Guest post by Jim Beers

NEWS ITEM:

“Non-native northern pike are high-impact predators of many other fish,” said John Whalen of The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “We’re increasingly concerned about future impacts to native trout and other species, including salmon and steelhead.”

QUESTION:

What is the difference between Northern Pike from Canada (that got them from Idaho and Montana) eradicating “native trout and other species, including salmon and steelhead” fishing; and wolves transported by government from Canada eradicating elk, moose, and big game hunting as well as diminishing ranching profits, human safety, rural “Tranquility” (a Constitutional term), and the lives of untold numbers of domestic animals from cattle and sheep to dogs of all types?

ANSWER:

To answer that one (the wolf) is “Native” while the other is not or that it (the pike) is “Invasive” is meaningless. Pheasants and chukars are invasive or non-natives that were purposely introduced and are highly-sought and contributing members of the Washington economy, environment and ecosystem. Would Washington residents or the government they employ eradicate pheasants and chukars because they are non-native or invasive? I would think not.

To answer that ones’ (the wolf) destruction must be tolerated simply because government declares “it was here first” means that other dangerous and destructive animals that “were here first” like grizzly bears such as Ursus horribilis bairdi (Merriam) will likewise be imposed on rural Washington residents. Do any Washington residents or Washington state employees really intend to restore grizzly bears into a settled landscape such as Washington? I certainly hope not.

To answer that one (the pike) will diminish or eradicate “native trout and other species” is somewhat disingenuous. Approximately half of Washington’s game fish (Eastern Brook Trout, Tiger Muskie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, brown trout, tiger trout, and Atlantic salmon) are not “native” species. Further how do you distinguish the loss of such fisheries to northern pike as intolerable when the loss of elk hunting, deer hunting, hunting in general (due to human and dog safety concerns), loss of ranch revenue, and the loss of rural domestic “Tranquility” to wolves is to be endured by rural Washington residents by government fiat? Is the trout fisherman or the bass fisherman’s interest in fishing paramount to and infinitely of more importance to the state than the interest of safety for rural children, elk hunting, deer hunting, ranching, recreation, or rural dog ownership?

On the one hand we are to be alerted to a newly arrived sport (in the majority of states) fish as an Armageddon that (undoubtedly) the state fish and wildlife agency will either A) need more money and people to combat or B) should be exempted from inexorable cuts down the road as Washington is forced to tighten its belt. On the other hand the state fish and wildlife agency abandons the rural residents of Washington to ally itself with national environmental/animal rights radical agendas, federal bureaucrats, and the unaffected urban voting blocs of Seattle by introducing (by not controlling), protecting, and spreading wolves despised by and objected to, to no avail, by those rural Washington residents that are to live with them. Thus are Washington residents to fear the pike ( a “voracious species” advancing “toward the Columbia River”) while welcoming (at least avoiding at all costs due to threatened Draconian government reprisals) wolves that are equally “voracious” but are described as necessary for the Washington countryside by state bureaucrats. Like rubes at a Carnival, we are asked to keep our eye on the wrong shell and to quietly surrender our money when we lose. The only difference here is Washington state residents pay this agency to fleece them and like the old definition of insanity, expect a different outcome than before each time.

Northern pike in the Pend Oreille River are, short of a massive and unlikely poisoning of the River in both nations, on their way to the Columbia. Increasingly scarce fishery dollars should not be wasted on a show-program that at best delays the inevitable. How ironic that the state agency wants to mount a massive pike intervention while simultaneously treating far more destructive wolves like forest fires of late, i.e. “whatever they do and whenever they do it, ‘it’ is natural and therefore above reproach by anyone, no matter the costs”.

Wolf numbers and distribution in Washington should be a decision made by and for rural (County) residents of Washington. State government should be the protector of rural families, rural communities and rural economies: not their incremental destroyers. The State government should represent those that will live with and be directly affected by the presence of wolves and not:
1. Federal agencies,
2. Questionable federal legislation like the Endangered Species Act,
3. Urban and International values imposed politically, and
4. Radical environmental and animal rights agendas hostile to rural America.

This is the answer that few people want to hear.

Jim Beers
14 December 2011
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net

I was reading a short article this morning in “Critter News” of a man who pleaded guilty to operating irrigation diversions in two locations without proper permitting and screenings and as a result, trapped two “threatened” species of fish. A judge sentenced him to two year probation and fined him $625.00.

In addition, according to the article:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush also ordered as a condition of probation that Demorest hold no management position at Diamond D Ranch, and serve 50 hours of community service at a fish hatchery.

I am to understand that the Diamond D Ranch is where Demorest was employed and illegally trapped the fish. Does a judge, or should a judge, have the authority within the Constitution to dictate as part of a man’s punishment, what position he can hold in a private sector job? Isn’t that up to the man’s employer?

Tom Remington

Over the weekend, a friend emailed my a link to an article about constitutional amendments to protect hunting that I found to be interesting but dreadfully shallow in content and lacking in anything grounded in reality.

The foundation of the piece seemed to be about why there was a need for states to enact constitutional amendments in order to guarantee citizens of their states the right to hunt, fish and trap. Not only does the author not grasp the reality of what outdoor sportsmen are facing, some of the outdoor sportsmen themselves seem to be living in a vacuum.

The article begins, “The idea of enshrining hunting and fishing rights in state constitutions is sweeping the country even though supporters and hunters themselves acknowledge that no one is trying to in pry rifles from their hands.” I wish the author had decided to get out a bit more and talk with those of us fully aware of the billions of dollars being spent every day by environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, fishing and trapping.

One “hunter” from Nebraska, interviewed for the article states: “I haven’t seen anyone on a local level holding up signs in front of the public area saying we’re a bunch of evil-doers.”

I have never seen anyone openly walking about the United States of America holding up signs that say, “End all our Rights Now” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. We have had more government intrusion in our lives in the past 3 years and with it comes a stripping away of our God-given rights but it doesn’t take picket signs to make it happen. It requires ignorance, denial and sitting quietly by letting it happen.

PETA attempts to deflect away from any search for truth by delving into seeming absurdity stating that if states allow amendments to protect hunting, then, “why not a right to shop and golf?” Sounds silly but right now I am not aware of anyone trying to stop shopping and golf directly but don’t bet your future that it won’t happen sooner than you think.

Constitutional amendments for individual states can become a very beneficial thing if written properly and carried out in a serious fashion. There really are no disadvantages to having such an amendment, unless you are one of those who want to end hunting.

Constitutional amendments to protect hunting must at a minimum contain the words that citizens of that state are guaranteed the right to hunt, fish and trap. It must be recognized as a heritage worth protecting. In addition, wording must be such that the amendment forces the fish and game department to manage its fish and game resources for surplus harvest opportunities for its citizens. I would also strongly urge wording in which the state supports the North American Game Management model and that it would even go as far as to state that “natural regulation” is a fallacy and will not be considered a part of any wildlife management tool until overwhelming science proves otherwise. This, of course, would never happen, so let’s just leave it out.

Once an amendment is passed, it will accomplish some, much or all of the following:

1. It will limit the actions of environmentalists and animal rights groups to file countless lawsuits all aimed at ending and/or limiting hunting, fishing and trapping opportunity. History is quite clear in this. States with constitutional amendments see far fewer senseless lawsuits than those without.

2. A constitutional amendment forces fish and game departments to manage game species for surplus management. This is a problem all across America. Money paid by license holders is being used for non game programs while allowing management of game species such as deer, moose and elk to suffer terribly. Fish and game departments must be accountable for their actions if they are unable to uphold the mandate of a constitutional amendment to manage for surplus harvest.

3. A forcing of the way in which fish and game departments manage will accomplish many things. For one, it will automatically change the dynamic make up of the leadership staff all the way down the line to the lowliest of state employees. A head of any fish and game department, knowing he or she must abide by the amendment, will surround himself with staff who can accomplish that goal or run the risk of being fired.

In addition, if the wording of any amendment discredited the term and use of “natural regulation”, then those biologists who have wrongfully espoused to such nonsense will have difficulty finding a job. This could have a cascading affect all the way back to the colleges potential biologists attend. If graduates can’t get hired because they are being taught garbage, perhaps it will force the colleges to change what they teach. Idealistic? Perhaps but it will certainly have its effects.

4. A constitutional amendment, in my opinion, would help to restore the reason why we have managed fish and game. If you investigate nearly every fish and game department’s programs across this nation, you will, no doubt, see that each state manages its “wildlife” according to the pressures of societal demands. No, I’m not kidding. What used to be a hidden agenda is now very much in the open. Fish and game departments readily admit that much of their management decisions are based on what the demands are by our society, for example: wildlife viewing, car accidents, human/wildlife encounters, property destruction, etc. With each passing year, the societal demands increase and change. Where’s the science behind all this?

While it’s easy to understand the concern for reducing say, deer populations because too many people are dying from collisions, it seems difficult for people to understand why we should have unhealthy levels of wolves so more people can view them. Makes little sense.

So, with a fish and game department with a different mandated direction in which it must manage its wildlife, the domino effect could be far reaching.

5. A constitutional amendment would give stronger reasons why anti hunting activists should not have a seat on any fish and game commission. Their agendas become more exposed and their efforts at incrementally stripping away hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities is that much more difficult.

6. With a constitutional amendment, the message is sent loud and clear by the citizens that they support and recognize hunting, trapping and fishing as part of their heritage. As such it makes it that much harder for anti gun activists and all efforts toward limiting which animals can be harvested or the methods in which those animals can be harvested, to accomplish.

Instead of people, including journalists and hunters, sitting around saying we don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect our hunting heritage, I suggest a bit more eye opening exercises and a better understanding how things have changed over the years that has brought us to this point.

As an example, the same friend who sent me the link to the above mentioned article, also reminded me of the countless number of states that have found it necessary to enact anti hunter harassment legislation. Here is only one such example from Maine. If nobody wants to shut down hunting, then why is there a need for legislation to protect hunters who go into the field? To me, these are very big picket signs. I suppose one just needs to open their eyes.

Tom Remington

I received an email yesterday from a concerned Maine outdoor sportsman informing me that on September 8, 2011 at 4 P.M. at the Northern Pub in the West Forks, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) will hold a public meeting to discuss whether or not to turn the Dead River, from Flagstaff Lake down stream to The Forks, into a catch and release method of fishing.

I certainly have no real problem with MDIFW changing a fishery into catch and release providing the reason is fisheries management. The same email lends an interesting comment that this may not be the reason for the consideration of fish and game officials considering such a move.

According to the email, the identity of the sender I am not at liberty to release, “This is a result of some guides & L.L Bean having fly fishing courses out of the Hut & Trails hut at Grand Falls.”

For those not familiar with “Huts and Trails“, you can visit their website and/or watch this video which is also available at their site.

I would certainly hope that our fisheries managers, MDIFW, would not consider altering the management of the Dead River fisheries for the purpose of granting special favors for private business at the expense of diminishing fishing opportunities for the rest of the paying public. All wildlife management should be based on what is in the best interest of the scientific management of that species and specific body of water or ecosystem.

This would be a great opportunity for Maine sportsmen to attend this meeting and/or contact the MDIFW and ask for information about this consideration and if MDIFW responds that it is in the best interest of the fishery, ask for proof.

Tom Remington

In Bethel, Maine Scheduled for September 16 & 17, 2011

The Upper Andro Two Fly Contest and Northeast Drift Boat Championship are scheduled for Friday and Saturday, September 16 and 17, 2011, in conjunction with Bethel’s Annual Harvest Fest. The competitions are the annual fund-raisers for the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance, a non-profit group dedicated to the conservation, protection, restoration and promotion of the natural fishing resource of the Upper Androscoggin River, its tributaries, watershed and environs.

Contestants may use only two flies during the event, which starts at 6:00 am on Saturday. Teams may launch from public launch sites from the New Hampshire border at Shelburne to Rumford Center. The contest concludes at 1:00 pm.

The Two Fly contest will test the skills of anglers to fly fish for the most and the largest of the three trout species, brown, rainbow and brook found in the Upper Androscoggin River from the New Hampshire border to Rumford Center. A fly is defined as made from natural or synthetic materials tied to a single pointed hook. No tandems or treble hooks are allowed. Teams of three including two anglers and a referee/oarsman must fish from a drift boat. All fish must be released live. The contest is limited to 18 teams.

Prizes including rods and fishing gear supplied by Kittery Trading Post, L.L. Bean, Patagonia, Sun Valley Sports, House of Hardy and the Orvis Company will be awarded Saturday afternoon immediately following a parade of the drift boats up Main Street and around the Town Common.

The Upper Andro Anglers Alliance will be offering fly tying and fly casting instruction on Saturday from its Harvest Fest booth on the town common. A tally of trout caught during the contest will be updated and posted at the booth during the day.

The Third Annual Northeast Drift Boat Championship will be held Friday, September 16 at 3 pm. Designed as a spectator event, the competition will test oarsmen’s skills at navigating a course and rowing speed. Each drift boat must carry at least one angler, who must remain standing throughout the timed race. The launch will be from Bethel Outdoor Adventures on Route 2 and the finish line is at Davis Park in Bethel-a distance of a quarter mile.

Official contest rules and a registration form are available on line at www.upperandro.com or by phoning 207-824-3694..

Please follow this link for a PDF copy of contest rules and a printable registration form.

Insanity!

UPPER ANDRO ANGLERS ALLIANCE AND TELSTAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TO CLEAN UP ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER

As part of National River Cleanup, members of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance and students from the Telstar Challenge Course at Telstar High School in Bethel, Maine will clean up a section of the Androscoggin River from Newt’s Landing in West Bethel to Davis Park in Bethel on Thursday, May 19. Students, ages 16-18, will float down the river in rafts armed with garbage bags and towing garbage scow rafts to collect debris along the riverbanks. The clean-up flotilla will launch at 9 am from Newt’s Landing and take out at Davis Park. Community members are welcome to help clean-up this and other stretches of the river. The town of Bethel will provide trash collection at Davis Park and deliver to the town’s solid waste facility.

Northern Waters Outfitters of Errol, NH will provide rafts and garbage scows. Immediately following the clean-up, Bethel’s Best Pizza Grille & Dairy Bar will host a pizza party at Davis Park for all participants,.

Rivers and watersheds have been used as dumps for old appliances, shopping carts and other refuse. Litter, such as foam cups, plastic bottles and food wrappers float into waterways, build up along the shoreline and stay there for years. With landfill space at a premium, recycling efforts stymied by a lack of plant capacity and toxic waste expensive to control, a grassroots effort can help maintain a constituency for preserving and protecting waterways. In 2010, 2 million pounds of trash and debris were collected and 6,000 miles of rivers and streams cleaned across the nation. In years’ past the Upper Andro yielded over a ton of debris including bed springs, tires and tire rims, a boat motor and a 1950’s record player.

The Upper Andro Anglers Alliance sponsors the local clean up. Says Clean-up Co-ordinator and UAAA director Bruce Pierce, “There’s been a long-standing effort to improve the Androscoggin’s water quality and fishery-now we need to improve the shore land zone along this wonderful river.”

National River Cleanup was founded in 1992 by America Outdoors, the largest association of America’s outfitters and guides, to assist local groups in keeping waterways clean. In 2007 American Rivers assumed administration of the river clean up. American Rivers, founded in 1973, is the nation’s leading river advocacy organization. NRC Information is published on line at www.nationalrivercleanup.org.

Information and photos provided by Al Remington, Anchorage, Alaska.

Brent, who resides in the Fairbanks area, caught the sheefish shown below on a trip to the Kobuk River. Al Remington writes:

The Kobuk River begins approximately 350 miles NW of Fairbanks, AK at Walker Lake and runs to the Arctic Coast. The fish available are Arctic Grayling, Burbot, Whitefish, Northern Pike, Salmon and Sheefish. Wolf Country Fishing concentrates on the Sheefish, the “Tarpin of the North”. The state, as well as the world record Sheefish was caught here. Weights range from 18 to the tackle record of 53 lbs. Many Sheefish are in the 25 to 40 lb. range. Wolf Country Fishing supports “catch and release”.

Click Image to Enlarge

Click Image to Enlarge