Forget the far left’s attempt to smear Palin and her family, a left extremism that Barack Obama and many others support, the democrats in general are attempting to make an issue about Governor Palin’s experience. It’s probably a bit objective as to whether Governor Palin has more or less “experience” than Senator Obama. The liberal media, in its support of Obama, is saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t measure up to Obama in experience and that Senator John McCain’s attack campaign against Obama’s inexperience will now backfire, as he has picked a running mate with little experience.

Isn’t it bizarre in some ways that we are even having this discussion? Those who follow Obama think he is their man. They do and say what they think is necessary to get their guy elected. McCain’s camp is doing the same thing but I see it just a bit differently.

I would give the experience nod to Palin for two reasons. One, I think her past in office has presented her with real executive decisions of which Obama has not had. Two, I personally more strongly approve of Palin’s past experience as one I would look for in a candidate. I want a real person, one that actually does remember what life is like, not just talk about it.

But let’s forget about this experience thing for a moment. Palin is fearless and I don’t think it much matters what color suit or dress the opponent is wearing. If you compare two candidates, both with equally little past experience, the kind some people seem to think is vitally important, don’t we then look at other aspects of that person in determining a winner - like character, morals, strengths and weaknesses?

I would trade you one experience card for one gutsy performer. I love a gutsy guy! I’m a sports fan and have been for years. I am always drawn to underachiever athletes who make up for perhaps some natural athletic ability by out hustling the opponent, and I mean out working them. These kinds of people are determined and fearless. It comes out in their performances.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has taken her share of grief over her position on wolf management. For those who may not know, her team of respected wildlife scientists and game commission, implemented a plan that involves the reduction of wolf populations in a very limited number of specific areas where it has been determined that wolf populations are too high and they are decimating the moose and caribou.

Alaska’s constitution demands that game animals must be managed to provide opportunities for its residents to hunt and fish. Allowing wolves in these isolated and limited areas to go unmanaged, is not only illegal but irresponsible as well. Many methods have been tried and due to the geography and other dynamics of the situation, it was decided to utilize aircraft as a tool to cull the wolf population. This has all been done within all the laws.

Palin has heard from just about every animal rights organization and has had to spend Alaskan resources fighting this decision in court but she believes that it has to be done according to law and that the majority of residents agree. A recent ballot measure proved that to be the case.

Palin has stood by her team of fish and wildlife experts and essentially told all newcomers she isn’t changing her mind. She has taken a similar stance on the recent announcement by her own republican party, that the polar bear would be listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. It takes guts to buck your own party but she has proven it doesn’t matter. I think she is a “We the People” person.

When Gov. Palin announced that the state of Alaska was going to file suit against the U.S. Department of Interior over the polar bear listing, it set off a firestorm of anger throughout the world of environmentalists. Back in May when I reported this story, Kassie Siegel from the Center for Biological Diversity, accused Gov. Palin as being either “misinformed” or “intentionally misleading”. Because Palin wasn’t interested in buying into global warming that some scientists think might create some problems for the polar bear, she did what she knew was the right thing to do even though Seigal blasted her position.

“The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this.”

What is refreshing is that it appears the state of Alaska has a governor that holds environmental extremism in very low regard. There is nothing I would like more than to see a president and vice president, an administration and a Congress that did the same thing.

But in reality, I think Palin takes comments made about her by individuals and groups as nothing more than a pesky mosquito - a little DEET and they’ll go away.

But this all pales in comparison to how she handled California Congressman George Miller after he submitted a proposed bill that would put an end to the state of Alaska’s constitutional agreement to manage its own wildlife.

Back in September I told you what Miller was up to and how Governor Palin was handling it. One thing she did was send the honorable congressman a letter(pdf).

Here are a few choice excerpts from Gov. Palin’s letter to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007:

On behave of the state of Alaska, I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food for the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the state’s abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

I am dismayed that you did not attempt to contact the state your bill affects most directly before announcing your legislation. At the very least, we could have helped you correct the many inaccuracies and misstatements of fact in both the written and the oral portions of your media presentation yesterday…………..

I am especially concerned your draft threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states.

In her letter, Palin quite adequately explains to Congressman Miller how much of the predator control program of Alaska works. She ends the letter this way.

With all due respect Congressman Miller, you failed to do your homework. I urge you to learn more about the realities of Alaska’s predator control program, and not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns………

The wolves in this case that Governor Palin doesn’t fear are the “special interest advocacy groups” and their “inaccurate campaigns”, as well as one Congressman George Miller. In all honesty, I just can’t see her being intimidated with anyone who might be a threat to this country, whether they live in California or Tehran.

This is the kind of “experience” that you can’t put a measure to. I want a leader who will stand up to whatever and whoever threatens the constitution of this nation, our sovereignty and freedom.

Tom Remington

If each of the 50 United States is granted, through our Constitution, the power to manage its own wildlife, how can the government take power over the state to accomplish that? Have we simply “allowed” the Congress to exert its will over that of the people, or has Congress written laws for themselves that grant them that power?

Below is taken from the beginning, or Section 2, of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 - AN ACT To provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and for other purposes.

I have put emphasis on some parts of the information for the purpose of drawing your attention to it. I may have also created hyperlinks for your convenience in order that you can more easily access certain information.

SEC. 2. ø16 U.S.C. 1531¿ (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that—

(2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered
species.

The federal government has exerted its powers over the states through enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in at least two ways - through Congress’ creation of international treaties and the Commerce Clause.

If we look at the U.S. Constitution, we can see what kind of power Congress has over the states. Section 8, Line 3 -

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

And Section 8, Line 17 -

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

This tells us that the Government of the United States only has power over the District of Columbia and other federally owned land within the states and the power to regulate commerce.

Case law also has shown us two things. In United States v. Shauver in 1914, Judge Trieber ruled,

“It is the people who alone can amend the Constitution to grant Congress the power to enact such legislation as they deem necessary. All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional.”

In 1915, in United States v. McCullagh, the same Judge Trieber further spelled out who has power to regulate wildlife management and takings.

“[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game of this country resides in the state, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best.”

But, for the power hungry Congress, they discovered that with the proper wording of international treaties, they could gain the power and take control over the regulation of hunting and fishing within the states. This is one way the federal government now has control over migratory birds.

The other form of abusive powers comes within the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

It is my understanding that over the past several years, most lawsuits involving endangered species are argued with utilization of the Commerce Clause. In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hughes v. Oklahoma, in 1979, we see that the state of Oklahoma passed a law prohibiting the transportation of minnows outside of the state if they were grown and produced within the state.

Hughes argued that this law was a violation of the Commerce Clause and Justice Brennan, delivering the opinion of the court, ruled that it was a violation of the CC.

Oddly enough, in 1986, in a similar case before the Supreme Court, a bait dealer in Maine attempted to argue the same case and lost. In Maine v. Taylor, the bait dealer, Taylor, argued that Maine’s law that banned the importation of certain bait fish, known to have certain diseases, was an infraction against his right to free commerce. The Court saw this as a potential harm to the greater fisheries of the state and therefore ruled to protect the fishery rather than the act of commerce.

Over the years, several cases have been heard at different levels of the courts and in those cases arguments have been made as to whether the attempt to protect threatened or endangered species, falls within the power of the federal government because Congress has the power to “regulate commerce”.

How does all this relate to the reintroduction of wolves into the three areas of the Northern Rocky Mountains - specifically areas of Central Idaho, Northwestern Montana and Yellowstone National Park? It’s extremely complicated and has not been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court. We may not be that far away as the lawsuits mount and the people get more outspoken.

In 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Completed its requirement of writing the Final Environmental Impact Statement. When recommendations were complete, it was decided to use those of the USFWS and declare the wolf experiment a “Nonessential Experimental Wolf Population”.

Before we proceed, it should be noted that the FEIS also defines what that title means.

Nonessential – Under the provisions of the 1982 amendment of the ESA [Section 10(j)] which authorizes reintroductions of experimental populations, experimental populations must be
designated either “essential” or “nonessential.” “Nonessential” refers to an experimental population whose loss would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. Except in national wildlife refuges or national parks, “nonessential” populations are treated under Section 7 of the ESA as “proposed species.” Thus, federal agencies must only confer with the FWS on activities that the agencies believe might jeopardize the species. Moreover, the agencies would be under no obligation under Section 7(a)(2) to avoid actions likely to jeopardize the species. In national parks and national wildlife refuges they are treated as threatened species. Congress expected that most experimental populations would be considered “nonessential.”

And the definition of Experimental Population.

Experimental Population – A 1982 amendment to the Endangered Species Act established the experimental population designation [Section 10(j)] and defined an experimental population as: “… any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species.” Further in the amendment it was made clear that the term applies to populations that are derived from endangered or threatened species for which the Secretary of Interior has determined that a release will further the conservation of that species. The experimental population designation denotes more flexible management for introduced endangered species or threatened species.

This definition, as provided by the USFWS, is extremely important in the debate on wolves and the Endangered Species Act.

Back in 1993, when the USFWS decided it was going to create a “Nonessential Experimental Wolf Population” in Central Idaho, Northwestern Montana and Wyoming, why did they have the power and authority to do that? Are we to assume that because Congress wrote and enacted the Endangered Species Act that this gave the USFWS power over these states, essentially telling them they now have no control over the wolf or any of the effects of protecting the wolf? This would also include management of the elk, deer, moose and just about everything else that is directly or indirectly affected by the reintroduction of the wolf.

Was the act of reintroduction illegal to begin with? If the people of these states own and have the power to manage its own wildlife populations, how can the federal government do otherwise?

These same regions where declared protected habitat for the wolf by the Secretary of Interior in 1973, prior to the reintroduction. Even in the 1987 Wolf Recovery Plan for the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf, it spells out once again what the intentions of the Endangered Species Act are. This is specifically what it says about state participation and responsibility.

This recovery plan is intended to provide direction and coordination for recovery efforts. State responsibility for many plan items is proposed because the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, provides for state participation/responsibility in endangered species recovery. Task responsibilities outlined in the implementation schedule are suggestions contingent on appropriations, priorities, and personnel and funding constraints.

I have read nothing that indicates to me that the federal government has complete control when administering the Endangered Species Act. We can only assume that the feds believe they have power through the ESA to force their will onto the citizens of this region and are getting away with it. After all, there was never a vote taken to see if the “people” wanted wolves dropped in their backyard.

Do we have a treaty with Canada or any other country that through its wording, gives Congress power to tell Idaho, Montana and Wyoming what to do? I know of none.

Does Congress have the power over these states in the reintroduction of the wolf and all its effects because of the Commerce Clause? I would have to say it would be a real stretch to do that but nothing concerning the law and its interpretation is surprising anymore.

It seems then that we have to go back to the Endangered Species Act and the definition of the population of wolves created by the reintroduction of them to the area.

The ESA spells out that its purpose is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions”.

What are the “appropriate” steps necessary to protect the gray wolf? Is it appropriate to take away the power of the states in the ESA’s attempts to conserve and species and strip the people of their property rights? The ESA also says that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.”

This does not tell us what the Federal departments’ and agencies’ “authorities” are! This still leaves us with a question as to whether or not the USFWS even had the authority to reintroduce wolves into these regions without first obtaining the will of the people. People had an opportunity to comment on the procedure and who really cares whether each states’ fish and game department agreed or disagreed. The question remains, did the people want this.

We may never be able to legally determine who actually does or does not have the power to enforce the Endangered Species Act when it doesn’t involve international treaties or the Commerce Clause, but when you look into the definition of “nonessential experimental populations”, it would appear that it further punches holes all through Judge Donald Molloy’s temporary injunction ruling that put the wolf back under protection via the ESA.

Once again, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for wolf reintroduction, pg. 333 clearly defines what “nonessential” means. (I quoted completely above.) Reintroductions have to be labeled either “essential” or “nonessential”. That’s the law. “Nonessential” refers to an “experimental population”, which this was also declared as such. Nonessential means that if they lost all the wolves they introduced it, “would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild.” These “nonessential” populations are looked at as “proposed” species and it further states this: “Moreover, the agencies would be under no obligation under Section 7(a)(2) to avoid actions likely to jeopardize the species.” It also says Congress expected nearly all reintroductions to be “nonessential”.

Let’s also look at the definition of “Experimental Population”, also quoted in its entirety above. This can be found on the same Final Environmental Impact Statement, pg. 331. This is part of what’s commonly referred to as part of the 10(j) rule. I clearly defines what an “experimental population” is: “any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species.”

This tells us that as part of what the Interior Secretary may deem an attempt to “further the conservation of the species”, releases “experimental populations” of wolves and that these “experimental populations” remain geographically separate from any “non-experimental” populations.

In brief, the wolf reintroduction population was labeled, as required by the ESA, as a “Nonessential Experimental Population” - a population that would be viewed as having no bearing one way or the other on wolf recovery and is to remain separate from all other wolf populations. Nonessential means that if the reintroduced wolves were lost, it would have no bearing on wolf recovery AND the “experimental population” as defined in the ESA, 10(j), they hope it will help with species recovery and that they are under “no obligation” to avoid actions that would “jeopardize the species”.

Examination of these definitions, along with a look at who might have power of these matters, we are now left with more questions that need serious attention.

One question would be why can’t the citizens of this area better protect themselves and their property from overgrown and hungry wolf populations? These are “Nonessential Experimental Populations” as I defined above. The law also states that the USFWS is under no obligation to avoid actions that would jeopardize the species. So under whose obligation are they?

Second big question is, why are there even lawsuits allowed in this matter? Are there really any grounds? After all, the success or not of this “experimental population” of reintroduced wolves should have no bearing on the recovery of the wolf. The 1987 Wolf Recovery Plan stated that “natural recovery” was high for Northwestern Montana, moderate for Central Idaho and low for Yellowstone.

But we have to move beyond that because obviously there are lawsuits. Taking a look at those and adding to the idiocy of Judge Donald Molloy’s non-scientific decision to return the wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act, as I wrote about earlier, we can only further question his motives and legal declarations in his ruling.

If the definition of this reintroduced wolf population is “nonessential” and “experimental”, which requires that these three sub populations, one in Idaho, one in Montana and one in Yellowstone, to remain separate, then how can any intelligent person suggest that “genetic exchange” must take place? Genetic exchange, or “genetic connectivity” as Judge Molloy made up, is when wolves from these separate “experimental species” leave their designated areas and go mate with other wolves. Seems utterly ridiculous to me.

To fight this issue, I believe it must be done from three perspectives. The states can argue over who has the power. Do the states retain that power as the constitution reads and case law suggests because they “own” the wildlife and can manage it as they see fit? Or has the federal government once again ignored the U.S. Constitution and created laws giving themselves control over the states.

Or, we can continue to attack the Endangered Species Act, its definitions and interpretations and try to fight activist judges, like Molloy, and try to make some sense out of our court system. Either way it will not be easy but I can assure you that simply giving in to the environmentalists will only insure more demands and more lawsuits until they have reached their desired goals. History has proven that and it can’t be ignored.

The third attack strategy may be best in the long haul. We have to stop electing politicians who are power hungry and have little regard for the Constitution. The future of this great country is in trouble if our elected officials continue to create laws that give them power over the people. “We the People”, what part of the Constitution have they forgotten? Think of this each and every time you go to the polls and if you don’t go, it’s time you started. “We the People” have more power, provided we don’t give it away.

The citizens of this area should not have to keep giving. I believe the vast majority of people want there to be sound scientific management of gray wolves and that management has to be done at the state level not the federal.

The will of the people needs to be heard.

Tom Remington

When I read all this malarkey, I am reminded of a parrot a co-worker of mine used to have. After work one afternoon, I went with this guy to his beach-side condominium. From previous conversations at work, I knew Dave had a parrot. He had told me some of the shenanigans this parrot, named Julio, had gotten into since becoming of member of Dave’s family. One thing I was told is that the parrot was really only loyal to one person and that happened to be Dave. He merely tolerated the rest.

I discovered, and fortunately not he hard way, that Julio was most noted for his deceptive practice of luring unsuspecting newcomers to his cage. What person would not be fascinated and immediately attracted to a beautiful green parrot, especially one that could talk - quite eloquently for a bird I might add.

As I walked in the front door, I was almost immediately greeted with, “Hello! Hello! Come here!”

I’ve not been around talking birds much in my life. I do recall one time visiting a small animal farm in which they had a myna bird, a smallish black bird that I believe is somehow related to the starling family of birds. One of the attractive things about a myna bird is its ability to mimic sounds it has heard before, much like a parrot but I think a parrot is a bit more intelligent, as you will soon discover. This myna bird happened to pick up on and seemingly enjoyed mimicking the phrase, “F&*% you!”

Julio on the other hand was suave, debonair even. He was soft spoken in his greeting of, “Hello” and “Come here!” With a smile on my face, I approached the cage stopping at about three feet away. My learned tendencies when it comes to animals, kept me from getting any closer. I guess I’ve had too many dog bites, etc. to have a great desire for closeness with animals I’m not familiar with.

“Hello! Come here! Come here!” Julio pleaded. Who could resist? This bird, even though he was just a bird, perhaps with a brain the size of a pea, could woo anyone. He had me from the first hello! (sorry)

I stepped a bit closer and for some stupid reason, perhaps because I was simply overtaken with he bird’s calmness, soft pleas and charisma, I began to stick my finger into the cage.

“Don’t do that!” Dave yelled. “The little bastard will bite the end of your finger off!”

I retracted my finger and hand and took a step back. Now that I had learned some of the truth about the bird, his pretty green colors weren’t quite so pretty anymore. I soon lost interest in Julia and turned my attention to other more important things.

Are there similarities between Julio and Barack Obama? I tell you what. You stick your hand in the cage and see if he bites.

Tom Remington

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne asking him to please consider appealing the ruling of Judge Donald Molloy that placed the gray wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. Above is Sec. Kempthorne’s email address. I urge each of you to take a moment and send Mr. Kempthorne a letter asking that justice be done.

If this ruling is not appealed immediately, the chances are excellent that through stalling and game playing, there is no chance the wolf would be taken back off the list for several years. Where will we be then?

Sec. Kempthorne - I am writing to urge you and the Department of Interior to please appeal the temporary injunction as ruled by Judge Donald Molloy placing the wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. I hope you are aware that a unanimous vote was taken by a panel of 11 judges in the Ninth District Court of Appeals stating that judges needed to make rulings such as this by utilizing science. It is my opinion that Judge Molloy did not use good science and in fact made up most of his own in rendering his decision.

This kind of activism utilizing the court system has to stop. In essence this judge is making a mockery of our judicial system as well as saying that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Interior don’t know what they are doing.

Judge Molloy based half of his decision, according to his own ruling, on the fact that the USFWS required genetic exchange between subpopulations of wolves. This is completely fabricated. Molloy referred to genetic exchange 49 times in his ruling and yet the Environment Impact Statement of 1994 used the term once in a appendix as part of an attempt to
define a “viable wolf population”. The author of the same Appendix 9 stated that the plan for 30 breeding pairs and 300+ total wolves in 3 separate subspecies would make up a viable wolf population that would subsist into the long term. He ignored this science and virtually every piece of science the USFWS presented.

This action must be appealed. The groups seeking an injunction selected where they would file their appeal knowing they would get Judge Molloy. He is one judge that must not be allowed to dictate his own agenda from the bench.

I urge you to pursue this matter as expeditiously as possible and place management of the gray wolf into the hands of the states before more property destruction occurs and more of our elk and deer populations are destroyed.

Without an appeal, this process will be stalled and dragged out for a long time putting people’s property at risk as well as continued destruction of valuable elk and deer populations. Allowing the wolf to go unmanaged is in violation of some state’s constitutions that dictate that fish and game will manage game species to provide hunting opportunities to its residents. Wolves in some areas are prohibiting good scientific management of game.

Allowing this ruling to stand and with the projected time element of resolving this issue, puts our people, property and game populations at risk. I urge you to take action immediately!

Thank you for you consideration.

–
Thomas K. Remington
Skinny Moose Media, LLC
Managing Editor
U.S. Hunting Today
Black Bear Blog
tom@ushuntingtoday.com

Tom Remington

I suppose because of the hatred of Bush and the resulting distrust, most people really are over reacting to this announcement. The Department of Interior put out a piece that they hoped would dispel some of the myths being circulated by the press. In that release, DOI explains that the Endangered Species Act does not define the consultation process but charges the executive branch of government to make that determination.

The Act does not define consultation or what triggers it. Congress left the crafting of the consultation process to the executive branch. The proposed regulations provide clarity to federal agencies as to when and how they are required to enter into a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries.

As I see it, the only change that is being suggested in an altering of the process, is that the responsibility from adhering to the law is placed squarely on the “action agencies” and not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly, something intended to speed up the process.

Some believe this is a process to circumvent any consultation with federal scientists in making determinations. It helps to spell out more precisely when further help from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service is needed.

The Act contains provisions that create a huge incentive for federal agencies to make the correct determination. If an action results in death or harm to a listed species – what is known in the law as “take” — the agency and its officials could be subject to civil and criminal penalties. Additionally, the Act’s citizen suit provision creates a very real incentive for agencies to act in accord with the law.
Federal action agencies are well aware that taking a listed species is not lawful without an incidental take statement that can only be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries through formal consultation. Agencies are unlikely to engage in activities they know will take listed species without this legal protection. (emphasis added)

So for those lawsuit happy environmentalist still determined to rule the world via the destruction of man, you’re “sugar daddy” is still there waiting for you. Nothing to get alarmed about.

I’m not so sure this change of consultation is a good thing. The Congress created the Endangered Species Act, they have allowed it to remain pretty much status quo, resulting in billions of dollars wasted in lawsuits, administration and enforcement, they ought to continue accepting all the responsibility for it no matter at what level of government it falls.

Until Congress is willing to get down to serious business and gut the Endangered Species Act, rewriting in such a way that it actually closely resembles a law aimed at protecting species and not destroying our rights and ability to prosper, the Bush administration shouldn’t be passing the buck.

If the environmentalists are getting so worked up over a change that amounts to nothing, what would they do if somebody suggested they actually adhere to the law of the Act itself?

Tom Remington

While I can agree with Smith that the moose isn’t getting the attention it deserves, I can also say that other species aren’t either much because the MDIFW is strapped for cash and Gov. Baldacci thinks he can cure some of the problems by creating bigger departments and absorbing fish and game into another entity.

Smith suggests that Maine pays much better attention to the lobster than the moose and says the state falls short in taking advantage of the moose as a tourist attraction.

Sure, our quality of place is important, but these two critters are critical to our tourist economy.

The state and its lobsterman take care of their lobsters. But the forlorn moose is left to fend for itself.

To compare the management of lobsters with moose is a stretch, even though I understand Smith’s point. He says lobstermen understand the importance of good management and are willing to fork over money for the cause. What competitive lobsterman wouldn’t do that? They can pass on the added expense to the hungry tourist who comes to Maine to dine on the crusty creature.

Moose hunters cough up a lot of dough over the course of each hunting season and the demands being placed on them to dig deeper is getting old. Moose hunters don’t set traps, harvest the moose and sell it at the local butcher shop for whatever the market value is.

If Smith wants to talk tourism and how the moose and lobster affect the Maine economy, that’s fine but comparing lobstermen with moose hunters isn’t quite the same.

Maine isn’t alone when it comes to trying to find the right balance between catering to the freebie wildlife watchers and to hunters. Survey after survey shows that hunting interest is holding steady or in decline while wildlife viewing is up. In fairness, many of those wildlife viewers are hunters and fishers.

States struggle to find funding to meet the demands of wildlife management. Part of the problems have come from states morphing their fish and game departments into fish and wildlife departments, moving their focus away from managing for game and managing for demanding wildlife viewers who essentially pay nothing for the privilege.

We must remember also that when we begin demanding that wildlife viewers pay their two cents worth, they will also demand better representation for the fees they pay and history shows us that not always are hunters and wildlife viewers in total agreement.

I concur with Smith that Maine should have a more accurate count of their moose population. This demand is always easily asked for but extremely difficult and expensive to do. Let’s face it, even the deer population estimates are only that, an estimate based on data and fancy formulas that get tweaked every year.

I hear demands from hunters all across the country that fish and game should go out and count the animals one by one and get it over with. Oh, really? I believe the most effective way to count game is by aircraft. It’s expensive and still is not highly accurate.

I believe Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer biologist and now moose biologist, is a smart man and does his job well. I do agree with Smith that a position should have been filled instead of dumping this in Kantar’s lap.

It is obvious to me the department is looking at ways to cut expenses. I’ve said this before and I’ll continue saying it. Maine needs to go in the opposite direction than what Gov. Baldacci is suggesting. The fish and wildlife department needs to return to the fish and game department for the purpose of managing game. If the state wants to start a department of natural resources, then fine. Then they can figure out how to levy fees against the freebie users of our lands and natural resources that hunters, trappers and fishermen have paid for for years but leave the fish and game alone.

Perhaps Smith needs to be reminded as to why we have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 moose in the state of Maine. It didn’t happen all by itself and it didn’t happen because somebody thought they could make a buck hauling tourists around in a van hoping to spot one of the gangly creatures mucking it up beside the road. It came from the fish and game management, through restrictive regulations and thought, all bought and paid for by the hunters.

I have no sour grapes that people want to go to Maine to see a moose or eat a lobster. I like doing that myself. What I don’t like is that more and more demands are being put on the fish and wildlife department, while using up my license fees, that aren’t benefiting me as a hunter.

Smith recalls what former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne had to say.

Kantar’s predecessor, retired deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, summed it up well, saying, “You’ve got to put money and you’ve got to put resources into it, and you have to have leadership.”

Not assuming that Lavigne required those to be in order, I might first suggest new leadership. Baldacci must go. He has cost the state of Maine dearly in his poor leadership skills, especially in suggesting that MDIFW should become absorbed into some natural resources quagmire. Bigger government is not better and everyone, including the viewers, will suffer from this move. History proves it through the number of other states doing just as Baldacci is suggesting.

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to whether wildlife watchers and game hunters can operate well as a cohesive unit. It seems the goals of each entity are polarizing and would war with each other.

Moose watchers want one thing - moose to watch. They don’t understand wildlife management and tend to view hunting as nothing more than a reduction in the moose population, which runs contrary to their goals. This presents quite a problem and one that can’t be remedied simply by saying that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needs to throw more money at the moose issue so both hunters and viewers will have more moose. It’s far too complex an issue and wrought with emotions and politics.

Yes Maine needs to do a better job in managing their moose but I’m suggesting it first begin with new leadership and a better structuring of departments so that all pay their fair share. Then, money will be available to better manage a valuable resource in the moose.

As Smith asks, “Shouldn’t a state agency that brings in $2 million from moose be able to do better than this?”

The answer is yes, as soon as the money stops being spent on none game projects demanded for by non fish and game projects.

Tom Remington

Back in July, I reported that a panel of 11 judges from the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals stated that judges should not act as scientists in rendering decisions, yet this is clearly what Judge Molloy has done. He has hand picked only the portions of the case he seems to favor and not only disregards the rest but creates his own science as well. I find this extremely disturbing as an American while tearing down my confidence in our judicial system.

Molloy’s 40-page ruling to grant a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act is a laughable document. The judge manipulates the science and goes so far as to make up definitions.

Molloy bases his entire decision on two aspects. One, is that the agreement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had with the state of Wyoming on managing the wolf after delisting was “arbitrary and capricious”. The second is that “genetic exchange” must occur before delisting can be considered and further goes on to claim that the USFWS cannot prove that this “exchange” took place.

Did USFWS state in their 1994 Environmental Impact Statement, as Judge Molloy refers, that genetic exchange has to take place? First, let me simply explain genetic exchange. Some scientists believe that in order for a species, such as the wolf, to survive in the long term, wolves from one subspecies should move to another subspecies and mate. In this case, there are three subspecies. One in Central Idaho, one in Northwestern Montana and one in the Greater Yellowstone area. If you read some of the information contained in the 1994 EIS you’ll see references to studies and conclusions that don’t really tell us a lot. One study declared that 1% of the entire population needed to have subspecies crossovers.

What is interesting as well as disturbing, is that in Molloy’s 40-page ruling, he uses the term “genetic exchange” 49 times and actually creates his own term, “genetic connectivity” and uses it 2 times. In the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement, the term genetic exchange is used once and that came in an appendix to the original document and the EIS never once used “genetic connectivity” to describe anything.

Molloy insists over and over again that the USFWS’ EIS demands this genetic exchange, all the while the USFWS claims it never said that. Judge Molloy claims the 1994 EIS requires genetic exchange and that now the feds have changed their mind with no scientific reason to do so.

While the USFWS also claims that the 1994 EIS never defines genetic exchange, Molloy takes it upon himself to make that definition.

The 1994 EIS does not define the term “genetic exchange” because the term can only mean one thing: exchange of genetic material between subpopulations.

The 1994 EIS uses the term once and Molloy 49 times. And of those 49 times, he’s really only referring to that one time it appears in the EIS but makes it seems as though the document is laced with demands for genetic exchange. He even hand picks bits and pieces and takes it’s use out of context.

This is how Molloy continuously refers to the EIS’ use of genetic exchange.

The 1994 EIS clearly requires “a metapopulation . . . with genetic exchange between
subpopulations.” 1994 EIS, App. 9, at 42.

The very limited discussion of genetic exchange, and in this case an afterthought in the 1994 EIS as part of Appendix 9, has to do with the USFWS making an attempt to define “viable wolf population”. This actually begins in Appendix 8 of the 1994 EIS. In looking ahead, it was believed that it might be necessary to create a definition of “viable population”, being that the original EIS used that term.

A broader look at the text involved in the discussion of genetic exchange, reveals something different than what Judge Molloy is offering.

It is fairly clear that ten breeding pairs in isolation will not comprise a “viable” population (i.e., have a high probability of survival for a long period without human intervention). Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a meta-population with genetic exchange between sub-populations should have a high probability of long-term persistence. However, if a range or scale of different population sizes could be displayed representing the entire “viability” spectrum (from “minimally viable” to “unquestionably viable”). I believe the definition in the current recovery plan would be on the lower half of the scale.

My conclusion is that the 1987 wolf recovery plan’s population goal of ten breeding pairs of wolves in
three separate recovery areas for three consecutive years is reasonably sound and would maintain a
viable wolf population in the foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat conservative, however, and
should be considered minimal. The addition of a few extra pairs would add security to the population
and should be considered in the post-EIS management planning. That could always be done as a
periodic infusion if deemed necessary.

These two paragraphs that contain the one-time use of genetic exchange, paints a different picture than what Judge Molloy claims the USFWS demands for recovery of an endangered wolf species. Nowhere in this statement or throughout the entire document, does it demand or require that genetic exchange has to take place before a species or subspecies can survive. On the contrary. The statement is made that 30 breeding pairs, comprising 300+ wolves would produce a “viable” wolf population. When speaking of added protection, it only references adding a few more wolves and says nothing about ensuring it with genetic exchange.

Putting the entire document in context, what it says is that most scientists at that time believed that the 30 breeding pairs and 300+ wolves making up three subspecies would work quite nicely in recovering the wolf. Genetic exchange then would become perhaps a bonus, although clearly never stated as such.

But upon further review, we discover that scientists have determined that laying claim to what makes up a “viable” wolf population and what will keep it going is extremely complex and next to impossible to predict.

In recent years it has been widely recognized that larger populations are much more likely to persist for longer periods. Small populations are susceptible to several types of problems (e.g., genetic, demographic, environmental) that can lead to extinction. A minimum viable population (MVP) is a population large enough to overcome those problems and allow “long-term” persistence. Discussions
of MVPs are predicted on the availability of a minimum secure area, sometimes referred to as minimum area requirement (MAR) where a population has a selected probability of survival for an arbitrarily chosen period (Soule and Simberloff 1986, USFWS 1989). Population viability analysis (PVA) is the process of estimating MVPs within a range of genetic and demographic conditions. Time periods selected for population survival are often 50, 100, 200, or more years and the probability of survival is often set at 95%.
The estimation of MVP is difficult and imprecise (Soule 1987; Boyce 1992, 1993). MVP theory is an
apparently sound but untested concept (Peek et al. 1991). A complex of considerations are involved
including genetic diversity, demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, natural catastrophes, social dysfunction, and spatial distribution of the population.

Aside from the fact that it is my belief the USFWS did a lousy job of arguing this case, I’m not sure there was much they could do that would have changed the mind of Judge Molloy. (Some respected scientists even believe the feds set it all up for failure.) Defenders of Wildlife, et. al., selected Judge Molloy for a reason and it appears their reasons were accurate and paid off.

If the statements I alluded to earlier from the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals are accurate, then it would seem irresponsible for the USFWS not to appeal this ruling to the higher court. For anyone to not see Molloy’s actions as “activism” and “act(ing) as scientists in rendering decisions”, it would be because they didn’t want to.

There is no evidence that this so-called genetic exchange is necessary to sustain a “viable” wolf population. Arguments can be made to the contrary, i.e. Isle Royale’s wolf population - isolated on an island and surviving for years.

There is also no evidence that this genetic exchange isn’t already happening and yet Judge Molloy relies on one study, a study in which the USFWS tossed out because it was no good, that couldn’t prove genetic exchange was occurring nor did it disprove it. This is hand picking the science to render a ruling.

This kind of legal manipulation is destructive and has to end. The USFWS should move quickly to appeal this ruling for a temporary injunction and challenge the panel of 11 U.S. District Court of Appeals judges to put their money where their mouths are.

Tom Remington

Most of the time I will offer them support because they are the most powerful supposed pro gun organization America has.

As do probably millions of other NRA members and those with interest, I get notifications from the NRA in my email. Yesterday and today were no exceptions. The NRA was drawing my attention to an article written by Howard Troxler of the St. Petersburg Times, my hometown newspaper. The NRA notice says that “We doubt you’ll find a better one from anyone in the media.” in regards to understanding U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle’s ruling about guns in cars in the work place.

I was a bit surprised before I even read the article, as I am familiar with Troxler’s writings. Why would Troxler, who believes that employees have the right to prohibit what you can bring in your car to work, have a good understanding of the law and the ruling by Judge Hinkle?

Well, you can read his article yourself but I am a bit disturbed that the NRA is essentially glorifying the explanation Troxler gives concerning this gun rights/property rights issue. Troxler explains quite well the reason Judge Hinkle ruled on guns in employee’s cars as legal but not for customers to the same location. What I didn’t like is his seeming disregard for the Second Amendment.

So, if no one’s basic rights are being violated, this becomes a mere political question. What do we want our law to say about guns?

The Legislature could reasonably have passed this law, the judge wrote — or just as reasonably defeated it.

Either way, he wrote, “This was within the Legislature’s constitutional authority.”

Isn’t this saying that we should put little emphasis on our Second Amendment rights and defer only to the states to “reasonably” regulate guns? Yes, it’s within the Legislature’s authority to make laws concerning guns but when those laws restrict the rights of lawful Americans, this cannot be acceptable, as we have seen in District of Columbia vs. Heller. It appears though that the NRA by glorifying Troxler’s article as being one of divine intervention, more accurately is saying that even if the state legislature passed a law that does in fact prohibit the right of a person to self-protection, that’s alright too.

Perhaps the NRA shouldn’t quite so quick to grant kudos to one columnist’s editorial without first explaining that what Troxler said isn’t exactly what the NRA stands for. Or maybe it is!

Tom Remington

I was emailed an interesting bit of information today. Someone sent along to several people on a mailing list part of a weekly wolf report written by members of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. In 15 days, wolves in Idaho killed a minimum of 34 other animals, most of them private property.

Here is the report as it was sent to me. I am in the process of trying to confirm its accuracy. (I believe WS stands for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and referral to f/w indicates Idaho Department of Fish and Game.)

On Friday, 7/11, WS confirmed that wolves killed a calf on private land near Bear, ID. On 7/16, a WS f/w aircrew shot and killed a gray male wolf about a mile from the depredation site near Bear. Traps are being pulled and control efforts are concluded unless there is another depredation.

On 7/14, WS confirmed that wolf killed a lamb in Rainbow Creek in the Boise National Forest . On 7/23, WS shot and killed an adult, black female wolf near the rainbow creek depredation site.

On 7/14, WS confirmed that a wolf killed a lamb on the Boise National Forest , east of Smith’s Ferry. This is the same area where WS confirmed a depredation on 7/2.

On 7/15, WS confirmed that wolves attacked a cow on private land on Smiley Creek near Stanley .

On 7/15, WS confirmed that wolves killed one calf and probably killed another on a Targhee National Forest allotment on the west side of Bishop Mountain between Ashton and Kilgore. On 7/16, WS caught and killed an adult, gray female wolf.

On 7/18, WS confirmed that at least two wolves killed 3 bucks on private land near Leadore.

On 7/18, an IDFG employee found a carcass of a buck sheep on private land NE of Idaho City while he was looking for wolf killed deer and elk. He believed the sheep was a wolf kill. After consulting with WS, the depredation is being considered a “probable” wolf kill.

On 7/20, WS confirmed that wolves killed a calf and probably killed another calf on private land near Stanley .

On 7/22, WS examined three calves that had bite wounds to their flanks and hind quarters. WS confirmed that injuries were caused by wolves. All three calves should survive. The depredation took place on the same private ranch where WS confirmed another depredation on a calf last week and subsequently removed one male wolf. There are still three pairs of cows/calves missing on this ranch.

On 7/22, WS confirmed that wolves killed 5 Walker hounds and 1 blue tick hound near Bridge Creek in Unit 12 in the Clearwater National Forest . The dogs were owned by three brothers and the wolves killed every dog in the chase.

On 7/24, WS confirmed that wolves killed a calf on a Salmon - Challis National Forest allotment near Twin Bridges Creek.

On 7/24, WS confirmed that wolves killed 2 lambs on a Boise National Forest grazing allotment in Rainbow Creek. This is the same site where WS has confirmed 2 other depredations in the last several weeks.

On 7/25, WS investigated the report that wolves had killed a cow on private land near Stanley , The WS investigator witnessed 2 wolves chasing cattle. The carcass was consumed to the point where only a determination of “probable” wolf depredation could be made.

On 7/25, WS confirmed that wolves killed a 400 lb. calf on private land just south of the Pine turn-off from Highway 20.

On 7/26, WS confirmed that wolves killed 2 calves and probably killed another calf on private land near Mullen Basin over by Carey. There are 6 calves missing at this site.

On 7/26, WS confirmed that wolves killed 3 yearling ewes on a Boise National Forest allotment west of Pioneerville.

On 7/26, WS confirmed that wolves killed a calf on private land on Cottonwood Creek, SE of Horseshoe Bend . WS noted “probable” wolf depredations on this same property on 7/18 with an injured calf and on 7/23 with a cow that was killed.

On 7/26, WS confirmed 2 calves killed near Carlson Lake on a Salmon-Challis National Forest allotment.

On 7/26, WS confirmed that wolves killed a cow and a calf on private land near Salmon.

These are only confirmed kills mind you. For those who don’t know or have been told differently, the majority of kills are NOT confirmed as being that of wolves due to the strict guidelines used in making the determination. Regardless of that nonsense, to put this in a bit of perspective, over the course of one year, this amounts to a projected near 900 kills by this killing machine animal lovers call the gray wolf.

With the recent injunction granted wolf protection groups by Judge Donald Molloy, it appears that wolves will continue to grow unchecked and mismanaged, putting people and their private property in danger. Combine that with the much denied fact that wolves are destroying populations of mule deer and elk and Idaho has a serious problem of which it seems their hands are tied to do anything about. As long as special interest has the upper hand now, due to abuse of the Endangered Species Act and their infiltration into U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state fish and game, science, facts and common sense get flushed down the drain.

Will this foolishness ever stop?

Tom Remington

~~~~~~~~

The Florida State Chapter & Bass Pro Shops is proud to announce: The 2008 Florida NWTF Turkey Calling Championship to be held at the Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World on International Drive in Orlando, Florida on the 16th of August, 2008.

Registration will be held from 10am to 11:30am with the contest starting at 1:00pm. Contest Scheduling will be posted at 12:00pm. There will be six (6) calling divisions in this years contest.

This will be a sanctioned contest and sanctioned rules will be enforced. You MUST be a current member of the NWTF and provide proof of membership.

Entry fees and prizes are listed below:

Southern Open - entry $50, 1st Place $1,000, 2nd Place $500, 3rd Place $250.
Florida Senior - entry $35, 1st Place $500, 2nd Place $250, 3rd Place $125.
Friction Open - entry $35, 1st Place $500, 2nd Place $250, 3rd Place $125.
Juniors - entry $10, Trophy for 1st, 2nd, 3rd Place & Merchandise.
Owl Hooting - entry $35, 1st Place $500, 2nd Place $250, 3rd Place $125.
Gobbling - entry $35, 1st Place $500, 2nd Place $250, 3rd Place $125.

For questions please contact:

Scott A. Ford Turf64@comcast.net
Tom Andrews jandrewsacres@aol.com

Tom Remington