State Rep. Gary Haluska, from Cambria County, is introducing a bill into the Pennsylvania House that would for all intent and purposes allow hunters to use corn as bait and be able to hunt deer over a pile of corn. This practice is currently not allowed in most of Pennsylvania, save an area in Southeast Pennsylvania where deer populations are out of control and biologists are trying to dream up ways of reducing it.

For clarifications of this discussion, the allowance of deer baiting and hunting over it in seven counties is a bit unusual. Where most of the deer population problems are, there are very little allowable hunting areas. Game officials thought they would try allowing baiting in surrounding areas in hopes of luring the deer from the quiet sanctuaries they live in out to bait piles where hunters can shoot the deer. I’m not sure how that worked. Last year was the first attempt at this.

Now we have legislation, HB1862, that would make this practice legal statewide. For now, let’s toss out the ethics of hunting over bait because there is very little black and white when it comes to ethics.

It is legal to feed deer in Pennsylvania as well as growing food plots for game. What is illegal is to set up a stand or blind and hunt directly over that bait pile or food plot. Why change it?

There’s always been a lot of discussion about what is legal and not legal as well as the reasons for and against hunting over bait. We now have at least one legislator who wants to clarify the law by making it legal.

To me the real issue should be whether allowing hunting deer over bait is a necessary part of a deer management plan rather than one simply to clarify laws. Allowing hunting over bait could drastically change the results of deer harvesting, forcing officials to scramble to find ways of curtailing the harvest numbers.

Remember, Pennsylvania has been having long and heated discussions about whether the Game Commission is allowing for the taking of too many deer now. Officials set out to reduce deer populations throughout most of the state in order to save the forests. Hunters complained, even to the point of one hunting group taking the PGC to court to force them to stop the overkilling of whitetail deer.

I recently talked with the director of wildlife for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Bob Duncan, about that state’s use of hound hunting of deer as a management tool. Aside from the fact that hound hunting is a longtime tradition in Virginia, Duncan informed me that hound hunting is very much a necessary part of the overall deer management plan for that state. Without it, he said, they would have a serious deer overpopulation problem.

Is this the case in Pennsylvania though? Do they have a deer overpopulation problem that could be better addressed by allowing hunting over bait? It would seem not to be the case and that this law proposal would only work to clarify or simplify the law governing hunting over bait.

Should this become law, Pennsylvania hunters may expect to see some changes made in the number of tags issued and length of season in order to maintain the deer herds at desired levels.

Tom Remington

The L.A. Times has a short snippet this morning saying that the Mexican government is asking the U.S. to change its plans of building a fence because it may effect animals. Instead they want to build bridges and such done in a way so as to “be less attractive to smugglers”.

Let’s get this right. The Mexican government wants most of their people to go to the U.S. and make American dollars and ship them back to Mexico and we should listen to their recommendations? These illegals are currently destroying the ecological systems that support all of these animals they say need protecting, yet they have no interest in addressing that problem.

And we must remember that when illegals come into this country, they consider areas that are “less attractive” to cross the border. Please!

Tom Remington

That’s right. A man from Oklahoma who catches and wrestles coyotes.

Photo courtesy of Kelly Kerr, Tulsa World.
Doug Eoff — Frederick town character and self-proclaimed coyote hunter — poses with his dog, Candy.

“If a coyote bites down on me,” he says, “I don’t panic.”

If you jerk your hand back, the coyote’s teeth will rip flesh off the bone. So Eoff calmly digs a fingernail into the soft roof of the coyote’s mouth.

“When it lets go, grab it by the throat and yank it up,” Eoff says. “When you get all four legs off the ground, the fight is over. You’ve won.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Tom Remington

Reader Richard Paradis sent along some photos he took while out touring around rural Maine. This I guess would be wildlife of a different kind.

Here are the words of Richard as he describes his photo journalism.

A few photos taken on a Sunday summertime drive in rural Maine (Saint George) are enough to amuse me for a week – probably a lot more than that.

Jamie Wyeth, eat your heart out.

Richard Paradis Photo

Richard Paradis Photo

Richard Paradis Photo

Tom Remington

I’m sorry! Blogging will be light today as I will be on the road most of the day. I hope I will have time here and there to add an article or two. It may come later today too after I get home, so check back in from time to time.

Tom Remington

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has teamed up with the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs to fight what they call ridiculous legislation “that would make it impossible to keep hunting dogs in the state”.

Read more about it here.

Tom Remington

Under a court order, Lisa Jackson, head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has to come up with a bear management plan by Aug. 10th. She released a draft plan that does not include hunting as a means of reducing populations and managing the bear. The Fish and Game Department, which falls under the control of DEP, disagrees with Jackson’s plan and is in the process of writing their own.

These are the words as written in Newsday.com of Jackson’s efforts to come up with a plan.

“We felt it was necessary to put something out there,” Jackson said Thursday.

How nice! The court order came back in March and now, nearly five months later, she had to “put something out there”.

I have also to comment on Newsday’s take on the story. They put it this way.

Jackson, who blocked a scheduled bear hunt last year by invalidating the existing bear management policy, favors measures to reduce dangerous interactions between bears and people, including legislation to require use of bear-proof trash containers and public education programs.

I chuckled over their term “invalidating”, when referring to Jackson’s actions when she tossed a legal, court approved bear management plan in the garbage simply because she didn’t agree with it.

Then Newsday tries to put Jackson in the light of someone who is concerned by saying she favors measures to reduce “dangerous” human/bear interactions, “including” bear-proof trash cans and education.

None of the methods Jackson favors are effective. One of her pet projects was thousands of dollars spent on bear-proof garbage cans in West Milford. First they contracted for the cans but got no handles for the cans. Then they had to rebid because the company that won the bid said they didn’t figure in handles. Then the garbage company wants a new contract because of the extra time and effort involved in dealing with the lids, etc., etc.

But, according to Newsday, she favors measures. Problem is none of her favorites involves the only known and proven way to management bear numbers, hunting.

You can tell the importance that Jackson is putting into protecting New Jersey citizens from those “dangerous” bear interactions because she “had to put something out there”. Well, how about putting something out there that falls under the category of intelligent and non-political.

Tom Remington

And away we go!!! Yet another study proving that studies can prove anything. Before you jump all over me because I am dissing studies, I’m not saying this study is flawed nor am I saying it is accurate and complete. It’s just another study.

Oregon State University has released the results of a new study that is a contradiction of other studies. So who do we believe? A question I’ve asked before.

According to Physorg.com, the OSU research proved two things. One, bringing wolves into Yellowstone National Park reduced the elk population and two, it changed the feeding habits of the elk so that in some areas the aspen trees have been able to regrow.

After an absence of 70 years, wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone Park in 1995, and elk populations began a steady decline, cut in half over the past decade. Also, the presence of a natural predator appears to have altered the behavior of the remaining elk, which in their fear of wolves tend to avoid browsing in certain areas where they feel most vulnerable. The two factors together have caused a significant reduction in elk browsing on young aspen shoots, allowing them to survive to heights where some are now above the animal browsing level.

I’m not going to argue the fact that the presence of wolves reduces elk populations. According to this study, the elk numbers have been cut in half. I think most scientists will concur that wolves eat elk and in some cases enough so that numbers have been significantly effected.

But what about the change of feeding habits? The OSU report says this “ecology of fear” substantially alters elk feeding habits.

This element of fear, the OSU scientists said, is a concept that is now getting more attention in ecology – it factors in not just the numbers or species of animals, but also their behavior and the reasons for that behavior. Predators such as wolves or cougars, OSU researchers have shown, have the ability to strike fear into their prey and significantly change their behavior as a result.

I reported to you just two weeks ago about a new study out of the University of Wyoming that showed that elk do not significantly alter their feeding habits when wolves are present and any changes in feeding were short-lived.

Earlier, a study done by the University of Oregon, showed that elk do change their eating habits according to wolf predation. This new study, conducted by Matt Kauffman, a professor of zoology and physiology at the University Wyoming, as well as Yellowstone National Park biologist Doug Smith and researchers from the University of Montana and University of Alberta, showed just the opposite.

So, what’s it going to be? Not being a scientist and having any access to how the studies, all of them, were conducted, I can’t say if the science was flawed or not. I believe that each study group received results from the studies they performed and are reporting such. I do believe that research can and is done to achieve a desired result and that is what is wrong with these studies.

So, now we have to make decisions on our own based on the information that is available to us. We have to ask ourselves if wolves actually do kill elk. Seems silly but when you read the countless accounts in the debate about wolves, people and even the scientists will tell us that wolves don’t have any real effect.

In other debates about feeding habits of elk and the destruction they can cause to ecosystems by over browsing because to too large populations, we have to ask if wolves do change their feeding habits. This is vitally important. We have three reports, that I know about, that don’t all agree.

In Colorado at the Rocky Mountain National Park, talk has circled about introducing wolves in order to control the elk population which is needed to restore the ecosystem. One report says wolves don’t change feeding habits while a second report says it does. Isn’t this reason enough to not jump to any hasty conclusions and dump wolves into RMNP?

I imagine the studies will continue and results will vary and change. It is what we do and how most decisions are made regarding wildlife management. I just wish there was some way to filter out the politics so we can be just looking at the science. It is pretty reliable you know.

Tom Remington

There’s a new report out from the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses and the North Carolina State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, that shows that 84% of North Carolina residents approve of hunting – 95% for fishing. That same report says that 83% believe that hunting and fishing are a necessary part of a scientific management program for wildlife.

These figures don’t surprise me any because I have seen similar figures before and have used them in arguments with those who toss in the face of hunters and fishermen that there are more of them than us. In their argument, they are right in that far fewer people buy hunting and fishing licenses than don’t but the bottom line has always been the public support for the activities and this, once again, proves that support is strong.

I believe that this report out of North Carolina is representative of probably every state in the Union.

Read more about this report here.

Tom Remington

Representatives from 23 states and four Canadian provinces gathered recently in Flagstaff, Arizona to discuss recruitment and retention of hunters and fishermen. The event was hosted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Many things were discussed and those in attendance reviewed facts and figures provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on downward trends in license sales.

Here’s what AZCentral.com listed as the major reasons discussed as to why recruitment and retention was low.

Some of the reasons discussed at the meeting were complex rules and regulations, reduced hunting opportunities, age restrictions, a lack of encouragement or help for older hunters, increasing urbanization of the population, rising license and permit costs, difficult access to recreational lands and a perception that hunting and fishing is cruel and inhumane.

One in attendance had this to say and I couldn’t agree more.

“We try to placate the public by becoming invisible,” Keck told the group.

“And hunters are passive as to why they hunt. We are terrible at selling the product we have. We need to sell the sizzle of hunting and conservation.”

Maybe that has something to do with why I do what I do. But all too often I feel like I am talking to myself out in the wilderness somewhere. Hunters are for the most part passive and are difficult to engage in conversation, particularly in a public forum.

I think for too long we have felt the need to “placate the public by becoming invisible” but those days are history. We are being forced out of our silence by those active enough to want to shut us down. We can’t continue down this same path or it will be too late.

No longer should we have to remain quiet or apologize to people because we hunt and fish. We have much to be thankful for and proud of. Our billions of dollars over the years and conservation efforts have provided this country with a bountiful wildlife population and that’s something we should be telling the world about. Our entire package of monetary support and understanding the need to conserve our wildlife for the future is what has gotten us to where we are today. Tell that to the wildlife viewers, some of whom seem not to understand or care.

Thank God for the few activists we have that have worked diligently to keep hunting and fishing alive and well. But they can’t do it alone. We all must speak up now. We all must get involved and no longer remain “out of sight, out of mind”. We’ve done a lot. Let’s let the rest of the people know what a great contribution we have made to our country.

Tom Remington