Perhaps the Olympic Organizing Committee should consider adding another event to their schedule – condom usage. Most of us heard that the roughly 7,000 Olympic athletes were provided with 100,000 free condoms during their stay in Vancouver but reports are surfacing that those have run out and an emergency supply is being shipped in.

What does this tell you?

Tom Remington

There will be no public hearing on HRC043, Idaho’s Wolf Emergency Resolution.

The word I have received from sources say Governor Otter has requested that the House Resources chairman, John A. Stevenson, “suppress” this bill. In other words he doesn’t want it acted on in the Idaho Legislature. What is it that Governor Otter fears? What happened to the governor who stood on the steps of the Capital and announced he wanted to be the first to kill a wolf?

Tony Mayer, SaveElk.com, is encouraging all Idaho residents to contact their representative and voice concerns. He drafted a sample letter if you choose to use it when emailing your representative.

Representatives Stevenson and Shepard:

We are disappointed in your decision to suppress HRC043 Wolf Emergency Resolution as this is a small but very necessary measure to encourage our governor to take proactive necessary steps to deal with the untenable wolf crisis in our state.

We further request that you encourage and support additional measures and legislation directed at taking additional necessary measures to reduce the population of the Canadian Gray Wolves in our state back to the original agreed FWS approved Wolf Management Plan population level of 150 wolves.

Allowing the original introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into our state was ill-advised and a mistake in the first place. Continuing to allow the wolf population to vastly exceed by some eight to ten times the original 150 wolf level is catastrophic and is causing irreparable harm to our citizens.

Wolves are depredating ungulate herds throughout our state and are proven harbingers’ of highly contagious parasites. Wolves are jeopardizing the very safety and health of our citizens, our livestock and state wildlife resources.

We encourage you to fulfill the fiduciary responsibility you have to your constituency and to take whatever action within your prevue to preserve and protect the citizens and the resources of our state.

Tony Mayer
SaveELk.com

Tom Remington

The Idaho Firearms Freedom Act has been introduced as H0589 by Rep. Dick Harwood. This makes 25 states with FFA bills introduced or enacted. This makes at least half of all the states that have introduced like bills in order to strip Washington of its overreaching power grab.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert has just signed the Utah Firearms Freedom Act, making Utah the third state to adopt this challenge to federal authority.

Governor Herbert the first Republican governor to sign an FFA.

Tom Remington

Yesterday I received a copy of the recent aerial elk counts for the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 in Idaho. Zone 10 counted 1,473 elk, while Zone 12 tallied 705. So how does this compare with previous years when aerial counts were done?

Zone 10:
1989 – 11,507
1992 – 7,745
1994 – 9,729
1998 – 5,079
2003 – 2,643
2006 – 3,452
2010 – 1,473

Zone 12:
1989 – 3,763
1992 – 3,452
1994 – 3,315
1995 – 3,832
1997 – 2,667
2002 – 2,048
2006 – 1,658
2010 – 705

Wolves were reintroduced in 1995. Any idiot can see there is an elk management problem……more like a wolf management problem.

What we hear perpetually from the wolf advocates and environmentalist is how the elk counts in Idaho show the number of elk growing or holding steady. What they refuse to tell you is that in those areas where the wolves are flourishing, we see numbers just as are shown above. When the wolves have eaten everything in sight in the Lolo Zone, they will move on to find more prey and destroy it as well. Only until they have completed that task will we see the “natural” management kick in where wolves will starve to death and/or die of disease and cannibalism.

Allowing wolves to grow in these numbers such that they virtually wipe out elk herds is not good wildlife management and contrary to what we all hear this is not the kind of Utopian “natural” wildlife management any of us should aspire for. It’s irresponsible.

Let’s cut the wolf numbers back in order to allow the elk to sustain and grow again.

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont. – In letters to legislators and newspapers across the West, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling out groups like Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for their disingenuous use of data on wolves and elk.

The RMEF action was prompted by each group’s recent op-ed articles in the media, as well as testimony before Utah lawmakers by Western Wildlife Conservancy Executive Director Kirk Robinson. All cited RMEF statistics to argue that restored wolf populations have somehow translated to growing elk herds in the northern Rockies.

“The theory that wolves haven?t had a significant adverse impact on some elk populations is not accurate. We’ve become all too familiar with these groups’ tactic of cherry-picking select pieces of information to support their own agenda, even when it is misleading,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We will not allow that claim to go unchallenged.”

RMEF population data, which come from state wildlife agencies, show that elk populations are expanding the most in areas of the northern Rockies where wolves are not present. However, where elk share habitat with wolves, such as the greater Yellowstone area, some elk populations are declining fast. In fact, since the mid-1990s introduction of gray wolves, the northern Yellowstone elk herd has dropped from about 17,000 to 7,100 animals – a 58 percent decline. Other localities in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming also are documenting precipitous downward trends.

Additionally, some research shows that elk remaining in areas of concentrated wolf populations are suffering nutrition loss, lower body weights and decreasing birth rates.

Allen said, “Every wildlife conservation agency, both state and federal, working at ground zero of wolf restoration, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has abundant data to demonstrate how undermanaged wolf populations can compromise local elk herds and local livestock production. There’s just no dispute, and emotion-over-science is not the way to professionally manage wildlife.”

RMEF continues to support state-regulated wolf management to include hunting and other viable methods. This position is supported by new reports of diseased wolf populations in the Yellowstone area.

“When wolves are too abundant, they’re more susceptible to diseases, just like all wildlife. The viruses and mange now spreading through wolf packs is another sign of way too many wolves,” said Allen. “Defenders of Wildlife would like to spin sick wolves as a reason to end hunting. But real conservationists know that diseased wildlife populations need better management. Hunting as a management tool delivers that, period.”

He added, “Remember, pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they’ve built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That’s a myth. The truth is that people are the most important part of the equation. This isn’t the Wild West anymore. People live here; actually quite a lot of us. So our land and resources must be managed. Wildlife must be managed. Radical spikes and dips in populations show that we should be doing it better. It’s not profitable for plaintiffs, but the rest of us would be better served if the conflict ended and conservation professionals were allowed to get on with their business of managing wildlife, including a well regulated hunting strategy.”

“In 2009, RMEF got involved in the ongoing wolf litigation, supporting defendant agencies by filing legal briefs used in federal court to help delist wolves and proceed with hunting facts conveniently ignored by groups who misuse our name, data and credibility to prolong the conflict. We stand for elk and other wildlife and what is happening right now is simply not good wildlife management,” said Allen.

See Allen’s letters to editors, Utah Senator Dennis Stowell and more at www.rmef.org.

When I wrote my article the other day, “Maine Should Bring Back Snaring”, I stated in that article that Maine had banned snaring due to action by the Maine Legislature. I was somewhat called out on that and I would like to clarify this and offer a bit of commentary also, if I may. In the previous article, I said:

The ban on snaring can be overturned through the Legislature, by emergency ruling if necessary, to allow for snaring in and around known wintering yards for deer

Due to the timing and dates on this bill, it appears as though the bill was approved after Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Roland Martin put a stop to coyote snaring. The original bill was titled, “An Act To Prohibit Coyote Snaring and Eliminate the Coyote Snaring Program” and read as follows:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 636, ?1,
is repealed.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA ?7504, sub-?4, as enacted by PL 1979, c. 420, ?1, is
amended to read:

4. Coyotes. The commissioner may cause department personnel
to take coyotes at any time and in any manner that he may
prescribe, except that coyotes may not be taken by snaring.

Sec. 3. Appropriations and allocations. The following appropriations and
allocations are made.

INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,

DEPARTMENT OF Resource Management Services -

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Initiative: Deappropriates funding used to pay agents for
the snaring of coyotes.

General Fund 2003-04 2004-05

All Other ($15,700) ($15,700)

SUMMARY

This bill repeals the statutory authorization for the coyote
snaring program and deappropriates funding associated with the
direct costs of the program. Under the bill, hunting coyotes
with firearms and dogs or trapping them without the use of
snare traps will still be authorized.

It was subsequently amended and the title changed as well to, “An Act To Improve the Coyote Control Program”. That amended bill was enacted on April 25, 2003 and reads as follows:

CHAPTER 73

H.P. 192 – L.D. 237

An Act To Improve the Coyote Control Program

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 636, ?1,
is repealed.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B-1 is enacted to read:

B-1.__An agent may use snares to control coyotes during
winter months under the following conditions.

(1)__Agents may use snares only for animal damage
control purposes to help meet management goals
established by the commissioner for deer, threatened or
endangered species or other wildlife species or to
benefit agricultural interests as described in
paragraph C.

(2)__Agents must be trained and certified by the
department in the use of snares.

(3)__Agents must be deployed by a department wildlife
biologist before setting snares.

So I was half correct when I said that coyote snaring was banned by the Legislature. I was half correct when I said the Legislature needed to overturn the ban. I still say they need to overturn the ban but I wasn’t aware at the time of writing my previous article that the amendment to the snare banning bill still gave the MDIFW Commissioner the authority and discretion to employ the use of snares and agents to control coyotes to protect deer. Obviously this was never done and in my opinion reeks heavily of deer management neglect and may even border on criminal.

Under the conditions that exist and knowing full well that even beginning as late as 2008 at the conclusion of the first severe winter, the Commissioner had the authority to begin a program that certainly would have helped to protect deer and did nothing is inexcusable.

According to what V. Paul Reynolds wrote in his Northwoods Sporting Journal, comments and questions I am receiving make more sense.

Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Danny Martin suspended the [snaring] program over concerns that an anti-snare organization would bring a civil action against the state. At the time of his decision we were assured that the coyote control program would be restored in about a year when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) granted Maine an Incidental Take Permit.

Discussion has centered around whether coyote snaring could be reinstated once Maine received an “Incidental Take Permit” from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It now seems obvious that Maine didn’t even need an ITP and trappers were led to believe snaring would return with an ITP. At a minimum MDIFW could have used agents and a snare program to limit damage.

With a Legislative action that limits use of the snare for predator control, to implement a state wide snaring program again, appears to require Legislation action to repeal LD237.

While all this nonsense continues, the Maine deer herd continues to suffer. Makes little sense to me at all.

Tom Remington

*Editor’s Note* This is the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance approach in addressing the actions of the fringe, extremist organization, Defenders of Wildlife, in lying about Cabela’s supporting “wolf-killing competitions”. My version was a bit different. I just call DOW “Pond Scum“. We each have our own style.

(Columbus) – One of the nation’s largest anti-hunting groups, Defenders of Wildlife, have taken aim at Cabela’s Inc. with a misguided and misleading public relations campaign designed to raise money to fund its efforts against outdoor sports.

According to an action alert posted by Defenders, the group accused Cabela’s of sponsoring three so-called “wolf-killing competitions” in Idaho. The group also attacked Cabela’s for the decision by the local paper in Sidney, Nebraska to not run an inflammatory ad against Cabela’s that Defenders had produced. It then went on to solicit funds to run the ad in other papers throughout the state.

The charges by Defenders are grossly misleading. Cabela’s did not sponsor any “wolf-killing” events. Rather, it provided $150 worth of products as a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho organization. That group organized and conducted three local predator hunts in 2009. The hunts complied with all state and federal laws. Additionally, all available information indicates that no wolves were killed during the hunts.

Cabela’s has been a long-time supporter of legal hunting and fishing and has worked closely with state and federal wildlife agencies to conserve wildlife populations. They are renowned in the business world as a leader in conservation programs and ethic. By contrast, Defenders has been one of the leaders in an effort to keep the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population on the Endangered Species List despite the recovery of their population and reasonable management plans designed by state officials.

“Defenders of Wildlife is attempting to tarnish the reputation of one of the most wildlife conscious companies in the world,” said Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “Sportsmen should show their support by visiting a local Cabela’s and let them know that you appreciate their efforts and are not fooled by the antis’ propaganda.”

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), along with Maine’s two leading associations representing forest landowners, have recently endorsed a set of Deer Wintering Area (DWA) Management Guidelines aimed at assisting forest landowners to enhance the quality of deer wintering area on their properties.

To survive the winter season, deer seek habitats with a combination of cover and food that minimizes net energy loss. As snow accumulates and temperature drops, deer spend more time in older conifer-dominated forest stands associated with watercourses and valleys, often returning to winter in the same locations year after year. These traditionally used areas are called deer wintering areas. Deer management in Maine involves a complex interaction of factors in addition to DWA management, such as winter severity, predation, and hunting regulations.

The guidelines were developed as a priority recommendation of the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force, which was convened in 2007 by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin in response to the public’s concerns about declining deer populations.

“Working together with landowners to develop these guidelines was a critical step in understanding landowner objectives, the winter habitat needs for deer and how the two can be compatible,” according to John Pratte, MDIFW Wildlife Management Section Supervisor. “Having these guidelines as common ground will facilitate the exchange of information between landowners and the Department. I am energized by the level of support from landowners and in the swiftness that some have demonstrated in adopting these.”

The Maine Forest Products Council (MFPC), which represents a majority of the large commercial timberland owners in Maine, and the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM), which represents a significant number of smaller woodlot owners, worked with the MDIFW to develop the guidelines through a series of field trips and meetings. The guidelines represent sound biological practices which are aimed to enhance the quality of deer wintering habitat in Maine. Although the guidelines are not intended to be mandatory for any landowner, MDIFW, MFPC, and SWOAM are all encouraging the adoption of these guidelines into landowner management plans wherever possible.

The guidelines focus on numerous considerations regarding the management of deer wintering areas: winter shelter; travel corridors; winter browse; spring and autumn food; and harvest timing.

“The process that landowners and the Department went through to develop these guidelines was healthy and collaborative, and created a much-needed open forum for discussing these issues,” said James Cote, Maine Forest Products Council Director of Communications. “Forest landowners in Maine have a strong record of wildlife stewardship, and we believe these guidelines appropriately balance the objectives of private landowners, as well as MDIFW.”

As a result of this process, the Maine Sustainable Forestry Initiative Implementation Committee, of which the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is a member, also has decided to take a lead role in the process, and will be working with the Department to disseminate information to forest practitioners such as loggers and landowners, and develop collaborative training opportunities in the months to come.

The guidelines can be found on all three of the organizations websites:

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: www.mefishwildlife.com

Maine Forest Products Council: www.maineforest.org

Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine: www.swoam.org

Sustainable Forestry Initiative: www.sfimaine.org