Is this the best use of the people’s tax dollars? We hear the continued beating of the pity drum that there is just no place to cut spending. Really? There is the argument that our borders aren’t even secure enough to prohibit illegals, whether immigrants, drug traffickers or gun smugglers from crossing into the U.S., while complaining about no money to do a better job and Homeland Security has $771,000 to watch for jaguars?

Give me a break! This is an outrage! It seems everything this government does is an outrage. Call your Congressman today and tell them to put an end to such foolish nonsense!

Tom Remington

Environmentalists in this country, spurred on by the powers behind the United Nations and Agenda 21, want you off the land. They don’t want you to own land. One of the ways they intend to make that happen is to eliminate all the reasons you would want to own land and/or take advantage of the natural resources the land has to offer, as well as your preferred means of making a living. These delirious individuals think that you and I have no right to these resources and they would rather they rot than for humans to consume any of them.

Endangered species and implementation of the tyrannical Endangered Species Act is a tool used by these environmentalist groups to accomplish their goals. The agendas vary at prescribed levels but as it pertains to animals, their ambition is to end hunting, trapping, fishing, ranching, livestock ownership, pet ownership, use of any animal for any purpose. Ultimately the mission is to get you off your land.

Drover’s Cattle Network tells us that at the Taking Action for Animals Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 15-18, and Farm Animal Rights Movement’s Animal Rights 2011 Conference (AR 2011) two weeks later on July 21-25 in Los Angeles, attendees were encouraged to work toward the goal of ending ranching and other things.

Securing rights for farm animals and the promotion of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to the mainstream public were hot topics at both meetings. Attendees were given tips on how to utilize social media, create “undercover” videos and craft effective messages to share their views with others. Speakers and exhibitors also encouraged aspiring activists to hold demonstrations, signature drives for ballot initiatives and leafleting campaigns.

The largest activist groups attended and sponsored both meetings, although messaging differed between audiences. Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of Mercy For Animals, Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing, and Gene Baur, President of Farm Sanctuary, spoke at both meetings. They encouraged a more aggressive, physical approach to eliminating animal agriculture at AR 2011. (Emphasis added)

But this is only one method of achieving dictatorial Marxism as it pertains to our rights and privileges. I have learned that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has given the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, as well as the New Mexico State Game Commission, notice that intends to file a lawsuit to ban the use of leg-hold traps in that state in order to protect the Mexican gray wolf, an introduced, Non-Essential Experimental population of a subspecies of gray wolf. CBD declares that the allowance of such traps violates the “take” provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

CBD would like for all of us to focus our attention on not only whether use of the traps is a violation of the ESA, but also on whether on not any Mexican gray wolves that incidentally get caught in trappers’ traps is limiting efforts to restore the wolf. Trust me. This is all a distraction from the ultimate goals. Assuredly CBD is playing the games they have learned to manage in order to steal taxpayers money through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and pad their coffers, but their agenda runs much deeper than a handful of gray wolves in New Mexico.

In Maine, environmentalists were successful in banning the size of leg-hold traps in designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Lynx are another animal that is readily abundant in Northern North America but environmentalists have seized on the opportunity to promote their agendas by using the lynx as a tool to limit or ban trapping in Maine. The size reduction of traps was a result of a settlement reached between the state and the environmentalist groups. A lawsuit had demanded the end to all trapping in Maine to protect the lynx.

We are witness to several attempts nationwide by animal rights activists and environmentalists to limit or end trapping and hunting, and that march will continue. However, several moves recently by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plays directly into the hands of these Marxist organizations.

Few outdoor sportsmen anymore believe that the USFWS is looking out for their interests at all. As a matter of fact many believe they are bought and paid for by the environmentalists and readily submit to their evil ways.

If the CBD is successful in banning leg-hold traps in New Mexico, consider the precedent this will set and the possible domino effect that may result. Before we can examine the domino effect, please understand the following.

The USFWS is currently attempting for the second time to get gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) region removed from the Endangered Species Act list. Aside from the fact that nothing has been done to change the reasons why Judge Paul Friedman denied the delisting, the USFWS is plowing ahead with a second attempt. Why would they do that? It’s anybody’s guess how this will turn out. The problem stems from the USFWS buckling to the agenda driven environmentalists spreading propaganda masquerading as science and they are considering the declaration of a brand new subspecies of gray wolf, calling it the eastern wolf. On top of that, they say both species are sharing the same habitat. Think about that for a moment but in the meantime…….

Magically as well as illegally, the USFWS decided that gray wolves didn’t inhabit much of the eastern United States. Instead it was the “eastern” wolf, now a subspecies of the gray wolf.

I say magically, because many actual scientists don’t buy into the trumped up BS that there is another species of wolf. It’s all political and a great and powerful tool ready at the hand of the environmentalists. One would swear that this is exactly as the USFWS intended it to be. (Attempting to delist the gray wolf while discovering a new species of wolf would effectively render the delisting a moot effort.)

I say illegally because the courts had ordered the USFWS to return to the 1973 maps that determined that gray wolves were officially listed as an endangered species in 47 of 48 lower states, excepting Minnesota, whose population of existing wolves were declared “threatened”. Two judges have told us that the USFWS does not have the authority to draw boundary lines to create a “Distinct Population Segment” of any species in order that that species be removed from the ESA list. That was Judge Paul Friedman and Judge Donald Molloy. Judge Donald Molloy returned gray wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming back to the ESA list because he determined that species don’t recognize boundaries and therefore you couldn’t delist wolves in Idaho and Montana and leave Wyoming out.

Never determined in any of this is that if both judges are correct then how can there be anything different than all 48 states have endangered wolves or no states have endangered wolves? On the same level, if the USFWS doesn’t have authority to create boundaries to determine “Distinct Population Segments” then how can the USFWS then randomly decide to remove the gray wolf from the ESA in the eastern third of the nation and then decide to create another “Distinct Population Segment” of endangered eastern wolves? Inquiring minds want to know. Is the USFWS selectively heeding some court rulings while turning a blind eye to others?

(Note: The USFWS also declared mountain lions “extinct” in much of the eastern half of the country. How can they legally do this? Judge Molloy and Friedman say they can’t.)

But, I am getting off subject. Imagine if you will that the USFWS is successful in their continued effort to fabricate a new species of wolf and then is successful in placing that wolf on the ESA list within that portion of the U.S. so designated as critical habitat.

Consider also that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wins their lawsuit to ban leg-hold traps in New Mexico citing it as a violation of the “take” provision of the ESA. Is there a better than even chance that same success in court would be sought after for all of the “eastern wolf” habitat? Why not?

The state of Maine has already buckled under the pressures from the environmentalists to ban snaring, a very effective way to control coyotes that are destroying the deer herd. In addition they settled a compromise effort to reduce the size of the leg-hold traps to no larger jaw spread than 5 3/8 inches in hopes to reduce “incidental takes” of Canada lynx. Now, imagine what will become of what’s left of the deer herd and other important ecosystem creatures, if environmentalists can ban all leg-hold traps in order to protect a wolf. And before someone makes the absurd statement that hunters can hunt coyotes, then tell me how does a hunter differentiate between an “eastern wolf”, of which nobody has ever seen before and an eastern coyote, proven to be a hybrid of coyote, domestic dog and gray wolf?

Tom Remington

(Note: The following data, compiled from state and provincial wildlife agencies, reflect biologists’ best estimates of elk populations. Each year, animal rights activists blatantly misrepresent these data to prop up their argument for keeping wolves perpetually on the Endangered Species List. It’s a fact that where wolves are concentrated, elk herds are being impacted. Calf survival rates in certain areas are too low to sustain herds for the future. Wolves must be managed, same as elk. In spite of the misuse, RMEF believes these data are valuable to hunters and will continue to provide them.)

Following are condensed forecasts for 29 states and provinces. See full-length versions at www.rmef.org/hunting/features. For even more detailed coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2011 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

RMEF members have now helped to conserve or enhance 5.9 million acres of habitat for elk and other wildlife.

In the forecast intro, Bugle Hunting Editor P.J. DelHomme notes, “When RMEF launched in 1984, there were 550,000 elk in North America. Fifteen states and four provinces had elk hunts. Today almost 1.2 million wild elk roam the continent and 23 states and six provinces are holding elk hunts. There’s also been a huge surge of bulls entering the record books, with world records for Roosevelt’s, tules and non-typical Rocky Mountain elk all falling in the past decade.”

This may indeed be the Golden Era of elk hunting. Good luck this autumn!

Alaska
Elk Population: Etolin (GMU 3) 300-400, Kodiak Archipelago (GMU N/A
Bull/Cow Ratio: GMU 3 19/100
Nonresidents: $85 license, $300 elk permit
Hunter Success: GMU 3 13 percent, GMU 8 N/A
Highlights: Most elk in GMU 3 reside within the formidable South Etolin Island Wilderness on Etolin Island, where 48 hunters braved the bush to kill six bulls last season. Calf recruitment is good at 51 calves to every 100 cows. Numbers for GMU 8 on the Kodiak Archipelago were not available at press time, but the area has yielded some impressive Roosevelt’s bulls in the past few years. Visit www.wildlife.alaska.gov.

Alberta
Elk Population: 33,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Elk populations in the foothills of the Rockies, especially west of Rocky Mountain House, this year felt the combined impact of months of deep snow and predation by wolves, mountain lions and grizzlies. However, range is expanding as elk pioneer new territory to the south and east, with some respectable bulls among them. Meat hunters should look at agricultural zones where liberal permits for cows are available. Outfitters receive roughly 10 percent of the draw tags. Visit www.srd.alberta.ca.

Arizona
Elk Population: 25,000-35,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable) plus $595 elk permit
Hunter Success: 31 percent general, 39 percent muzzleloader, 24 percent archery
Highlights: The Wallow fire burned over 520,000 acres in Units 1 and 27 and many elk have been displaced to other areas. A silver lining? These units could see even more monster bulls in coming years if forage responds as it did following the massive Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002. A mild winter meant low stress on elk but also led to a dry spring–hence the massive wildfires. Arizona Game and Fish Department’s “Hunt Arizona” offers a great resource on harvest data, drawing odds and hunting pressure. Visit www.azgfd.gov.

Arkansas
Elk Population: 440
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Auction and landowner tags
Hunter Success: 63 percent
Highlights: Elk permits are available to landowners in a five-county area, with 23 permits issued under a quota system. Anyone who owns property in those counties, whether or not they are a resident, qualifies for the drawing. Nonresidents who buy a lifetime license also are eligible for the drawing. Public land hunters will find elk using an increasing number and quality of managed forage openings on the Ozark National Forest and Gene Rush WMA. Visit www.agfc.com.

British Columbia
Elk Population: 63,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 25-30/100
Nonresidents: $180 license plus $250 elk permit, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Rocky Mountain elk herds are thriving, with the agricultural zones in the Peace River region a great bet. For a backcountry experience, look to the Omineca region in north-central BC. If you’ve always dreamed of hunting a trophy Roosevelt’s bull, the stars are aligned for a great season. No limits or quotas have changed since last season, and limited-entry tags are still a tough draw at roughly 35/1. Outfitters are allotted a percentage of those tags and you can bypass the long odds by booking a hunt. The $430 cost for a license and permit is a relative bargain. Visit www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw.

California
Elk Population: 11,400 (1,500 Rocky Mountain, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tule)
Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,200 elk permit
Hunter Success: 75 percent
Highlights: The West’s best hunter success rates and world-class bulls of all three sub-species await those who beat tag lottery odds ranging from 100/1 to 1,000/1. This could be the year a tule world record is broken. The largest brutes are in the East Park Reservoir and Grizzly Island units. Good spring rains should have racks in prime shape. For a backcountry experience, try Marble Mountain Wilderness, which offers 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags. Everyone has a shot here, as 10 of those tags (nine bull and one cow) are randomly drawn while the other 30 are weighted for preference points. Visit www.dfg.ca.gov.

Colorado
Elk Population: 283,400
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $354 cow, $554 any elk
Hunter Success: 22 percent
Highlights: Colorado is an ideal destination with more than 23 million acres of public land, almost twice as many elk as any other state, over-the-counter bull tags (OTC), and an informative call-center. Rifle tags for bulls in the 2nd and 3rd season are unlimited and sold at outlets all over the state. Leftover draw tags went on sale August 9 and some may still be available. OTC rifle tags for cows are limited, but OTC antlerless archery tags are wide open in the northwest and southeast corners. The past few years have been moist with heavy snows and wet springs, which have kept forage lush and antler growth robust. Visit www.wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting.

Idaho
Elk Population: 103,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $155 license, $417 elk tag
Hunter Success: 19 percent
Highlights: The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is being hammered by wolf predation exacerbated by a long slide in forage quality. Elk populations are far below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway zones and slightly below objectives in the Sawtooth zone. Elk and hunting aren’t what they used to be in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, either. Statewide, elk tag sales fell from 92,565 in 2008 to 84,765 in 2010–a decline of about 8 percent. But not all the news from Idaho is bad. Populations at or above objectives in 20 of 29 elk hunt zones, and the statewide population actually broke a long plummet and grew by 2,000 animals from last year. Hunters should look to the southern and western portions of the state, as well as areas like the Owyhee-South Hills Zone, where hunters can now chase antlerless elk August through December. Visit www.fishandgame.idaho.gov.

Kansas
Elk Population: 250-275
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Tenant permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
Hunter Success: 36 percent
Highlights: This past season was a tough one for Kansas elk hunters. On Fort Riley, where most of the state’s elk roam, hunters had their second-lowest success rate since the hunt began there in 1987. This year, 10 either-sex and 15 antlerless tags are available. Mammoth bulls exist but don’t come easily. The state’s other main elk herd roams the opposite corner far to the southwest in the Cimarron National Grasslands. The Grasslands themselves are closed to hunting, but over-the-counter unlimited permits are available for surrounding private lands. Visit www.kdwp.state.ks.us.

Kentucky
Elk Population: 10,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $130 license, $365 elk permit
Hunter Success: 65 percent
Highlights: The toughest part here is beating the odds in the drawing. This year, 61,500 applicants vied for 800 elk hunting permits, with 80 permits reserved for the nearly 19,000 nonresidents who applied. But elk look to be plentiful. A calf recruitment ratio of roughly 85/100 means nearly 2,000 more elk hit the ground each year. Also, hunting success was down last year as the acorn crop was big and the elk stayed in the hardwoods and out of the open, plus ice and snowstorms coincided with key weekends. This year, managers have dropped the 4-point or better antler restriction. Visit www.fw.ky.gov.

Manitoba
Elk Population: 6,100
Bull/Cow Ratio: 45/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 20-60 percent rifle, 5-10 percent archery
Highlights: You have to live in the province to draw an elk permit, and they’re avidly sought. Some very large bulls roam this country. The Duck Mountain, Interlake and Porcupine regions are all consistent trophy producers. The province has numerous elk seasons running from late August through December. Visit www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/hunting/.

Michigan
Elk Population: 780
Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 70-90 percent
Highlights: Managers have the elk population where they want it and are in maintenance mode, which explains why available elk permits dropped by roughly 30 percent. Applications this year were down slightly, with 35,000 people vying for 55 any-elk and 100 antlerless tags. Improving timber management and habitat on public land should mean more elk hunting opportunity in the future. Visit www.michigan.gov/dnrhunting.

Minnesota
Elk Population: 175
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 72 percent
Highlights: Less than 1,000 hunters applied in 2010 for the dozen once-in-a-lifetime elk tags available (at $250 each). But a widely publicized monster bull scoring 458-4/8 was found in Minnesota last year, and word got out that this state can grow massive trophies. No word yet on whether applications rose. The state has two herds. Managers counted 35-40 elk in the Grygla herd, which is a couple more than what the management plan calls for, and 141 elk in the “border herd.” Visit www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/elk.

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
Nonresidents: $812
Hunter Success: 16 percent
Highlights: The biggest news for nonresidents is the 37 percent jump in the price of an elk permit. A ballot initiative last November abolished 5,500 outfitter-sponsored licenses and forced all nonresident hunters into the drawing. For those who drew a bull tag in the Bear Paws or Big Snowies, the higher fees could be money well spent, as the bulls there are growing old and big. Winter was tough in parts of central and eastern Montana, but elk in the legendary Missouri River Breaks came through fine. Hunters would be smart to look at Region 3, which yields almost 50 percent of the annual elk harvest, including some big bulls. Wolves have taken a brutal toll on some herds. In the Danaher Basin of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, cow/calf ratios are just 9/100, down from a long-term average of 24/100. Herds in the West Fork of the Bitterroot and the lower Clark Fork watershed are in steep decline, and the famed northern Yellowstone herd continues to plummet. Visit www.fwp.mt.gov.

Nebraska
Elk Population: 2,300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/50
Residents only
Hunter Success: 61 percent
Highlights: Landowners are allotted one-third of all elk tags, and this year, both landowners and the general public will have the best opportunity in a decade with 294 tags, up 22 from last year. For public-land hunters, the rugged Pine Ridge in the northern panhandle offers good odds as three units there hold more than half the state’s elk herd, two-thirds of the total permit allocation and more than 100,000 acres of public land.
Visit www.outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunting.

Nevada
Elk Population: 13,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $142 license plus $1,200 tag
Hunter Success: 47 percent
Highlights: Through the drawing, an elk tag costs well over a grand, and that’s a steal compared to the 89 private landowner tags that sold for more than $7,800 on average last year. But 66 percent of the bulls killed last year were six-points or better, many of them jaw-droppers. Nevada’s herd has grown dramatically, swelling by 10 percent this year alone. That’s great news for residents who get 4,600 tags–a good thousand more than last year. Nonresidents are allotted 133 and odds of drawing one were 1/44 in 2009. Visit www.ndow.org/hunt.

New Mexico
Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40-45/100
Nonresidents: $555 standard bull, $780 quality bull
Hunter Success: 33 percent
Highlights: A mild winter and expected monsoons should have elk in top shape this fall. The state is split roughly into 30 percent “quality” units (big bulls, small odds) and 70 percent “opportunity” units. Hunters looking for plenty of opportunity should focus on the north-central units including Unit 36 where elk herds continue to grow and managers have issued more permits. For last-minute nonresident hunters with cash to spend, landowner tags are your ticket. Hunters will have a little more time to get their bull this year, with shooting hours expanded to 30 minutes before sunrise and after sunset. Visit www.wildlife.state.nm.us.

North Dakota
Elk Population: 1,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: One raffle tag available
Hunter Success: 49 percent
Highlights: For the past few years, North Dakota has had far more elk than managers wanted. That changed last fall and winter as hunters in Theodore Roosevelt National Park culled 406 elk out of an estimated 950. Managers still hope to get numbers under 400 and another shoot is likely this year. Outside of the park, elk can be found in the northeast corner and along the west-central border, with estimated numbers at around 450. Other small herds are scattered in pockets throughout the state. This year, managers will issue 500 tags–355 any-sex and 145 antlerless tags. Visit www.gf.nd.gov/hunting.

Oklahoma
Elk Population: 2,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $306
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Only 85 public-land permits were available this year, down from 330 last year. The largest herd and best opportunity is on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. A few small herds are scattered in the northeast and southeast corners of the state with one permit available for those areas. Residents looking to pull one of these once-in-a-lifetime tags have less than a 1 percent chance. But there is no quota on private-land elk and hunting access can be had for a fee. Visit www.wildlifedepartment.com.

Ontario
Elk Population: 700
Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Thirteen years after RMEF helped reintroduce elk to Ontario, the province will hold its first modern elk hunt this year. Between 300-775 elk reside in the Bancroft-North Hastings area in the southern end of the province where the hunt will take place. Lucky hunters now hold 24 bull tags and 46 cow tags for the late-September hunt. Visit www.ontario.ca/hunting.

Oregon
Elk Population: 125,000 (65,000 Rocky Mountain, 60,000 Roosevelt’s)
Bull/Cow Ratio: 19/100 Rocky Mountain, 13/100 Roosevelt’s
Nonresidents: $141 license, $501 tag
Hunter Success: 16 percent Rocky Mountain, 12 percent Roosevelt’s
Highlights: Much of eastern Oregon saw record snowfall in the mountains, and biologists are hopeful that elk populations came out unscathed. Bowhunters can prowl most of the east side with only a general tag. For rifle hunters, nearly everything east of the Cascades is permit-only, save for a second-season rifle hunt in a few units of the northeast. Roosevelt’s elk tags are still over-the-counter (except for the far northwest and southwest corners), herds are strong and there are some beasts on the hoof. This season, hunters 17 and under are required to wear a hunter orange hat or vest when hunting any big game with any firearm. Visit www.dfw.state.or.us.

Pennsylvania
Elk Population: 750
Bull/Cow ratio: 28/100
Nonresidents: $101 license, $250 elk tag
Hunter success: 80 percent
Highlights: It’s been reported before and here it is again: Pennsylvania could produce a bull this year that breaks not only state but also world records. Along with antler size, elk populations and hunter opportunity are growing. With the herd up 7 percent over last year, the state is offering 10 more antlerless tags for a total of 18 bull permits and 38 antlerless. Odds for drawing remain slim (around 1/1000), but if you do pull the coveted tag, the state boasts the highest success rate in North America. And more than half of the elk live on over a million acres of public land. Visit www.pgc.state.pa.us.

Saskatchewan
Elk Population: 16,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 23 percent
Highlights: It was a tough winter across much of the province, and the central and northeast areas saw high deer mortality and some elk mortality. Near the town of Hudson Bay, though, where the prairie meets the forest, managers have implemented a bulls-only season, followed by an either-sex season–all of which can be had with over-the-counter tags. In the south, elk populations are on the rise and each year seems to bring new hunting opportunities. New in 2011 are antlerless seasons in zones 21, north of Regina, and 52, south of Prince Albert. Visit www.environment.gov.sk.ca/hunting.

South Dakota
Elk Population: 3,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 53 percent
Highlights: There are several small prairie herds scattered across the state, but managers want to see the Black Hills herd grow to roughly 4,000. They aim to increase hunter opportunity in the long term, which means decreased hunter opportunity in the short term. Managers cut any-elk rifle tags by 25 to 470. Antlerless tags took an even bigger hit, dropping from 570 to 395. Visit www.sdgfp.info/wildlife/hunting.

Tennessee
Elk Population: 300-400
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: 1 permit to nonresidents and 1 auction tag
Hunter Success: 60 percent
Highlights: Tennessee’s elk population is holding steady but the ultimate goal is a herd of 2,000 animals. Managers are working to expand and improve elk range while keeping hunt permits conservative. Only four permits are available for residents. Last year, two of those hunters failed to fill their tags. Visit www.state.tn.us/twra/elkmain.html.

Utah
Elk Population: 72,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $80 license plus $280 to $1,500 permit
Hunter Success: 17 percent
Highlights: Utah has produced a staggering number of record-book bulls over the past decade. The state’s largest herds are found in the Wasatch, Plateau and Fish Lake units, which should produce some serious antler growth this year on the heels of a particularly wet spring. The fact that the overall population continues to grow as well is testament to good management. The state issued 1,200 more cow tags and 1,250 more spike permits this fall. Odds are still tough for limited-entry tags. Nonresidents get 10 percent of available rifle tags. Visit www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame.

Washington
Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100
Nonresidents: $434 (will increase to $497 before season starts)
Hunter Success: 8 percent general, 39 percent for special limited-entry permits
Highlights: The state’s elk population is divided about evenly between Roosevelt’s in the west and Rocky Mountain elk to the east. In the famous Blue Mountains of southeast Washington, resident and nonresident hunters alike will find over-the-counter spike tags readily available. Highly-prized permits for branch-antlered bulls will be far tougher to come by. The Yakima herd has improved and this year the area has increased antlerless permits. In the Mount St. Helens area, managers are still trying to decrease herd numbers with more special permits for antlerless elk. Both nonresident and resident hunters should take note that elk tag fees will jump nearly 15 percent effective September 1 to help cover budget shortfalls. Visit www.wdfw.wa.gov/hunting.

Wyoming
Elk Population: 120,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $591 permit, $302 cow-calf permit, $1,071 special permit
Hunter Success: 44 percent
Highlights: Last year, hunters harvested 25,600 elk, up from the five-year average of 21,000. Biologists say mature bulls continue to thrive in most hunting units and the statewide population remains above management objectives. The dark exception is the state’s northwest corner. Elk numbers in the Clark’s Fork and Cody herds are still down due to predation and poor habitat. The Jackson herd that summers in Yellowstone is well off the mark, too, and managers are being conservative on tags. Roughly half the hunting units just outside the park have set quotas, one is closed and rest are limited to antlered elk only. Visit www.gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/hunting.

Yukon Territory
Elk Population: 250-300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 24/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 52 percent
Highlights: With two distinct herds, Takhini and Braeburn, the territory held its first elk hunt in a quarter-century in 2009, and followed it with a second hunt last year. Those hunts were overwhelmingly successful–too successful. Hunters had a 73 percent success rate on bulls and a 31 percent success rate on cows. So this year managers are offering cow-only permits to lighten the pressure on bulls while reducing overall herd numbers down to management objectives. The target bull/cow ratio for the area is 50/100. Visit www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca.

Earlier this year, a guest writer provided readers with information on hantavirus, “a deadly disease transmitted by infected rodents through urine, droppings, or saliva. Humans can contact the disease when they breathe in the aerosolized virus.”

Now, the state of New Mexico and their Health Department, have confirmed a fifth case of the disease.

A fifth case of hantavirus has been confirmed in New Mexico. The New Mexico Department of Health says a 59-year-old woman from McKinley County is hospitalized at University Hospital in critical condition with the infection.

I good recommendation would be for readers to go back and reread the information provided by David Miller on hantavirus and then take necessary precautions in order to diminish the risks of becoming a victim.

*Update* Perhaps the following information lends to a bit of reasoning as to why there may be more rodents attributing to hantavirus than is needed.

EPA Announces Intent To Ban Pesticide Products: On June 7, 2011, EPA announced its intent to ban sales of the most toxic residential rodenticides, as well as the sale of most loose bait and pellet products. EPA is also requiring that all newly registered rat and mouse rodenticides poison marketed to residential consumers be enclosed in bait stations that render the pesticide inaccessible to children and pets. In 2008, EPA gave producers of certain rodenticides until June 4, 2011, to research, develop, and register new products that would in EPA’s view be safer for children, pets, and wildlife. There are now seven new products on the market with new bait delivery systems. EPA announced its intent to initiate cancellation proceedings under FIFRA against companies that elected not to conform their products to EPA’s recommendations. EPA also intends to ban the sale and distribution of rodenticide products containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum directly to residential consumers reportedly because of their toxicity and the secondary poisoning hazards to wildlife. These rodenticides will still be available for use in residential settings, but only by professional pest control applicators. The compounds will also be allowed for use in agricultural settings. Bait stations will be required, however, for all outdoor, above-ground uses to minimize exposure to children, pets, and wildlife.

Tom Remington

Also receiving RMEF funding is a research project measuring impacts of wolf restoration on elk populations in the Gila National Forest.

Combined, the new RMEF grants total $75,503 and affect nine counties: Catron, Cibola, Lincoln, Mora, Otero, Sandoval, San Juan, Socorro and Taos counties.

“It’s a never-ending battle to knock back the pinyon and juniper encroaching into areas where elk used to graze, but it’s still one of the most important habitat issues in New Mexico today,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Providing adequate water is another concern, and we’re sending significant dollars toward replacing and repairing guzzlers for elk and other wildlife.”

He added, “All together, the habitat improvement projects that RMEF is funding this year could add at least 6,600 acres to the 455,023 acres that we’ve previously helped to conserve or enhance for wildlife in New Mexico.”

Nationally, RMEF hopes to impact about 100,000 acres in 2011 to reach the 6 million-acre lifetime mark in lands conserved or enhanced for elk and other wildlife.

Allen thanked RMEF volunteers and fundraiser attendees for building the organization’s grant coffers in New Mexico, saying, “Because of their amazing passion and generous support, a major conservation milestone is within reach.”

RMEF grants will help fund the following 2011 projects, listed by county:

Catron County–Research elk habitat use and mortality from predation in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area of the Gila National Forest. Wildlife managers will use results to develop elk harvest quotas.

Cibola County–Begin first phase of the new Bluewater Ecosystem Management Project to restore habitat in the Zuni Mountains west of Grants, N.M. First-year projects include thinning 2,123 acres of pinyon, juniper and other encroaching shrubs and trees, and prescribe burning 2,720 acres in the Cibola National Forest.

Lincoln County–Deepen two existing wetlands and create six additional wetlands to improve water availability for elk in 16-acre Blue Lake meadow in Lincoln National Forest.

Mora County–Restore riparian zones to improve wetland forage, provide water and improve habitat for elk and other wildlife east of Wagon Mound, N.M.

Otero County–Replace a nonfunctioning guzzler while increasing capacity to 4,500 gallons to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife on the Sacramento Escarpment on BLM lands east of Tularosa, N.M.; prescribe burn 450 acres to improve forage in the Southern Sacramento Mountains Restoration Project Area of Lincoln National Forest.

Sandoval County–Install two large water tanks on Santa Fe National Forest, one in the Cuba Ranger District and one in the Jemez Ranger District, to enhance habitat for elk and minimize conflicts with elk on adjacent Bandelier National Monument.

San Juan County–Thin encroaching pinyon and juniper on 126 acres and install a new “inverted umbrella” wildlife-watering device to improve habitat for elk, deer, turkey, bear and other species in the Rattlesnake Canyon Wildlife Specially Designated Area.

Socorro County–Improve forage for elk by mechanically treating 267 acres of pinyon-juniper encroachment on BLM lands in the East Magdalena area.

Taos County–Repair guzzler to improve water availability for elk and other wildlife on BLM lands near Cerro del Aire; construct exclosure fencing around young aspen stands to protect from over-browsing on BLM lands on Taos Plateau.

Projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities.

Partners for 2011 projects in New Mexico include Bureau of Land Management (BLM), New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Texas Tech University, U.S. Forest Service, other agencies, organizations and landowners.

Since 1985, RMEF and its partners have completed 256 different conservation and education projects in New Mexico with a combined value of more than $19.3 million.

Below is a copy of the letter (find a full copy of the letter here.), and a copy of the resolution (a full copy of the original document found here.)

January 21, 2011

The Honorable Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar:

At its recent mid-winter meeting in Tucson, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (Association) directors discussed – at length – the current situation involving gray wolf delisting. Those discussions led to the development and eventual passage (17-0, with Montana abstaining) of the attached resolution titled Delist the Gray Wolf and Restore Management to the States. The language of the resolution expresses the collective view of member agencies. At its core, the resolution – without ambiguity – clearly states the Association’s support for and endorsement of immediate delisting of gray wolves in the WAFWA member states from the Endangered Species Act, “…….either through legislative or
administrative means, and that this species be managed by the respective State wildlife agencies”.

Founded in 1922, the Association represents 23 states and Canadian provinces, spanning from Alaska to Saskatchewan to Texas to Hawaii. The Association is a strong advocate of the rights of states and provinces to manage fish and wildlife within their borders. The Association has been a key organization in promoting the principles of sound resource management and the building of partnerships at the regional, national and international levels in order to enhance wildlife conservation efforts and the protection of associated habitats in the public interest. Our mission statement reads, “Delivering Conservation Through Information Exchange and Working Partnerships.”

Given the Association’s long history and stellar conservation record, the resolution – in sum – reflects the all too common and unacceptable level of frustration that directors are currently experiencing when it comes to the status of the gray wolf in the West. It is the sincere hope of our member agencies that a way forward can be found, and found very soon – one that removes ESA protection for the gray wolf and returns management to the respective States.

We appreciate your serious consideration of the Association’s position on this important resource issue. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joe Maurier
WAFWA President

~~~~~~~~

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Resolution

DELIST THE GRAY WOLF AND RESTORE MANAGEMENT TO THE STATES

WHEREAS, the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of gray wolves exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery level of thirty or more breeding pairs in 2002; and

WHEREAS, population estimates as of 2009 include at least 1,700 animals well distributed among Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and

WHEREAS, the remarkable increase in gray wolf populations was only possible because of the historic management and stewardship of ungulates by state fish and wildlife agencies; and

WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”; and

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the ESA has clearly been achieved for the gray wolf, and gray wolves have recovered in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and

WHEREAS, a lack of delisting, given the species has met recovery goals, can result in an erosion of public acceptance of wolves and the ESA; and

WHEREAS, State wildlife agencies are the competent authorities to manage resident species for their sustained use and enjoyment; and

WHEREAS, the overall aim of the ESA is to recover species such that the species can be managed by the appropriate entity. State wildlife agencies are the appropriate entities to assume management of the gray wolf as a resident species; and

WHEREAS, delays in federal decision-making, induced partly by citizen-suit litigation over virtually all aspects of Mexican gray wolf recovery, have, after 34 years of protection under the ESA, including 12 years of reintroduction efforts, resulted in failure to recover the Mexican gray wolf; and

WHEREAS, the States of Arizona and New Mexico, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, various local governments and local stakeholders are willing and able to use incentives and interdiction measures without being encumbered by the gridlock resulting from federal listing, to increase the Mexican gray wolf population to levels in both states that, coupled with conservation efforts in Mexico, would establish and maintain a rangewide population of Mexican gray wolves that is self-sustaining and managed at levels sufficient to meet scientifically-valid population objectives.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies supports and endorses immediate delisting of gray wolves in the WAFWA member states from the ESA, either through legislative or administrative means, and that this species be managed by the respective State wildlife agencies.

Adopted in Convention
Tucson, Arizona
January 9, 2011

The Center for Biological Diversity, a radical environmentalist organization that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in lawsuits and is responsible for the destruction of many other wildlife species, has notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that if the Service does not respond with creating a nationwide plan for wolf recovery, they will sue in 60 days.

While Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah in the West and Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan in the Mid-West, struggle with public safety, depredation, loss of game animals, destruction of property, loss of rights and more, the environmentalists continue their march forward for dominance, seeking a means in which to cripple the country and destroy the hunting, trapping and fishing industries.

The level of social dissatisfaction has risen so high in the past few months that state after state are seeking relief from this intrusive wolf recovery, championed by a corrupt U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reports of wolf invasions and encounters have risen sharply, an event well predicted by knowledgeable scientists and ignored by those bent on wolf introduction and recovery. Livestock depredation is increasing at accelerated rates and not being addressed by the Federal Government that’s responsible for this illegal invasion.

The push back by citizens and state governments have become so great that several bills have been drafted seeking relief from the intrusion and destruction of the gray wolf. The legislative bills come on the heels of continued failures in the courts because of a seemingly disinterested Department of Interior willing to stand up and fight for what is right. The greed of the environmentalists have sent politicians scrambling in Washington, crafting legislation that would exempt wolves from any consideration of protection under the Endangered Species Act. Such a more would and should set the stage for the total destruction of the Endangered Species Act or at least begin a process to make much needed changes that would return the Act to a law that would actually protect species while working in harmony with the citizens of this great nation.

And yet, the Center for Biological Diversity intends to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because it demands a nationwide wolf recovery plan. Do we really want the entire lower 48 states, as well as Alaska, to become what Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have become? That is what they are asking for.

The crippling effects of a wolf encroachment on human life far outweigh any mythical advantage proposed by agenda-driven environmentalists. While they pedal their fables about what it’s like to live with wolves and how beneficial they are to our ecosystems, the truth is being played out in areas where wolves have taken over. It is not a pretty sight. This has to stop. The last thing the United States of America needs are wolves spread from sea to shining sea.

Tom Remington

“Generally speaking, elk populations are in great shape and hunters have much to look forward to across the West, as well as in several Midwestern and Eastern states,” said David Allen, president and CEO of the Elk Foundation. “A mild winter, much needed spring and summer moisture and our habitat conservation successes all factor into our optimism for the upcoming hunting season.”

This summer, RMEF passed the 5.8 million acre mark for habitat conserved or enhanced for elk and other wildlife.

Allen added, however, that wolves continue to be a growing concern in regions where the predators share habitat with elk and other big game herds. In some areas, elk calf survival rates are now insufficient to sustain herds for the future. The urgent need to control wolf populations is a localized wildlife management crisis now compounded by a recent court decision to return wolves to full federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. RMEF has asked Congress to intervene and grant management authority to the states.

Here’s a condensed look at elk data from state and provincial wildlife conservation agencies. To see these forecasts in their entirety, with links to respective elk regulations or other Web pages, visit www.rmef.org. For even more coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2010 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

Alaska
· Elk Population: Kodiak Archipelago (GMU 8), 650; Etolin (GMU 3), not available
· Bull/Cow Ratios: Not available
· Nonresidents: $85 hunting license plus $300 elk tag, and must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: GMU 8, 17 percent; GMU 3, 5 percent
While bulls in the lower 48 average 700 pounds, bulls in GMU 3′s South Etolin Wilderness in southeast Alaska can get up to 1,300. However, recent success rates hover at just 5 percent with an annual average of six bulls killed for the entire unit. Zarembo Island northwest of Etolin has remained closed to hunting since 2006 because of low elk numbers. For GMU 8 in southern Alaska, odds are considerably better at 17 percent. Area biologist Larry van Deale says some recent trophies would have made the record books had the hunters cared to enter them.

Alberta
· Elk Population: 33,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province offers opportunities for fine elk hunting as herds expand east and south onto the prairies and parklands. As herds grow, managers establish more hunting opportunities–last year alone saw three new areas open to elk hunting. Some of the biggest bulls are in these new units. The northern-most units have hunts well into January, and landowners typically welcome responsible cow hunters with open arms. The best (and only) shot for a nonresident is to go through an outfitter, as they are allotted roughly 10 percent of draw tags.

Arizona
· Elk Population: 25,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
· Nonresidents: $121 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $595 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Even though the state claims 25,000 elk, its mesas and arroyos could be hiding upwards of 40,000, says Brian Wakeling, Arizona’s game branch chief. They conduct elk counts in August and September, and the thick tree cover makes it tough to get accurate counts with aerial surveys. Overlooked elk means better odds for hunters. Plus, with abundant moisture this winter and little winterkill, elk herds are flourishing. Last year saw little daylight rut activity with bulls bugling only by moonlight, which held bowhunter success to around 25 percent. Logic says those big bulls that survived merely got bigger for this season. Also note the agency’s goal to get bull/cow ratios down to 25/100 to create more hunter opportunity. Translation: more bull tags.

Arkansas
· Elk Population: 500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: varies for private landowner tags and three auction tags
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
When Arkansas held its first elk-hunting season in 1998, hunter success was close to 100 percent. Now the elk are far wilier. Out-of-state hunters have a couple options: either buy an auction tag or contact a landowner for access. For the latter, hunters must receive written permission from the landowner to hunt their private property, and can only hunt there. Available tags remain the same as last year: 29 public-land tags (8 bull, 16 antlerless, 2 either-sex youth tags, plus 3 either-sex auction tags).

British Columbia
· Elk Population: 50,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Nonresidents: $189 hunting license plus $262.50 for elk permit. Must hire a guide.
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province boasts a thriving population of Rocky Mountain elk and some of the biggest Roosevelt’s bulls in the world, says Stephen MacIver, wildlife regulations officer. However, a hunter must first hurdle the odds of drawing a limited-entry tag. The odds are roughly 35:1. However, guides are allotted a percentage of the tags. Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast in the far west have strong populations of Roosevelt’s. For Rocky Mountain elk, your best bet would be the Kootenay region in the southeast, which boasts the province’s highest success rates. Another good option is the agricultural zones in the Peace River region.

California
· Elk Population: 1,500 Rocky Mountains, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tules
· Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
· Nonresidents: $145 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,173 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 75 percent
Conditions are ripe for a world’s record tule, says Joe Hobbs, California Fish and Game elk coordinator. On the East Park Reservoir Unit, good spring rains this year and a low harvest of old bulls last year have left the environment in top shape for antler growth. The bad news? Your odds of drawing a bull tag there are 1 in 350. On the Grizzly Island unit, odds are 1 in 1,000. Auction tags are a possibility, too, but if odds and auctions aren’t your thing, private landowners receive a limited number of tags, and some are available for sale. The Marble Mountains unit in the northwest has 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags.

Colorado
· Elk Population: 286,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
· Nonresidents: cow $354, any elk $544
· Hunter Success: 23 percent
Colorado is the land of plenty for elk and elk hunters but it isn’t currently known for producing behemoth bulls. That could be a different story this hunting season. The past two falls have been cursed with warm weather. In the northwest where many of the bigger bulls roam, elk migration didn’t even begin until after regular rifle seasons were over. Couple that with abundant spring and summer moisture producing high quality forage and the setup is perfect for more trophy bulls. The state’s more-than 200,000 elk hunters also will find that cow tags have gone up $100, the Division of Wildlife has recommended cutting 1,500 cow/either-sex rifle tags across the state, and over-the-counter archery licenses for units 54, 55 and 551 have been nixed. On the other hand, places where herds remain above objective, such as the Gunnison Basin, will see more rifle tags available.

Idaho
· Elk Population: 101,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 25/100
· Nonresidents: license $155, tag $417
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Since 2007, Idaho’s elk population has fallen by 24,000. And for the second year in a row, out-of-state tag revenues in the state have mirrored that trend. Hunters list wolves, the economy and nonresident tag prices as factors. This isn’t ideal for state wildlife coffers, but it could be ideal if you’re looking for elk hunting all to yourself. Wolves have hit elk populations hard in the classic elk country of the Lolo, Sawtooth and Selway areas, and the state has capped tags. Bull/cow and cow/calf ratios are in tough shape, and the statewide population could fall below 100,000 for the first time in decades. But the declines are by no means across the board. Elk populations are at or above objectives in 22 of 29 elk hunt zones. And a mild winter boosted cow and calf elk survival rates across most of the state. The Beaverhead, Lemhi, Island Park, Teton, Snake River, Palisades and Tex Creek zones all have healthy herds and offer the kind of elk hunting Idaho is famous for.

Kansas
· Elk Population: 250-275
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: Private landowner permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
· Hunter Success: 75 percent either sex, 50 anterless
Kansas now has unlimited over-the-counter either-sex elk tags. In certain counties across the state, namely those not adjacent to Fort Riley or Cimarron National Grasslands, any resident can purchase one, hook up with a landowner and hunt elk. Landowners in Hamilton County in western Kansas voiced concern over crop depredation, and biologists responded with the liberal permits. If you care to play the odds, enter the drawing for a once-in-a-lifetime tag. More than half the state’s elk reside on and around 100,000-acre Fort Riley, which allows hunting: 12 either-sex (up 4 from last year) and 15 antlerless permits.

Kentucky
· Elk Population: 10,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
· Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $365 for permit, $130 for hunting license
· Hunter Success: 80 percent
This year, the Bluegrass State’s wapiti hunt was so in-demand that applicants from all 50 states applied, plus the District of Columbia. That’s a great vote of confidence for the East’s biggest herd, but it means the odds of drawing got even longer for nonresidents: 1:200. For Kentuckians, you’re competing against 29,000 other hunters for 720 tags–far better odds at 1:42. Permit numbers in the state have been on a rollercoaster. Last year, permits rocketed up 50 percent to 1,000 tags. Hunters had 60 percent success on cows and 91 percent on bulls. So, managers reined in the number of permits this year back to 800 in hopes of beefing up the population.

Manitoba
· Elk Population: 6,500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-45/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Elk are the “most desired species to hunt” among province residents, says Ken Rebizant, provincial big game manager. Traditional strongholds such as the Porcupine, Interlake and Duck Mountain regions are going to have elk, and big ones, but they’re tough draws, as the province has no over-the-counter tags. But, since bovine tuberculosis has impacted the Riding Mountain herd, provoking managers to reduce herd numbers, interest in that area has waned. That may be all a resident needs to finally draw an elk tag.

Michigan
· Elk Population: 780
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 70 percent
For years, the state has tried to get its elk numbers down to around 800 and now it seems managers have succeeded. The tendency for elk to wreak havoc on some ag operations in the northern lower peninsula had managers working hard to reduce the herd. Now that they’ve hit their mark, Michigan will offer 230 tags, 150 less than last year. This year, the state will offer 75 any-elk tags with 155 antlerless.

Minnesota
· Elk Population: 170
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 79 percent
This year, Minnesota will issue 11 once-in-a-lifetime tags for two separate seasons. Last year, 2,072 applicants put their name in for 30 permits. The state gives landowners 20 percent of the available tags. Last year, managers were able to work out a five-year management plan that calls for 30-38 elk in the Grygla herd, 20-30 animals in the Kittson Central herd and a currently undetermined number in the Caribou-Vita herd. Discussions are being held between the state DNR and Manitoba Conservation regarding population goals for the Caribou-Vita herd, which freely travels across the border.

Montana
· Elk Population: 150,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
· Nonresidents: $593
· Hunter Success: 22 percent
There are plenty of elk in many pockets of Big Sky country. In fact, Montana continues to boast the second highest elk population of any state by a margin of 30,000 animals. But some populations have plummeted in the past five years. The northern Yellowstone herd is down to 6,000 animals from 19,000 in 1996. Areas north of Yellowstone National Park have seen permits cut and over-the-counter tags change to a draw. Populations in the West Fork of the Bitterroot River and the lower Clark Fork River are 60 percent below objective with just 7 calves per 100 cows. All antlerless tags have been cut and bulls will be hard to come by. Elk populations are well below objectives throughout much of Region 1 in the northwest. Hunters will find elk widely dispersed and wary throughout their traditional ranges in the western third of the state where wolves howl. But the farther one goes east of the Continental Divide, the more elk appear. Most of the eastern portion of the state is 20 percent above population objectives.

Nebraska
· Elk Population: 2,400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 80 percent bulls, 58 percent cows
The state’s elk herd is still growing consistently around 15-20 percent every year. As numbers grow, opportunities to hunt grow with them, but only if you’re a resident. This year, the state will issue 272 tags, up 40 from last year, with 98 bull and 174 cow permits. To promote strong landowner relations, one-third of those permits are available to private landowners in a drawing and are non-transferable.

Nevada
· Elk Population: 12,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
· Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $1,200 tag
· Hunter Success: 44 percent
In the past two years, the state’s elk population has grown nearly 30 percent. Opportunities for hunters to chase them have followed suit. A few hundred tags more than last year will be issued this season for a total of 3,350. Ten percent of those tags go to nonresidents who are looking at pretty decent 1:44 odds to draw a bull tag. The quality of bulls in the harvest remains high with more than 67 percent of bulls reported being six points or better. The state’s Elk Management on Private Lands Program distributed 66 tags to property owners to do with as they wish. Estimated revenue generated from those tags topped nearly $500,000 for the landowners.

New Mexico
· Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 42/100
· Nonresidents: $27 nonrefundable fee to enter drawing, plus $562 standard bull tag or $787 quality bull tag
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Out-of-staters looking to hunt here will find no over-the-counter tags. Those who didn’t draw may be able to contact a landowner for one of their tags (be ready to write a hefty check). The state has no bonus or preference point system. Residents get the bulk of the tags, 78 percent. The state’s units are broken into “quality” and “opportunity” hunts. The former will get you a better chance at bigger bulls, but odds are steep. The Gila area holds around 20,000 elk.

North Dakota
· Elk Population: 2,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: One auction tag available
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
Big news this year is the hunt inside Theodore Roosevelt National Park. With 950 elk, the park is looking to control elk populations, possibly killing 275 elk for the next five years to get the population at 100-400. For the rest of the state’s elk, things are pretty much status quo. Managers issued 561 tags–with 245 any-sex and 315 antlerless tags, the same as last year. Almost all hunting is now in the western Badlands.

Oklahoma
· Elk Population: 2,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $306
· Hunter Success: Not available
The Sooner State’s elk population is holding steady and the number of permits to hunt public land still hovers around 330. Odds of pulling one of those tags are dismal, less than 1 percent. But, if you do draw, there are some truly fine Okie bulls. Nonresidents looking to hunt here might do best to purchase a tag and then find a landowner who wants elk out of his winter wheat. For cow hunts, seasons are extended well into December and January.

Oregon
· Elk Population: 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15/100
· Nonresidents: license $140, tag $500
· Hunter Success: 13 percent
Due to budget constraints, biologists aren’t exactly sure how many elk they have as aerial surveys have been limited. But they think populations are stable. And, this year, managers plan to issue nearly 1,000 more permits than last season. Rocky Mountain elk dominate the east side of the Cascades while Roosevelt’s reign to the west. Most hunting in the steep and dark west is open to all comers with over-the-counter tags, while eastern Oregon is draw-only for rifle hunters. Bowhunters can hunt most of the east side with a general tag. Those eastern elk have some new neighbors, as a couple wolf packs have dispersed into the state from Idaho.

Pennsylvania
· Elk Population: 700
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 28/100
· Nonresidents: $250 for elk tag, $101 for general license
· Hunter Success: 94 percent bull, 73 percent cow
To be blunt, this state has been growing some absolute toads. In 2006, a hunter killed a 425-2/8 non-typical, while just last year a hunter killed a 423-6/8 non-typical. Both bulls were around 6 years old. Records remain to be shattered if a bull can tack on a few extra years. Managers are currently revising the state’s elk management plan to determine how many elk that habitat and society will support. In the meantime, 51 tags will again be issued this season, with 18 bull and 33 cow.

Saskatchewan
· Elk Population: 15,000-16,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Landowner tolerance for elk dictates seasons in this province. In the south where there is a lot of private farmland and the only predator carries a rifle, you’ll find ample antlerless quotas meant to get elk off the crops and into freezers. If you want a bull, this just might be your year. With so much open ag land, bulls are easy to spot. To help them gain a little antler weight, managers only allow them to be hunted every third year, which has produced some 400-inch monsters. Moose Mountain Provincial Park in the southeast corner is home to 1,400 elk and has seen numbers gaining strength in the past decade. This is a draw-only unit, open to either-sex hunting, and also has outstanding bulls.
For challenging over-the-counter hunts, the north-central and western regions offer forests and meadow fringes that hide elk along with plenty of their four-legged predators.

South Dakota
· Elk Population: 5,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 75/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 50 percent
The state’s largest herd in the Black Hills National Forest numbered as many as 5,000 animals back in 2003. Aggressive management knocked that number down to the current 3,000. But public attitudes have shifted and there is once again a cry for more elk and more hunting opportunity. To reach a goal of 4,000 in the Hills, managers have had to cut rifle tags again this year to 1,065–a drop of 300 from last year. Still, residents’ odds of hunting a bull in the Black Hills are a solid 1:10. If you pull a tag, make the most of it, as you have to wait nine years to apply again.

Tennessee
· Elk Population: 400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $10 fee to enter drawing, $300 if drawn
· Hunter Success: 100 percent
“We want to grow this elk herd and add more hunters,” says Steve Bennett, elk restoration project coordinator. The herd seems to be cooperating. Last year, five lucky hunters participated in the state’s first sanctioned elk hunt, taking five elk, four on the first day. State wildlife managers hope to see the herd reach 2,000 animals within the next two decades.

Utah
· Elk Population: 68,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15-80/100
· Nonresidents: $65 hunting license, plus $388 general tag, $795 limited-entry tag or $1,500 premium limited-entry tag
· Hunter Success: 17 percent
Statewide, hunters kill bulls that average around 6½ years, and Utah has seen good moisture this past winter and spring, keeping the hills green and lush. Translation: healthy brutes with big headgear. The most popular units include San Juan and Fillmore Pahvant but odds of drawing a limited-entry tag are tough. For residents, it’s 1:16. Nonresidents, 1:44. There are over-the-counter options, especially for archery hunters who are willing to hike into wilderness.

Washington
· Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100 in most units
· Nonresidents: $432
· Hunter Success: 8 percent
Washington has more hunters per elk than any other state. Managers help control densities by making hunters choose either westside Roosevelt’s or eastside Rocky Mountain elk. Both hunters and elk are split about 50/50. Generally, herd numbers are stable this season but the Yakima herd has seen a drop in calf recruitment, thus special permits for both branch-antlered bulls and cows have been cut 30-40 percent. While it may take some time for the Yakima herd to rebound, the state has plenty of other hot spots like the classic elk country of the Blue Mountains. This area in the southeast corner has seen an increase in bull permits the last few years. The southwest also offers over-the-counter permits, especially on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest around Mt. St. Helens where managers are trying to knock down herd numbers. Wolves have established at least two confirmed packs on the eastside.

Wyoming
· Elk Population 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
· Nonresidents: $577 for permit, $288 for cow-calf permit, $1,057 for special permit
· Hunter Success: 43 percent
Certain places in Wyoming have seen significant impacts from wolves and other carnivores. Much of the Cody herd, near Yellowstone, is seeing poor calf-recruitment made worse by predation. Once a general hunting area, it is now a limited-entry draw. Areas around Jackson Hole and the Gros Ventre and Teton Wilderness Areas will see tightened seasons and antler-point restrictions to try and boost bull/cow and cow/calf ratios. Outside the northwest corner, the state’s elk populations are up 15,000 from last year and many units are far above objectives. The statewide objective is 80,000 elk. That’s 40,000 less than where the herd stands now. The state expects to have lots of leftover antlerless licenses. Aggressive seasons have been set in many places including the Snowy Range, Laramie Peak and Sierra Madre. Last year, the state shifted to a first-come/first-served online licensing system. Out-of-staters can now search for leftover licenses without having to wait in line (in Wyoming) for reduced and full-price tags. For those more interested in hunting bulls, the state allots 16 percent of its limited quota and general licenses to nonresidents.

Yukon Territory
· Elk Population: 250-300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 29 percent
This province, which boasts 70,000 moose and only 35,000 people, last year held its first official elk hunt in 25 years. Twenty-six hunters took an elk home for the freezer. While much of the Yukon’s northern boreal forest can’t support elk, the Takhini Valley to the
south along the Alaska highway, and Braeburn to the north along the Klondike Highway, are elk strongholds. A total of 63 permits will be distributed by lottery for Takhini. Up in Braeburn, six permits are available.

The new RMEF funding, totaling $49,440, will affect Catron, Cibola, Mora, Otero, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe, Sierra and Socorro counties.

“These grants are possible because of the successful banquets and fundraisers staged over the past year by our New Mexico volunteers?most of whom are elk hunters as well as devoted conservationists,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Since 1984, our annual grants have helped complete 239 different projects in New Mexico with a combined value of more than $18.3 million.”

RMEF grants will help fund the following projects, listed by county:

Catron County – Mechanically treat 716 acres of encroaching conifer to improve forage for elk in Pelona Mountain area of BLM lands; repair water tanks and windmills and construct fencing to improve permanent water sources for wildlife and livestock in Sweazea Draw Meadow area.

Cibola County – Launch first phase of a multi-year 30,000-acre project to restore ponderosa pine forest and meadow habitat for elk and other wildlife in Cibola National Forest near Grants, N.M. First-phase treatment includes enhancing 1,388 acres of ponderosa pine and mountain meadow habitat.

Mora County – Restore grassland, wet meadow and riparian habitat in Wagon Mound area to benefit the region’s elk herd.

Otero County – Thin up to 800 acres of overgrown forests in Lincoln National Forest to rejuvenate habitat for elk, mule deer, wild turkey, Montezuma quail and other species.

Rio Arriba County – Prescribe burn 3,000 acres of ponderosa pine to create forage openings and improve forage for elk and other wildlife in Santa Fe National Forest.

Santa Fe County – Thin 30-40 acres of encroaching conifer to reduce hazardous fuels and improve habitat for elk in the La Cueva area of the Santa Fe National Forest.

Sierra County – Prescribe burn 5,000 acres of mixed conifers to restore grazing quality for elk and other wildlife in the Gila National Forest.

Socorro County – Prescribe burn 18,422 acres, and mechanically thin 2,536 acres, to restore forage areas, aspen stands, seeps and springs for elk in Cibola National Forest.

Projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities.

Partners for 2010 projects in New Mexico include the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Forest Service, other agencies, corporations and landowners.

Last September, Judge Molloy refused to allow for an emergency injunction to place the gray wolf back under Federal protection in order to stop the wolf hunts planned for Idaho and Montana. During this hearing, Molloy indicated that he was inclined to think that excluding Wyoming from the delisting process was a political move and in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

I suppose one could look at it that way but just as easily could look at it in the opposite way. To me, this shows bias from a judge who has already made up his mind and is looking for the defense in this case to prove to him that his theory is wrong. I’m not a lawyer or a judge but this isn’t exactly how I see the judicial system is supposed to work.

After yesterday’s hearing in Missoula, the Associated Press reported that Molloy expressed confusion in that he couldn’t see how legally the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could section out the state of Wyoming from the delisting process.

But Molloy told Eitel [Justice Department attorney Mike Eitel] he was having trouble accepting that the Endangered Species Act allows wolves in Wyoming to be separated from the rest of its distinct population segment.

“I understand the practical argument, I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear,” the judge said.

Perhaps the legal argument could come more easily for Molloy if he asked himself the question of how the USFWS has the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in the first place. If Molloy insists that USFWS has no authority to separate Wyoming out of the mix, then he must also accept that USFWS has no authority to create any Distinct Population Segment for any reason, at any time.

If the Endangered Species Act allows by law, which it would seem Molloy believes it does, to list a species as endangered, then according to Molloy’s own thinking process, this can only be done to include all of the 48 contiguous states. As an example, if the Federal Government decides Atlantic salmon are an endangered species, according to Molloy, there is not legal authority to separate the state of Maine from all the rest of the states for protection. The stupidity in this logic is that either a species is endangered everywhere or nowhere. The same applies to Wyoming.

Molloy and others may perceive the move to exclude Wyoming from delisting the gray wolf as political or practical but can’t that be said for every case of endangered or threatened species? Are we now supposed to disregard what is taking place on the ground in favor of political persuasions?

As was the case in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment, Judge Paul Friedman made much the same ridiculous reasoning. He ordered the gray wolf there returned to Federal protection ordering the USFWS to return with a case when they could prove they had authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for the purpose of delisting the wolf in some areas and not in others. To my knowledge the Feds have not provided that evidence to Friedman’s court and yet efforts are underway once again to delist the wolves.

It appears to me that it is just as much the judges bringing politics into the fray of court hearings from their own preconceived ideas as anyone. After the USFWS failed in their cases with Judge Molloy and failed with their case with Judge Friedman, the USFWS went back to the Federal Register and essentially turned the clock back to where gray wolves were listed as a endangered species in all 48 states, with the exception of Minnesota, whose wolves were listed as “threatened”. They did however retain the three Distinct Population Segments, i.e. the Northern Rocky Mountains, Western Great Lakes and the Southwest (maps provided at the above link). For whatever the reasons the Feds and the Courts seem to be comfortable with that as a starting point but according to both Molloy and Friedman, one has to question whether the Feds have legal authority in the ESA to have been able to create those DPSs at all.

Molloy can and probably will rule that Wyoming can’t be separated from the delisting process, only because he can and wants to. It is his contention that the only reason Wyoming was excluded was because of political reasons. From that perspective is it then feasible for a judge to reinterpret the Endangered Species Act because politics are involved and it’s politics that he doesn’t like or sit an agenda?

The ESA is a garbage Act now that has overstayed its welcome. The intent behind the Act was left behind many years ago and is now nothing more than a weapon to use and abuse by environmental groups. As a result we see ridiculous rulings from the courts that fail to take into consideration wildlife and the very species the Act was intended to save. Who is playing the politics?

Should Molloy opt to return gray wolves to Federal protection will not be because of his legal obligation to do so but because to me it appears he fails to carry his own thinking to logical conclusions. Such a statement also would further clarify the ineffectiveness of the ESA by allowing for the destruction of one species, or the rights and safety of the people, in order to save another species. This is NOT what the ESA was intended to accomplish.

Molloy needs to allow the delisting of the wolf to continue and let Wyoming work out its problems with the USFWS. Neither action is a threat of any kind to a species that was never threatened to begin with and would be the first step forward in proper wildlife management. Citing Wyoming’s exclusion is nothing more than excuse dujour.

Tom Remington