From Responsive Management:
Is the Economic Downturn Helping Hunting and Fishing Participation?
RECENT NEWS REPORTS have stated that, despite the poor economy, participation in hunting and fishing is on the rise. However, a study conducted in 2008 by Responsive Management suggests that participation is increasing because of the economic downturn, not in spite of it.
Although many factors can affect license sales, in states that have experienced an increase some officials and sportsmen think that the economic slump is the reason (2, 4, 5). A recent report by the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) and the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) states that fishing participation, as measured by license sales, increased in 2009 when compared to 2008.
...One reason might be the number of hunters who work in construction and related trades. In a 2007 nationwide survey of hunters conducted by Responsive Management and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (9), the top occupational category for employed hunters was "construction / carpentry / plumbing / electrical / craftsman," a category that strongly relates to the work required for new housing construction. Thus, in times of increased housing starts, it may be that a substantial number of hunters will have less free time to go hunting as they devote more time to work.
In addition, "work obligations" is one of the most common reasons cited by hunters for not hunting or not hunting more often. In two separate surveys of active and inactive hunters conducted in 1995 by Responsive Management (7) and in 2008 by Responsive Management and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (10), "work obligations" was among the top reasons that took away from hunters' enjoyment of hunting or caused them not to hunt.
The housing starts finding in the Responsive Management study has been discussed in several newspaper articles and columns over the past year (2, 4, 5, 11) and has been cited by at least one state official regarding recent license sales increases (2). However, one question remains: In hard economic times, in addition to having more time to hunt in general, do hunters increasingly turn to hunting to put food on the table? Some hunters who have been interviewed indicate that this is a motivating factor for them, and others say it is not (3, 11). More research is needed to explore this hypothesis. None of the other economic indicators in the 2008 Responsive Management study showed a significant correlation to hunting license sales, which could suggest that the increase in license sales is related to time available to hunt rather than to economic reasons such as hunting for meat.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Coyote Hunting Contest
From the huntingPA.com trapping forum
BAKER, Mont. (Jan. 11) - The barren buttes surrounding this small ranching town will offer scant places for coyotes to hide this weekend as hunters converge for a "calling" contest to see who can shoot the most coyotes.
Part predator control, part economic development ploy, the annual event began five years ago in a bid to pique outside interest in Baker via a $6,000 purse funded by entrance fees, local businesses and the Baker Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.
While organizers see success in the event's growth, the increasing popularity of such contests is prompting a backlash from animal rights groups and even some hunters, who contend the events trivialize the sport by turning it into a cash-fueled spectacle.
For the coyote, the hunts reflect the lowly place the animal still holds across the American West. Even as a debate rages between state and federal officials over whether its high profile cousin, the gray wolf, should be removed from the endangered species list, the coyote is stuck with the label "varmint", to be killed on sight.
Most states have few if any restrictions on killing the animal, said Stephen Price, president of coyoteclub.org, which connects hunters with ranchers hoping to eliminate the animals from their land.
In Baker, a town of about 1,700 tucked against the North Dakota border, supporters of this weekend's contest say it will deliver a much-needed jolt to the area's economy, drawing some 180 participants from as far away as Chicago and Seattle. They also say fewer coyotes means fewer livestock killings.
I don't know why God put them on this Earth," said Jerrid Geving, a hunter who organizes the Baker event. "If He put them on this world to give us sport for hunting, maybe. But I'll tell you what, they do a lot of damage to livestock."
Despite widespread support for that sentiment, not everyone agrees contest hunts are the answer.
Randy Tunby, a sheep rancher in nearby Plevna, Mont., has turned down requests from contest participants to hunt on his land. The results of such hunts, he said, are spotty at best.
"I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do; we ourselves call coyotes. But if you have problems with coyotes getting into your livestock, it's going to be haphazard if people coming into the contest get those," Tunby said.
Tunby prefers the services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's predator control program. According to USDA records, its Wildlife Services division shoots, poisons, traps or otherwise destroys about 80,000 coyotes a year on private and public lands nationwide.
John Shivik, a research biologist with the services' National Wildlife Research Center, said any effort to reduce livestock damage must specifically target those animals causing problems. Contest hunts might miss the worst offenders, he said.
Coyotes caused an estimated $47 million in damage to the cattle industry in 2005, according to the USDA. Sheep losses topped $10 million in 2004.
Groups including the Humane Society of the United States and Predator Defense say neither private hunts nor public agency killings offer a real solution because of the coyote's ability to rapidly reproduce.
"You kill some coyotes and six months later it's as if you didn't kill any at all. What are they accomplishing other than just being barbaric?" asked Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense.
In Montana, coyotes can be hunted 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, with no limits. That provides out-of-state hunters with ample "trigger time" not available in their home states, said Geving, who already has bagged six coyotes this winter around Baker.
Price and others describe a booming interest in coyote hunting, with an estimated 500 "calling contests" nationwide and more added every year. They get their name because hunters howl and make distress calls to mimic prey, attracting coyotes. Many, Price said, are conducted on the sly - invitation-only events meant to avoid the ire of animal rights groups.
Baker promotes its event with fliers and on the Internet. Even protesters are welcome, said Karol Zachmann, president of the Baker chamber of commerce.
"Actually, that does good for us if they come and meet us and find out we're not all that bad," she said.
To some hunters, turning the challenge of coyote hunting into a contest with large sums of money at stake defies long-standing traditions of the sport. Jim Posewitz, a leading voice in the field of hunters' ethics, says that to purists, the contests violate the basic tenet of "fair chase" - the notion that hunting is a private struggle between predator and prey.
"I don't think hunting is a contest between human beings," said Posewitz, a biologist who spent 32 years with the Montana wildlife agency before founding the Orion Hunters Institute. "We like to think it's a more meaningful relationship that we have with wildlife than simply viewing them as a competition between people."
BAKER, Mont. (Jan. 11) - The barren buttes surrounding this small ranching town will offer scant places for coyotes to hide this weekend as hunters converge for a "calling" contest to see who can shoot the most coyotes.
Part predator control, part economic development ploy, the annual event began five years ago in a bid to pique outside interest in Baker via a $6,000 purse funded by entrance fees, local businesses and the Baker Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.
While organizers see success in the event's growth, the increasing popularity of such contests is prompting a backlash from animal rights groups and even some hunters, who contend the events trivialize the sport by turning it into a cash-fueled spectacle.
For the coyote, the hunts reflect the lowly place the animal still holds across the American West. Even as a debate rages between state and federal officials over whether its high profile cousin, the gray wolf, should be removed from the endangered species list, the coyote is stuck with the label "varmint", to be killed on sight.
Most states have few if any restrictions on killing the animal, said Stephen Price, president of coyoteclub.org, which connects hunters with ranchers hoping to eliminate the animals from their land.
In Baker, a town of about 1,700 tucked against the North Dakota border, supporters of this weekend's contest say it will deliver a much-needed jolt to the area's economy, drawing some 180 participants from as far away as Chicago and Seattle. They also say fewer coyotes means fewer livestock killings.
I don't know why God put them on this Earth," said Jerrid Geving, a hunter who organizes the Baker event. "If He put them on this world to give us sport for hunting, maybe. But I'll tell you what, they do a lot of damage to livestock."
Despite widespread support for that sentiment, not everyone agrees contest hunts are the answer.
Randy Tunby, a sheep rancher in nearby Plevna, Mont., has turned down requests from contest participants to hunt on his land. The results of such hunts, he said, are spotty at best.
"I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do; we ourselves call coyotes. But if you have problems with coyotes getting into your livestock, it's going to be haphazard if people coming into the contest get those," Tunby said.
Tunby prefers the services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's predator control program. According to USDA records, its Wildlife Services division shoots, poisons, traps or otherwise destroys about 80,000 coyotes a year on private and public lands nationwide.
John Shivik, a research biologist with the services' National Wildlife Research Center, said any effort to reduce livestock damage must specifically target those animals causing problems. Contest hunts might miss the worst offenders, he said.
Coyotes caused an estimated $47 million in damage to the cattle industry in 2005, according to the USDA. Sheep losses topped $10 million in 2004.
Groups including the Humane Society of the United States and Predator Defense say neither private hunts nor public agency killings offer a real solution because of the coyote's ability to rapidly reproduce.
"You kill some coyotes and six months later it's as if you didn't kill any at all. What are they accomplishing other than just being barbaric?" asked Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense.
In Montana, coyotes can be hunted 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, with no limits. That provides out-of-state hunters with ample "trigger time" not available in their home states, said Geving, who already has bagged six coyotes this winter around Baker.
Price and others describe a booming interest in coyote hunting, with an estimated 500 "calling contests" nationwide and more added every year. They get their name because hunters howl and make distress calls to mimic prey, attracting coyotes. Many, Price said, are conducted on the sly - invitation-only events meant to avoid the ire of animal rights groups.
Baker promotes its event with fliers and on the Internet. Even protesters are welcome, said Karol Zachmann, president of the Baker chamber of commerce.
"Actually, that does good for us if they come and meet us and find out we're not all that bad," she said.
To some hunters, turning the challenge of coyote hunting into a contest with large sums of money at stake defies long-standing traditions of the sport. Jim Posewitz, a leading voice in the field of hunters' ethics, says that to purists, the contests violate the basic tenet of "fair chase" - the notion that hunting is a private struggle between predator and prey.
"I don't think hunting is a contest between human beings," said Posewitz, a biologist who spent 32 years with the Montana wildlife agency before founding the Orion Hunters Institute. "We like to think it's a more meaningful relationship that we have with wildlife than simply viewing them as a competition between people."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Youth Hunting Memories Contest Reminder
Note from Eric: One of the measures of a hunt is the story. The better the story the more memorable and successful the hunt. For ethical decision making asking yourself if you would proudly tell the story to your mother or your kids (not to mention the game warden) can help folks make the right decision. Here is a great opportunity for our young hunters to tell their story...
VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: December 3, 2009
Media Contacts: VT F&W – Chris Saunders or Mark Scott, 802-241-3700
Youth Hunting Memories Contest Reminder
WATERBURY, VT -- The Vermont Big Game Trophy Club and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department remind youth hunters they are still seeking submissions for the third annual Youth Hunting Memories Contest.
Vermont is encouraging young hunters to submit a short essay and photo, if available, describing one of their hunting experiences from this year. Criteria that will be judged include: ethics, landowner relations, appreciation of wildlife, respect for our hunting heritage, and family values. The top entry from each county will win a special prize from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.
“With kids just coming off a very successful youth deer hunting weekend in Vermont, now would be the time for them to jot their story down and send it in to us,” said Mark Scott of the Fish and Wildlife Department. “Kids should be reminded to send in any hunting story, whether it’s about going out looking for deer or sitting in a duck hunting blind. Some of the best stories we received in the past came from youngsters who wrote more about their experiences with their family than shooting any game.”
The Fish and Wildlife Department will be assisted by members of the Vermont Big Game Trophy Club and the University of Vermont 4-H Shooting Sports program in selecting the winners. Winners will be announced at the Yankee Sportsman Classic on January 16, in Essex.
Submissions will not be returned. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Vermont Big Game Trophy Club reserve the right to publish photos and essays, and omit submissions that might be offensive due to excessive amounts of blood or damage to the animal being photographed. Submissions must include the hunter’s first and last names, address, age, telephone number, and location of hunt.
The contest is open to Vermont hunters 16 and younger. Submissions must be received by 4:30 p.m. on December 30, 2009.
Email submissions to Ann.Shangraw@state.vt.us or mail to:
2009 Youth Hunting Memories Contest, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-0501.
VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: December 3, 2009
Media Contacts: VT F&W – Chris Saunders or Mark Scott, 802-241-3700
Youth Hunting Memories Contest Reminder
WATERBURY, VT -- The Vermont Big Game Trophy Club and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department remind youth hunters they are still seeking submissions for the third annual Youth Hunting Memories Contest.
Vermont is encouraging young hunters to submit a short essay and photo, if available, describing one of their hunting experiences from this year. Criteria that will be judged include: ethics, landowner relations, appreciation of wildlife, respect for our hunting heritage, and family values. The top entry from each county will win a special prize from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.
“With kids just coming off a very successful youth deer hunting weekend in Vermont, now would be the time for them to jot their story down and send it in to us,” said Mark Scott of the Fish and Wildlife Department. “Kids should be reminded to send in any hunting story, whether it’s about going out looking for deer or sitting in a duck hunting blind. Some of the best stories we received in the past came from youngsters who wrote more about their experiences with their family than shooting any game.”
The Fish and Wildlife Department will be assisted by members of the Vermont Big Game Trophy Club and the University of Vermont 4-H Shooting Sports program in selecting the winners. Winners will be announced at the Yankee Sportsman Classic on January 16, in Essex.
Submissions will not be returned. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Vermont Big Game Trophy Club reserve the right to publish photos and essays, and omit submissions that might be offensive due to excessive amounts of blood or damage to the animal being photographed. Submissions must include the hunter’s first and last names, address, age, telephone number, and location of hunt.
The contest is open to Vermont hunters 16 and younger. Submissions must be received by 4:30 p.m. on December 30, 2009.
Email submissions to Ann.Shangraw@state.vt.us or mail to:
2009 Youth Hunting Memories Contest, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-0501.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Future Fisherman Foundation
From the Women's Outdoor Wire:
Note: I've worked with the folks at FFF, they are doing good work for sport fishing.
Tournament-winning lures support Future Fisherman Foundation
Just in time for Christmas, Lurenet.com is offering a three-pack of popular tournament-winning lures for less than half price. And to make this offer even sweeter, you have the satisfaction of knowing that $1 from every sale goes to support Future Fisherman Foundation youth angling programs like Hooked On Fishing Not On Drugs and Physh Ed.
: : For More : :
Note: I've worked with the folks at FFF, they are doing good work for sport fishing.
Tournament-winning lures support Future Fisherman Foundation
Just in time for Christmas, Lurenet.com is offering a three-pack of popular tournament-winning lures for less than half price. And to make this offer even sweeter, you have the satisfaction of knowing that $1 from every sale goes to support Future Fisherman Foundation youth angling programs like Hooked On Fishing Not On Drugs and Physh Ed.
: : For More : :
Friday, November 20, 2009
Vegan Dreams
From The Wildlife Society Blog:
Vegan Dreams
November 18th, 2009
A recent op ed in The Washington Post by James McWilliams, an associate professor of history at Texas State University at San Marcos, argues the environmental virtues of a vegetarian diet. There is no doubt that there are many ethical issues surrounding the modern, commercialized production of food for human consumption. For example, the author points out that it takes a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. Then there is the excessive use of water, fertilizers and antibiotics, all of which are potentially hurting the environment. And who can forget that flatulent grass fed cows produce four times the amount of methane as grain fed cows–a green house gas 21 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Then, there is also the issue of the treatment of domesticated animals, which the author decries as often being inhumane. While animal welfare (not rights) is not an environmental issue per se, it certainly is an important consideration. While I am no vegetarian, I do believe that the animals I eat should be killed humanely.
to read more click here and scroll down
Vegan Dreams
November 18th, 2009
A recent op ed in The Washington Post by James McWilliams, an associate professor of history at Texas State University at San Marcos, argues the environmental virtues of a vegetarian diet. There is no doubt that there are many ethical issues surrounding the modern, commercialized production of food for human consumption. For example, the author points out that it takes a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. Then there is the excessive use of water, fertilizers and antibiotics, all of which are potentially hurting the environment. And who can forget that flatulent grass fed cows produce four times the amount of methane as grain fed cows–a green house gas 21 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Then, there is also the issue of the treatment of domesticated animals, which the author decries as often being inhumane. While animal welfare (not rights) is not an environmental issue per se, it certainly is an important consideration. While I am no vegetarian, I do believe that the animals I eat should be killed humanely.
to read more click here and scroll down
Anti-Hunting letter to the Editor
From the News Guy Blog:
Of Salmon and Moose
Enough of that. Now let’s turn to that other kerfuffle, the one about that letter to the editor of the Burlington Free Press, the existence of which the Freep is trying to deny.
The letter, by Ethan A. Sims (apparently the highly respected, much-honored professor of medicine emeritus at the University of Vermont, though the News Guy was unable to reach him for confirmation) which appeared to suggest that, while hunters were out trying to shoot a moose, anti-hunters might want to shoot the moose-hunters.
At least that’s how a great many hunters understood it. Preferring to be predators rather than prey, these hunters and their organizations not unreasonably became upset, deluging the newspaper with so many angry letters to the editor that the editors surrendered.
Abjectly. Not because they apologized, which was defensible if perhaps not necessary. But because they removed the letter from the newspaper’s web site archives.
It became, then, an un-letter, rather the way some one-time associates of Stalin who fell out of favor (and soon thereafter of sight) had their names and photographs purged from the history books, becoming un-persons.
Because no one here was killed, tortured, or exiled, the editors hardly sink to Stalinism, or other aspects of Bolshevism except in their obvious toadiness. Theirs is the spirit not of the independent journalist but of the ever-obsequious courtier.
Besides, this not being Soviet Russia, suppression doesn’t work. Anyone with a desire to see the letter and an Internet connection can find it. Here it is:
On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to “pursue prized quarry.” Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.
ETHAN A.H. SIMS Shelburne
As another letter-writer noted last Sunday (a letter the Free Press editors, to their credit, printed), Sims obviously didn’t really want anyone to shoot a moose hunter. His letter was Swiftian satire, modeled on Jonathan Swift’s famous Modest Proposal (1729) suggesting Ireland’s poor ease their penury by selling their children to be eaten.
Not that hunters should be blamed for insufficient attention to Dr. Sims’ literary playfulness, which would have alerted them to his motivation. Hunters feel put upon these days because everybody does. It’s the American way to think everybody’s out to get us, whoever “us” may be. In fact, a very small percentage of the American people actively oppose hunting, and they have not been taken seriously by most of the rest of us (the News Guy is a very pro-hunting non-hunter) at least since the anti-hunting group PETA called for New Yorkers to change the name of the Fishkill River, apparently unaware that “kill” is Dutch for “river,” and so the name is not evidence of anti-piscatorialism (though perhaps of redundancy).
The editors could have explained that Sims was not in fact urging the murder of anyone, simply expressing his own anti-hunting views in a sardonic manner and with some literary flourish. Such a rational response, however, does not come easily to courtiers. Instead, the paper apologized for running a letter “advocating for violence against hunters,” which the letter does not do.
Of Salmon and Moose
Enough of that. Now let’s turn to that other kerfuffle, the one about that letter to the editor of the Burlington Free Press, the existence of which the Freep is trying to deny.
The letter, by Ethan A. Sims (apparently the highly respected, much-honored professor of medicine emeritus at the University of Vermont, though the News Guy was unable to reach him for confirmation) which appeared to suggest that, while hunters were out trying to shoot a moose, anti-hunters might want to shoot the moose-hunters.
At least that’s how a great many hunters understood it. Preferring to be predators rather than prey, these hunters and their organizations not unreasonably became upset, deluging the newspaper with so many angry letters to the editor that the editors surrendered.
Abjectly. Not because they apologized, which was defensible if perhaps not necessary. But because they removed the letter from the newspaper’s web site archives.
It became, then, an un-letter, rather the way some one-time associates of Stalin who fell out of favor (and soon thereafter of sight) had their names and photographs purged from the history books, becoming un-persons.
Because no one here was killed, tortured, or exiled, the editors hardly sink to Stalinism, or other aspects of Bolshevism except in their obvious toadiness. Theirs is the spirit not of the independent journalist but of the ever-obsequious courtier.
Besides, this not being Soviet Russia, suppression doesn’t work. Anyone with a desire to see the letter and an Internet connection can find it. Here it is:
On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to “pursue prized quarry.” Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.
ETHAN A.H. SIMS Shelburne
As another letter-writer noted last Sunday (a letter the Free Press editors, to their credit, printed), Sims obviously didn’t really want anyone to shoot a moose hunter. His letter was Swiftian satire, modeled on Jonathan Swift’s famous Modest Proposal (1729) suggesting Ireland’s poor ease their penury by selling their children to be eaten.
Not that hunters should be blamed for insufficient attention to Dr. Sims’ literary playfulness, which would have alerted them to his motivation. Hunters feel put upon these days because everybody does. It’s the American way to think everybody’s out to get us, whoever “us” may be. In fact, a very small percentage of the American people actively oppose hunting, and they have not been taken seriously by most of the rest of us (the News Guy is a very pro-hunting non-hunter) at least since the anti-hunting group PETA called for New Yorkers to change the name of the Fishkill River, apparently unaware that “kill” is Dutch for “river,” and so the name is not evidence of anti-piscatorialism (though perhaps of redundancy).
The editors could have explained that Sims was not in fact urging the murder of anyone, simply expressing his own anti-hunting views in a sardonic manner and with some literary flourish. Such a rational response, however, does not come easily to courtiers. Instead, the paper apologized for running a letter “advocating for violence against hunters,” which the letter does not do.
Funding Increases for Interior and Related Agencies Signed into Law
From the Wildlife Management Institute's Outdoor Bulletin
Funding Increases for Interior and Related Agencies Signed into Law
President Obama signed the $32.2 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies fiscal year 2010 (FY10) appropriations bill into law on October 30. The bill provides a 17 percent increase in spending from last year’s appropriation for most of the natural resources and environmental agencies in the federal government, reports the Wildlife Management Institute. Overall, the U.S. Department of the Interior was allocated nearly $11 billion, the Environmental Protection Agency $10.3 billion and USDA Forest Service $5.3 billion. Interior Department agencies saw a boost in funding. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, received $1.1 billion—an increase of nearly $100 million from last year’s funding level. Within that allocation, land resource management programs were appropriated $246.5 million, and wildlife and fisheries management, including threatened and endangered species, received $73 million—an increase of nearly $3 million. The National Park Service was appropriated a total of $2.7 billion, including $346 million for resource stewardship, which is an increase of $30 million over last year. Land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund also saw a big boost from recent years. It received $305 million, including $40 million for state and local parks and recreation programs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocation is just short of $1.7 billion—an increase of more than $200 million. Most notably, the increase includes almost $40 million for climate change-related activities. The Ecological Services Division was allocated $311 million, including $117 million for habitat conservation and $180 million for endangered species. The National Wildlife Refuge System operations and maintenance accounts received a nearly 8-percent bump in funding for a total of $503 million. Migratory bird management is funded at $54.5 million and the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund was given a $5 million increase to just under $48 million. Other programs of interest include $90 million for state and tribal wildlife grants (of which $7 million is for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes and $5 million for a competitive grant program for states, territories and other jurisdictions) and $11 million in grants to states for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.
Funding Increases for Interior and Related Agencies Signed into Law
President Obama signed the $32.2 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies fiscal year 2010 (FY10) appropriations bill into law on October 30. The bill provides a 17 percent increase in spending from last year’s appropriation for most of the natural resources and environmental agencies in the federal government, reports the Wildlife Management Institute. Overall, the U.S. Department of the Interior was allocated nearly $11 billion, the Environmental Protection Agency $10.3 billion and USDA Forest Service $5.3 billion. Interior Department agencies saw a boost in funding. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, received $1.1 billion—an increase of nearly $100 million from last year’s funding level. Within that allocation, land resource management programs were appropriated $246.5 million, and wildlife and fisheries management, including threatened and endangered species, received $73 million—an increase of nearly $3 million. The National Park Service was appropriated a total of $2.7 billion, including $346 million for resource stewardship, which is an increase of $30 million over last year. Land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund also saw a big boost from recent years. It received $305 million, including $40 million for state and local parks and recreation programs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocation is just short of $1.7 billion—an increase of more than $200 million. Most notably, the increase includes almost $40 million for climate change-related activities. The Ecological Services Division was allocated $311 million, including $117 million for habitat conservation and $180 million for endangered species. The National Wildlife Refuge System operations and maintenance accounts received a nearly 8-percent bump in funding for a total of $503 million. Migratory bird management is funded at $54.5 million and the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund was given a $5 million increase to just under $48 million. Other programs of interest include $90 million for state and tribal wildlife grants (of which $7 million is for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes and $5 million for a competitive grant program for states, territories and other jurisdictions) and $11 million in grants to states for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Turkey hunter cited for shooting fellow hunter
From the Times Argus Staff - Published: November 19, 2009
Turkey hunter cited for shooting fellow hunter
BRADFORD – A hunter accused of shooting and injuring another hunter last month in Bradford has been cited to appear in Vermont District Court in Chelsea to face an aggravated assault charge.
Richard Sylvester, 42, of Topsham told police he thought he was firing at a turkey when he pulled the trigger and shot Ryan Terrill, a 22-year-old Bradford man on Oct 25 at about 8:20 a.m., according to a news release from the Vermont State Police.
Sylvester and Terrill had arrived separately at a cornfield on Sand Hill Road in Bradford on Oct. 25, police said.
Terrill showed up first and set up a hunting chair in the woods near the cornfield, said police.
Sylvester told police he arrived at the field, saw turkeys, parked his vehicle and started stalking the birds, the news release said. He reported hearing a turkey and shooting at what he thought was a turkey within the wood line, and ended up shooting Terrill, police said.
Terrill was transported to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. where he was treated and later released for his injuries.
Note from
Eric : fortunately these type shootings are rare, but not rare enough! Everyone is preventable. First and foremost you should never fire until you are 100% sure of your target and beyond. Any doubt at all and it is a no shoot. 2) turkey hunters should never stalk - the odds of success are remote, and most of all it can lead to tragities like this one. Stats show that if there is a hunter shot, 50% of the time it is the person being stalked and 50% of the time it is the stalked who is shot. 3) Lastly hunt defesively . If you see someone coming into your are speak up and tell them you are there, don't wave, stand up or make animal sounds. If your are using a ground blind, put some orange on it - without movement it will not scare turkeys but it should alert other hunters.
During the rifle season for the sake of your family and the future of hunting wear orange! It works
Turkey hunter cited for shooting fellow hunter
BRADFORD – A hunter accused of shooting and injuring another hunter last month in Bradford has been cited to appear in Vermont District Court in Chelsea to face an aggravated assault charge.
Richard Sylvester, 42, of Topsham told police he thought he was firing at a turkey when he pulled the trigger and shot Ryan Terrill, a 22-year-old Bradford man on Oct 25 at about 8:20 a.m., according to a news release from the Vermont State Police.
Sylvester and Terrill had arrived separately at a cornfield on Sand Hill Road in Bradford on Oct. 25, police said.
Terrill showed up first and set up a hunting chair in the woods near the cornfield, said police.
Sylvester told police he arrived at the field, saw turkeys, parked his vehicle and started stalking the birds, the news release said. He reported hearing a turkey and shooting at what he thought was a turkey within the wood line, and ended up shooting Terrill, police said.
Terrill was transported to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. where he was treated and later released for his injuries.
Note from
Eric : fortunately these type shootings are rare, but not rare enough! Everyone is preventable. First and foremost you should never fire until you are 100% sure of your target and beyond. Any doubt at all and it is a no shoot. 2) turkey hunters should never stalk - the odds of success are remote, and most of all it can lead to tragities like this one. Stats show that if there is a hunter shot, 50% of the time it is the person being stalked and 50% of the time it is the stalked who is shot. 3) Lastly hunt defesively . If you see someone coming into your are speak up and tell them you are there, don't wave, stand up or make animal sounds. If your are using a ground blind, put some orange on it - without movement it will not scare turkeys but it should alert other hunters.
During the rifle season for the sake of your family and the future of hunting wear orange! It works
(Un)Ethical Hunting
From Vox Nova:
(Un)Ethical Hunting
So on opening day of rifle season, Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota wounded a deer, failed to track it down, and then went off to a fundraiser while his staff attempted to find the animal he shot.
As a hunter, this is one of those things that gets me steamed. To wound an animal and then neglect to track it down is one of the more egregious violations of hunting ethics, and is grossly irresponsible, especially if you are an authority figure.
read more
(Un)Ethical Hunting
So on opening day of rifle season, Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota wounded a deer, failed to track it down, and then went off to a fundraiser while his staff attempted to find the animal he shot.
As a hunter, this is one of those things that gets me steamed. To wound an animal and then neglect to track it down is one of the more egregious violations of hunting ethics, and is grossly irresponsible, especially if you are an authority figure.
read more
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Support Firearms Manufacturers Fairness
Support Firearms Manufacturers Fairness
Excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, and archery equipment generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for fish and wildlife restoration, habitat conservation, and hunter and boater education. Yet, due to a quirk in the tax code, firearms and ammunition manufacturers pay these taxes every two weeks while makers of fishing rods and bows and arrows pay quarterly. This process forces many firearms companies to borrow money to make tax payments and creates administrative burdens.
Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that would simply put all of these industries on the same quarterly schedule. America’s firearms makers, hunting and angling groups, including the League, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support this commonsense approach to similar industries.
Please urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to support tax fairness for the firearms industry.
CLICK HERE to take action now!
Learn more about the League!
Click this link to take action on League issues.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this action alert or other IWLA programs, please contact:
The Izaak Walton League of America
707 Conservation Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
(301) 548-0150
conserve@iwla.org
Excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, and archery equipment generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for fish and wildlife restoration, habitat conservation, and hunter and boater education. Yet, due to a quirk in the tax code, firearms and ammunition manufacturers pay these taxes every two weeks while makers of fishing rods and bows and arrows pay quarterly. This process forces many firearms companies to borrow money to make tax payments and creates administrative burdens.
Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that would simply put all of these industries on the same quarterly schedule. America’s firearms makers, hunting and angling groups, including the League, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support this commonsense approach to similar industries.
Please urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to support tax fairness for the firearms industry.
CLICK HERE to take action now!
Learn more about the League!
Click this link to take action on League issues.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this action alert or other IWLA programs, please contact:
The Izaak Walton League of America
707 Conservation Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
(301) 548-0150
conserve@iwla.org
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wildlife Needs Our Help
In 1971 the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department hired me and 11 other Warden Trainees. At that time there were a total of 38 wardens in the State. 2009 there are exactly 38 Wardens total working in Vermont with three retiring before the end of the year and one on deployment in Iraq.
In spite of efforts by lots of us this is the sad state of affairs with our Department and the Warden force. It truly is a thin green line standing between wildlife and poachers.
Now is the time for sportsmen to step up and do our share. I suggest the following:
1) Report all suspected violations as soon as possible. For violations in progress call 911. Get as much information as you can, critical are vehicle license numbers and descriptions of suspects. GPS coordinates of the scene are also very helpful.
2) If you hear information about violations or don't want to be directly involved for whatever reason call the Operation Game Thief hot line at 1-800-75ALERT (1-800-752-5378)or go to the Dept web site and get the information in. http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/laws_thief.cfm
3) Support the Vermont Wildlife Partnership's initiative to get sustainable, adequate and broad based funding for the Department.Over 60 sportsman, environmental and business groups are part of this partnership. Check and see if groups you are a member of are signed on.
4) Hunt and fish responsibly yourself and insist that everyone you go out with does to.
Good luck deer hunting and don't forget to wear your hunter orange - stats from NY state clearly show you are 9 times safer with orange than without.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Congress approved $90 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
The big question is - Does Vermont have the 35% state match money need to get this money? they have already left nearly $3 million unclaimed in other Federal money. the Vermont Wildlife Partnership is pushing for broad based, sustainable and adequate funding for the Fish and Wildlife Dept.
Eric
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program Receive a Crucial Funding Boost from Congress
Increase will help state fish and wildlife agencies address environmental threats
to some of the nation’s most imperiled species
WASHINGTON, DC —This week, Congress approved $90 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program as part of the $32.2 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for 2010. The increase is $15 million over last year’s level and also includes a change in the nonfederal match requirement from 50% to 35%.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, now in its 10th year, is a principal source of funding for implementation of congressionally required State Wildlife Action Plans in every state and territory. The Plans assess the health of each state’s wildlife and habitats, identify the problems they face and outline the actions needed to conserve them over the long term to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered.
The increase in federal dollars comes at a time when state fish and wildlife agencies are increasingly challenged to address the impacts of invasive species, habitat loss and degradation and the exacerbating affects of climate change.
“We appreciate the work of the administration and Congress to secure increased funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program,” said Matt Hogan, Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. “These additional funds will help states tackle the backlog of conservation projects to address the threats of some of the nation’s most imperiled fish and wildlife and they will also maintain existing and create new jobs across the country.”
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program was started in 2000 to meet a longstanding need for funding of fish and wildlife species that are typically not hunted or fished.
More
Eric
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program Receive a Crucial Funding Boost from Congress
Increase will help state fish and wildlife agencies address environmental threats
to some of the nation’s most imperiled species
WASHINGTON, DC —This week, Congress approved $90 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program as part of the $32.2 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for 2010. The increase is $15 million over last year’s level and also includes a change in the nonfederal match requirement from 50% to 35%.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, now in its 10th year, is a principal source of funding for implementation of congressionally required State Wildlife Action Plans in every state and territory. The Plans assess the health of each state’s wildlife and habitats, identify the problems they face and outline the actions needed to conserve them over the long term to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered.
The increase in federal dollars comes at a time when state fish and wildlife agencies are increasingly challenged to address the impacts of invasive species, habitat loss and degradation and the exacerbating affects of climate change.
“We appreciate the work of the administration and Congress to secure increased funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program,” said Matt Hogan, Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. “These additional funds will help states tackle the backlog of conservation projects to address the threats of some of the nation’s most imperiled fish and wildlife and they will also maintain existing and create new jobs across the country.”
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program was started in 2000 to meet a longstanding need for funding of fish and wildlife species that are typically not hunted or fished.
More
Maine Trapers Win Big
From the USSAF:
Maine Trappers Win Major Court Victory
(Columbus, Ohio) – Trappers in Maine won a major victory as the state’s Federal District Court upheld the state’s trapping practices and blocked the establishment of a precedent that could be used by anti-hunting and anti-trapping groups nationwide.
In 2008, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) seeking a permanent injunction that would have essentially prohibited trapping in the state. The lawsuit claimed that Maine’s trapping regulations violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because Canada lynx, a threatened species under the ESA, could be incidentally caught in traps causing “irreparable harm” to the population.
Throughout the case, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF), along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, argued that the anti-trapping plaintiffs had to show that Maine’s trapping practices were a threat to the Canada lynx population as a whole. The plaintiffs insisted that harm to one individual lynx was sufficient for the Court to prohibit trapping in the state.
On November 10th, Federal District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. ruled that Maine’s trapping practices did not irreparably harm the Canada lynx and denied the injunction sought by the anti-trappers. Further, the Judge agreed with the state and the USSAF that “irreparable harm” is harm to a species as a whole and not simply one individual member.
“Although the plaintiffs may appeal the ruling, the Federal Court’s decision is a monumental victory for the trappers in Maine and sets an excellent precedent that will make it harder for the antis to misuse the ESA in their attempts to ban hunting and trapping in other states,” states USSAF Vice President for Government Affairs Rob Sexton.
“We knew the evidence was on our side and are thrilled with outcome,” said Skip Trask, executive director of the Maine Trappers Association. “The USSAF’s legal assistance was invaluable to the favorable outcome.”
Chick Andres, President of the Fur Takers of America commented, “Trappers nationwide should be grateful that the court saw through what the anti’s were trying to do.”
In 2008 the USSAF’s legal arm, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund, was granted permission to intervene in the lawsuit. The case came on the heels of similar case, also in Maine, that was settled in late 2007 when the DIFW agreed to restrict trap sizes in areas where Canada lynx exist.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussafoundation.org.
Maine Trappers Win Major Court Victory
(Columbus, Ohio) – Trappers in Maine won a major victory as the state’s Federal District Court upheld the state’s trapping practices and blocked the establishment of a precedent that could be used by anti-hunting and anti-trapping groups nationwide.
In 2008, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) seeking a permanent injunction that would have essentially prohibited trapping in the state. The lawsuit claimed that Maine’s trapping regulations violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because Canada lynx, a threatened species under the ESA, could be incidentally caught in traps causing “irreparable harm” to the population.
Throughout the case, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF), along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, argued that the anti-trapping plaintiffs had to show that Maine’s trapping practices were a threat to the Canada lynx population as a whole. The plaintiffs insisted that harm to one individual lynx was sufficient for the Court to prohibit trapping in the state.
On November 10th, Federal District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. ruled that Maine’s trapping practices did not irreparably harm the Canada lynx and denied the injunction sought by the anti-trappers. Further, the Judge agreed with the state and the USSAF that “irreparable harm” is harm to a species as a whole and not simply one individual member.
“Although the plaintiffs may appeal the ruling, the Federal Court’s decision is a monumental victory for the trappers in Maine and sets an excellent precedent that will make it harder for the antis to misuse the ESA in their attempts to ban hunting and trapping in other states,” states USSAF Vice President for Government Affairs Rob Sexton.
“We knew the evidence was on our side and are thrilled with outcome,” said Skip Trask, executive director of the Maine Trappers Association. “The USSAF’s legal assistance was invaluable to the favorable outcome.”
Chick Andres, President of the Fur Takers of America commented, “Trappers nationwide should be grateful that the court saw through what the anti’s were trying to do.”
In 2008 the USSAF’s legal arm, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund, was granted permission to intervene in the lawsuit. The case came on the heels of similar case, also in Maine, that was settled in late 2007 when the DIFW agreed to restrict trap sizes in areas where Canada lynx exist.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussafoundation.org.
Protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Montana, N.M. senators' bill on open space funding a good idea
Montana Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman have proposed legislation that would protect the annual $900-million appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an allocation that has been raided for deficit reduction nearly every year since it was set by Congress in 1977, and given Americans' enthusiasm for protecting open spaces, Congress should pass the bill.
More here
New York Times; Nov. 10
Montana Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman have proposed legislation that would protect the annual $900-million appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an allocation that has been raided for deficit reduction nearly every year since it was set by Congress in 1977, and given Americans' enthusiasm for protecting open spaces, Congress should pass the bill.
More here
New York Times; Nov. 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
