding source for Heritage Fund is Lottery Revenues); $7-8 Million annually in Wildlife Conservation Funds (funding source is the Indian Gaming Initiative) and $300,000 from the Non-game Fund (Source is an income tax check-off) virtually all other AGFD money comes directly from sportsmen’s pocketbooks through license and permit fees, sure charges, and excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment and ammunition.

Aproximately 80% of AGFD’s revenue in any given year is generated by sportsmen. Sportsmen have time and again asked the legislature to increase the fees that they pay. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated that the most recent fee increase in 2005 would yield a 30% increase in revenues to the AGFD by 2009. A similar amount was generated from the previous fee increase in 1999. And these fee increases were not easy to obtain as both increases required a super majority vote of the legislature.

Sportsmen know just how difficult it is to get the state to repay swept funds for Arizona’s wildlife. In 2006, AZSFW asked the Legislature to repay $15 million in funds that had been swept over the prior four years. Mind you this was a time when the state was flush with dollars and voted to increase their total budget expenditures by approximately 9%. After an aggressive campaign, AZSFW felt fortunate to obtain a general fund appropriation of $3.5 million for critical wildlife habitat projects.

It is time for the Legislature to stand tall and cut general fund programs and require that general fund agencies live within their means rather than stealing money from agencies that do not receive dedicated non-general fund revenue dollars.

Sportsmen are asking the Arizona Game & Fish Commission to support them in their effort to keep AGFD funds from being swept. While the Commission has been asked twice to pass a motion opposing all game & fish fund sweeps, they have yet to act on this important issue.

Sportsmen’s groups including Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Council, National Rifle Association-ILA, Arizona Wildlife Federation, Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Arizona Antelope Foundation, Anglers United, Arizona Chapter Safari Club International, Arizona Flycasters Club, Arizona Bowhunter’s Association, Christian Bowhunter’s Association, Arizona Trappers Association, Yuma Valley Rod & Gun Club, Navajo County Sportsmen’s Club, Southeastern Arizona Sportsmen’s Club, Southern Arizona Sportsmen’s Alliance, Mohave Sportsmen’s Club, Arizona Predator Callers, Southern Arizona Wildlife Callers and Xtreme Predator Callers LLC have all signed onto the petition.

Arizona’s wildlife does not have a voice at the Legislature or the Governor’s Office. It is only through sportsmen that the case for wildlife can be voiced. With drought conditions and habitat reduction it is imperative that Sportsmen advocate for wildlife. The Arizona Game & Fish Commission should also advocate on behalf of wildlife by strongly opposing all sweeps of AGFD revenue. Failure to do so brings into question a legitimate concern that must be answered. Is the Arizona Game & Fish Commission fulfilling its fiduciary duty to protect and maintain Arizona’s wildlife and its habitat?

Not only must the Commission do its part, sportsmen must act today to save wildlife dollars from being swept. You can help by contacting your legislator and the Governor’s Office and asking them not to sweep any Arizona Game & Fish Department funds. Ask them to hold general fund agencies accountable and not allow them to steal wildlife dollars. Your help is needed today. To find out how you can help click here.

—————————————

Arizona Game and Fish Commission concerned that proposed legislation could impede wildlife management, bring lawsuits

PHOENIX — The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has expressed concern to House Concurrent Resolution 2037, a proposed amendment that would create a new constitutional right to hunt and fish in Arizona.

The Game and Fish Commission voted on Feb. 21 to oppose the bill as written, after a legal review by the Attorney General’s office advised that elevating hunting and fishing to a constitutional right could potentially hurt the state’s ability to enforce wildlife laws or take wildlife management actions, and could open the door to lawsuits from individuals who feel their rights to hunt and fish have been adversely affected.

“We understand the desire of the bill’s supporters to protect the ability of people to hunt and fish in Arizona into the future,” said Commission Chairman William McLean. “While the concept sounds appealing on the surface, the language of this bill as currently written could contain many pitfalls for wildlife management and law enforcement.”

The commission and the bill’s supporters worked extensively over the past week in an attempt to reach a compromise on the bill’s wording. But in a public commission meeting on Monday, the sides could not come to an agreement.

“Both sides made a diligent, good-faith effort to try to arrive at language that would satisfy the bill’s supporters and alleviate our concerns, but in the end, we couldn’t arrive at mutually acceptable language,” said McLean.

Under current Arizona law, hunting and fishing are considered privileges, not constitutional rights. Making them constitutional rights could subject Game and Fish laws and regulations to a more stringent legal standard and increase disputes over whether those laws and regulations overly restrict someone’s right to fish and hunt.

As an example, certain laws that regulate hunting and fishing, as well as the commission’s decisions to revoke a person’s hunting and fishing license privileges, would likely be subject to a strict scrutiny standard because they would interfere with a person’s constitutional right to hunt and fish.

Yet another example, the commission is likely to face more legal challenges to its decisions on matters such as issuing a certain number of big game tags, establishing bag limits, and closing or limiting access to certain areas to protect wildlife habitat or benefit protected species, because these actions might interfere with the constitutional right to hunt and fish.

“In addition to the high expense of defending the lawsuits, the State could potentially face large damage awards, injunctions blocking the enforcement of hunt orders, challenges to road or land closures protecting wildlife habitat, court decisions declaring state wildlife laws unconstitutional, reversal of criminal convictions and revocation orders on constitutional grounds, and above all, the diversion of vital agency resources to defend the litigation instead of managing wildlife,” said McLean.

The bill passed through the House Committee on Natural Resources and Public Safety yesterday by a 6-3 vote (and one committee member voting as present).

If ultimately approved by the Legislature, HCR 2037 would go to voters as a ballot referendum this fall.