My good friend Moose over at his blog Moose Sign has put together a fantastic photo essay of his weekend mentor hunting for pheasant with a couple of young fellas. Looks like one of them young whipper snappers outshot Moose.
Tom Remington
A few days ago, I brought you a story about Oregon’s cougar management plan and what it meant for hunters, citizens and landowners there. The information I received about the plan was limited and I must admit, I did not fully read the proposed cougar management plan as presented by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife.
Needless to say, I received emails and comments from readers about my story saying, for the most part, I had messed up, that my story was missing the truth as to what was going on behind the scenes, so to speak. Being so geographically removed, it is hard to know all the ins and outs of issues like this. This prompted me to do some more research. It was a late night.
On the surface, this story seemed like any other story about hunters fighting anti-hunters and animal rights groups. What I didn’t see was actually a three-way battle between the Oregon Fish and Game, hunting groups and anti-hunting and animal rights groups. Before this cougar management plan is appoved, amendment or shot down, there may be a fourth contingient in the battle, the state legislature. It should be noted as well, that there appears to be disagreements within certain groups that would normally band together on hunting issues.
In 1994 Oregon passed a measure (BM18) banning the use of dogs to hunt cougar. This appears to be a turning point in the management of the animal by OFW. The newly proposed cougar management plan speaks on nearly every page making reference to events prior to 1994 and post 1994.
One thing we all need to bear in mind during the discussion of cougar management is the rate of population growth of the cougar. Generally speaking, the population has been on the incline since 1987 with spikes up and down. From my perspective, the only trend that I am able to surmise is the sudden decrease in cougars killed by hunters immediately following the ban on hunting with dogs. The managment draft says that during a period of time after the banning of dogs, hunters were learning new techniques for hunting the animal.
First let’s look at some facts taken from the draft cougar management plan. The draft plan lists the numbers of cougars killed by year beginning in 1987 up through 2003. Of the numbers of cougar killed, it is broken down by those killed by hunters and those killed by, I assume, fish and game personnel because of human threat, nuisance or livestock damage problems. According to the plan, between the years 1987 and 1994 20% of all cougars killed on average was killed by hunters, 80% by non-hunting methods. From 1995 through 2003, 49% were taken by hunters while 51% by non-hunting means.
Keeping in mind the population increases that seemed to soar after 1994 (bearing in mind that officials do not attribute that to banning dog hunting), let’s look at other factors.
In 1994, there were 588 cougar tags issued to hunters. The success rate that year was 40% – the last year with using dogs. In 2003, 34,135 cougar tags were given out, with a hunter success rate for that year of 1%. An unbelievable increase in the number of hunters seeking to hunt cougar.
As the cougar population grew, so did the number of complaints from residents. In 1987 there were 36 complaints compared to a high of 1,072 in 1999, dropping back down to 697 in 2003.
In 2003 there were a total of 412 cougars killed by both hunting and non-hunting means. 164 were killed by non-hunting methods. Of those 164, 68% resulted in complaints from livestock owners.
All of these facts and figures are not much different than the same facts and figures put out in game management plans all across America. There are a couple of issues that seem to make Oregon’s plan a bit unique.
We know that in 1994, the state of Oregan banned hunting cougars with dogs. What is interesting is what is written on the Oregon Deparment of Fish and Wildlife web site page that addresses the cougar management plan and gives information for making public comments. If you scroll down a little way, you’ll find Key facts about cougars in Oregon and the draft cougar management plan. Under that heading is this:
ODFW works within the framework of the law. Oregonians have twice said through initiative petition that hounds may not be used to hunt cougars, and the Legislature and Governor have agreed with that stance. This draft plan abides by that determination.
However, existing law does allow federal and state employees to use the full range of management tools, including hounds and snares but not including poison, to deal with cougars that are causing human, pet or livestock conflicts.
Also, the very last sentence seems to raise some hackles on the backs of many hunters as well.
As is the case with all similar wildlife management plans, the costs of cougar management are funded by the sales of hunting licenses and tags.
From the hunter’s perspective, these two issues are creating a stir. It was pointed out by one reader to me that when Oregon hunters were explained what these two objectives really meant, the so-called widespread support of the draft cougar management plan didn’t seem to be getting the same amount of support.
One group opposed to the plan conducted their own survey at the recent Portland Sportmans Show. The Oregon United Sporting Dog Association said their results show an overwhelming disapproval of the plan when explained what it really meant for hunters.
What seems ironic as well as hypocritical, is the state banning the use of dogs for hunting cougars yet the fish and game department retains the right to do this, with seemingly little objection from the animal rights groups. Going along with this, what many hunters are angry about is the fact that the fish and game officials are out killing cougars in areas where they are a bother and not letting the hunters harvest them.
In most states with similar nuisance animals, the game officials make every attempt to work with hunters or hunting groups to remedy these problems. I don’t know if that is being done here or not.
What is also angering hunters is using monies collected from hunting license fees to pay for officials to go kill nuisance cougars. They don’t believe that their dollars should be used for that. They feel that if their money is being used to control population growth of cougars, they should have the opportunity to hunt the animal before state officials kill them.
I know we have not heard the last of this because my mailbox is filling up with comments and accusations about the politics going on with this issue. As I get the facts, I’ll pass them on to you.
To get a copy of the Oregon Cougar Draft Management Plan.
Tom Remington
As expected the debate yesterday about adding about 6,000 acres of land to Baxter State Park became heated and passionate, each side with their own strong views.
What appears to be shaping up as the dividing issue is how to use the land if and when it becomes part of the Park. Those pushing hardest for the deal say the 6,000 acres needs to become part of the sanctuary as set up with the vast majority of the rest of the Park, meaning limited access and limited use, locking out hunters, trappers, snowmobilers, ATV riders and seaplane access to Katahdin Lake.
On the other side, you have those who do not oppose adding the 6,000 acres providing it gives normal recreational access. Unfortunately for everyone, it appears to be shaping up as a we vs. them battle.
The deal which has been negotiated behind the scenes over the past 3 years, would allow a nationally based, non-profit organization called Trust for Public Land, to raise $14 million dollars to purchase lands, including about 7,400 acres of Maine public lands. The group would then swap their purchase with the 6,000 acre piece that includes Katahdin Lake, owned by Gardner Land Co. It’s a very complicated deal and because it involves public lands, the Maine Legislature would have to approve the sale by a 2/3 majority vote.
There are those passionate in taking advantage of this opportunity to fulfill what they call Governor Percival Baxter’s dream of including Katahdin Lake as part of the park project. They say his vision included both Katahdin Mountain and the Lake. Their passion seems strong enough that they are beginning to alienate themselves from the rest of Maine’s outdoor enthusiasts who want to see the land opened up to multi-use purposes of recreating. A definate divide has emerged between the two sides threatening the deal.
The deal as written would exclude certain uses of the park and any changes in the deal, including how the land will be used, would bring all sides back to the bargaining table to renegotiate.
Alfred Cooper, owner of Katahdin Lakes Camps, who attended the hearing yesterday said that he resented the fact that he is being treated as inferior because he likes to hunt and trap. He encouraged the Legislature to change the plan to safeguard traditional uses of the land.
The real divide that is growing rears its ugly head in comments made by John Glowa of South China when he said that hunters, trappers and snowmobilers don’t have a lock on Maine’s outdoors and outdoor heritage. He also said that being one of the 90 percent of Mainers who don’t hunt, he’s tired of the outdoor extremists trying to impose their wills on the rest of us.
These attitudes are what are becoming more and more prevalent across Maine as the make-up of the Maine citizen changes. It is changing for a couple of reasons, the biggest being the influx of out-of-state residents who do not enjoy the hunting, fishing and outdoor heritage in the same way that Maine natives do. This is creating the great divide. Fortunately for everyone, there are enough still around willing to fight for the continuation of that heritage. I say everyone in that I still feel the groups pushing for the exclusive, limited uses of the park lands is selfish and shortsighted.
The Millinocket town council presented the Legislature a resolution stating in essence that the town supported the purchase of the Baxter land as long as it remained open to traditional uses.
George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, said hunters and trappers never exclude others the way some users are now. He said about those wanting to exclude hunting and trapping from the park, “They’re the newcomers to the wilderness. Hunters have been there for centuries. Why do these people think hunters don’t deserve the same experience, the same solitude? If Gov. Baxter were here today, he would stand with me.”
The debate will rage over the next few weeks as lawmakers try to find perhaps a compromise that will work. Many fear that as it is written, there is not enough support to get the deal passed.
I have made my voice clear that I am willing to compromise in having the state guarantee the purchase of the same amount of public lands lost in the swap that would provide the same quality traditional recreational uses as we are giving up. I think that is a fair and reasonable request. And, as a hunter, hiker and all around outdoor enthusiast, I would be willing to share that land with everyone.
Previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Tom Remington
The Indiana House of Representatives is dealing with gun law issues and this week, the Senate may take up discussion as well.
One issue essentially clears up a law that has already been upheld by the courts. This bill, House Bill 1028, is what is now left of a stripped down version. More on that later. What this bill does is clarify to the homeowner that they don’t need to run the other way if their home has been broken into. A previous law led some to believe that a property owner had to first run away before they could protect themselves or others in their home. This bill allows a homeowner to use force when it is determined to be reasonable cause.
The complete bill HB 1028 included a portion that would have prohibited businesses from stopping employees from having guns in their cars on company property. Currently, some businesses in Indiana prohibit their employees from having a gun anywhere in their car while it is on business land. This bill would have stopped that process. This portion of the bill was stripped from the bill for fear the deadly force issue would get lost in the discussion.
There are other states now dealing with this same issue, Florida being one of them. Just last week, the House tabled a similar bill that was being debated furiously and out of fear of a vote coming before it was ready, sponsors of the bill put it on the back burner.
The gun issue in these states dealing with businesses and personal properties, like automobiles, is really more of a personal property issue than a gun issue in my opinion. Although opponents of the Indiana bill say they fear a disgruntled employee going to their car and pulling out a gun and going postal, is the issue.
Proponents say their right to have whatever they want in their cars is being violated. This is one issue that will not go away anytime soon. This problem arose a while back in Oklahoma when a business told employees they couldn’t have guns in their cars on company property. The owner one day did a sweep of his parking lot and fired anyone who had a gun in their car. That case landed in court and the Oklahoma Legislature got involved and passed a law saying that businesses could not dictate what was in someone’s car. This gave pro-gun groups like the NRA an opening and they have been pushing this issue nationwide.
The third issue in Indiana is called the lifetime weapons permit. Currently anyone wishing to obtain a concealed weapons permit, goes through the normal processes and after paying fees and passing background checks, they are issued a permit good for four years. At the end of four years, they must go through the permitting system again.
Under provisions of the new bill, once a permit holder receives his or her permit and remains in good legal standing, they can keep their permit for life. Fees for licensing would increase and those who want to convert their permit to lifetime would pay an increase as well.
Tom Remington
An editorial this morning in the Portland Press Herald exactly points out why the Baxter land swap shouldn’t occur. The editorial hits the nail on the head by showing readers how selfish, elitist, and ignorant of the truth they are, while at the same time blaming those opposed to the land swap of being just that.
The writer calls it a rare “win-win” situation when in fact it is not. At the same time they attempt to paint a picture of how the land around Katahdin Lake is not suited for hunting and snowmobiling.
The principle, apparently, is that they’re fed up with elitists locking off land from traditional users like them. Except that Katahdin Lake offers marginal hunting and has never been popular with snowmobilers.
The writer then goes on to call outdoorsmen and some Legislators shortsighted, pointing out that Maine has more land open to hunting, fishing and snowmobiling than we need.
Forget for a moment that vast stretches of Maine are already open to hunting. Forget that snowmobilers can already sled from Freeport to Rangeley and beyond on their own trails.
Forget that hunters and snowmobilers represent a distinct minority in Maine.
What the author of the article doesn’t see is the obvious, which is what upsets not just hunters but all those who enjoy outdoor recreation. Yes, hunters and snowmobilers are a minority of the total population in Maine but I can guarantee you that outdoor enthusiasts far outnumber the limited few who are allowed to use Baxter State Park each year because of its limited access policies.
What troubles me is by adding 6,000 acres of limited access land to Baxter by removing 7,400 of total access public lands, is defeating the whole purpose in owning public lands. The more I read and see from this entire issue makes me think that this Baxter land swap is being promoted by a special interest group.
If those wishing to add land to Baxter State Park really want to get it done, then it needs to be above board and find a way to purchase the land without having to give up public lands or be willing to open the sought after parcel to all forms of recreation.
It’s very simple. Most people opposed to the swap aren’t willing to give up lands now open for recreation for land that will be closed with limited access.
Tom Remington
At the first meeting of 2006 of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, several changes were approved for next seasons hunting rules and regulations. One of the new rules created a crossbow-only hunting season for private lands to run five days in the South and Central zones and seven days in the Northwest Zone. It also allows hunters to use crossbows on private lands during statewide muzzle-loading gun seasons and the Northwest Zone’s 11-day archery/muzzle-loading gun season.
Officials say a change in the quota hunt application process will help to simplify it. New changes are in store for wild hog hunts. They have broadened the opportunities in wildlife management areas.
A statewide snowgoose hunting season was approved and they moved the canvasback duck hunting season to the last 30 days of waterfowl hunting.
Tom Remington
Missouri is cracking down on litterers. If you’re caught littering, you have to face the judge. If found guilty you’ll undoubtedly pay a hefty fine plus court costs. And then, to kick you while your down, they’re going to take away your priviledge to hunt and fish for one year. So, you better think twice before discarding that trash.
If you think that is bad, just wait. It gets better. They grind your face in the mud. Missouri belongs to the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. In short what that means is if you litter in Missouri, not only can’t you hunt and fish there, but you lose your priviledge in 21 other states. Those states include Kansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.
Tom Remington
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Good morning. Today in the Maine Legislature, debate begins over the Baxter State Park land swap issue. This podcast deals with issues that I think are extremely important to taxpayers of Maine as well as hunters and recreational enthusiasts.
Tom Remington
*Note* If you do not have high speed Internet access, right click on link and “save target as”
Justice Antonin Scalia was the keynote speaker at a recent convention of the National Wild Turkey Federation at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center. He said that in order to fight to preserve hunting, we need to attack the stereotype that guns are only used for evil purposes.
He went on to say that we need to attack the beliefs that guns are only for crime. Scalia is a hunter and conservationist. He related to the crowd of nearly 2000 the days of his youth when bringing his hunting rifle with him on a New York subway. “Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?” he said.
Scalia praised the group for their efforts in conservation and urged them to continue. The group also was treated to a taped message from President Bush.
Tom Remington
Vermont wildlife officials announced that they will be adding an additional 70 permits for moose hunting next season bringing the total number of permits to 1,115. You can go the the Vermont Fish and Wildlife web site and apply for a permit. The cost for applying is $10.00 for residents, $25.00 for non-residents. If selected for a permit by lottery, the cost for residents is $100.00 and for non-residents $350.00.
Tom Remington
