Gunn’s Sports Shop, Brewer Maine

When you think “good value for the money” you may think Walmart or some other monopolized store. But if you actually think about the sale, service, and accessories, then you should seriously consider Gunn’s Sports Shop at 52 Green Point Road in Brewer, Maine. 207-989-9838; www.gunnshockey.com

This six to seven very friendly and knowledgeable staff that work with owner Rick Gunn and his thirty-one years of hockey equipment experience will leave you and your family with a sense of ease, and your best interest in mind. Gunn’s Sport Shop specializes in not just hockey but in all aspects of the game, with a wide range of equipment from beginner to advanced. His staff will work with your budget, needs, and they like to get you and your family on their way to building a hockey enthused atmosphere. Gunn’s also shapes stick blades to repairing eyelets on your skates and everything in between.

The equipment in hockey is not cheap but as the owner told me that his $40 skate is a better quality than other stores $60 skate. He also gives you a free sharpening of your new skates and also gives 25% off the complete six piece package of new hockey equipment for kids. If you don’t want to spend or don’t have much money, Gunn’s Sports Shop also carries used skates and equipment.

If hockey is not your sport but being outdoors is then Gunn’s carries and services a wide variety of skateboards, rollerblades, and baseball needs as far as gloves and baseball bats by Easton, and TPX. He also carries riding helmets and clothing to make the most novice outdoor sports person at least look good. Gunn’s carries all sizes from youth all the way up to bigfoot but in my mind the thing I like the most about Gunn’s is that no matter how much money you have or what your needs are for you or your family’s hockey or other outdoor sports needs Rick and his staff will help you complete the hat trick. (Value, trust, and service) For great quality and really great prices head on down or call Gunn’s Sports Shop and at least take a look around and tell them Skinny Moose sent you!

Orrin Bimpson
Director of Public Relations
Skinny Moose Media

Maine Outdoor Report For October 23, 2007

Region A- Southwestern Maine

Region A is on the southern extreme of the moose hunting zone with several towns in Wildlife Management District (WMD) 12 within the region. The two moose registration stations tagged a total of 14 moose; a small increase over last year. WMD 15, stretching from Lovell down to Newfield, is scheduled to open to moose hunting in 2008 with a conservative allocation of 35 permits. This WMD will deviate from the rest of the zone in that moose hunting will coincide with the November deer hunt. Though this WMD does not have vast acreage of industrial forest, there are many sparsely settled towns with mixed agricultural land and meadows interspersed with large blocks of managed forest.

The fall turkey season continues in WMDs 21, 22 and 23 until Friday with archery only. The first fall shotgun season on Turkey ended this past week. A look at the registration stations in the region indicates many hunters have taken advantage of this new hunting opportunity. Hens and toms are usually in separate flocks this time of year. Hunting with a shotgun in the fall will usually require breaking up the flock and targeting a bird as they reassemble. Just as in the spring, fall turkey hunting is limited to one bird, though that bird may be a hen or a tom.

I recently spent a day on the Libby River within Scarborough Marsh. This is a site being considered for future restoration work as part of a collaborative effort of MDIF&W, USF&WS, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Duck’s Unlimited and Friends of Scarborough Marsh. During the site visit we evaluated the extent of man-made ditches from the early 1900’s and noted any occurrences of Phragmites australis, a prolific invasive plant that can have a negative impact on native marsh plants and wildlife. A local field researcher from Cornell University is investigating the potential use of biological control using insects rather than herbicides in the management of phragmites. During this rainy Friday on the lower Libby, we observed dozens of ducks in the pannes and creeks of this vast wetland. There were blacks, mallards and teal taking to wing.

On the wildlife management areas, regional staff followed up on a couple ATV/Snowmobile access issues. Use of the management areas for these purposes must occur on designated trails only. We also met with our forester at Morgan Meadow WMA in Raymond where we evaluated timber stands proposed for harvest in the near future. Management on these properties is done using the best forest management practices with much consideration given to improving stand quality and wildlife habitat.

-Scott Lindsay, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region B - Central Maine

This time of year biologists spend a lot of time looking at deer and moose and giving our thoughts on the age and weight of the animal. Quite often we are asked to compare the harvested animal with others we have seen either this season or in previous ones. At the same time we hear of the hunter’s pasts successes and failures. It is a familiar routine that is predictable but enjoyable as we share our observations of our time in the outdoors.

Lately we have been challenged at guessing the weight of something different. At the same time we are on a pace for a record of our own. Unfortunately the weight and the record are not of a fabulous trophy, but a new scourge that threatens Maine’s tradition of open access to the outdoors. So far this year on Region B Wildlife Management Areas we have cleaned up 33,360 pounds of trash; 3,560 pounds of lumber; and 5,080 pounds of tires. This has cost several thousand dollars to dispose of properly. In fact, this year’s trash pick up will become the second ranked management activity, in terms of expenditures carried out in this Region.

Recently we spent 2 days with 3 people, 2 trucks, a 40 yard dumpster and an excavator cleaning up demolition debris dumped on IF&W land. What does this mean to you the user of IF&W lands? First, we have to protect certain areas that are hot spots for dumping by eliminating vehicle access. Second, we are spending a significant portion of the Regional budget in terms of time and money to handle this problem. This limits the amount of money and time available to do legitimate wildlife management of the 4-legged or winged kind. This has been a problem for IF&W, municipalities and a significant number of private landowners for years. Illegal dumping has reached epidemic proportions. Over the past summer Maine Warden Service summonsed three individuals for illegal dumping on IF&W lands. In these three cases it turned out to be individuals working for contractors who took the money they were paid to properly dispose of the materials, pocketed the money and dumped the trash down the nearest woods road. Part of their punishment was to clean up the trash they had dumped. Unfortunately, within less than two weeks someone else had refilled the site. This time it was obviously homeowners who had gotten new furniture and appliances and decided to dump their old ones on our site.

Equally disturbing is the fact that many of the materials illegally dumped can be recycled if taken to a well-run transfer station or landfill. Here in the Augusta area we use the Hatch Hill facility run by the City of Augusta. When these tires, shingles, and boards are disposed of properly and recycled they save landfill space and can be turned into beneficial products. Also, the rates for disposing of boards, shingles, and metal that can be recycled are lower than stuff that has to be placed in the landfill.

Here are a few suggestions for those who appreciate the outdoors. First, dispose of your own materials properly after researching all of the ways you can recycle some of these items. You can also work with a responsible company like Riverside Disposal who worked with us on special projects like the last one. Second, when you hire someone to work for you doing a building project or hauling off trash, make sure they have a legitimate place and method of disposing waste materials. On my many trips to Hatch Hill, I see many contractors who have permits and are busy recycling materials from job sites. Superior workmanship, materials, and proper job cleanup all have costs that pay off in the long run. Remember to take these facts into account when hiring someone. Also, when you see someone dumping illegally, or headed in to the woods with a truckload of trash, take note and report it. Lastly, if you use someone else’s land for recreating, after securing permission of course, pick up that tire or bag of trash you might find dumped illegally on the roadside. The opportunity for open public access you save may be your own.

-James M. Conolly, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region C - Downeast

Probably most of us have been subjected to a spell or two of daydreaming; letting ones mind wander and visualizing other places, other times, and other things. Perhaps you are one that truly admires the craftsmanship that goes into manufacturing the classic upland bird gun. You might just find yourself daydreaming about all the various options available to you should all the obstacles, realities, and “buts” in your life disappear. First, you would have to decide on style (probably a classic two barreled firearm). Then you would consider your personal preference of a stacked barrel (over and under) versus a side by side. Another internal deliberation would be the choice of gauge. The options then become even more involved; barrel length for example, as well as preferred chokes and choke types … whether fixed or screw-in tubes. Or, if you are truly a purist, a second set of barrels would be the ultimate classic (and costly) approach. Under the barrels you have a choice: splinter forend or beavertail … two variables that depend on your hand size and arm length. And then there is the trigger. Consider the classic double trigger, or a single selective, or perhaps a single non-selective trigger. Moving to the rear half of the gun, stock length and grip style … whether pistol or straight English style. Also consider checkering and the number of lines per inch. At the very end of the stock is the buttplate, and whether your preference would lean towards hard rubber, recoil pad or just a plain grooved. It almost goes without saying that for the wood, you want the best burly walnut, deep Prussian rust bluing on the barrels and fire bright case hardening on the frame. You can really get lost in debating on whether the frame is engraved with a portrait of your best dog, your favorite quarry, or some idealistic wildlife scene. And of course, one might consider a fitted case for your prize, including the typical English cased accessories of a brass oil bottle, ivory handled screw driver, etc.

You are convinced that this weapon should be nicknamed the “exterminator” because you would never miss with this custom designed masterpiece. But for just an instant, you check yourself … remembering the days long ago of shooting trap … when the kid nearly shot a perfect round with an old single barrel with such vivid credentials as armory steel and a choke-bored barrel. The real icing on the gun was the half roll of electrical tape; part of which was wound around the tang to tighten up the buttstock and the rest wrapped around the forend to hold it in place as the screw had long since been stripped. Also, too was the hatchet-fitted butt plate made in desperation out of a flooring tile. The bluing and varnish finish had long disappeared since your parents were in high school.

Then you hear a familiar voice … your daughter has just come out of the orthodontist office with those memorable words, “I need braces.” Those fantasy visions of the perfectly crafted bird gun flush away as you open your check book. Maybe another year you think.

-James Hall, Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region D - Western Mountains

Several experiences over the past week reminded me that both people and wildlife alike are busy getting ready for winter. At home I’ve been working steady to get a garage and breezeway sided and shingled before the snow flies. Next on the list is to gather up a load of firewood from my woodlot for my brother.

Two calls were received this week relative to recent beaver activity causing road problems and access to camps and agricultural fields. Every year we see a spike in this activity as beaver work overtime to impound water, to access and store more food for the coming winter months. Beaver are active all winter but remain in their lodges or swimming under the ice to access the feed piles they created in the summer and fall. Unfortunately, these nuisance activities coincide when biologists and wardens are very busy with the start of several hunting and trapping seasons.

I had my own mini nuisance wildlife problem this weekend while I was putting cedar clapboards on a new garage. While on a ladder, thousands of ladybugs swarmed around me, getting in my hair, ears, and behind my glasses. I vaguely recalled from Entomology 101 that they were predatory so I couldn’t understand why they were so interested in the very wall that I was trying to clapboard. So I called an expert.

Charlene Donahue is an entomologist with the Maine Forest Service. I could tell right off that mine was not nearly the first ladybug call she has handled lately. According to Charlene, these are an exotic (not native) insect, introduced to the southern United States decades ago in order to eat insect pests that attacked pecan trees and other crops. The accurate name for this insect is the Asian Multicolored Lady Beetle. They are predatory, feeding heavily on aphids and scale insects. Though some were released in Maine in the early 1970s, Charlene believes they made their way to Maine from the first introduction down south. In Asia these beetles huddle together in great numbers on cliff faces in order to stay warm. In Maine, large, light colored walls provide the same shelter values as cliffs. Apparently my tall garage wall was just right. Ironically, if they go inside homes, the warmth speeds up their metabolism to the point where they consume their bodily food reserves and die.

So like I, beavers and many other wildlife species, these also are busy times for “ladybugs” in preparing for another cold and snowy winter.

- Chuck Hulsey, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region E - Moosehead Region

Last spring I was out harvesting moose lungs again, this time on Toe-of-the -Boot. Say what? In recent years quite a few young moose have died of heavy tick infestations and/or lung worms, which is a rather new and very important development for moose “managers.” Those moose are generally approaching age 1. Bigger moose are much better able to handle tick loads. The speculation is that the tick populations grew following the build up of the moose population. If recruitment into the population of older animals is down, “allowable harvest,” as a percentage of the population at large, may be changing downward.

We need to investigate, but how? It is nigh impossible to get good information on the magnitude of this loss. And we aren’t sure whether the loss is constant or periodic. These moose tend to die in late winter when not many people are in the woods to notice and when getting around is difficult due to rutted and/or soft roads, high water, and patchy snow cover. Aerial composition counts which could be compared to herd composition counts done in the 80s are out because yearlings aren’t too readily distinguished from older animals. What to do?

NH has taken the approach of radio-equipping calf moose & monitoring their survival. Preliminary results don’t look good for the moose. We could follow suit except for the expense. And even then, it is doubtful sample size would be sufficiently large to be sure the rates obtained are representative. The only practical answer appears to be to follow trend information such as hunter success rates, reported sighting rates, incidence of road kill, and possibly age structure of the harvest.

We are roughly quantifying the degree of hair loss (Moose try to scrape off the ticks), and examining lungs to check for necrosis, i.e. lung capacity lost due to lung worms. It isn’t bad once you get past the flies & ticks. You lift the front leg, skin out the front of the thorax, snip a few ribs, and the lungs are right there. I think I’ll put in for a Tyvex suit. Fortunately, I remembered to bring along a bar of soap & a towel. Before I arrived the warden had passed a metal detector over the moose. I think the most plausible cause is that maybe that moose was trying to live in habitat which had gone by, which could mean this isn’t happening everywhere.

- Bill Noble, Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region F, Penobscot Region

The fall turkey season appears to be quite a success, at least in the portion of the turkey hunting zone that falls within Region F (eastern part of WMD 17). Turkey registration stations in East Corinth, Old Town, and Milo tagged 36, 11, and 14 birds respectively. These numbers include birds taken in the first fall shotgun season and turkeys taken by bow and arrow.

Waterfowl hunting in the area continues to be productive. While duck numbers do not seem to be bolstered by incoming migrants, migrating geese are starting to come through the area. It’s a very unpredictable situation though; one morning you may observe hundreds of birds, and the next day it seems as if only a couple of flocks are in the area. The key is to keep scouting and when birds are in your area - take advantage of it!

A couple of friends of mine came up from Pensylvania to do some upland bird and waterfowl hunting. The grouse hunting was very good. We hunted reverting farmland in the central and northern parts of the Region and were not disappointed. Most areas yielded 5-6 flushes on grouse, but some areas provided upwards of 15 flushes. The woodcock hunting in the central part of the Region was also very good. I believe we were still hunting mostly resident birds, but this is usually the time of year that the migrants will be making their way through the area. If you have ever gotten into a “flight” of woodcock, you’ll know what I mean when I say the action can be fast and furious!

Good reports are coming in about the Youth Deer Hunting Day. One party reported seeing 15 deer in the southern portion of the Region on Saturday. In my travels on Saturday, I observed several successful hunters with their deer in the back of the pick-up. The youth deer hunt is a great way to initiate young people to the required skills, excitement, and the experience of hunting. It is also a great chance to impart to them the importance of safety and ethics of the sport.

Deer hunters should be optimistic after the encouraging reports from the youth day hunt. Although last year’s winter ended up slightly on the severe side for deer, which resulted in a reduction of Any-Deer permits in some WMDs in the Region, hunters should still have plenty of opportunities to pursue their quarry. Remember: get landowner permission, do some scouting, and make sure that your weapon is working properly.

Have an enjoyable, safe and hopefully successful deer hunting season!

-Allen Starr, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region G - Aroostook County

Saturday, October 20, was youth deer hunting day. It provided a great opportunity for Regional Biologists to interact and talk with hunters as well as collect deer biological information on northern Maine’s deer herd. This special deer hunt for junior hunting license holders (ages 10-15 years) is very popular in Aroostook County and we see a lot of young hunters taking advantage of this hunting opportunity.

Northern Maine had unusually warm temperatures with very heavy rain and wind last Saturday morning . Generally, this is not the best of deer hunting conditions, but many hunters did report seeing deer, and a few youth hunters were successful in tagging one. I checked a couple of nice bucks at Northstar Variety in New Sweden, the largest a 9 pointer weighing 148 pounds field dressed. Regardless of the outcome, everyone seemed to be enjoying this hunting opportunity and the commaraderie of being outdoors together. Certainly, a successful deer hunt shouldn’t be measured solely on whether a deer is harvested, but as a great opportunity to get out with young hunters and educate them on hunting safety, outdoor skills, hunting laws and etiquette. Most importantly, this is a chance to spend some valuable time with a young relative or friend.

Hunters are now reporting fewer bear sightings. We still have a high bear population in northern Maine but because fall bear foods, particularly beechnuts, are not abundant, bears have started to den early. Because of this behavior November deer hunters will have very few opportunities to harvest a bear.

The warm weather this fall seems to have delayed some of the fall flights for migratory waterfowl. I’m still seeing many wood ducks along the Aroostook River which is late in the season for this early migratory duck. I was also on Hodgdon Mill Pond within the Lt. Gordon Manuel Wildlife Management Area last week and observed numerous flocks of waterfowl, the most common species being black ducks and mallards. When it comes to waterfowl hunting in northern Maine there are lots of places to go and generally very light hunting pressure.

-Arlen Lovewell, Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist

Posted by Tom Remington

Maine Outdoor Report For October 16, 2007

From Mark Latti at Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

Region A- Southwestern Maine

The first fall wild turkey hunting season with a firearm began this past Saturday in wildlife management districts 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. The season runs from October 13 thru October 19. A resident or non-resident big game hunting license is required as well as a wild turkey hunting permit ($20.00 for resident, $47.00 for non-resident). One turkey of either sex may be taken and must be registered at an official registration station.

There has been a fall archery season on wild turkey since 2002 in certain parts of the state with hunter success running approximately between 5 and 15 per cent annually. It is anticipated that the success rate with a shotgun will be greater, and the department will be closely monitoring registration stations, as well as gaining insight from the hunter questionnaire issued to a sample of permit holders.

The first day of the shotgun season 15 birds were registered at Sawyer’s Market in Little Falls and 5 registered at Wing’s Market in New Gloucester.

One benefit of having a fall season should be a reduction of nuisance birds around farms. Birds that are allowed to forage where livestock are fed quickly become accustomed to the easy pickings and lose their natural wariness over time. Farmers and their family members will not only remove nuisance birds but will also enjoy wild turkey for dinner.

-Norman Forbes, Wildlife Biologist Specialist

Region B - Central Maine

It always amazes me with wildlife populations, with what goes around comes around. A species can be virtually non-existent one year and thick as thieves the next. That appears to be the case with this year’s ruffed grouse numbers as reported from the County and within central Maine. For the last several years’ upland grouse hunters have complained and quietly prayed for a season like this one. Recruitment and survival of first year birds appears high as reported by those with the inclination for primary wing examination.

Would someone please tell me a year when they can remember the soft mast crop being so abundant? I have never seen the apple trees so laden with fruit. There are enough wild grapes in the woods to consider starting an organic winery. Some folks would say that portends a real winter. I can’t confirm that but it clearly demonstrates that food is rarely a limiting factor for most wildlife populations.

Woodcock appear to be late or their numbers not as abundant. The fall rains appear to be late in arriving and perhaps drier conditions may have dispersed worm doodles from their traditional alder wetlands. I recruited some Pennsylvania hunters to come up this year and hunt Frye Mountain Wildlife Management area. I told them no problem getting woodcock the second week of October. Oops! Hopefully this year’s grouse numbers will convince them to return next year and leave a pocketful of money behind.

Nuisance wildlife complaints coming into the regional office are definitely down. My annual nuisance beaver list, which provides contact information for folks in need of legitimate trapping pressure, has only six entries. Most years it is two pages in length. The exception to this is the nuisance complaints coming in for wild turkeys. I believe the peak has not yet come for turkey populations in central Maine based on the complaints over the phone survey methodology. However, like this years grouse season, what goes around comes around and all too soon you will hear someone say, “There just aren’t the wild turkey’s this year like there has been in the past”.

-Keel Kemper, Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region C - Downeast

This coming Wednesday evening, October 17 at 6:00 pm, Department representatives will be attending a Sportsman’s Forum hosted by the Bucks Mill Rod & Gun Club in Bucksport. These events are periodically held at different locations around the State; often at the request and invitation of the Commissioner’s Advisory Council Member that represents that geographic area. Normally, the Commissioner as well as some of the administrative heads are there representing the Wildlife, Fisheries, Warden Service, and Public Information & Education bureaus / divisions. Also in attendance are Regional Department staff who cover or work in the general area. This includes district game wardens as well as both wildlife and fisheries biologists. These forums are set up to provide the public an opportunity to bring questions or concerns to the attention of the Department. Over the years, they’ve proven to be a great opportunity for both Department personnel as well as the public to gain new insights as well as get some answers on various issues concerning our wildlife and fishery resources. If you happen to be in the greater Bucksport area come mid-week, consider stopping by … and don’t hesitate to bring along your youngster, as there’s often something included in the program for them.

Speaking of youth … this coming Saturday, October 20, is youth deer hunting day. This is a tremendous opportunity to introduce a young hunter, who holds a valid junior hunting license, to the pursuit of deer hunting. Those licensed hunters who are at least 10 years of age but younger than 16 can participate under the direct supervision of a parent, guardian, or qualified adult. The supervising adult may not possess a firearm while accompanying a participating junior license holder. The junior hunter is allowed to take 1 deer of either sex with either a firearm or bow and arrow; which would constitute their season bag limit unless they were awarded a bonus anterless deer permit for a specific Wildlife Management District, or participate in the expanded archery season in certain designated areas of the State.

After two mild winters, it was expected, and many early reports would seem to indicate, an increase in deer sightings in favored fall locations. This is an excellent opportunity to school young hunters to all of the various aspects of hunting deer before the regular firearm season begins. As with any schooling, some preparation would be helpful in making Saturday’s venture a success … not necessarily defined only by a deer hung in the garage, but by taking the steps in developing a future hunter who knows his quarry (habits, life history, signs, etc.) and is committed to being a safe and ethical hunter. As with any pursuit, if they learn the basics well, with proper coaching and patience the rewards will be forthcoming.

Hopefully scouting exercises which involves the young hunter(s) have already begun. If not, there’s still some time to do some evening cruising to know where Saturday morning will find you. It’s a great time to introduce a junior hunter to respecting the rights of landowners by checking in with landowners and getting permission to scout and/or hunt. I’d be willing to bet that sometimes having a young, anxious hunter next to you isn’t a bad “foot in the door” technique in seeking permission to access private land. Posted property is quickly becoming a way of life in many parts of Maine, so the youngster needs to get in the habit now. And even if not posted, it’s a way to do your part to assure the property remains that way; or at least perhaps your access to it.

Matters of safety and ethical behavior in pursuing game cannot be overstressed. Both the future of hunting and the enjoyment and rewards that hunting and days afield offer your junior hunter are at stake. Make it a safe, rewarding, and enjoyable outing …

-Tom Schaeffer, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region D - Western Mountains

The October portion of the 2007 Maine moose hunt ended this past Saturday. Once again, we had registration stations in Rangeley, Eustis, Solon, and Andover. This year we added a station in Strong for the convenience of people hunting in the southern portion of Wildlife Management District (WMD) 7. The addition of a fifth station will also accommodate moose hunters in 2008 when WMD 16 (includes Farmington) is opened.

Biologists from Region A (Gray), B (Sidney), D (Strong), and Bangor (Resource Assessment Section) aided in the collection of biological data again this year. I was able to visit each of the stations for the first time. When I arrived at the Eustis station on Wednesday, District Game Warden Blaine Holding introduced me to a father, daughter, and step-mother moose hunting group who were registering a second moose. Both women drew permits, one for WMD 7 and the other for WMD 8. Dad was the sub-permittee for both. Here is their story.

Dawn Hatch and Frank Guptill of Friendship, Maine were hunting with Frank’s daughter Jennifer. Jennifer took an adult bull in Adamstown Township (just west of Rangeley) the day before and Frank was there weighing and registering a second bull which he took off the Gold Brook Road north of Eustis that morning. Frank has been applying for a moose permit every year, but has never drawn one. Either the person drawing the permit, or the designated sub-permittee, which Frank was, can shoot the moose. They must hunt together. Dawn drew her first permit this year after applying for 10 straight years. Jennifer drew her first permit after applying for five years. The lesson is: if you aren’t lucky enough to draw a permit, be close to someone who is.

For a look at their moose, please visit: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting_trapping/weekly_reports/photos_regiond/index.htm

In the course of my work, I encounter people who on multiple occasions have either drawn a moose permit, or have been the sub-permittee. While others have applied year after year with no success. So what are the odds of getting a permit?

It’s a little complicated because of many variables. The number of permits, applicants, and chances purchased per applicant weigh heavily in one’s odds. Residents can purchase one, three, or six chances each year. Plus applicants earn one chance for each consecutive year they apply and are unsuccessful. Non-residents have that opportunity as well however there isn’t a limit on the number of chances they can purchase. While that sounds like a big advantage, a non-resident’s chance is limited by the fact that only 10% of the permits go to non-residents. There have been just under 3,000 total permits issued each year in recent years.

So what are your chances of drawing a permit next year? Here are some interesting statistics provided to me by Mark Ostermann who is in the forefront of collecting and managing a lot of these data for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Number of permit applications in 2007: 65,090
Resident applications: 46,570
Non-resident applications: 18,520

Odds of getting a permit if you are resident, applying for the first time, buying one chance: 1 in 107

Odds of getting a permit if you are resident, applying since 1998 (getting preference chances), and buying 6 chances: 1 in 10.

Odds of getting a permit if you are non-resident: 1 in 700 for every chance. Chances can be purchased and/or earned for every consecutive unsuccessful year of purchasing a chance.

One-third of all applications have the same address, meaning multiple household members apply. One hundred permits go to more than one person at the same address.

One-third of the permits go to persons who have applied each year since 1998.

Though it takes work and skill to fill out a moose tag, it is still better to be lucky than good when it comes to drawing a moose tag. Good luck in 2008.

- Chuck Hulsey, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region E - Moosehead Region

When are deer numbers optimum? Farmers (and others) know that you don’t want to stock too many animals on a pasture of a given size. Competition for food would affect their well-being. At extreme levels, more and more starvation occurs. And where there are effective predators, they can cash in on weakened animals.

In winter our deer are on a “pasture” of limited size. What we call WMD 9, approximately 950 square miles east of Moosehead Lake has only approximately 25 square miles of winter range in 3 major deer wintering areas today. (We have a pretty good knowledge of where deer winter in 9, I think, compiled through years of research. Probably 90 percent of WMD 9 deer winter in those 3 wintering areas.) The deer found throughout WMD 9 in spring/summer/fall must subsist on the plant life within reach, and their fat reserves, for approximately four-plus months each winter. Other potential foods are too far from their shelter needs & in areas where the snow is generally too deep (landscape level).

Our official management plan for deer calls for us to get the population up to, & keep it at 50-60% of K carrying capacity, a theoretical level where productivity (production of young, thus potential harvest) is maximized. Our management system says the average beam diameter of the antlers of bucks in the yearling age class, YABD, when it equals 15-16 mm, will tell us we are at 50-60% of K (and when we are above or below). This notion is untested.

There is a hitch however; in parts of the State where not too many deer are taken by hunters, we don’t measure the antlers of enough yearling bucks to say that we really know what the average diameter of all is. And there are questions about whether YABD measures numbers are relative to summer carrying capacity rather than winter.

A more direct approach is to go to the woods and in the spring, measure actual use of the previous years growth, sampling in and near the areas deer resort to when the snow is at least moderately deep. It is possible to identify last year’s growth on a woody plant because the point from which growth occurred is marked by a terminal bud scale scar.

This was the approach taken last spring for WMD 9. Eleven miles of transects were run thru Deer Wintering areas in locations chosen at random with observations of food availability and use made every 40 ft.

This exercise yielded an estimate of 54% of available browse taken by deer, moose, & rabbits within the height range deer can use during the prior winter. Fifty percent use during an average winter is regarded by experts as about the maximum use level a manager should allow to occur since some winters may be considerably longer than average, and beyond some point, maybe 75%, browsing can cause the deaths of plants which may be needed in future years. The few moose that situate next to Deer Wintering Areas may to some slight extent reduce available browse for deer.

At the moment deer numbers in WMD 9 are limited by the amount of appropriate habitat (shelter) and close at hand food, not hunting or predators. Deer are rather scarce, but we should not expect to have more.

More cautious people might qualify some conclusions based on the same Data. Most analyses you hear of are based on less, and never qualified with words such as maybe.

- Bill Noble, Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region F, Penobscot Region

A better week weather-wise greeted moose hunters for the second of the two six-day seasons. The one-day exception being Friday, and that was a major rain event. Still, temps were cooler than the unusually warm first week two weeks prior. An early Saturday morning call to our nine tagging stations monitored by Region F suggested that results were quite varied throughout the Region. As with the first week, some stations were registering moose within the average number they usually tag, while others were significantly less. Once the data is analyzed, it will be interesting to see what the success rates were by season, WMD, and bull vs. anterless-only permits. While being selected to hunt moose is always a special opportunity for hunters, monitoring the hunt has changed over the years. As mentioned, Region F contracts with 9 tagging stations to collect biological data for us. This leaves us with the opportunity to not only visit several stations, and take part in some data collection, but more importantly to talk with moose hunters or perhaps bird or deer hunters. It is important for us to be out and about, listening to, and discussing the views and opinions of our public. Visiting the many tagging stations throughout the week affords us that opportunity to listen to folks who are in many ways our “eyes and ears” in the field. It also affords us the opportunity to continue work on other important initiatives that are not associated with the moose hunt. Region F is very grateful for the quality of work our tagging stations perform during both the moose and deer seasons. Thanks to all.

Reports from the field suggest a rosier picture for grouse hunters. A good nesting year for a change this past spring has translated into plenty of action early in the bird season. Reports of hunters getting into birds throughout the Region have been commonplace thus far. A nice change after poor hunting seasons (for the most part) the previous two years.

The early fox and coyote trapping season began on the 14th. Trappers are reminded of the additional trapping restrictions and guidelines for the northern WMDs that were part of the lynx lawsuit settlement agreement. And don’t forget that this coming Saturday (20th), is Youth Deer Hunting Day. Junior hunters may take a deer of either sex during this one-day opportunity.

Waterfowl hunting is progressing along, although I myself have not observed the flocks of migrants coming thru as yet. Perhaps now that the temps are cooling down and the cold fronts move thru our area we will see the northern birds coming in. Still, I have enjoyed some early-season gunning for both ducks and geese. This past Saturday after working our moose tagging station at our Enfield office for the AM, I headed out and put the canoe in for some jump shooting. A nice slow moving stream, plenty of color yet on the trees, and lots of robins flying back and forth as they get ready for the long trip south. Jump shooting solo while trying to paddle can sometimes be a challenge and this trip was no exception. Getting caught with your gun down and paddle up or watching a flock of mallards take off downstream and out of gun range is all part of it. So no ducks that trip, but I enjoyed it none-the-less, and just being out is a wonderful part of the hunting experience too.

-Mark Caron, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Region G - Aroostook County

With the second week of moose season over, hunter success was much better than the first week with registration numbers slightly lower than last year. The Ashland station registered a total of 319 moose for both weeks, while it recorded 323 last year. In short the second week was excellent in the north making up the deficit from the first week. An issue brought to my attention by the warden service were numerous cases of moose hunters having antlerless permits where they were shooting bulls with antlers less then ear length (which is legal with antlerless permit) but leaving the animal thinking antlerless means “cow only”. This may be a case of not understanding the law or perhaps not reading the “Moose Hunters Guide”

Grouse are numerous this year with success stories from the majority of hunters. When birds are this numerous violations seem to escalate due to selfish and unethical law braking hunters taking over their limits and stealing from the sportsman. In a three-day period last week two warden sections under Sgt. Ward and Sgt. Gray had 10 over-the-limit cases with one party of 4 hunters having in possession 69 birds.

This coming Saturday is Youth Day for deer season and the biologists will be out collecting deer biological data to track the deer herd and collect samples for Chronic Wasting Disease Due to the hunting and fishing laws mandating the number of day’s deer season will run, this year will be one of the earliest.

With mild weather still up north many migratory birds particularly Canada Geese and Woodcock are in good numbers and have yet to arrive. This should put a smile on the wing-shooters since they should have an extended season this year.

-Rich Hoppe, Regional Wildlife Biologist

Posted by Tom Remington

Governor Perdue Proclaims the Opening Day of Firearms Deer Season as “TIP” Day in Georgia

Governor Sonny Perdue recently signed a proclamation designating Saturday, October 20, 2007, the opening day of modern firearms season for deer hunting, as Turn In Poachers (TIP) Day in Georgia. The mission of TIP, Inc., a non-profit organization, is to protect wildlife from poachers by increasing public support for wildlife law enforcement, according to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (WRD).

“The ownership of all wildlife is by the state of Georgia. It is held in trust for all Georgians to enjoy,” says Governor Perdue. “A poacher is one who takes wildlife illegally thereby depriving other citizens of our state’s natural resources.”

TIP creates a framework to promote ethical hunting and to promote the conservation of natural resources. Georgians are encouraged to contact the TIP hotline when they witness a poaching violation. This information is forwarded to WRD for further investigation. If a tip leads to an arrest, TIP pays a reward to the individual who reported the violation. Callers to TIP can remain anonymous if desired.

Poaching violations include hunting during illegal hours, taking over the limit of wildlife and/or fish, hunting or fishing in unauthorized areas, killing deer illegally, hunting over bait, buying or selling wildlife or game fish, killing or being in possession of nongame/endangered species, stocking wildlife, hunting or fishing by illegal methods and more.

Georgia citizens can help fight poaching by calling the TIP hotline. This line can be reached by dialing 1-800-241-4113 outside metro-Atlanta or (404) 656-4863 inside metro-Atlanta or by calling *DNR for Cingular callers or by sending an email to TurnInPoachers@dnr.state.ga.us

Callers should try to obtain the following information:

·A description of the violator

·A description of their vehicle

·The location of the violation

·Date and time of the violation

·The type of violation

For more information, visit www.georgiawildlife.com (select “General Information”, “Law Enforcement” and “Turn in Poachers and Polluters”), contact your local WRD Law Enforcement Office or call (770) 918-6414. To make a tax-deductible donation to support anti-poaching efforts, send a check made payable to TIP to: Turn In Poachers, Inc. 3423 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 540, Atlanta, Ga., 30305.

###

Fall Fest At Martinak State Park

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Celebrate autumn along the Choptank River at Martinak State Park’s Annual Fall Fest, Saturday, October 27 from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. in Caroline County. Demonstrations include a traditional apple butter boil and corn shelling along with a live raptor exhibit courtesy of the park’s Scale and Tales program. Visitors may also enjoy a Pumkin’ Chunkin’, pumpkin decorating, a bicycle rodeo, and a scarecrow wizardry sponsored by the Caroline County Recreation and Parks Department. For more information call 410-820-1668.

October 12, 2007

Contact: Olivia Campbell 410-260-8016 office I 410-507-7525 cell ocampbell@dnr.state.md.us

A New Solution To Non-Game Program Funding?

News and Comment by George Dovel

About George Dovel: Following several decades of close association with state and federal wildlife mangers as a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, a qualified volunteer on assorted wildlife research projects and a member of several fish and game advisory committees, George Dovel offers a unique perspective on what has happened to wildlife resource management. With record low big game and upland bird populations existing throughout the U.S. in 1969-1973 he edited and published The Outdoorsman which is credited with helping to restore scientific game management. The new crisis in game management throughout the West resulted in resurrecting The Outdoorsman in March 2004 to provide factual information for outdoorsmen and their elected officials.

On July 3, 2007, a public meeting of an ad hoc committee formed to discuss future funding for IDFG took place at F&G Headquarters in Boise. Chaired by Senate Resource Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, the members included House Resource Committee Chairman John A. “Bert” Stevenson, Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron and former F&G Commissioner Representative Fred Wood.

Sen. Schroeder indicated that the Committee was formed in response to Fish and Game’s request for an additional funding source. Three additional members representing the agency’s perspective were F&G Commission Chairman Cameron Wheeler, Vice-Chairman Wayne Wright and IDFG Director Cal Groen.

Comm. Wheeler commented, “We have a more complex society now,” and said he had a feeling that (society’s) priorities are different than they were 15 years ago. This reflected the Department’s justification in its 15-year planning document, “The Compass”, for expanding its traditional role to include managing wildlife and plants for other than hunters, fishermen and trappers.

Game, Fish Programs Cut to Fund Nongame

Commissioner Wright said he viewed the Committee as a great first step to identify and prioritize F&G’s problems, which, he said, include losing critical habitat for game. Then he stated that IDFG has only 25% of the funds needed to fund its non-game activities.

Director Groen’s comments basically agreed with Wheeler’s and Wright’s but he added that the new emphasis on (non-game) “preservation and prevention” during the past 15 years has resulted in less enforcement, less fish stocking and the need to broaden the funding base. He suggested F&G needs to protect traditional hunting and fishing (license) dollars so they are spent for hunting and fishing.

Although it was inevitable under the circumstances, the candid admission by Wright and Groen that IDFG has been using sportsmen’s license dollars to fund the bulk of its non-hunting and fishing activities was “a first”. Recently outgoing Director Steve Huffaker assured Commissioners that no license dollars were being used to fund nongame.

“The Compass” Promise To Sportsmen Ignored

When several Commissioners and Natural Resource Policy Bureau Chief Tracey Trent rewrote The Compass to satisfy sportsmen’s concerns on December 23, 2004, Trent included the following language under “Funding”:

“The Department’s main funding source comes from one segment of the population—hunters and anglers–primarily through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This money has been—and will continue to be—used to manage fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

“The Department will not use hunting and fishing license fees to meet all the desires of the public, other agencies and local governments for managing fish, wildlife and native plants.” (emphasis added)

Despite assurances to the Commission by Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) Biodiversity Program Leader Rita Dixon that her group has secured adequate matching funding outside IDFG, thousands of dollars of hunter’s and fishermen’s license money is spent by several F&G Bureaus every day in support of this activity. Much of this money comes in the form of incidental logistical support that is never charged to CDC or any other non-game activity.

Don’t “Beat Dead Horses” – But…

During the July 3, Committee meeting Rep. Wood commented that he hoped the Committee didn’t “beat too many dead horses” and that is good advice if the horses are dead and buried. But continuing to repeat the unsupported claim that the citizens who fund resource management want to change emphasis from providing sustainable harvests of game and fish to building birding trails and interpretive centers and focusing on assorted non-game species indicates the “outlaw horse” still needs attention.

These and other unfunded mandates were imposed on Idaho fish and game managers by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and their fellow travelers Defenders of Wildlife et al – all based in Washington, D.C. When these groups couldn’t convince Congress to support their biodiversity agenda using terms like “Conservation and Reinvestment Act” and Teaming With Wildlife”, they changed the name to “State Wildlife Grants” (SWGs) and claimed their proposed legislation would save states millions of dollars by preventing assorted creatures and plants from being listed as endangered.

SWGs Encourage New ESA Listings

Instead, some states have improperly* taken additional millions of dollars from sportsmen to use as matching funds, to provide the preservationist groups with the very data that is required for them to petition to list even more species. To add insult to injury, Idaho sport license buyers - not the CDC non-game entity - paid for much of the prolonged research to prevent the Westslope Cutthroat Trout from being listed. (* The SWG funding rules prohibited use of sport license fees or federal excise taxes as matching funds).

This information has been documented by experts in previous Outdoorsman articles and is mentioned here to remind the alternate funding Committee and other Idaho Legislators of what they are being asked to fund. Sen. Cameron is well aware of the implications of seeking additional funding for nongame programs.

Nongame Programs Mushroom in 10 Years

During the 1996 legislative session he argued against JFAC approving funding to hire six nongame biologists “to help non-hunters enjoy the state’s nongame wildlife programs,” insisting it would result in premature need for fee increases. But F&G Finance Chief Steve Barton assured JFAC members that IDFG would have a $2 million surplus In FY 1998 and would remain solvent at least through FY 2000 so they ignored Cameron’s warning.

Three months later, Barton reported a deficit of $530,900 in the fund equity balance for FY 1997 and a projected deficit of $1,462,000 for FY 1998. Hiring those six regional nongame biologists at a reported cost of $200,000 in FY 1997 mushroomed into a Natural Resources Policy Bureau budget of $3,429,000 in FY 2006 plus more than two million dollars in admitted nongame expenditures in the Wildlife Bureau budget alone.

Should F&G Provide Environmental Services?

During the July 3, 2007 meeting Sen. Cameron said the Committee must ask whether or not the Department should be providing environmental services and whether they should provide non-game. He said each member should ask, “Do I want the Department to have these other responsibilities, which shouldn’t be on the backs of the sportsmen?”

Sen. Schroeder expressed the concern that sportsmen opportunities will be diminished and said we must ask whether F&G should be providing expertise to other agencies for free. “Why are we doing analysis for private sector entities who don’t allow (sportsman) access?”

But Rep. Stevenson responded, “We think of these needs we have and we already have the biologists. I’m uncomfortable at hiring new ones – we need to find a way to extract some money.”

F&G Becomes “Fish, Game and Flowers”

A similar argument was used in 2003 when a majority of Rep. Stevenson’s Resource Committee members supported House Bill 67. The bill removed the authority and duty of Parks and Recreation to manage wild flowers and plants and gave it solely to Fish and Game, along with the responsibility to manage rare and endangered plants.

Parks and “Rec” spokesmen said although it had been their responsibility for several decades and they were receiving federal money to do it, they had not hired botanists and had used the Conservation Data Center housed in IDFG headquarters to track rare plants. They turned over the federal money, which ultimately covered only half of the costs, to IDFG and said this would prevent duplication of effort by the two agencies.

Sportsmen Pay For Biodiversity Agenda

Several House Resource Committee members, who opposed the bill, raised concerns that the transfer would allow sportsmen license fees to be used to manage endangered plants. But IDFG Director Huffaker said the CDC was created 15 years earlier as an aftermath of the Endangered Species Act and claimed that during that time sportsmen money has never been used for anything that would not benefit sportsmen.”

Huffaker’s statement reflects his willingness, and that of several previous IDFG Directors, to mislead the resource owners and their elected officials in order to promote the biodiversity agenda of IAFWA, The Nature Conservancy and the United Nations. Four years earlier, former F&G Director Steve Mealey documented $2.9 million of sportsmen license fees that was spent by IDFG that year for non-game/fish activities with no tangible benefit to sportsmen.

In a public Commission meeting Mealey described Administration Bureau Chief Steve Barton as “a magician who can always come up with money from somewhere when it’s needed.” The problem was that the money Barton “came up with” was always sportsman license fees - including dedicated funds that were misappropriated (with the Director’s approval according to Barton).

How Did We Get in This Mess?

Instead of repeating the IAFWA claim that “changing public attitudes during the past 15 years” have caused a major shift in management priorities, the Committee needs to examine facts to determine when, why and how the funding shortages really began to occur.

During the first 40 years of its existence IDFG used appropriate biological tools to manage wild game, fish and furbearers, and paid the costs with income from sport licenses (user taxes), fur sales and fines. For most of the next 40 years the cost of managing game, fish and furbearers was paid by a combination of license fees and federal excise taxes on guns, ammo and fishing equipment (still user taxes).

Dramatic Change in F&G Priorities

A comparison of actual F&G expenditures in FY 1980 when Jerry Conley was hired to replace retiring F&G Director Joe Greenley, and in FY 1996 three months before Conley resigned, reflects the change in priorities from managing wild game to promoting nongame, biodiversity and wildlife watching.

Actual IDFG Expenditures in FY 1980 and FY 1996

FY 1980 % of Ttl FY 1996 % of Ttl

Administration 904,200 - 8.7% 7,874,500 - 17.4%

Enforcement 2,239,900 - 21.7% 6,832,500 - 15.1%

Fisheries 3.098,600 - 30.0% 16,105,900 - 35.6%*

Wildlife 3,212,600 - 31.1% 8,095,300 - 17.9%

Info & Education 397,900 - 3.8% 2,373.500 - 5.6%

Engineering 397,600 - 3.8% 808,600 - 1.8%

Nat Resource 84,500 - 0.1% 1,623,500 - 3.6%

Set-Aside Fund 0 - 0.0% 1,544,400 - 3.4%

Total 10,335,300 45,258,200

(* The increase in the percent of the total budget spent by the Fisheries Bureau in FY 96 resulted from ~$11.9 million dollars in mitigation money received from Bonneville Power, National Marine Fisheries, Idaho Power, FWS and others, plus $3.4 million in D-J federal excise taxes on fishing equipment sales.)

Wildlfe Funding Cut – Adminstration Doubled

In FY 1980, game and fish populations were healthy and increasing but by 1996 many had reached record lows. The single largest source of income to IDFG is from deer and elk hunters yet the percent of total income spent by the Wildlife Bureau had been cut nearly in half while the percent spent by Administration had doubled, hiding the use of license fees to support non-hunting.

The percent of total money spent by Enforcement and Engineering had also been cut dramatically while the percent spent by I&E (Communications) and Natural Resource Policy had skyrocketed. F&G spending for non-hunting/fishing activities was completely out of control and Governor Batt ordered the F&G Commission to make drastic cuts in non-essential spending for FY 1997.

Spending Cuts Targeted Hunters and Fishermen

The austerity program began with the Commission cutting its own travel and meeting expenses but the newly appointed Commissioners deferred to the “old hands” who had supported the nongame/biodiversity/watchable wildlife expenditures, to make the important cuts. They, of course, allowed Jerry Conley and Steve Barton to decide which programs would be cut, which sportsmen charged was “putting the rabbits in charge of the cabbage patch.”

Although Conley and Barton claimed they had made “across-the-board” cuts in all Bureaus, the analysis by Legislative Budget Analyst Jeff Youtz one year later revealed that the cuts only impacted hunters and fishermen. From FY 1996 to FY 1997 the number of resident hatchery fish produced dropped from 27,417,781 to only 19,970,000, including 390,000 fewer “catchable” 10-12” trout raised and stocked in Idaho lakes and reservoirs.

The number of anadromous hatchery fish produced declined from 6,493,599 to only 5,125,698 and there was a 50% reduction in moose sheep and goat census and 100 fewer helicopter hours flown counting deer, elk and antelope. Wild pheasant trapping and transplanting was cut 50% and weed control and restroom maintenance on WMAs was curtailed.

The number of law enforcement personnel was reduced and several officers’ duties were shifted from law enforcement to other activities. Yet the number of teachers trained in “Project WILD” and the number of nongame presentations to schools increased by 33%-46%.

While actual Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau spending decreased by 7% and 10% respectively, Natural Resource Policy Bureau spending increased by 36% in FY 1997. Ignoring the priority established by the Governor and the new Commissioners, Conley and Barton continued to increase biodiversity, nongame and watchable wildlife funding using “leftover” license fees.

What’s in a Name?

If you run a computer thesaurus or spell check program on “biodiversity”, “nongame” and “watchable” wildlife, you probably won’t find some of those words. Yet they have become the bywords of environmental protectionist groups and state and federal wildlife management agencies.

Until environmental extremism replaced game and fish management during the late 1960s and 70s, “wildlife” was defined as “mammals, birds and fishes hunted by man.” In 1976, following IAFWA recommendation, IDFG quietly suggested the Idaho Legislature change the definition of wildlife to the UN’s “any form of animal life, native or exotic, generally living in a state of nature.“

That change in definition in I.C. Sec. 36-202(g) opened the door for F&G biologists to justify protection of any “critter” regardless of its harmful effect on other species that were generally considered beneficial or desirable to humans. For example, it is used to supercede even the ESA by prohibiting the control of predators that prevent recovery of pygmy rabbits.

“Biodiversity”

In 1974 The Nature Conservancy launched the first of its state “Natural Heritage Programs” advocating preservation of “natural diversity” (ecosystems made up only of so-called “native” species). In 1984 a joint effort by The Nature Conservancy, Idaho Parks and Recreation and the IDFG Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program formed Idaho’s Natural Heritage Program.

In 1986 a National Forum on Biological Diversity used the term “biodiversity” to describe TNC’s agenda of restoring a diverse mix of “native” species to ecosystems - rather than manage to maintain healthy populations of existing species that are beneficial to humans. The introduction of Canadian wolves into areas where wolves have been absent or significantly reduced for more than a century is a major component in the plan to restore “biodiversity” in “native” ecosystems.

The following year IDFG followed the IAFWA recommendation and took over full management of the Natural Heritage Program (also referred to as the “Conservation Data Center” or Idaho CDC). The FY 1998 Stockholder’s Report states the following Purpose for the CDC:

“Collect the best biological information on rare or special status animals and plants, plant communities and habitat areas. Manage this information in a series of interrelated databases. Disseminate this information as widely as possible to potential users. Interpret and synthesize this information to support proactive habitat conservation efforts.”

Contrary to Huffaker’s claim to the Legislature (see Sportsmen Pay For Biodiversity Agenda on page 3) the entire FY 98 CDC budget of $11,699 was funded with sportsman license fees. In fact the largest item (“Technical Assistance”) in the Natural Resource Policy budget in FY 98 was funded with $482,915 of license dollars and $396,898 of federal aid.

The Purpose: “Provide fish and wildlife technical assistance to federal and state agencies, local governments, private individuals and entities and others to minimize or eliminate impact to fish and wildlife populations and habitats from a wide variety of projects and proposals.” These free services paid for mostly by sportsmen, result in the concerns expressed by Sen. Schroeder (see Should F&G Provide Environmental Services? on Page 2).

The “Official” Definition of Biodiversity

During the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the definition of “biodiversity” adopted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity was:

“The variability among living organisms from all sources, including, ‘inter alia’, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”

Biodiversity includes every living organism in each designated ecosystem, including several million species, many of which are microscopic, that will never be included in an ESA listing. However scientists estimate there are between 1 million and 100 million larger species that can be seen with the naked eye, with estimates of from only 3-5 to as many as 140,000 disappearing every year.

Virtually every scientist agrees with the Nature Conservancy opinion that it is not possible to restore all of even the relatively few species that are already listed as endangered or threatened. Most concede that 40% of freshwater fish in South America have never even been classified and only a tiny unknown fraction of saltwater species have been identified.

On their respective websites, both TNC’s Chief Biologist and IDFG’s Nongame and Biodiversity staffs admit there are too many nongame species to attempt to manage them individually. They say they “attempt to take a habitat and landscape-based approach to nongame wildlife conservation and management by advocating protection of specific plant communities” such as the shrub-steppe ecosystems of southern Idaho.

Two Questions That Need Answers

The IUCN* “Red List” of 40,168 species and 2,160 subspecies assessed in 2006 claims that 16,118 of the main species (40%) are threatened with extinction. Most of these threats are blamed on human induced habitat loss or degradation. (* International, Union for Conservation also called “World Conservation Union”)

Whether it’s the UN, TNC, IDFG CWCS Team or other involved groups, their biologists agree that since humans appeared on earth their activities have been the major cause of biodiversity loss. Some claim this will cause dramatic irreversible changes during the next 100 years while others point out that the present degree of loss in biodiversity can be sustained for many thousands of years without reaching the 20%+ loss that occurred during the five major mass extinctions of the geological past.

When white explorers crossed large stretches of Nevada in the early 1800s they reported a land nearly barren of game with only a few scattered half-starved Indians. Irrigation development by white settlers turned large tracts of that land into a virtual paradise, rich with lush habitat and assorted game and other wildlife species.

Why should the agency charged with perpetuating and managing Idaho’s wild game and fish for hunting, fishing and trapping be working to restore a “natural” feast or famine condition? Why does IDFG support the agendas of national and international environmental activist groups rather than give its allegiance to Idaho citizens who own the resource and to their elected officials?

The IDFG “Nongame” Program

For many centuries game managers in all parts of the world have recognized that conditions which produce abundant game populations for humans to harvest also support an abundance of other species. But for more than two decades environmental activists who do not support hunting have lobbied Congress to authorize and fund management of species that are not sought by hunters and fishermen.

Rather than refer to these species with the accurate terms “non-hunted” or “non-game” the activists created a new word, “nongame”, to promote those species as having at least equal value to traditional game animals, birds and fishes. But as with many other confusing words or phrases invented by wildlife biologists, a non-game program may have nothing to do with nongame species.

Different Nongame Classifications

Readers with internet access who are interested can read the Idaho vertebrates listed as “nongame” by entering: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/ and then click on “Mammals” or “Amphibians and Reptiles.” Then to view the list of birds click on “Nongame Bird Program”, and then click on “List of Idaho’s Bird Species” in the lower right hand corner.

These three lists include only the 619 or so vertebrate species (having a backbone) that have been recognized as living in or migrating to Idaho - of which 523 are classified as nongame. The 619 include 111 mammals, 39 amphibians or reptiles and the rest birds, but do not include Idaho fish and hundreds of assorted mussels, snails, crustaceans, insects, etc. also found in the CWCS list of “Idaho fish and wildlife species.”

As reported in the April 2004 Outdoorsman, IDFG “management” of nongame species consists of giving most of them protected status, which automatically invokes severe federal penalties for killing, possessing or attempting to trade or sell the species or any portion. Its tacit admission that neither Idaho reptiles nor amphibians need protection is obvious since up to four native amphibians and reptiles of each species may be captured and held in captivity by holders of a valid Idaho hunting license.

On July 23, 2007, KTVB Boise news reporter Carolyn Holly featured a dog that had been bitten repeatedly by a rattlesnake when it jumped between the snake and a small child. The cameraman also showed an adult (the child’s father?) displaying the snakeskin which had been illegally removed and tacked on a flat surface for drying.

Although the F&G rule that became permanent law on April 6, 2005 says the protected status is not intended to prevent protection of personal health and/or safety, who decides when killing a protected species is warranted? The popular theme that people are “intruding” in rattlesnake, wolf, bear or lion habitat implies that humans should either be content to live and work in crowded urban “islands” of human habitat or suffer the consequences from predators that are protected in all of the surrounding rural and wilderness areas.

The 1992 UN Biodiversity Treaty

That has been the published agenda of the UN and its non-governmental organization (NGO) international allies (TNC, IUCN, etc.) since its Conference on Human Settlements in Toronto in 1976. Unfortunately it is also partly the agenda of the IAFWA, which dictates the agenda of all state and provincial fish and game agencies.

After the UN “Convention on Biological Diversity”, also called the “UN Biodiversity Treaty”, was presented at the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, former President Bush refused to sign it. But new President Bill Clinton signed the treaty on June 4, 1993 and Vice President Al Gore was already constructing his “White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management” in preparation for implementing the Treaty.

The U.S. State Department officially transmitted the Treaty to the Senate on November 20, 1993 asking for “fast-track” ratification and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 3 to recommend ratification. A massive effort by America’s natural resource users and grassroots groups killed the ratification but the Clinton-Gore team continued to implement it and the UN “Agenda 21” provisions as if the treaty had been ratified.

F&G Allegiance to Biodiversity

Despite the fact that the Treaty has still never been ratified NGOs including IUCN, TNC, the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club continue to support its “Wildlands Project” agenda. My efforts to discuss these issues with IDFG officials usually results in that “glazed-over look” and their failure to continue the discussion, yet examples of their allegiance to the Biodiversity Treaty are abundant.

For example, three months after the Idaho F&G Commission passed the rule making rattlesnakes a protected species, an Idaho Statesman article by Darin Oswald on the Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel quoted the following from the IDFG Nongame website on the squirrel’s recovery. “Threats: (are) Shooting, poison, predators like rattlesnakes, habitat degradation and the replacement of nutrient-rich native plants with less nutritious invasive alien plants.” (emphasis added).

When I pointed out, in a letter to several legislators, the inconsistency in protecting a major predator of several species listed as “Candidates” for ESA listing by the federal government, IDFG deleted the “predators like rattlesnakes” from the “threats” to ground squirrel recovery and substituted “overgrazing by livestock”. Currently the CWCS “Appendix F: Species Accounts and Distribution Maps for Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need” has deleted all reference to predation as a cause of decline for most of the species that are included.

The UN/TNC/IAFWA/IDFG excuse for not including predation as a cause of species decline is, “Native prey species have evolved and co-existed with native predators for thousands of years.” They have no intention of controlling predator numbers to the extent that scientific research shows is necessary to allow prey species to recover once they decline to an unhealthy level.

Because their allegiance is to biodiversity rather than game management, IDFG will continue to ignore science and claim that planting more big sagebrush will restore healthy pygmy rabbit populations and that promoting quaking aspen growth will restore healthy mule deer herds. But why wasn’t the biodiversity treaty ratified?

Why the Treaty Was Not Ratified

In 1994, with Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) heavily involved in environmental reform, what caused him to pull the Biodiversity Treaty at the last minute instead of allowing the Senate to vote for ratification? The answer is that he learned that the UN and the Treaty supporters weren’t telling the truth about the “Wildlands Project” that would be implemented if Congress ratified the Treaty.

The mind-boggling goal of the Wildlands Project was, and still is, to set aside up to half of the North American continent as “wild land” for the preservation of biological diversity. In the U.S. these proposed wild core areas would be created from public lands such as National Forests and Parks, each comprising from 10,000 up to 25 million acres, and would allow little, if any, human use.

Wildlife corridors, to enable animals to migrate to other areas as a result of predicted climate changes, would also be protected from humans. Buffer zones consisting primarily of private lands, often acquired by purchase or restricted easement, would allow limited use by humans.

On September 30, 1994, a 4-foot by 6-foot version of the foregoing map was presented on the floor of the U.S. Senate along with portions of the UN’s “Global Biodiversity Assessment” (GBA) required by the Treaty. The GBA identified the Wildlands Project as the vehicle for implementing the Treaty, and the map (along with others not included here) illustrated the proposed lock-up of vast areas in North America.

Although the color map is too small to see state boundaries and the few “normal use” or Indian and military reservations clearly, the many dark red areas in each state are the Core Areas and Corridors closed to humans. Most of the rest are the Buffer Zones where human use would be carefully regulated.

NAFTA Implements Biodiversity Plan

The tan area (gray if this is printed in B&W) along the U.S.-Mexico border is a 120-mile-wide “International Zone of Cooperation” which has already been established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA also created the “North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation,” a Montreal-based agency representing the United States, Canada and Mexico, which says the continent aces a “biodiversity crisis” with half of North America’s most “biodiverse” eco-regions severely degraded.

For several years Canada has been forced to increase its seal harvest significantly in order to continue harvesting cod but this group blames declining populations of cod and other food fish on over-harvesting by humans rather than on predation by protected marine mammals. Recently it convinced the Canadian government to reduce the harvest of excessive seal populations – resulting in further decline in cod populations and harvests.

“Restoring Large Meat-Eating Predators”

The failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty as ~188 other nations and the European Union now have, slowed – but did not stop – implementation of the Wildlands Project. A visit to the Wildlands Project website lists the same goals it had in 1991 - restoring large meat-eating predators to a landscape where wilderness has also been “restored”.

All life (human and non-human) would have equal value, and resource consumption above what is needed to supply “vital” human needs would not be allowed. It says its “primary objective is the closing and removal of roads on public lands.”

It boasts that it is supported by hundreds of organizations both in the U.S. and internationally, working to achieve its goals and it describes projects by other organizations (like the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative) that complement the Wildlands Project. Several of these groups, including The Nature Conservancy, receive millions of dollars annually in federal money, income from property transactions, and tax deductible donations from individuals and trusts.

Bit by bit they are implementing the UN plan to displace rural Americans and relocate them in “sustainable communities” while restoring their vision of North America as a “pre-Columbian wilderness untouched by humans.” That, of course, means that wildlife will not be managed in this vast wilderness network and many state wildlife managers, including IDFG biologists, have already adopted that “hands-off” philosophy of “managing” wild game.

Although these biologists still pay lip service to their mandate to preserve protect and perpetuate wild game and manage it to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping, they refuse to use any of the biological tools that are needed to do the job. These tools include reducing hunting season length and vulnerability, mitigating the impact of extreme winters or other natural disasters by promptly providing emergency feed where indicated and effectively controlling predators, and maintaining healthy male-to-female-to-juvenile ratios in populations at or near the normal carrying capacity of their range.

“Wildlands” Not Justified by Science

Instead they have slowly embraced the philosophy of “deep ecology” admitting that ecosystems are too complex to manage or even understand. Once large predators that existed prior to Columbus discovering America are free to roam the North American Continent, many believe their sole responsibility will be to enforce restrictions on human activity.

The architects of the Wildlands Project freely admit that science cannot be used to justify their project as follows:

“The Wildlands Project requires not only a re-thinking of science, politics, land use, industrialization, and civilization, it also requires re-thinking humanity’s place in nature. It requires a new philosophical and spiritual foundation for western civilization. That foundation is the ecophilosophy of deep ecology. Deriving much of its ideology from Buddhism and Taoism, and the philosophy of Spinoza, deep ecology contends that science has little to tell us about living in harmony with the planet, and other non-human life forms.”

The Biased “Fishing & Hunting” Survey

With the new emphasis on promoting sport hunting and fishing following the end of World War II, industry reps lobbied for a Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW) survey of hunters and fishermen in the lower 48 states. The International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners (later changed to IAFWA) told FWS the survey was needed to determine the economic value of hunting and angling to the national economy, and recommended it be funded with sportsmen excise tax dollars.

The second BSFW survey, including Alaska and Hawaii, was requested for 1960 and, since this was all about money, responses from hunters or fishermen who did not spend more than $5 or take at least three hunting or fishing trips were not included. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) conducted a similar survey of all types of outdoor recreation (including camping skiing, boating, bird watching, etc.) but did not exclude those who did not take enough separate trips or spend enough money.

“Incidental” Hunters, Fishermen Not Counted

In the 1965 BSFW Survey, FWS included information on “incidental” wildlife photographers and wildlife watchers from the BOR survey. Yet it did not include those it referred to as “incidental” hunters and fishermen in its own survey simply because they did not spend enough money or take enough trips.

The U.S. Census Bureau was paid to conduct both surveys in 1965 and in most other years but the information collected was for very different purposes. The questions concerning income, degree of education, etc. on the BSFW survey funded by Sport Fish and Wildlife Recovery dollars are designed to enable industry groups to profile and target potential customers.

The following totals from both 1965 surveys show that 34% of hunters and fishermen who paid state and local taxes and purchased hunting and/or fishing licenses were treated as if they didn’t exist in the national BSFW survey they were required to help pay for:

Respondents BSFW Survey BOR Survey

Hunted only 5,000,000 5,000,000

Fished only 19,000,000 31,000,000

Hunted & Fished 9,000,000 14,000,000

Total Participants 33,000,000 50,000,000

In his presentation of the 1965 survey data to IAFWA, BSFW Director John Gottschalk implied that the one-third of hunters and fishermen who didn’t spend money to travel long distances, stay in motels and hire guides were not “serious” sportsmen. He used terms like “real” fishermen to describe anglers who spent a lot of time and money and said, “The 1965 Survey mainly covers the more enthusiastic sportsmen - those we call ‘substantial’ participants.”

Surveys Emphasize Non-Consumptive Recreation

That survey’s bias in favor of casual wildlife watchers and other non-consumptive wildlife advocates, regardless of whether or not they contributed to the economy, signaled the beginning of a shift in emphasis to promoting “non-consumptive wildlife-based recreation.” The 1975 Survey was the first time the BSFW collected its own estimates of wildlife watching and the survey questions and methodology continued to change every five years.

The 1991 Survey continued efforts to improve accuracy of state information at a cost exceeding $13 million, with additional emphasis on increasing the percentage of non-consumptive wildlife recreationists compared to hunters and fishermen who also enjoy seeing and observing wildlife.

That Survey and subsequent Surveys did not include wildlife watching or photographing that occurred on hunting, fishing or game scouting trips. Yet it included virtually every non-sportsman activity from backyard bird feeding - to visiting the city park to watch ducks or feed pigeons popcorn - to taking a cross-country trip during which the respondent observed or photographed wildlife.

“Watchable Wildlife”

On December 3, 1990 four preservationist groups signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with eight federal agencies and IAFWA agreeing to cooperatively develop, implement, maintain, and enhance a “Watchable Wildlife Program” on Federal and State lands. The MOU stated, “IAFWA represents the interests of State wildlife agencies, each of which has responsibility for and interests in promoting Watchable Wildlife opportunities within their respective States.” (emphasis added)

The MOU specified that the eight federal government agencies (including the Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force and the BLM, FS, FWS, NPS and Bureau of Reclamation) shall assure the diversity of wildlife and habitats in the lands they manage. This includes assistance provided by Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation and/or the Isaac Walton League of America.

The goals include educating the American public about “its responsibility” to preserve “all” wildlife and providing the opportunity to observe “native” North Americn wildlife species. Although the program is often referred to as a “federal” program, it is a nationwide program initiated by Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), which continues to play a leading role in its development.

DOW, called the “Anti-Steel Trap League” during its early years, is well known for promoting biodiversity and for using the courts to protect wolves from sport hunting or trapping and control by state wildlife managers. Yet a DOW representative is part of a three-person IAFWA committee which establishes the criteria for the state CWCS nongame species plans.

A New Definition of Wildlife Watching

The millions of dollars spent by the federal and state agencies to promote non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation did not halt the decline in wildlife watching reported in the 1980-1996 Surveys. But DOW and IAFWA convinced every state, including Idaho, to change the definition of “wildlife” watching to include, not only traditional bird watching, whale watching and viewing big game animals, but also the following activities:

· Photography of animals, plants and landscapes

· Wildflower walks

· Plant or mushroom identification

· Watching salmon or other fish

More Deception About Wildlife Watching

DOW selected coastal states like Washington, Florida and California with several hundred thousand tourists who came to view the unique scenery, and convinced the state wildlife agencies to also consider these tourists as wildlife watchers. Now, in addition to backyard bird feeders and visitors to the city park, virtually every camper, hiker or tourist can qualify as a “wildlife” watcher.

Idaho’s neighboring state of Washington was listed in fourth place among the top “wildlife” watching states in1997. After six years of working with DOW to make wildlife watching pay, the Washington Department of Wildlife’s website says, “Over $1.7 billion is spent annually in Washington on wildlife watching activities.”

It says the money is spent locally on food, lodging, transportation and equipment and credits wildlife watching with supporting 21,000 jobs. Yet on another page it admits that most of the wildlife watching is incidental “while engaged in some other form of tourism, and/or outdoor recreation.”

Washington is one of a small group of traditional “tourist” states that conducted research into the economic value of wildlife watching (“nature” watching) and then supplied the info to the BSFW Survey to estimate how much “wildlife” watchers spend. Of course most tourists and other travelers enjoy seeing wildlife, but the claim that all the money most of them spend results solely from watching wildlife is a gross exaggeration.

When the 2001 Survey data was released in 2002 anti-hunting groups and state nongame biologists praised the small increase in total wildlife watchers compared to a decrease in hunters since 1996. They ignored the fact that the number of wildlife watchers (and feeders and photographers) had steadily declined since the 1980 “watcher” survey.

New MOU Adds Agencies, New NGO

In 1999 DOW and the three other NGO groups that had signed the 1990 MOU decided to form a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit corporation called “Watchable Wildlife, Inc.” (WWI). On October 16, 2002, they signed another MOU with the eight original federal agencies and four new ones* plus IAFWA. (* National Marine Fisheries Svc., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

The new MOU gave WWI increased powers and says, “Watchable Wildlife Inc. is dedicated to advancing wildlife viewing as a viable economic and conservation enterprise for communities throughout Canada, the United States, and Mexico. WWI is committed to helping communities realize the economic potential of nature-related recreation while conserving native plants and animals in their natural habitats.” (emphasis added)

FS, Others Teach UN Biodiversity Agenda

The Forest Service “NatureWatch” website advertises that its 192 million acres (300,000 square miles) of habitat for thousands of species of wildlife, fish and wildflowers offers thousands of “NatureWatch” Viewing Sites. Its Mission: “To provide children and adults the opportunity to safely view, and participate in, activities and programs that raise their level of awareness and understanding of wildlife, fish and plants, and their connection to ecosystems, landscapes and people.”

Along with 11 other federal agencies, the FS is teaching the UN biodiversity message to the urban American tourist. First-time watchers are provided a viewing guide and ethics information with the “look-from-a-distance-but-don’t-touch-or-feed wildlife” message (a similar message is available from other agencies for observing marine mammals, etc.).

Check Out IDFG’s Nongame Website

If you have internet access check out the IDFG “Nongame” and “Watchable Wildlife” website to confirm the activities “wildlife” watching includes. Then click on “Wildlife Viewing Tips and Ethics” to get the same “look-from-a-distance-but-don’t-touch-or-feed wildlife” message.

You’ll learn not to walk through grass or water or off of established paths because “damage to the habitat affects all species in the ecosystem.” Continue to read “Don’t alter the environment by feeding the animals. Feeding wildlife supplies more food than would normally be provided by nature.” (emphasis added)

Now you know the real reason IDFG wildlife “managers” refuse to feed mule deer that are obviously starving to death during extreme winters. During the August 4, 2007 Mule Deer Management Workshop in Pocatello, County Commissioner (former Idaho Sen.) Lin Whitworth asked why, if they refuse to feed starving deer with the dedicated fund provided by sportsmen, F&G does not give the money back to hunters. He got no answer.

Biodiversity To Trump Other Resource Use

Whether you are a member of the Alternate Funding Committee, an Idaho F&G Commissioner, a Legislator representing your constituents, or a frustrated mule deer or pheasant hunter, the following statements in the 1140-page UN Global Biodiversity Assessment explain how protecting biodiversity will limit human harvest of natural resources:

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric (man is superior) view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation.

“We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.”

Palouse Prairie SAFE Program

From Agenda 21 to UN Heritage Sites, the Treaty that was never ratified is being implemented by every state and federal agency involved in natural resources. By the time you receive this issue the “Palouse Prairie SAFE program” will have been initiated, signing up a small number of growers to convert their cropland to fields and corridors of permanent native grasses, forbs and shrubs.

The program is designed to convert only one percent or less of the Palouse cropland to native species, yet the estimated minimum cost of the 10-year project is $11.2 million. A survey of sample fields for savannah sparrows and grasshopper sparrows will be conducted three times to see if they were attracted by the plantings.

According to IDFG CWCS data, this project will recover populations of these and other declining birds, including non-native pheasants, “which will provide more local economic benefits.” A similar multi-million dollar habitat project designed to save declining pygmy rabbit populations in Washington during the past decade resulted in predators killing all of the remaining wild rabbits (see “A Wasted Effort” in the October 2007 issue).

Because many Idahoans dislike the impact development has on our traditional rural areas, some are willing to close their eyes to reality and pretend that by spending billions of dollars nationwide we can turn back the clock a few centuries and re-create so-called “native” ecosystems. But, unless we allow the UN to overrule our Constitution, these lands remain in private ownership and will ultimately be sold.

Sustainable Development – UN Agenda 21

The United Nations University - Institute of Advanced Studies, a “virtual” university headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, continues to provide direction for “Sustainable Development” for thousands of U.S. cities. This implementation of UN Agenda 21 purportedly addresses both “Brown” agendas to improve air and water quality for the poorer cities, and “Green” agendas to reduce damage to ecosystems by more affluent cities.

In 1993, 25 days after President Clinton signed the UN Biodiversity Treaty, he signed an executive order creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Consisting of 29 non-elected federal officials and representatives of major environmental organizations (including the National President of TNC), the Council adopted the UN’s definition of sustainable development and translated Agenda 21 into 154 public policy recommendations to be implemented throughout the United States.

Missouri Promotes UN Agenda

In November 1995, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) issued a “Coordinated Resource Management Plan to sustain our natural environment” which also endorsed the creation of a “UN Biosphere Reserve” in the lower Ozarks. The Reserve was promoted by TNC and by agency officials who were members of the President’s Council.

But Missouri residents, who own 93% of the land, discovered that the language and methods in the Resource Plan were similar or identical to those in UN Agenda 21. They objected vigorously to the Plan and former IDFG Director Jerry Conley was hired as MDC Director to use his experience in Idaho to implement the plan.

Conley Denied UN/NGO Influence

But Missouri residents convinced their legislators the Plan was designed to implement the mandate in the UN Biodiversity Assessment and Conley was forced to cancel it on March 19, 1997. In a March 27, press release, Conley ridiculed citizens’ groups that had expressed concern about the United Nation’s influence on the CRMP as “pure unadulterated bunk.” He said concerns about shifting governmental authority over to non-elected groups was “absolute hogwash.”

Yet three years later in 2000, Congress gave IAFWA, assisted by DOW, the authority to administer the newly enacted State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program which directs state wildlife agencies to support biodiversity as dictated by DOW. The “unholy alliance” of this state wildlife agency lobbyist with DOW and other predator preservationist groups also convinced Congress to enact the Multistate Conservation Grant (MCG) Program.

MCGs are also administered by IAFWA, but unlike SWGs its program allows IAFWA to award $6 million from the previously-untouchable P-R and D-J sportsman excise tax funds to any state(s), agency or nongovernmental group. The only requirement for the NGOs (including anti-hunting groups) to receive a grant is that they must submit a statement agreeing not to use the grant money for any activity that promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish.

The Truth

The IAFWA, DOW and other NGOs are neither elected nor accountable to American citizens yet they continue to promote the “restoration of native ecosystems” agenda espoused in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment. The results of their efforts to de-emphasize hunting, fishing and trapping are immediately apparent when you view and explore the Missouri Dept. of Conservation website.

From its “Grow Native” biodiversity program (a collaborative effort with the State Ag. Dept.) to its “Master Naturalist” program, the emphasis on “preserving sustainable native plant and animal communities” and providing present and future generations with “diverse and balanced outdoor recreation opportunities” brings home its real agenda. Hunting, trapping and fishing are briefly mentioned as a necessary tool in providing money and controlling some wildlife and fish populations, but “preserving our ‘outdoor recreation’ heritage” is the central theme.

Public Funding Leads To Other Activities

During the IDFG July funding meeting Senator Cameron expressed concern that the Department would become like Parks and Recreation and that is exactly what has happened in states like Missouri after they received additional funding form sources other than hunters and fishermen.

In 1975 the MDC and its NGO support group, the Missouri Conservation Federation, decided to seek additional funding from the general public with a 1/8 of one percent sales tax. It enlisted help from licensed hunters and fishermen who traveled from house to house convincing the public to amend the State Constitution to help fund fish, game and timber management.

The amendment, approved by voters in 1976, provided that the sales and use tax money, and all other MDC income, must be used “for the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and wildlife resources of the state…and for no other purpose.” The purchase or other acquisition of property for said purposes was also allowed. (emphasis added)

The amendment was originally very popular among sportsmen and timber interests because it offered a Constitutional guarantee that fish, game and timber would be restored and conserved. County and State officials supported it because it also provided that a portion of the money must be used to pay the full tax value (in lieu of taxes) for any property acquired by MDC.

Missouri Ignored Spending Restrictions

The wording in Article IV Section 43(b) has never been changed yet MDC now spends millions of the sales tax dollars every year on providing elaborate camping facilities, bicycle, hiking and horseback trails, interpretive centers and wildlife watching facilities. Disgruntled sportsmen point out that it was hunters and fishermen who campaigned, knocked on doors and drove people to the polls for this tax to pass - yet none of these programs make any effort to recruit a new generation of hunters.

In 2003 Missouri Senators proposed SJR 103 to divert half of the $96 million annual sales tax revenue from MDC to education, and implement a sunshine clause that would require the tax to be re-approved every four years. It was defeated by lobbying from those who benefit from the programs.

Missouri Legislator Cites Abuses

In 2005 the sponsor of SJR 3 praised increased timber, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching revenues, but cited examples of inappropriate use of the tax fund. These included excessive payment for land purchases, expensive conferences (one costing $30,000 for several employees), $900,000 spent for catering in 3 years, no cost reports or use records for 1,300 highway vehicles, and ownership of three airplanes and one helicopter.

SJR 3 proposed a re-authorization of the tax once every 10 years with the following explanation from its sponsor:

“Unfortunately, this is the only department in the state that does not have a system of checks and balances. They can spend their money and regulate what they want without one person making them accountable for the spending of our tax dollars. In the unlikely event the conservation tax is not approved by voters, this will not end the department because federal regulation ensures hunting and fishing license fees will not be used for any purposes other than funding state fish and wildlife agency.”

The Same Thing Could Happen Here

The Missouri Senator could have been describing IDFG with its history of unlawfully using dedicated emergency feeding and fish hatchery funds for non-game/fish activities. These fees and the matching P-R and D-J funds are use taxes that hunters and fishermen pay.

Unlike MDC, IDFG has not yet reached the stage where it purchases and sets aside core areas in a “Natural Areas System.” But its willingness to misappropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars, with approval of its Deputy Attorney General, indicates that lack of unlimited funding is the only thing that’s stopping it.

In its Five-Year Accomplishment Report titled “Idaho State Wildlife Grant Success Stories,” the IDFG biodiversity team brags that it spent $6.8 million during the first five years of its existence. The result of this expense was recommending that sagebrush habitat be preserved (duh!) and IDFG purchasing a 101-acre lease to protect Idaho habitat used by the Columbia Spotted Frog.
Wildlife Watcher Subsidies Expensive

But now that it must match the SWG money 100% rather than the 33% match required through FY 2006, it’s asking for another handout because, unlike hunters and fishermen, nongame wildlife watchers will not pay for the “free” programs they receive. But what about the National Survey that claims wildlife watchers contribute billions of dollars?

Although the Preliminary 2006 Survey Report claims another small increase in their numbers, it admits there are still fewer wildlife watchers than there were in 1991 – and far fewer than existed in 1980 (which it says shouldn’t be used for comparison). If that is true how can the state and federal agencies justify their multimillion- dollar expenditures for Watchable Wildlife facilities, birding trails, and massive promotional campaigns for the past 17 years?

Grossly Exaggerated Biodiversity Losses

Despite its obvious inaccuracy and bias, the Report admits that state wildlife agencies use it to justify their requests for additional nongame funding. But even if we ignore the high cost of Watchable Wildlife, how can we ignore the claimed loss of up to 140,000 native species from native ecosystems every year?

The short answer is that is an absurd exaggeration with no basis in fact. If you run a Google search on “biodiversity loss” you will come up with about 1.9 million responses. If you spend a few weeks verifying what has actually been documented you find that the accepted figure of verified life forms on the planet (animals, plants, fungi, protozoans, bacteria, viruses, etc.) is 1.4 to 1.9 million.

Most of these have not been classified but more than half are insects, which make up 73% of the known “animal” species. The estimated total of all life forms based on this known number is 3.63 million – far fewer than the 10-100 million claimed by the doomsayers.

During the last 504 years the known number of just birds and mammals that have gone extinct worldwide is 136. That represents a loss of only about one every 3.7 years, which hardly qualifies as a biodiversity “crisis”. Remember that most of the world’s life forms are insects with little or no species loss (except minor losses in small isolated environments).

The known number of all species (including microscopic) lost in the last 504 years is less than 800 (<2 species per year). The estimated total loss based on scientific calculations of indicator species is estimated at only 2-5 species per year out of several million.

Listing Restricts Human Activity

Yet the IUCN and its ardent followers continue to perpetuate the unsubstantiated claim that thousands of native species are in danger of being exterminated. For example, Germany listed 34% of its insect species as threatened in spite of the fact that many of those listed are abundant and widely distributed.

Each time a new species is classified as “endangered”, “threatened” or “a species of concern” by a state it opens the door for more restrictions on human activity, including hunting and trapping. While there is little doubt that humans are responsible for some of the native biodiversity loss there is no doubt that the benefits to humans from much of this activity far outweigh any alleged benefit from preserving some “native” species.

For example, Florida listed 634 species in these three categories, including the endangered malaria mosquito Anopheles albimanus, in 1994 and reaffirmed the listings in 2004 and 2006. The philosophy that protects the animal and insect carriers of multiple deadly diseases and such organisms as the smallpox virus, would appear to violate American citizens’ rights and human decency, and fly in the face of reason.

Team Members Suggest Resource Foot the Bill

Instead of making the biodiversity advocates pay the cost of and accept responsibility for their activities, the Idaho F&G Commission and the Funding Committee are exploring new ways to make the resource foot the bill. Commissioner Wright suggested that sportsmen be surveyed for their input but Rep. Wood correctly stated that the same special groups always respond to the F&G surveys with the same answers.

The Funding Committee is fortunate to have Rep. Wood as a member, with his years of experience as a F&G Commissioner who learned firsthand how public opinion is manipulated by the agency to suit its private agenda. There is little hope for realistic solutions to the funding problem until the Committee looks beyond the rhetoric and addresses that agenda.

Rep. Stevens and Sen. Cameron both suggested the Committee explore selling special (trophy) hunts, which can generate up to one hundred thousand dollars or more. Tracey Trent responded that in his 24 years with the Department sportsmen have never approved that practice and he said they never will.

Idaho Trophy Units Don’t Produce Trophies

Rep. Wood reminded them that it takes eight years to grow a trophy and you can’t kill all of the male animals before that age (as is being done now) and still sell a high-priced hunt. Outdoorsman Bulletin 23 documented the overcrowding of hunters and poor harvest success in other units that result from managing even one unit for “trophy” hunting.

And although certain Idaho units are called “trophy” units because there is a higher percent of 4-point bucks or 6-point bulls, the odds of killing an animal that meets the Boone & Crockett minimum score for entry are extremely poor. Wealthy sportsmen will not pay the higher prices unless they know there are bona fide trophies to be had (as in the Unit 11 sheep hunt where IDFG carefully monitors the rams and allows only two sheep hunters).

One obvious solution to increase funding by sportsmen is to eliminate extended-season special draw hunts and hunting in the rut for mule deer and elk. This, plus temporarily halting antleress mule deer harvest, is the quickest way to insure a significant increase in mature bucks and bulls that are available for every hunter (which always results in increased purchases of licenses and tags).

Duplication of Effort is Part of the Problem

However this will not solve the dilemma of how to fund IDFG constructing and maintaining wildlife/nature watching facilities, campgrounds, hiking, biking and horseback riding trails, or improving wildlife habitat and wildflowers. These are functions of Parks and Recreation and the federal and state land management agencies and should be returned to them rather than perpetuate the expensive duplication of effort.

UN Definition of “Wildlife” Inconsistent

When the Idaho Legislature approved IDFG replacing the dictionary definition of wildlife in I.C. Section 36-202(g) with the UN definition (see “What’s in a Name?” On page 4) it used the definition of “animal” that refers to the “animal kingdom” consisting of all living things that are animated (mammals, birds, fishes, insects, crustacians, etc.). But throughout the rest of the F&G Code, “animal” means only “mammal” (a class of higher vertebrates, comprising man and other animals that nourish their young with milk and with skin that is more or less covered with hair).

Since it first began selling hunting licenses 104 years ago, IDFG has managed the “mammals birds and fishes hunted by man” and the major predators that must be controlled at times in order to perpetuate t