WASHINGTON, D.C., April 26, 2012 – House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement on Judge Redden’s admitted bias to destroy Snake River Dams:

“This interview candidly reveals the activist bias of Judge Redden that I and many in the Pacific Northwest have suspected for years. Due to his personal views, this one judge unilaterally dragged and drove costly litigation on for nearly a decade.

“He issued unprecedented, questionable and expensive rulings resulting in his literally seizing control of the river system’s operation. He ignored clear and sound science that salmon species are returning in numbers greater than before these dams were built, and forced taxpayers to pay for millions of dollars in higher energy bills and lawyers’ fees. He ordered the waste of tens of millions of dollars by forcing the spilling of water past dams that science reveals has benefited few, if any, fish, and may have actually harmed them. He’s ignored federal science that shows more fish benefit from safe barge transportation, and he’s clouded any semblance of the best science and the law regarding federal salmon protection measures supported by three states, many tribes and other stakeholders.

“This one politician-turned-judge kept pursuing his agenda and imposing his own views over the policies of the elected Presidential Administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“Judge Redden has admitted his bias in favor of the agenda of radical environmental groups whose sole goal is the extreme act of tearing down hydropower dams that provide the vast majority of the power generated for Northwest families and businesses—about 80 percent for Idaho, 70 percent of Washington and nearly 60 percent for Oregon. This is clean, carbon-free and renewable energy that has supported the Northwest’s vibrant agriculture, technological and trade economies for decades.

“Judge Redden’s bias is being used to further this radical agenda just months after he announced his retirement from the case and as a new, hopefully impartial, judge has been appointed to oversee the endless and unclear future of litigation he perpetuated.

“It’s time for the endless litigation and radical agendas—bolstered by one man’s personal views and grip on a judge’s gavel—to stop and to ensure that the Northwest will be given certainty that a plan supported by states, tribes and others will be approved to ensure that dams keep producing clean, renewable hydropower and allow for abundant salmon for generations to come.”

Coalition calls for FDA to halt approval of genetically engineered salmon

Yesterday afternoon a coalition of 11 food safety, environmental, consumer and fisheries organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) calling for a halt to its approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon after learning that the company’s – AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. – research site was contaminated with a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), the deadly fish flu that is devastating fish stocks around the world.

“This new information calls into question the reliability of AquaBounty’s data and the validity of its claims that their fish are safe for the environment” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The FDA must respond appropriately and conduct their own environmental impact statement that looks at a broad range of environmental risks from these genetically engineered salmon, including the risk of spreading diseases such as ISA and antibiotic use for other diseases.”<<<Read the Rest>>>

California Bill to Label GE Fish Fails

AB 88—the California bill which would have required that all genetically engineered (GE) fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling—failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee today by a vote of 9-7. AB 88 was stalled in Appropriations last year, and was held-over for reintroduction this session by the bill’s author, Assembly member Huffman.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Consumer Groups Petition FDA to Ban GE Salmon as an Unsafe Food Additive

Today consumer groups Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union, and the Center for Food Safety submitted a formal petition asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify and evaluate AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage” genetically engineered (GE) salmon and all of its components as a food additive. The groups’ legal petition contends that the current agency review process that treats GE salmon only as a new animal drug is insufficient to protect public health, and that the agency is required by law to review the GE salmon under what should be a more rigorous process for any novel substance added to food.

“The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Aquabounty’s own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer.”

The groups warn that the potential health risks of GE salmon are no different from a number of food additives the FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing.<<<Read the Rest>>>

The Upper Andro Anglers Alliance in co-operation with Trout Unlimited will host a free family fishing festival on Saturday, June 2. The festival will be held at Angevine Park on the North Road in Bethel, from 9 am to 2 pm, rain or shine. Free casting workshops and fly-tying instruction will be available throughout the day.

Local Maine guides and members of the Mollyockett Chapter of Trout Unlimited will teach the workshops. Instruction will include both spin casting and fly casting for older youth and parents. Maine’s Hooked on Fishing-Not on Drugs Program will supply complimentary rods and reels for use at the festival.

Families can practice newly learned casting skills in the one acre pond and are welcome to take home their catch. The pond will be stocked with trout courtesy of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Each young angler will receive a mini-tackle box complete with bobber, sinkers and hook courtesy of the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance.

Kids can learn how to tie flies with materials provided by local outfitters and fly shops. Children will be able to take home their hand-tied flies.

Families participating in the event will be eligible for door prizes from local outfitters and businesses as well as L.L. Bean and Kittery Trading Post. The Bethel Fire Dept. will host a barbecue of hotdogs and hamburgers, chips, and drinks and families are welcome to bring a pack lunch.

The weekend of June 2 & 3 is a free fishing weekend in Maine. Resident and Non-resident freshwater fishing licenses are waived each day.

The Family Fishing Festival is one many nationwide events that provide families with an opportunity to have fun on the water. The events are promoted by the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (www.rbff.org). For those families wishing to stay overnight and fish or canoe the Androscoggin River on Sunday, special family packages are available for the weekend at local lodging establishments.

For information on the Family Fishing Festival, contact the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance at 207-824-3694, fish at upperandro dot com or www.upperandro.com.

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