Mind you, I’m no shopping expert. As a matter of fact I loathe shopping even if it’s to get something for myself. But if what I saw last night is any indication of how “off” the Christmas (yes I used the word) shopping season will be, hang on.

I’m not a big spender either – never have been and never will be. I pay as I go and if I don’t have the money I don’t get it. Last night in a rare occurrence, I took my wife out to dinner. After that we headed up the street to the Barnes and Nobles Bookstore. I had finished reading the book I’d been working on and needed another.

I hesitated to go because I knew it was Black Friday – the biggest shopping day of the year in America. When I arrived I was surprised to find very few people in the bookstore. I looked around, found the book I wanted (Joel Rosenburg’s Epicenter 2.0) and headed next door to CompUSA to look for some computer software.

I had been in this same CompUSA in the past and when I walked in it looked to me like they must be going out of business. With perhaps no more than 20 people in the store, stocked merchandise was scarce, to say the least.

On my way out I stopped a clerk and asked him if they were going out of business and he smiled and asked why I asked. I explained and he said that business was slow and they opted not to “stock up” for the Christmas rush.

Right beside CompUSA is Staples, so I went in. In all honesty I think there was one other customer in the store and it appeared the store employees had little to do as they huddled up behind the counter seemingly involved in some humorous conversation of their own.

I met back up with my wife a few minutes later and we compared notes, both agreeing that what we say wasn’t a good thing for the stores.

Now if I had to give any advice for what people should do for the Christmas holiday, I would say the opposite of what the “experts” say. I’d tell you to save your money and pay off your debt.

Tom Remington

I’m not much of a firearms junkie as far as fixing and repairing, even though I have a few guns, but I did discover this website that seems to have a pretty good selection of parts, pieces and tools. You might want to check it and see if there’s something you need.

Tom Remington

*Scroll Down For Updates!*

Reports coming out of Northern Idaho say that Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth is blaming the gray wolf as the main reason for a 13% per year reduction in cow elk in the Lolo Hunting Zone. Another F&G biologist, George Pauley, states that at least 87% of the elk in this region needs to survive each year in order to sustain an elk herd. At present that survival rate is estimated at 75%.

And with this information, I have some questions. The first one and most obvious is what took IDFG so long to make an official announcement, assuming Unsworth’s announcement is official and not some rogue event?

One report from The Olympian said:

The agency estimates cow elk in a remote area designated as the Lolo Hunting Zone have dwindled by as much as 13 percent each year. A recent study of radio-collared cow elk indicates that for the most part, wolves are to blame, Fish and Game says.

My second question now becomes, for how many years have they determined, or better yet, known, that the cow elk have been dwindling at such a rate? Which leads me to my final question.

Why hasn’t IDFG done something about this problem and here’s the reason I ask? Back last January 25, 2008, I reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, while waiting for the formal delisting of the gray wolf, announced that it was easing some of the wolf management restrictions. Among those easements was one that allowed F&G to protect herds of elk.

While much of the west in and around the Rocky Mountains and Yellowstone Park wait impatiently for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally announce the removal of the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS announced that until that event takes place, they are easing some of the restrictions on the wolf in order to give flexibility to states to implement actions to protect wild herds of elk, deer and moose, protect livestock, private property and for public safety. The states involved are Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

At the time of this report, Ed Bangs, USFWS wolf recovery leader, said there were no areas in the West where wolves where destroying elk herds but wanted to be prepared.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says he knows of no areas where wolves are destroying elk herds in the west. That is probably debatable by some, especially concerning the elk herd in Yellowstone Park.

The point to all this is that USFWS and the three states, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, appear to be approaching this entire wolf delisting event with an attitude of being prepared and creating tools to be able to use in order to stave off any problems that may arise that would put elk, deer or moose herds in jeopardy from wolves. Reasonable people shouldn’t find a problem with that. Unreasonable people, which is what we are dealing with constantly with wolf recovery efforts, can only embellish facts and blow things completely out of proportion.

Well, it appears that we have our first official announcement of wolves destroying an elk herd in the Lolo region and the question I have is what is being done about it?

To the best of my recollections in researching through past articles, it is my understanding that even when Judge Donald Molloy ruled to issue the temporary injunction that placed the wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list, this ruling did not eliminate the eased restrictions USFWS had announce that gave F&G more flexibility to handle issues like this.

Finally an announcement from Idaho Fish and Game that wolves are destroying one elk herd. How long they have known this remains to be seen. IDFG has the flexibility granted them by the USFWS to protect that elk herd. Now they need to do something about it.

*Update – 11/28/2008 12:15 p.m.*

Doing some further research into the question of why the Idaho Department of Fish and Game hasn’t done anything to stop the decimation of the Lolo Hunting Zone elk herd, I probably have found my answer on the IDFG website concerning the easing of restrictions in wolf management. As I said before, the USFWS amended the 10j rule of the Endangered Species Act to allow for the protection of wild elk, deer and moose herds (see link above). The full text of that amended rule can be found here (pdf).

A brief explanation is also available on the IDFG website. Here’s what it says:

Options for ungulate management in amended 10j rule
(v) Take in response to wild ungulate impacts. If wolf predation is having an unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations (deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, antelope, or bison) as determined by the respective State or Tribe, a State or Tribe may lethally remove the wolves in question.
(A) In order for this provision to apply, the State or Tribes must prepare a science-based document that:
(1) Describes the basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives, what data indicate that the ungulate population or herd is below management objectives, what data indicate that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to the ungulate population or herd, why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate population or herd to State or Tribal management objectives, the level and duration of wolf removal being proposed, and how ungulate population or herd response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness;
(2) Demonstrates that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or the State or Tribe commits to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal; and
(3) Provides an opportunity for peer review and public comment on their proposal prior to submitting it to the Service for written concurrence. The State or Tribe must:
(i) Conduct the peer review process in conformance with the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005) and include in their proposal an explanation of how the bulletin’s standards were considered and satisfied; and
(ii) Obtain at least five independent peer reviews from individuals with relevant expertise other than staff employed by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency directly or indirectly involved with predator control or ungulate management in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.
(B) Before we authorize lethal removal, we must determine that an unacceptable impact to wild ungulate populations or herds has occurred. We also must determine that the proposed lethal removal is science-based, will not contribute to reducing the wolf population in the State below 20 breeding pairs and 200 wolves, and will not impede wolf recovery.

It would appear with this amended ruling that once enough information is gathered, as it appears so in this case, to make a determination that the elk herd is being wiped out by wolves, it is then up to the IDFG to initiate the process as described in the Amended 10j rule, to stop the killing. Even if we were to assume that all the necessary parties were convinced the wolves were the problem, by the time any effort to stop the killing was approved, including the unending onslaught of lawsuits, it may be too late to save the herd.

This is just another example of poor management along with the creation of ridiculous rules by USFWS and the idiocy of the courts, that would allow such stringent rules with inadequate means of monitoring elk, deer and moose herds and wolf populations statewide. As I have said repeatedly, what good is the creation of game management plans, if the means aren’t also made available to carry out the plan properly. We are kidding ourselves to think that USFWS has any idea at all the condition of the wolf packs and ungulate herds anywhere within the Wolf Recovery Area.

For me this falls back onto the federal government for sticking their nose into wildlife issues they have no business being in in the first place. If the USFWS is going to introduce wolves and declared them protected, how on earth can they have a clue about the conditions of the wolves, the elk, the deer and moose, without built-in means of proper management? It has taken years for an agency to finally admit there may be a problem with elk herds being cleaned out by wolves because of inadequate management?

While it appears that the Zolo Hunting Zone is in imminent danger of losing its elk herd, about the only good thing that has come from this announcement is that IDFG has admitted there is a problem with wolves killing elk. Will any of this come soon enough to safe the elk herds in any other parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana?

Tom Remington

So what’s the big deal about the turkey anyways? Why are Americans everywhere in love with this bird? After all, most references used with the word turkey in them aren’t something that we all want to be associated with. So, I ask again, “What’s the big deal?” I decided to do some research to see if I could discover for myself why so many people are in love with the wild turkey.

It seems that this romance began a long, long time ago. I read in one account that the wild turkey “diverged” from the pheasant 11 million years ago and were spread from mid-America to northern South America. Now when I first read this I thought what they were trying to say was that the turkey “evolved” from the pheasant 11 million years ago. So, I looked up the definition of diverge and this is what it read as: di-verge – To go or extend in different directions from a common point; branch out. 2. To depart from a set course or norm; deviate.

It sounds to me as though turkeys and pheasants hung out together 11 million years ago until whoever was in charge no longer enforced the “integration of birds law” and the turkeys took off.

Maybe that was the turning point for the poor turkey. The ancient Aztecs of Mexico fell in love with the gobbler so much so that they had two religious festivals a year to honor their fine feathered friends. In addition to eating, they used every part of the bird for something; necklaces, head ornaments and arrows.

The Mayan culture was said to have used parts of the bird in sacred ceremonies. That’s nice! Then I began to wonder what parts of the turkey they would use. Maybe they would use the feet as a sacrifice to the ancient god of the strut. You know I decided I probably shouldn’t go there. Fortunately, the turkey realized it was being consumed too rapidly by these adoring ancient natives and banded together and headed farther north into what would become the United States. They would be safe there they thought.

Then they ran into the Navajos of North America. They were trying to grow corn in the desert and the turkeys found that pretty easy grazing. At first the Navajos tried to fence them out of the crops but it wasn’t working so they decided to fence in the birds. Soon they discovered you could eat the little darlings. That is when the Navajos fell in love with this not so attractive bird.

Because of the high level of reasoning of this remarkable bird, they decided that if they were going to prolong their life expectancy they better move on and so they did. They headed further east and north and ran into some of the North American Indian tribes but these Indians had a different kind of respect for the bird and let it roam wild and prosper. Food was abundant and the bird flourished. Mostly the Indians used bow and arrow to hunt the bird but sometimes they would “call” the bird (not with a cell phone either) by imitating the bird’s call. This they found worked well. The children would hide in the bushes and when the turkey would come to investigate the call the kids would jump out and catch the unsuspecting Tom.

I don’t really know what people back then called this bird but some say that Christopher Columbus called it a “tuka”. Of course this came from a man who thought he was actually in India at the time. Others have said that the native Indians called the big bird “firkee”. Somehow I think over the years if we had continued to call them “firkees” we wouldn’t have been calling some of our not well liked acquaintances a “friggin firkee”.

Now here’s a more believable story about the name of the turkey. Around about 1530, English merchants were traveling to the Mediterranean area to do business. The locals called them “Turkey Merchants” because that entire area was called at the time the Turkish Empire. The Spaniards had brought the turkey back from the new world and when the English saw it for the first time they of course called it a “turkey bird”.

Look out turkey because in 1620 the Pilgrims crashed into Plymouth, Massachusetts and they were hungry. In talking with the Northeastern Native Americans, the Pilgrims heard stories about a big bird they could hunt and eat. Much to their surprise, they spotted these big birds and they very closely resembled the tamed ones they brought with them from the old world that the “Turkey Merchants” had brought back from the Turkish Empire.

The new Americans quickly fell in love with this bird. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that if it hadn’t been for the wild turkey they would have starved to death. On July 4, 1776 the First Continental Congress picked some guys to try and figure out what they could declare as the symbol or seal of the United States. They picked three guys one of which was a die hard turkey enthusiast and was thought of by some to be the first man to leave his wife for hours, days and sometimes even weeks to go turkey hunting (this part is not true). The other two guys thought that to be a bald eagle and soar above everyone was next to godliness. Many who believe in reincarnation do believe that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson together were reincarnated as the first Goodyear blimp (also not true). Benjamin Franklin adored the turkey and believed that it more closely symbolized all that America stood for; after all, you know the gobbler can make his head turn red, white and blue by holding its breath. We know who won that battle. I have to ask, “If we had in fact elected to have the turkey as our national seal, would we be eating eagles and protecting turkeys?”

Americans ate turkeys and ate turkeys and ate turkeys until they nearly killed and ate them all up. I find this odd coming from people who just adored this bird. Settlers discovered that this bird wasn’t the brightest bird on the block nor could it see very well. In other words, they found out the turkey was just slightly dumber than they were and that the bird could be easily trapped. The turkey soon became the primary if not sole means of food.

The pioneers began to move west cutting down every tree in their way and most that weren’t in their way. By eliminating much of the birds natural cover and feeding grounds, the numbers began it dwindle rapidly. By the early 1900s the turkey was nearly extinct. An estimated 30,000 birds remained in a small geographical area of the United States. It wasn’t until real efforts began in the late 30s did the turkey begin to come back. Biologists discovered new ways to capture and reintroduce healthy turkeys to other parts of the U.S.

Again, the American people began to show their real love and admiration of the wild turkey. In 1973 the National Wild Turkey Federation was founded and since its inception has contributed in excess of $82 million on restoration of wild turkeys. Today more than 5 million turkeys roam about in 49 states (excluding Alaska). There is quite a large group of turkeys that spend a lot of time in the Washington D.C. area but that species is not considered a viable part of the real turkey restoration efforts. Scientists have discovered that no matter what their efforts have been, there is no known help for any of these turkeys.

This is the history of the big bird we call turkey so let’s take a closer look at how this bird survives and seems to do quite well if not over hunted. So what is the attraction, the intrigue of this wild animal? No one knows for sure. Some believe because it is the only game animal that is not smarter than man and man can “call” a turkey easily by imitating its sounds. Others think it has more to do with tradition. I think it may have something to do with the powers of suggestion and association of activities surrounding the turkey. For example: My love of venison and deer hunting has everything to do with the wonderful memories surrounding the years of hunting with family and friends. I think it is the same with the turkey. We all love to come home to a house that is radiating the odors of a turkey roasting in the oven. We begin to conjure up pictures and memories of days gone by. I remember drawing pictures of turkeys in grade school while learning about the Pilgrims. It seemed we studied the Pilgrims just before the Thanksgiving holiday. It helped us to better understand and relate.

Turkeys mate in the spring of the year. Gobblers like to stand on high places and gobble. The gobbler is not territorial. Instead it tries to “dominate” the other male turkeys. See why we call politicians “turkeys”. Unlike a politician, a real turkey has the ability to recognize other individuals. Through fighting and posturing, one Tom becomes the big cheese. Usually the hen will come a calling but sometimes poor feller has to do some traveling of his own if there are no hens around.

The hen will begin laying her eggs; about one a day for approximately twelve days (a normal clutch). Once all the eggs are laid, then the hen will begin the incubation period of about 26-28 days. Turkey nests are built on the ground and the mortality rate of the egg is quite high. Only about one third of the hens are successful in raising young ones.

Chicks are called poults and it takes them about 24 hours to bust out of their shell. They can get up and go in about 12-24 hours but look out. Nearly half of the chicks will die or be killed in the first 2 weeks.

The Gobbler moves on after mating and doesn’t assist with the raising of the young. They are called dead beat Gobblers. They generally live a solitary life but will hook-up with some other younger Toms; frequently his own offspring.

The hens and chicks basically spend the rest of the summer, fall and winter eating to survive. The young males in a hens group will move on around November but most of the hens will stay with mother until spring. As food supplies diminish the diet becomes quiet varied. They on average remain within about 350 acres.

During the winter, turkeys will be seen in large flocks sometimes numbering as high as 100 to 200 but usually less than 100. The biggest reason they are together is as much coincidence as anything. They are congregating where the food is. At night they roost in trees. During cold and windy weather, turkeys can be found roosting in heavy conifer trees such as hemlock or fir to protect themselves from the elements otherwise they will be found roosting in hardwood trees not too far from their food supply.

The turkey is a quiet hardy bird and seldom dies of starvation although it can occur in extreme climates. Some fear the increased population of turkeys is consuming the necessary food for ruffed grouse and white tail deer but studies have shown this not to be true. Many times because we are seeing turkeys in large flocks, we assume they must be eating a lot of food.

Like many of the other species of game, it appears that about the only real threat to the wild turkey is the man we sometimes refer to as a turkey and that is because of some of the real stupid things we can do. For some strange reason though, man loves the turkey and will go to some pretty strange lengths to hunt down one of them.

Yes, this is a strange love we have for such an ugly bird. We have performed religious ceremonies; we have chased it far and wide and used it for survival. But, no matter what stupid animalistic things we do to our fine feathered friends, we seem to come back to ensuring its survivability.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal isn’t what you’d call jumping up and down for joy over the tactics employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get the gray wolf delisted before inauguration day comes in January.

“Based upon non-binding, cursory legal analysis of the state’s wolf management scheme in a preliminary injunction issued by (judge Molloy), the Service now has reverted back to a politically driven decision-making process in an attempt to promulgate a new delisting rule before the close of the current administration.”

Ed Bangs, USFWS wolf recovery director, reveals his colors in basically telling Wyoming he doesn’t really care what the governor does.

“I think Wyoming needs to do whatever it thinks is in its best interests. We’ll just take those comments into consideration as we look forward to trying to make a final decision,” Bangs said. He added: “At this point going back and forth tit-for-tat is not where we’re at in this thing; we’re going to do what we think we need to do.”

What does Bangs expect? He and his corrupt Service approved Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan. Whether people agree or disagree with Wyoming’s plan is immaterial to Freudenthal’s argument. Bangs approved the plan, one would think he thought it through enough to believe it would withstand the scrutiny of a lawsuit. There was nobody in the U.S. who didn’t know there would be lawsuits.

If Bangs approved the plan, isn’t that supposed to be based on science? Why is it now no good?

Now Bangs expects Wyoming to come up with another state approved plan in hopes that this will satisfy a political activist judge. With a new administration coming in, I can guarantee this effort to delist won’t get any easier.

Tom Remington

Thanksgiving means different things to different people. For us here at Skinny Moose Media and from Tom and Steve Remington, we want to take a few minutes and just thank everyone for being a part of our lives.

All too often we can get caught up in so many bad things going on around us that we forget about how many things we should and can be thankful for. And as such, I am thankful for you and both Steven and I and everyone associated with Skinny Moose Media want to wish you the absolute very best Thanksgiving Day. And may it be the most special day of all.

Tom and Steve Remington

Reader Wanda sent me this picture today. She took it yesterday in Maine in the pouring rain. She doesn’t have an “Any-Deer Permit” so she watch this gal and her darling little friends for an hour hoping a “mate” might appear with horns. Didn’t happen!

She called in a friend who she knew had a permit. By then the deer had moved over the knoll but the hunters managed to bring her down.

Thanks for sharing the photo, Wanda!

Tom Remington

I saw an article today in the Missoulian that Montana was going to be extending the elk hunting season in certain regions of the state where elk populations are still running above what biologists would like to see. I became curious and as a result I got thinking and the result usually gets me into trouble.

The report says that officials in Montana will extend the elk season in portions of regions 3 and 6. (see accompanied map.) Some, like myself, are not overly familiar with Montana’s regions and the districts within those regions. To the left is a small map of Montana’s seven regions.

From the map you can see where regions 3 and 6 are. Below is another map, provided by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, that better shows the areas where the elk hunts will be extended. If you visit the MFWP website, you will see this map and will be able to enlarge it for clearer viewing. You will also find added information about the extended elk hunts.

Most of what anybody hears and reads about elk populations, whether in Montana, Idaho or wherever, is the total state elk population. Just this morning I was reading a study published at the Fish, Wildlife and Parks website and in that study, dated in 2007, the authors said that in the 1970s, the elk population in Montana was around 55,000. As of the date of the study, the claim put it at about 150,000.

Time and again, all of us read news articles and/or hear it on television that elk populations in states are high or that hunter harvests of elk are high or even record breaking. From these reports, it seems logical to the average person to conclude that there are more than enough elk to go around. This isn’t necessarily the case.

When looking at the extended hunt information put out by the MFWP, we see that this hunt involves portions of regions 3 and 6. What we don’t hear about is the condition of the elk herds in the other regions and in particular those regions that involve the Wolf Recovery Area.

Montana’s Wolf Recovery Area is in Region One. Follow this link for a map, provided by MFWP, that shows most of Region 1 and where wolf packs are found in that region. You’ll notice there is no extended elk hunt in that region and controversy swirls as to how healthy the elk population is in this general area.

In a previous article I wrote last week, I covered in depth the problems with estimating game populations. With poor or limited data collection, there is little confidence among biologists, hunters and the general public that population estimates are accurate. Anecdotal evidence coming from people who spend a great deal of time in the field doesn’t necessarily agree with the official reports that are put out by fish and wildlife experts.

But here’s one of the problems that exist and shows double standards when it comes to dealing with wildlife issues. Most people don’t realize that many states have divided their territory into some grid of wildlife management areas. As we have seen in Montana, they offer seven regions and within each region are multiple wildlife districts. It is the intent of the MFWP to manage wildlife within each region and district and to not be content only to manage for target population numbers for the state.

Unfortunately most people only hear about and are concerned with the overall population of such animals as elk. If reports say that the elk population in Montana is higher than previous years, then what is there to be concerned with? It must be that wolves are having little affect on elk and deer populations. As is the case in this article, people are led to believe, whether intentional or not, that elk must be thriving in Montana because they have extended the elk hunt.

That statement is of course wrong and that is why we need to examine populations within districts and report accordingly. If the reports coming out of the northwest part of the state where wolves are running rampant and thriving are at all accurate, then we can see that wolves may be destroying our populations of deer and elk in those regions.

There’s another part to this problem as well. Many have argued that wolves should never have been listed as threatened or endangered anywhere in the lower 48 states because between Alaska and Canada there are ample wolves and the species is far from being in any danger. Herein lies the double standard when presenting arguments to support an introduced wolf population.

Those who want the wolf in the Northern Rockies, or anywhere in the States for that matter, contend that the animal was once here therefore it should be brought back. In this argument they disregard the overall picture of the wolf population in North America saying it is immaterial when it comes to wolves in the Northern Rockies.

When this same argument is used to show wolf advocates that where there were once abundant numbers of elk and deer there are now fewer and in some cases the numbers dangerously low, all of a sudden only overall populations matter and we shouldn’t be concerned about species management in the smaller regions. So, why is it that wolf advocates want things both ways?

We now have what appears to be wildlife management areas where wolves have done a number on deer and elk populations. Yes, the elk populations may be high statewide but ignoring the fact that in these regions elk have been substantially reduced, is poor wildlife management.

With a faulty Endangered Species Act that has become nothing more than a lawyer’s tool for filling a bank account, we have reached a point where we have allowed the reduction of deer and elk in wolf zones to reach unacceptable levels all for the sake of the wolf, a species that no longer needs protection.

The idea that wolves were plentiful in Alaska and Canada meant nothing to those bent on bringing wolves back to the U.S. Those same people disregard their own reasoning when it comes to protecting other species. One can only wonder what is really behind fighting to protect the wolf. It certainly isn’t good wildlife management.

Tom Remington

I read an article in the Bangor Daily News recently about proposed cuts being considered at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Among those cuts as listed by Kevin Miller were:

Elimination of 10 game warden positions out of 124 statewide.

— Loss of at least three biologists.

— Discontinuation of tagging stations for deer and other big game.

— Elimination of DIF&W’s deputy commissioner position.

Needless to say this didn’t sit well with me and the more I considered the consequences of such actions the more upset I became.

First, let’s consider the facts when it comes to the budget of the MDIFW and what Gov. Baldacci is asking MDIFW to do. Baldacci is asking every department to cut 10% from its budget. MDIFW’s budget is roughly $24 million dollars with all but around $3 million of that coming from license fees, etc.. In fairness, shouldn’t the governor be asking MDIFW for a 10% reduction of the $3 million that comes from general taxation? This would result in a budget decrease of around $300,000. This is ridiculous and becomes obvious that Baldacci may be more interested in getting back the $3 million to fund other departments.

There is certainly argument that can be made for each of the four proposed cuts listed above. To eliminate 10 Maine Warden positions may end up costing the state of Maine more than it thinks it is going to save. The Maine Warden Service has far too much territory to cover now and the demands put on them by other law enforcement agencies, along with search and rescue duties and policing snowmobiles and ATVs, stretching the department that much more could be quite costly. With a shrinking economy and a decrease in law enforcement, poaching will take a spike costing Maine taxpayers money in the end.

Losing biologists only cuts into the needed scientists to collect and process data that is vital to proper management of our wildlife. To go hand in hand with this cut proposal, to call for the elimination of tagging stations would be extremely detrimental to the deer, bear and moose management programs in place.

A close examination of the management plans, one can clearly see that the years of success and accurate data available to biologists has been made possible because of a program that relies on every aspect of information gathering. The information gathered by biologists at tagging stations is critical to understanding what’s going on with our game species.

I contacted Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and asked him what kind of impact losing tagging station information would have on his ability to manage game.

Given the current economic times there have been internal discussions on this issue. I do not believe anything has been resolved. We are trying to evaluate this potential shift. I agree with you that it is problematic. Mandatory registration of deer enables us to have high confidence in the deer kill by sex and age (adult,fawn; we use our biological data collection to correct for errors in sex and age and figure age distribution as well, i.e., adult, yearling, fawn) by Wildlife Management District. This is critical to how we manage deer in Maine and essential to the Any-deer Permit system. A change to some form of electronic registration (be that internet or phone), would require estimating the harvest; that may be fine statewide, but by WMD it would be incredibly difficult. Return rates in other states have been poor, other states return rates our enough to provide statistically reliable estimates of statewide harvest, again when estimating at smaller units, WMDs, this task becomes much more difficult.

I agree with Kantar’s assessment of what probably would happen. In examining the processes used in other states, some are extremely poor, resulting in scanty data and making it nearly impossible to have any confidence at all in the state of game species. When we consider some of the critical decisions being made, such as Endangered Species Act lawsuits, etc., how can there be legitimate decisions if the information that is being used to render these decisions is seriously flawed and/or lacking in any credibly backed scientific data?

As Maine is considering a decision on another lawsuit to end trapping in order to protect the Canada lynx, imagine the skewed information that would be bantered around the court room if the fish and game experts have no good means of having reliable data.

Another aspect to consider with the elimination of tagging stations and the implementation of some program of requiring hunters to report their takes, is the availability of complete and timely data. With the current process, MDIFW has so much data to consider before making decisions such as the allotment of “Any-Deer” permits. “Any-Deer” permits is the major tool used by biologists to manipulate deer populations.

History from other states have shown that in order to get this “required” reporting of data from hunters, they have to not issue another hunting license until a report is received. This could result in data not being available until a year after the fact or longer I suppose in some cases.

The bottom line is this. Only about 10% of the MDIFW budget comes from general taxation. If Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10% then essentially we will lose the money that comes from taxation. That deficit could be made up in other ways.

If hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. understand how the fish and game functions, I believe they are willing to make up some of that cost with a fee increase. Pressure should then be put back onto the Baldacci administration to put more of law enforcement and search and rescue expenses in other departments. There also has to be better ways of retrieving the costs of search and rescue, etc.

If Gov. Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10%, we have to wonder if his motives aren’t simply to cut MDIFW’s budget and using that department to help fund other departments he may be more partial to.

It would be a real shame to be witness to cuts that would seriously change the structure of how MDIFW biologists have collected and utilized data in what is viewed by many as one of the best deer management programs in the country.

Tom Remington

No appointed entity of the federal government should have the authority to make policy that freely spends taxpayers’ money. The Heritage Foundation wants to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide through its Clean Air Act and they need your help.

Heritage analysis shows that we will lose about 6.9 trillion dollars in GDP by 2029 and over 800,000 jobs. Further, Heritage analysis show that the regulations will create a vicious economic spiral, reducing the return on equity investments – for example, the return for the Steel industry will drop by over 19% by 2025.

The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that it could trigger requirements for over 1,000,000 new permits under the Clean Air Act.

The enormity of this proposed ruling is ridiculous, totaling over 18,000 pages.

For more information about what this proposal could mean to you and an opportunity to offer your comments to the EPA via the Heritage Foundation, click this link. It takes only a minute to send a comment.

Tom Remington