SOUTH OF MALTA — Jim Posewitz is confident he will see a huntable herd of free-roaming, wild bison somewhere in Montana in his lifetime.
"We'll have to hurry, though," he said, smiling.
Posewitz is 76.
A Montana conservationist, hunter, author and promoter of hunter ethics, Posewitz has lent his voice to the National Wildlife Federation's push to have bison restored to the 1.1-million-acre Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Montana.
"What better place, what better species and what better time?" he said.
Showing posts with label Jim Pozewitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Pozewitz. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Within the Womb of Time
Monday, September 12, 2011
By Jim Posewitz:
Tracking a deer or an elk across a snowy Montana landscape will on occasion result in meat in the freezer and at times antlers saved as reminders of the day. There may be times however when the serious and curious hunter may elect to follow the track in reverse. That person seeks to learn the secrets held by the trail seldom followed. It is the track that will reveal where the undisturbed animal fed, where it felt secure enough to bed, and how it chose to move through difficult terrain. Likewise, American hunters also have a backtrack, a trail through time that produced the wild things and places that now fill our lives.More:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Craig Sharpe Retires after 15 years with Montana Wildlife Federation
August 22, 2011
The Montana Wildlife Federation is an organization of conservation minded people who share a mission to protect and enhance Montana's public wildlife, lands, waters, and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage. www.montanawildlife.com
For Immediate Release
Contact::
Corey Fisher, Vice President of Internal Affairs – (406) 546-2979
Ben Lamb, Acting Executive Director – (406) 458-0227 (xtn) 108
Helena, MT –Tim Aldrich, President of the Board of Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), announced the retirement of Craig Sharpe . For12 years, Craig has been the well known and highly respected Executive Director of the Montana Wildlife Federation. Craig has played key roles in the successful efforts of the Federation to protect and enhance Montana’s public wildlife, lands, waters and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage. His leadership and vision on issues as far reaching as the elimination of Game Farms, the delisting of wolves and clarification of Bridge Access are some recent examples that have the Montana Wildlife Federation a leading voice both in Montana and Nationally when it comes to wildlife conservation and defending our outdoor heritage.
Sharpe’s lasting contributions were recognized at the recent Annual Meeting of the Montana Wildlife Federation when he received the Don Aldrich Conservationist of the Year Award. In his nomination it was stated that, “In many ways, for over twelve years Craig has been the glue keeping MWF, the State’s leading Hunter and Angler based conservation organization, focused and effective. His knowledge and passion for the mission of MWF provide a strong basis for what he does both internally and externally…No matter what needs to be done, he is the advisor, the resource to be contacted and involved in getting it accomplished, always with the needed degree of excellence. He is the ‘captain of the ship’ and often the crew that rows the boat.”
“Craig will be sorely missed,” said Corey Fisher Vice President of MWF for Internal Affairs. “He has left his own legacy of conservation in Montana and he is truly appreciated and respected by many.” Fisher said that the Board of Directors will start the process to find a new Executive Director. Sharpe’s retirement became effective August 15th, and the Board has named Ben Lamb as the acting Executive Director to help fulfill the duties and responsibilities so ably performed by Craig.
As we celebrate Craig’s storied career, the Montana Wildlife Federation will continue to serve Montana’s hunters and anglers in to the future. It is doubtful that the attempts which MWF helped to successfully defeat in the 2011 Legislative session will decrease over time. Those bills would have undermined conservation funding, eliminate the scientific management of wildlife and pitted hunters against other interests. MWF remains committed to our mission to protect and enhance Montana's public wildlife, lands, waters, and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage.
“No organization has invested so much in the future of Montana’s wildlife and outdoor heritage as much as has MWF. I am proud to have served the hunters and anglers of Montana through my role at MWF, but now I look forward to spending some time chasing birds, catching fish, and paddling my kayak down a lazy river,” said Sharpe.
Long time friend and confidant Jim Posewtiz had the final word on Craig, “Craig has demonstrated his dedication, commitment and passion for Montana’s wildlife, and those of who hold wild country and all wildlife near and dear. No one in Montana is more deserving of a retirement in the fields, forests and streams.”
Friday, July 8, 2011
Orion updates
Dear readers,
Sorry for the lack of posts this last month. I've been on the road - canoeing in Quebec, fishing in Vermont and Montana and sight seeing in Washington.
The Montana trip included an Orion board meeting and meetings with the good folks at the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation and the National Wildlife Federation. Best of all was time talking and working with Jim Posewitz. He has taken on what he is billing as his "last fight". It is a project to repopulate a 3 million acre area with wild buffalo. The goal is to have an intact ecosystem with all the native wildlife present from buffalo to sandhill cranes. People are included as in hunters and fishers. More on this as the project moves forward.
Hopw you are all having a good summer...
Eric
Sorry for the lack of posts this last month. I've been on the road - canoeing in Quebec, fishing in Vermont and Montana and sight seeing in Washington.
The Montana trip included an Orion board meeting and meetings with the good folks at the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation and the National Wildlife Federation. Best of all was time talking and working with Jim Posewitz. He has taken on what he is billing as his "last fight". It is a project to repopulate a 3 million acre area with wild buffalo. The goal is to have an intact ecosystem with all the native wildlife present from buffalo to sandhill cranes. People are included as in hunters and fishers. More on this as the project moves forward.
Hopw you are all having a good summer...
Eric
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
A HERITAGE LIKE NO OTHER
From Orion founder Jim Posewitz:
A HERITAGE LIKE NO OTHER
In 1885 a cowboy looking for open range grazing opportunity rode from Little Missouri, North Dakota to the base of Rocky Mountains and back. It was a journey of a thousand miles across America’s Northern Plains. Upon his return he told a young Dakota rancher and hunter, Theodore Roosevelt (TR), “I was never out of sight of a dead buffalo and never in sight of a live one.” It was a dramatic moment in a nation without a conservation ethic. A French nobleman, Alexis de Tocquville studying “Democracy in America” earlier observed we were “insensible to the wonders of nature.” To be sure, the pine forests of the lake states and a wildlife resource once described as something that “exceeded anything the eye of man had ever looked upon,” lay in ruins.
There were some who saw the unfolding tragedy. In 1858, the year of TR’s birth, Concorde naturalist Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Why should not we have our national preserves … in which the bear and panther, and …the hunter … may… not be civilized off the face of the earth.” Thoreau’s vision was described as “a mere whisper in the popular conscience.” When TR the hunter/conservationist became our president forty-two years later that whisper became a roar as he and associates endowed America with 230 million acres of national forests, wildlife refuges, game ranges, parks and monuments. It was 9.9 percent of America held for the restoration of wildlife. Perhaps more important, it was done for “the average man and average woman who make up the body of the American people” that we might all enjoy “the sturdy pleasure of the chase.”
It was not an easy road. When the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl drove our continent to its knees Franklin Roosevelt called the First North American Wildlife Conference. He told the assembled sportsmen and that this was their fight to win or loose. The challenge was accepted and today we are blessed with a new wild abundance from sea to shining sea. This endowment, passed to our custody, is a heritage like no other. This history of restoration, conservation and sharing through a little more than a century stands as living testimony to the common man’s power to change what exists.
We are again challenged, the economic times are not easy and the earth itself needs attention. The good news is that as hunters and anglers we have been here before, we have the “model” that works. A century and a half ago, Thoreau worried about saving a place for the hunter in civilization. Today, the conservation ethic those hunters brought to our culture, holds the answer to saving an environment capable of sustaining civilization.
A HERITAGE LIKE NO OTHER
In 1885 a cowboy looking for open range grazing opportunity rode from Little Missouri, North Dakota to the base of Rocky Mountains and back. It was a journey of a thousand miles across America’s Northern Plains. Upon his return he told a young Dakota rancher and hunter, Theodore Roosevelt (TR), “I was never out of sight of a dead buffalo and never in sight of a live one.” It was a dramatic moment in a nation without a conservation ethic. A French nobleman, Alexis de Tocquville studying “Democracy in America” earlier observed we were “insensible to the wonders of nature.” To be sure, the pine forests of the lake states and a wildlife resource once described as something that “exceeded anything the eye of man had ever looked upon,” lay in ruins.
There were some who saw the unfolding tragedy. In 1858, the year of TR’s birth, Concorde naturalist Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Why should not we have our national preserves … in which the bear and panther, and …the hunter … may… not be civilized off the face of the earth.” Thoreau’s vision was described as “a mere whisper in the popular conscience.” When TR the hunter/conservationist became our president forty-two years later that whisper became a roar as he and associates endowed America with 230 million acres of national forests, wildlife refuges, game ranges, parks and monuments. It was 9.9 percent of America held for the restoration of wildlife. Perhaps more important, it was done for “the average man and average woman who make up the body of the American people” that we might all enjoy “the sturdy pleasure of the chase.”
It was not an easy road. When the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl drove our continent to its knees Franklin Roosevelt called the First North American Wildlife Conference. He told the assembled sportsmen and that this was their fight to win or loose. The challenge was accepted and today we are blessed with a new wild abundance from sea to shining sea. This endowment, passed to our custody, is a heritage like no other. This history of restoration, conservation and sharing through a little more than a century stands as living testimony to the common man’s power to change what exists.
We are again challenged, the economic times are not easy and the earth itself needs attention. The good news is that as hunters and anglers we have been here before, we have the “model” that works. A century and a half ago, Thoreau worried about saving a place for the hunter in civilization. Today, the conservation ethic those hunters brought to our culture, holds the answer to saving an environment capable of sustaining civilization.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Spirit of Fair Chase video
This video clip is part of a series of training clips from the School of Outdoor Sports Orion founder Jim Posewitz is quoted from his book Beyond Fair Chase.
Spirit of Fair Chase from Mark Strand on Vimeo.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Otter Creek decision reminiscent of old buffalo hunter
From the Great Fall Tribune:
December 31, 2009
Otter Creek decision reminiscent of old buffalo hunter
By JIM POSEWITZ
I attended the State Land Board Hearing Dec. 21, not to testify, since I had done that in writing, but to watch the political theater around a major decision.
The rationalization that emerged to cause four of the five board members to vote in favor of leasing Otter Creek coal was that somebody was going to supply the coal, so why not us. After all, regulatory safeguards will protect us, there is an export potential to Pacific Rim countries, and we can pick up some big revenue.
It was, however, not possible to view the proceedings solely in the context of Otter Creek coal and the Tongue River Railroad to haul it away. There was more before the board than a simple decision to lease or not to lease coal.
The testimony relative to pollution, climate change, high-sodium coal, ruptured aquifers, tons of carbon emissions, and unsustainability mounted as witnesses presented their views.
The board's carefully crafted responses carried the hearing through the morning. Listening to the board, my mind drifted back to Charles "Buffalo" Jones, a 19th century commercial hide hunter.
Here is what he said:
"Often while hunting these animals as a business, I fully realized the cruelty of slaying the poor creatures. Many times did I 'swear off,' and fully determine I would break my gun over a wagon-wheel when I arrived at camp. ... The next morning I would hear the guns of other hunters booming in all directions and would make up my mind that even if I did not kill any more, the buffalo would soon all be slain just the same."
In the winter of 1882-83 ranch hands of Levi Howe shot the last buffalo on Horse Creek, tributary to Otter Creek. In the summer of 1883 rancher Walt Alderson shot one lonely old bull near Tongue River — the last of millions. This hearing was about the very same landscape — only deeper!
The majority presenting testimony pleaded for the current sustainable ranch economy, the people's fish and wildlife, and a healthy planet.
The commercial boosters were also there to make argument for industrial strength employment and revenue. Both the commercial boosters and the board placed reliance on the Montana regulatory structure to insure temperance.
The fact is, the regulatory structure put in place over 35 years ago, has been severely depleted by legislative erosion and a lack of regulatory resolve. In essence, those very same interest groups who traditionally line up for lowering environmental protection were now offering the regulatory residual as
assurance for our future.
Those original protections were put in place in a precious period in Montana history, a time when there were progressive politicians on both side of the political aisle.
That "golden moment" in history was replaced with one where one side of the aisle resembles little more than a population of corporate lemmings, while the other holds all the seats on the board. That expectation of the electorate was a misplaced hope.
As a result, addressing the environmental peril at hand once again falls to the people, who carry the burden of Sisyphus, and to one board member with the courage and wisdom to say "no."
Everyone ignored the real possibility that this buried carbon at rest called coal, may well be burned in China. Current events just concluded in Copenhagen reveal the Chinese diplomats as less than enthusiastic about curbing global contamination.
We can still remember they had to momentarily shut down their industries just to get through the Olympics. Also ignored was a promised Montana ballot issue that will seek to impose a "takings" claim with the potential to either raid state funds or cripple the already compromised regulatory process.
The most refreshing part of the hearing was the testimony of students from Missoula's Big Sky High School. The students presented factual, emotional and inspirational testimony; but, then it is their future on this planet that is at stake.
However, the moment they finished, the board, without pause, began reading carefully prepared motions and statements — statements obviously prepared long before the morning's proceeding.
Positions prepared before the students wrote theirs, before their icy drive from Missoula, and before listening to their emotional but reasoned pleas.
Granted, the board already had substantial input, but still, this was a government body with an educational trust responsibility. They chose to give the students a tough civics lesson in real world politics.
Finally, Jeanie Alderson presented testimony relative to the value of sustainable agriculture and the benefits of non-industrial landscapes.
Her testimony returns the buffalo to the story, since it was her great, great uncle Walt who shot that lonely bull above Tongue River in 1883.
It was her great, great aunt Nannie who clipped the old bull's curly mane to stuff a pillow. The Alderson testimony was a dramatic demonstration of the conservation ethic that emerged and grew strong in our Montana culture, generation upon generation.
It is a land ethic now held at the grassroots level in this state. It is an ethic that deserved better political representation than the single lonely vote of one board member.
For the Montana Land Board it is now the same next morning experienced by Charles "Buffalo" Jones.
Four of the five could only hear the guns of other planetary polluters. Only one had the courage to break my gun over a wagon-wheel and stand on principle. Denise Juneau was that person when she voted "no" and told us why.
They are words that warrant repetition: "We cannot vote as if we have blinders on and only see our
present economic picture. We must take lessons from the past seven generations and also look forward and provide for the interests of the next seven generations."
She only had one vote, but it keeps hope alive.
December 31, 2009
Otter Creek decision reminiscent of old buffalo hunter
By JIM POSEWITZ
I attended the State Land Board Hearing Dec. 21, not to testify, since I had done that in writing, but to watch the political theater around a major decision.
The rationalization that emerged to cause four of the five board members to vote in favor of leasing Otter Creek coal was that somebody was going to supply the coal, so why not us. After all, regulatory safeguards will protect us, there is an export potential to Pacific Rim countries, and we can pick up some big revenue.
It was, however, not possible to view the proceedings solely in the context of Otter Creek coal and the Tongue River Railroad to haul it away. There was more before the board than a simple decision to lease or not to lease coal.
The testimony relative to pollution, climate change, high-sodium coal, ruptured aquifers, tons of carbon emissions, and unsustainability mounted as witnesses presented their views.
The board's carefully crafted responses carried the hearing through the morning. Listening to the board, my mind drifted back to Charles "Buffalo" Jones, a 19th century commercial hide hunter.
Here is what he said:
"Often while hunting these animals as a business, I fully realized the cruelty of slaying the poor creatures. Many times did I 'swear off,' and fully determine I would break my gun over a wagon-wheel when I arrived at camp. ... The next morning I would hear the guns of other hunters booming in all directions and would make up my mind that even if I did not kill any more, the buffalo would soon all be slain just the same."
In the winter of 1882-83 ranch hands of Levi Howe shot the last buffalo on Horse Creek, tributary to Otter Creek. In the summer of 1883 rancher Walt Alderson shot one lonely old bull near Tongue River — the last of millions. This hearing was about the very same landscape — only deeper!
The majority presenting testimony pleaded for the current sustainable ranch economy, the people's fish and wildlife, and a healthy planet.
The commercial boosters were also there to make argument for industrial strength employment and revenue. Both the commercial boosters and the board placed reliance on the Montana regulatory structure to insure temperance.
The fact is, the regulatory structure put in place over 35 years ago, has been severely depleted by legislative erosion and a lack of regulatory resolve. In essence, those very same interest groups who traditionally line up for lowering environmental protection were now offering the regulatory residual as
assurance for our future.
Those original protections were put in place in a precious period in Montana history, a time when there were progressive politicians on both side of the political aisle.
That "golden moment" in history was replaced with one where one side of the aisle resembles little more than a population of corporate lemmings, while the other holds all the seats on the board. That expectation of the electorate was a misplaced hope.
As a result, addressing the environmental peril at hand once again falls to the people, who carry the burden of Sisyphus, and to one board member with the courage and wisdom to say "no."
Everyone ignored the real possibility that this buried carbon at rest called coal, may well be burned in China. Current events just concluded in Copenhagen reveal the Chinese diplomats as less than enthusiastic about curbing global contamination.
We can still remember they had to momentarily shut down their industries just to get through the Olympics. Also ignored was a promised Montana ballot issue that will seek to impose a "takings" claim with the potential to either raid state funds or cripple the already compromised regulatory process.
The most refreshing part of the hearing was the testimony of students from Missoula's Big Sky High School. The students presented factual, emotional and inspirational testimony; but, then it is their future on this planet that is at stake.
However, the moment they finished, the board, without pause, began reading carefully prepared motions and statements — statements obviously prepared long before the morning's proceeding.
Positions prepared before the students wrote theirs, before their icy drive from Missoula, and before listening to their emotional but reasoned pleas.
Granted, the board already had substantial input, but still, this was a government body with an educational trust responsibility. They chose to give the students a tough civics lesson in real world politics.
Finally, Jeanie Alderson presented testimony relative to the value of sustainable agriculture and the benefits of non-industrial landscapes.
Her testimony returns the buffalo to the story, since it was her great, great uncle Walt who shot that lonely bull above Tongue River in 1883.
It was her great, great aunt Nannie who clipped the old bull's curly mane to stuff a pillow. The Alderson testimony was a dramatic demonstration of the conservation ethic that emerged and grew strong in our Montana culture, generation upon generation.
It is a land ethic now held at the grassroots level in this state. It is an ethic that deserved better political representation than the single lonely vote of one board member.
For the Montana Land Board it is now the same next morning experienced by Charles "Buffalo" Jones.
Four of the five could only hear the guns of other planetary polluters. Only one had the courage to break my gun over a wagon-wheel and stand on principle. Denise Juneau was that person when she voted "no" and told us why.
They are words that warrant repetition: "We cannot vote as if we have blinders on and only see our
present economic picture. We must take lessons from the past seven generations and also look forward and provide for the interests of the next seven generations."
She only had one vote, but it keeps hope alive.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
