Orion Welcomes Pat Hudak to the Board
JOHNSON, Vt. - Eric Nuse, executive director of Orion - The Hunter's Institute, announced the nonprofit organization's newest board member, Pat Hudak.
"With Pat's expertise in hunting issues and outdoor marketing, Orion - The Hunters' Institute will be able to take another step towards achieving its mission," Nuse said. "We're working diligently to become a leader in upholding our hunting heritage by providing intellectual leadership on hunting-related issues."
Hudak serves as vice president of marketing and membership at Delta Waterfowl Foundation, an organization committed to strengthening North America's waterfowl hunting culture. His knowledge and expertise in marketing, branding and advertising in the outdoor industry spans more than 20 years. He is an avid hunter, angler and conservationist who is extensively networked within the hunting community.
"Hunting and fishing are an important part of my life. I want to make sure it's here for generations to come," Hudak said. "I look forward to helping Orion grow and achieve its goals."
Hudak joins a team of dedicated professionals who serve on Orion's board including: President - Mark Hirvonen, Treasurer - Randy Newberg, Secretary - Gayle Joslin and board members Jim Posewitz, John Organ, Jim Tantillo and Tammy Sapp.
Orion, a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization founded in 1993, is dedicated to protecting the future of hunting by providing moral and intellectual leadership on the issues of responsible hunting, democratic hunting and the public trust of wildlife. For more information, visit www.huntright.org.
Contact:
Eric Nuse, (802) 730-8111 ericnuse@gmail.com or Mark Hirvonen, (906) 362-1969 hirv5@aol.com.
Note from Eric- I worked with Pat while I was with IHEA and Pat was the National Marketing director for Cabela's. He is a great supporter of ethical hunting and a great guy.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Life according to PETA
A bit over the top, but rings true video exposing PETA's philosophy.
Enjoy...
Life According to PETA
Enjoy...
Life According to PETA
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Coordinating Group Meets to Repeal Nelson Amendment
Public Trust Violation In Vermont Will Be Fought
Sixteen groups and individuals met last Thursday at the VT State House and unanimously agreed that the Nelson Amendment needs to be repealed. Representatives from the Legislature, Orion, The Wildlife Society, the National Wildlife Federation, VT Natural Resource Council, the Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Vt Hunters, Anglers and Trappers and the Vt Fish and Wildlife board along with individuals including hunter education instructors, outdoor writers, a retired Fish and Wildlife biologist, game warden, and commissioner were all united in opposing the action taken in the last hours of the 2009 Legislature which transferred control of enclosed deer and moose to an individual.
The group decided among other things to seek legal council to examine the constitutionality of the new law and to begin drafting a bill to repeal the amendment.
I will post a summary of our notes when they are available.
Meanwhile, there is a hearing scheduled with the Agricultural Department and Doug Nelson over his non-compliance with the new law and Ag rules on captive cervids on Sept 1, 9am -11am at the VT Dept of Ag, 2nd floor conference room. It should be pretty interesting to see what is said and to see if Ag is going to enforce it's rules or continue to let Nelson do as he pleases.
Sixteen groups and individuals met last Thursday at the VT State House and unanimously agreed that the Nelson Amendment needs to be repealed. Representatives from the Legislature, Orion, The Wildlife Society, the National Wildlife Federation, VT Natural Resource Council, the Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Vt Hunters, Anglers and Trappers and the Vt Fish and Wildlife board along with individuals including hunter education instructors, outdoor writers, a retired Fish and Wildlife biologist, game warden, and commissioner were all united in opposing the action taken in the last hours of the 2009 Legislature which transferred control of enclosed deer and moose to an individual.
The group decided among other things to seek legal council to examine the constitutionality of the new law and to begin drafting a bill to repeal the amendment.
I will post a summary of our notes when they are available.
Meanwhile, there is a hearing scheduled with the Agricultural Department and Doug Nelson over his non-compliance with the new law and Ag rules on captive cervids on Sept 1, 9am -11am at the VT Dept of Ag, 2nd floor conference room. It should be pretty interesting to see what is said and to see if Ag is going to enforce it's rules or continue to let Nelson do as he pleases.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Gubernatorial candidates questioned about the Nelson or Pete the Moose amendment.
It is good to see that people have gotten the word about the damaging Nelson amendment and are questioning state officials about their involvement in it's passage.
From WCAX.comhttp://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=12973421:
In a discussion about transparency in government, Shumlin and Bartlett had to defend a last-minute provision tacked onto the state budget granting the owner of an elk-hunting park an exception to state law
so he could also let an orphaned moose named Pete stay in his fenced acres and spare dozens of native deer within the park’s confines.
“You can absolutely pick one piece of my career and judge me if you want,” Bartlett said.
Shumlin said he now considers the amendment a mistake. “I sometimes do things in haste,” he said. “I should have had a better handle on what I was voting on.”
From WCAX.comhttp://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=12973421:
Susan Bartlett was the champion of Pete the Moose, a wild animal that was nursed back to health after being attacked by dogs and abandoned by Vermont Fish and Wildlife. So Jim McGarry wanted Bartlett to explain the ethics behind her "Pete the Moose" amendment which was added into the finance bill but hidden from Fish and Wildlife.
"This Fish and Wildlife Department refused to do anything except to say the only solution is to slaughter," said Bartlett, "We disagreed with that. So we worked with the administration, and it was the administration that made the choice to not include its Fish and Wildlife Department."
From the Burlington Free Press:
“You can absolutely pick one piece of my career and judge me if you want,” Bartlett said.
Shumlin said he now considers the amendment a mistake. “I sometimes do things in haste,” he said. “I should have had a better handle on what I was voting on.”
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Ag Commissioner speaks up about Nelson's non-compliance with rules
From WCAX News
New problem for Pete the moose
Montpelier, Vermont - August 10, 2010
"This is a very serious thing that needs to be addressed," Vt. Agriculture Secretary Roger Allbee said.
The issue-- Pete the moose's owner Doug Nelson has not given the state a management plan, even though he's had three months to do so after lawmakers passed a last minute plan to save the moose. Pete is living on an elk hunting preserve in Irasburg after being found mauled by dogs.
The Vt. Fish and Wildlife Department planned to kill Pete. It's against the law to keep wild animals in captivity because they could spread disease. But lawmakers turned Doug Nelson's preserve into a game farm under the jurisdiction of the Agency of Agriculture.
"We hope he will understand that there were several legislators that went to bat for him to put special provisions into the law to allow him to comply at this time, it seems quite unreasonable that he would ignore what is required," Allbee said.
Calls to Nelson were not returned but he sent a letter to Allbee asking for an extension because his expert is in Texas. Allbee says Nelson has had time and the law is clear-- a plan was needed by August 1. Nelson is facing a state fine of $250 a day.
Allbee: If he doesn't comply with the hearing and tell us how he is complying he is going facing a very significant fine at this stage.
Reporter Kristin Carlson: Is it still on the table that the animals would be killed?
Allbee: I don't think anyone is at that stage of the recommendation, but certainly we are looking with the possibility of the fine that Mr. Nelson will understand that everyone in the state of Vermont is being understanding and reasonable and if he continues to show he doesn't regard state law as being important, that obviously he'll have the public against him as well.
The state is now asking to have a hearing with Nelson in two weeks to hear his management plan. And it's not just state officials and lawmakers who are annoyed, even some Pete supporters say they are frustrated that Nelson has not complied with the new law.
Kristin Carlson - WCAX News
Jim Poswitz and other former wildlife Officials ask for protection of the Rocky Mountain Front
Orion Founder and board member Jim Posewitz is named in this article from the Missoulian (MT).
HELENA - A group of former top wildlife management officials in Montana has sent a letter to the congressional delegation to push for more rapid protection for lands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
The letter is signed by former Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks directors Jeff Hagener, Pat Graham and Jim Flynn; former state director for the Bureau of Land Management Gene Terland; noted author and former state environmental services chief Jim Posewitz; and other former FWP supervisors, wildlife biologists and game wardens. They note that the Front has served as a working laboratory for wildlife managers for more than 100 years, and permanent protection is needed to ensure that it will remain that way forever.
"Currently, the RMF contains the second largest migratory elk herd in the lower 48; abundant bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations; a robust and growing raptor population; and the full complement of predators from the time of Lewis and Clark," the letter states.
They note that private landowners have been leading the way, with conservation easements already on more than 100,000 acres and another 100,000 acres under consideration for protection. With that in place, the letter authors say, it's now time for public land managers to ensure that the habitat remain intact.
"Time is not on our side when it comes to preserving those habitats," the letter states. "Acting now helps ensure that our children and their children will continue to enjoy the economies created by large, intact ecosystems. ..."
Last September, the Coalition for the Rocky Mountain Front unveiled the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, which would add a new layer of protection to 307,000 acres along the Front, while adding 86,000 acres in six chunks to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. The proposal was a three-year effort put together mainly by people who live in the area.
Hagener said he was approached by members of the group who asked if he would sign the letter in support of the project.
"It's kind of languishing, so they asked several of us involved in wildlife management to sign on and try to move the process ahead more quickly," Hagener said.
He added that he was happy to do so, having spent time on the Front during his tenure with FWP, as well as having worked for an outfitter there in the 1970s. He also has friends who hunt there.
"My interest there is professional, but it's also personal," Hagener said.
***
Along with adding to the existing federal wilderness areas, the proposal creates new "conservation management area" designations, which act as buffer zones between private lands and wilderness. They're meant to provide fewer opportunities for road building, logging and development on forest lands along the Front.
In addition, the proposal includes provisions for an additional $200,000 per year to fight the spread of noxious weeds along the Front.
Jennifer Ferenstein, the Rocky Mountain Front coordinator for the Wilderness Society, said the proposal doesn't have a sponsor for a bill yet, and they're hoping this will prompt at least one member of Montana's congressional delegation to move it forward.
"With the delegation in the state meeting with people, it's a good opportunity to remind them about what's so special in Montana, including the Front," Ferenstein said.
She added that there's a possibility of an omnibus lands bill being created this year, and they hope the Heritage Act can be a part of that.
"There isn't one yet, but there's been a lot of rumblings about one because ... a number of folks around the country have been moving forward with proposals," Ferenstein said.
Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at (406) 447-4076 or at eve.byron@helenair.com.
Former wildlife officials ask for quicker protection of Rocky Mountain Front
HELENA - A group of former top wildlife management officials in Montana has sent a letter to the congressional delegation to push for more rapid protection for lands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
The letter is signed by former Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks directors Jeff Hagener, Pat Graham and Jim Flynn; former state director for the Bureau of Land Management Gene Terland; noted author and former state environmental services chief Jim Posewitz; and other former FWP supervisors, wildlife biologists and game wardens. They note that the Front has served as a working laboratory for wildlife managers for more than 100 years, and permanent protection is needed to ensure that it will remain that way forever.
"Currently, the RMF contains the second largest migratory elk herd in the lower 48; abundant bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations; a robust and growing raptor population; and the full complement of predators from the time of Lewis and Clark," the letter states.
They note that private landowners have been leading the way, with conservation easements already on more than 100,000 acres and another 100,000 acres under consideration for protection. With that in place, the letter authors say, it's now time for public land managers to ensure that the habitat remain intact.
"Time is not on our side when it comes to preserving those habitats," the letter states. "Acting now helps ensure that our children and their children will continue to enjoy the economies created by large, intact ecosystems. ..."
Last September, the Coalition for the Rocky Mountain Front unveiled the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, which would add a new layer of protection to 307,000 acres along the Front, while adding 86,000 acres in six chunks to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. The proposal was a three-year effort put together mainly by people who live in the area.
Hagener said he was approached by members of the group who asked if he would sign the letter in support of the project.
"It's kind of languishing, so they asked several of us involved in wildlife management to sign on and try to move the process ahead more quickly," Hagener said.
He added that he was happy to do so, having spent time on the Front during his tenure with FWP, as well as having worked for an outfitter there in the 1970s. He also has friends who hunt there.
"My interest there is professional, but it's also personal," Hagener said.
***
Along with adding to the existing federal wilderness areas, the proposal creates new "conservation management area" designations, which act as buffer zones between private lands and wilderness. They're meant to provide fewer opportunities for road building, logging and development on forest lands along the Front.
In addition, the proposal includes provisions for an additional $200,000 per year to fight the spread of noxious weeds along the Front.
Jennifer Ferenstein, the Rocky Mountain Front coordinator for the Wilderness Society, said the proposal doesn't have a sponsor for a bill yet, and they're hoping this will prompt at least one member of Montana's congressional delegation to move it forward.
"With the delegation in the state meeting with people, it's a good opportunity to remind them about what's so special in Montana, including the Front," Ferenstein said.
She added that there's a possibility of an omnibus lands bill being created this year, and they hope the Heritage Act can be a part of that.
"There isn't one yet, but there's been a lot of rumblings about one because ... a number of folks around the country have been moving forward with proposals," Ferenstein said.
Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at (406) 447-4076 or at eve.byron@helenair.com.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Nelson misses another deadline - so what else is new?
Our thanks to Candy Page for following up on this violation of the public trust of wildlife. I bet the Ag Dept grants the extension and a bunch more to follow.
Where's the plan for the park that Pete (the Moose) saved?
Candace Page / Free Press -Richard Nelson fills a feeding trough at Big Rack Ridge in Irasburg as an elk approaches to feed on Monday, June 14, 2010.
Free Press environment writer Candace Page filed this entry in her blog, “Tree at My Window:”
Remember Pete the Moose and Big Rack Ridge? That’s the orphaned moose and his elk-hunting-park home I wrote about earlier this summer after Vermont lawmakers cut a special deal to exempt the park from Fish and Wildlife regulations. Well, the park’s owner missed an Aug. 1 deadline last week to submit a management plan for monitoring and protecting the health of animals inside — and outside — his seven miles of fence.
Instead, on Aug. 2, Doug Nelson of Derby wrote to the Agriculture Agency to request a two-month extension because “my management consultant is located in Texas and has been unable to come to Vermont.”
State veterinarian Dr. Kristin Haas said she is consulting with the attorney general’s office about whether to grant the exemption.
It is not clear what effect granting the postponement would have on other deadlines facing Big Rack Ridge, including compliance with the Agriculture Agency’s rules for deer farms by Sept. 1 and construction of a second, interior fence by Oct. 1.
“We are reviewing how to go forward,” Haas said.
“I’m not surprised,” Fish and Wildlife Board Chairman Brian Ames said of Nelson’s failure to meet the deadline. “He never made any attempt to come into compliance with our rules.”
Doug Nelson and his son Richard did not return my telephone calls of inquiry last week or Monday.
In May, Vermont lawmakers granted Nelson’s park an exemption from Fish and Wildlife regulations and transferred oversight to the Agriculture Agency.
They acted because new Fish and Wildlife regulations would have required Nelson to kill the native whitetail deer and moose trapped inside his fence, as a precaution against the spread of chronic wasting disease and other animal illnesses. The Nelsons have operated Big Rack Ridge since 2001; no disease has been detected in any of their elk.
The proposed killing provoked a public outcry because Nelson is providing a home for an orphaned moose, Pete, who had a Facebook page and a large following of humans.
But the Legislature’s action outraged some parts of the hunting community. Hunters not only fear the spread of disease to Vermont’s wild deer herd, but object to a deal that gave Nelson ownership of the wild animals trapped inside his fence.
Ames said the controversy isn’t over.
“We are going to try to have this issue re-addressed” by the 2011 Legislature, he said. “The ramifications for the privatization of wildlife are significant — we can’t let that continue.”
Remember Pete the Moose and Big Rack Ridge? That’s the orphaned moose and his elk-hunting-park home I wrote about earlier this summer after Vermont lawmakers cut a special deal to exempt the park from Fish and Wildlife regulations. Well, the park’s owner missed an Aug. 1 deadline last week to submit a management plan for monitoring and protecting the health of animals inside — and outside — his seven miles of fence.
Instead, on Aug. 2, Doug Nelson of Derby wrote to the Agriculture Agency to request a two-month extension because “my management consultant is located in Texas and has been unable to come to Vermont.”
State veterinarian Dr. Kristin Haas said she is consulting with the attorney general’s office about whether to grant the exemption.
It is not clear what effect granting the postponement would have on other deadlines facing Big Rack Ridge, including compliance with the Agriculture Agency’s rules for deer farms by Sept. 1 and construction of a second, interior fence by Oct. 1.
“We are reviewing how to go forward,” Haas said.
“I’m not surprised,” Fish and Wildlife Board Chairman Brian Ames said of Nelson’s failure to meet the deadline. “He never made any attempt to come into compliance with our rules.”
Doug Nelson and his son Richard did not return my telephone calls of inquiry last week or Monday.
In May, Vermont lawmakers granted Nelson’s park an exemption from Fish and Wildlife regulations and transferred oversight to the Agriculture Agency.
They acted because new Fish and Wildlife regulations would have required Nelson to kill the native whitetail deer and moose trapped inside his fence, as a precaution against the spread of chronic wasting disease and other animal illnesses. The Nelsons have operated Big Rack Ridge since 2001; no disease has been detected in any of their elk.
The proposed killing provoked a public outcry because Nelson is providing a home for an orphaned moose, Pete, who had a Facebook page and a large following of humans.
But the Legislature’s action outraged some parts of the hunting community. Hunters not only fear the spread of disease to Vermont’s wild deer herd, but object to a deal that gave Nelson ownership of the wild animals trapped inside his fence.
Ames said the controversy isn’t over.
“We are going to try to have this issue re-addressed” by the 2011 Legislature, he said. “The ramifications for the privatization of wildlife are significant — we can’t let that continue.”
Saturday, August 7, 2010
State wildlife agencies need reform for effective stewardship of public trust
It seems to me that this Nelson amendment is an opportunity to address the issues raised below.
The Vermont Wildlife Partnership has been working on the funding issue, but the politicization of tyhe commisssioner's position has gotten worse and worse. Serving at the pleasure of the Governor is not the modle needed to fill the responsibility of trustee of our wildlife. I'm thinking if commissioners were appointed for a 4 year term they could speak out on issues like this and know they would have their job in the morning. Not ideal but better than what we now have.
Eric
From the Allen Press web site
The Vermont Wildlife Partnership has been working on the funding issue, but the politicization of tyhe commisssioner's position has gotten worse and worse. Serving at the pleasure of the Governor is not the modle needed to fill the responsibility of trustee of our wildlife. I'm thinking if commissioners were appointed for a 4 year term they could speak out on issues like this and know they would have their job in the morning. Not ideal but better than what we now have.
Eric
From the Allen Press web site
State wildlife agencies need reform for effective stewardship of public trust
The Journal of Wildlife Management - Many state wildlife agencies are dependent, financially and politically, on a single user group—hunters. Although this group should continue to be an integral part of wildlife conservation, agencies should adhere to the foundation upon which they were built—stewardship of the public trust. The Public Trust Doctrine postulates that wildlife is owned by no one and held in trust for the benefit of all.
The commentary, A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies, in the February issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management suggests considerations for reform of the wildlife conservation institution. State-level wildlife conservation and management dates back to the 19th century. To meet the changing ecological and social environment, institutional transformation is needed in the 21st century.
To avoid piecemeal reactions to external forces, basic principles of transformation should be established to carry wildlife conservation into the future. This commentary suggests four components the ideal institution should incorporate:
Broad-based fundingReliable, consistent, broad-based funding has not been achieved for most state wildlife agencies. The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.
Trustee-based governance
Trustee-based governance should function outside the narrow focus of various constituents and avoid subservience to political authorities. Currently, political interests dominate within many state wildlife conservation agencies. The average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is less than three years, with many being replaced for political reasons.
Multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from the professional staffTo make the best decisions regarding wildlife conservation, the best information must be available—and communicated without interference. Science should be the common ground for the institution when stakeholders become polarized over an issue.
Involvement of diverse stakeholders and partnersIt has been suggested that an “iron triangle” exists among resource management agencies, traditional user groups, and policy makers. Diverse groups such as environmentalists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, homeowners, industry, and agriculture can help build a stronger stakeholder base and bring more resources to wildlife conservation. As partners, their complementary strengths and capabilities could bring increased public support as well.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, published since 1937, is one of the world’s leading scientific journals covering wildlife science, management, and conservation. It is published eight times per year by The Wildlife Society. To learn more about the society, please visit: http://joomla.wildlife.org/.
Media Contact:
Robin Barker
Allen Press, Inc.
800/627-0326 ext. 410
rbarker@allenpress.com
The commentary, A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies, in the February issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management suggests considerations for reform of the wildlife conservation institution. State-level wildlife conservation and management dates back to the 19th century. To meet the changing ecological and social environment, institutional transformation is needed in the 21st century.
To avoid piecemeal reactions to external forces, basic principles of transformation should be established to carry wildlife conservation into the future. This commentary suggests four components the ideal institution should incorporate:
Broad-based fundingReliable, consistent, broad-based funding has not been achieved for most state wildlife agencies. The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.
Trustee-based governance
Trustee-based governance should function outside the narrow focus of various constituents and avoid subservience to political authorities. Currently, political interests dominate within many state wildlife conservation agencies. The average incumbency of state fish and wildlife directors is less than three years, with many being replaced for political reasons.
Multidisciplinary science as the basis of recommendations from the professional staffTo make the best decisions regarding wildlife conservation, the best information must be available—and communicated without interference. Science should be the common ground for the institution when stakeholders become polarized over an issue.
Involvement of diverse stakeholders and partnersIt has been suggested that an “iron triangle” exists among resource management agencies, traditional user groups, and policy makers. Diverse groups such as environmentalists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, homeowners, industry, and agriculture can help build a stronger stakeholder base and bring more resources to wildlife conservation. As partners, their complementary strengths and capabilities could bring increased public support as well.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, published since 1937, is one of the world’s leading scientific journals covering wildlife science, management, and conservation. It is published eight times per year by The Wildlife Society. To learn more about the society, please visit: http://joomla.wildlife.org/.
Media Contact:
Robin Barker
Allen Press, Inc.
800/627-0326 ext. 410
rbarker@allenpress.com
Read the article: The Journal of Wildlife Management, 2010; Vol. 74(2): 203-209
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Moose hunting in VT for ill youngsters in the Boston Globe
On Second Thought
These licenses are to thrill
Seriously ill youngsters given shot to hunt moose
The charitable organization Hunt of a Lifetime will pay the way for three seriously ill young people to participate in Vermont’s moose hunt in October. (Shawn Patrick Oullette/Associated Press) 
Vermont has upward of 4,000 moose roaming its woods, and this October it will have more than 750 hunters hot after their behinds during the state’s annual moose hunt. Three of the Green Mountain State’s rifle-toting, big-game hunters will be under age 21, each of them with a life-threatening illness, which means, sadly, it’s likely that both the hunted and the hunter won’t see next year’s moose season.
Yes, that’s unsettling on many levels, especially for those of us who aren’t the least bit familiar with, or tolerant of, the hunting culture. I don’t hunt (beyond foraging for stories) and I’ve always detested guns. I think guns and I think war and crime, senseless deaths, a government and a people in dire need of finding a better way to govern and live.
With that predisposition, I found it curious that a young hunter, most likely a kid in his or her early- or mid-teens with only weeks or months to live, would place shooting a moose on a things-to-do-before-I-die list. Faced with death, what happiness, what fulfillment, could there be in killing a moose?
The answer turns out to be the culture. Specifically, that hunting culture, which in many parts of the world remains a very big deal. To a lot of Vermonters, in fact, being awarded a moose hunting permit isn’t just akin to hitting the lottery — it is hitting the lottery. For this year’s six-day hunt, some 14,000 applicants, roughly 25 percent from out of state, applied for 765 permits. About 94.5 percent of the applicants were plain ol’ shotgun outta luck.
“It’s hard to explain to someone from Massachusetts, or someone not from a hunting culture,’’ said Tom Decker, director of operations of Vermont’s Fish & Wildlife Department. “But here, the hunting culture, especially the moose hunt, is a very big deal. If you go to a Babe Ruth League game, the talk on the bench is, ‘Did you hear who got a moose permit?’ For the kids who are granted special opportunity permits, they’re from hunting families, it’s central to what they do. It’s not a frivolous thing like, ‘OK, we shot the moose, it’s dead here in the woods, it’s all done.’ ’’
Tina Pattison is the founder/operator of Hunt of a Lifetime (huntofalifetime.org), the charitable organization in Harborcreek, Pa., she started more than 10 years ago in memory of her son, Matthew, soon after he died of lymphoma. The Pattisons, who live on the outskirts of Erie, are all hunters, and Matthew, explained his mom, became keen on harvesting a moose during his two-year battle with cancer. With a load of persistence and a load more phone calls, his parents found Matthew a moose hunt in Alberta.Continued...
Join Orion in fighting legislation that privatizes Vermont wildlife
| |||
| |||
| |||
Sportsmen for full Land and Water Conservation Funding
 |
| Orion is a supporter of this initiative. It was originally included in the big climate change bill, survived to the bill dealing with the BP disaster, but ultimately taken out of that bill. Big money and big oil still seem to rule. But they only get the same number of votes that we do - and there are a lot more of us, but we need to stand up for conservation and the future! Eric |