June 19, 2018

Elk Habitat Protected, Hunting Access Improved in Colorado

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Thanks to a conservation-minded landowner and a key state funding program, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation joined Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to permanently protect 2,677 acres of vital elk habitat in northwest Colorado.

“We are grateful to Rick Tingle, a RMEF life member, for placing a conservation easement on his Louisiana Purchase Ranch,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “Additionally, this project highlights the critical need for the Colorado Wildlife Habitat Program (CWHP) and its Habitat Stamp which supplied important funding to help push things through to the finish line.”

“With a fast-growing human population, it is more important than ever before to ensure the state’s wildlife has the habitat it needs to survive in perpetuity,” said Bill de Vergie, CPW area wildlife manager. “Thanks to funds provided by Great Outdoors Colorado and CPW’s Habitat Stamp Program, a very valuable stretch of land is now protected through the CWHP. Some limited public hunting access will also be provided so the benefits of this easement will pay dividends well into the future.”

CWHP provides a means for CPW to work with private landowners, local governments, and conservation organizations to protect important fish and wildlife habitat and provide places for people to enjoy opportunities to hunt and fish.

Since the ranch is bordered on three sides by State Land Board and Bureau of Land Management land in a part of the state home to Colorado’s largest elk herds, it provides connectivity for elk and mule deer migration. Thousands of elk pass through the area during the spring and fall. The property also provides summer and winter range for both species and other wildlife.

“This truly is a special place,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, who has visited the location. “We are grateful to the Tingle family for recognizing and helping us protect the wildlife values of this land.”

Access is improved to surrounding public lands because the landowner will provide perpetual unlimited permission to public hunters for a 25-day period each year with drive-through access. In addition, he signed off on a 10-year CPW agreement to provide access for six elk and/or deer hunters on lands off County Road 23 during a three-day window during Colorado’s third rifle season.

Since 1987, RMEF and its partners completed 726 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Colorado with a combined value of more than $165.2 million. These projects protected or enhanced 447,910 acres of habitat and opened or improved public access to 107,992 acres.

Share

Colorado Elk Herd in the Crosshairs

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is raising a word of warning about a “quiet” movement in Colorado seeking to place wolves on the landscape. It also has grave concerns about the tactics used by environmentalists and animal rights groups behind such efforts.

A representative of a wolf advocacy group, the Turner Endangered Species Fund, recently addressed a gathering of Colorado citizens claiming the placement of wolves on the Colorado landscape is “most germane” to the state’s future, and added “there’s no downside and there’s a real big upside.”

RMEF strongly disputes those claims.

“Wolves have a measureable and oftentimes detrimental impact on big game management wherever they go. Their reintroduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains led to a reduction of the Northern Yellowstone herd by more than 80 percent,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Among other things, wolves also greatly reduced elk numbers to dangerously low levels in central Idaho and have a profound impact on declining moose and deer populations in the Western Great Lakes region.”

The Northern Yellowstone Elk herd numbered more than 19,000 before wolf reintroduction in the mid-1990s but dropped below 4,000 in 2012. Increasing grizzly, black bear and mountain lion populations also played a role in the decline. Minnesota’s moose population numbered approximately 8,840 in 2006 but since dropped 55 percent to an estimated 4,020 in 2016.

“We have also witnessed time and time again that pro-wolf groups seek to ignore agreed upon population recovery goals, thus moving the goals posts, so to speak, by filing obstructionist lawsuits designed to drag out or deny the delisting process altogether and allowing wolf populations to soar well above agreed upon levels,” said Allen. “These groups totally ignore what they themselves agree to once they get wolves on the landscape and they use lawsuits to manipulate the system, ignoring state-based management. And, in many cases the American taxpayers are paying for their legal fees,” Allen added.

Animal rights groups filed at least nine lawsuits regarding wolf populations in the Northern Rockies and at least six others affecting wolves in the Western Great Lakes, as well as several others that have impacted the listing status of wolves across the contiguous 48 states. Currently, two cases are pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, affecting listing status in Wyoming and in the Western Great Lake states.

As part of the wolf reintroduction efforts in the mid-1990s, federal and state agencies agreed to delist wolves and place them under state management when the original minimum recovery levels reached 100 wolves each in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Wolves met those delisting standards in 2002 but 2015 minimum populations were nearly 500 percent above that—786 in Idaho, 536 in Montana and 382 in Wyoming. The original population objective for wolves in the Western Great Lakes was 1,350 but at last count the overall minimum population numbered greater than 3,600.

Though well above minimum population levels, federal protections remain in place for wolves in the Western Great Lakes region and Wyoming due to environmental lawsuits.

“An unhealthy and litigious precedent has been set that once pro-wolf groups get a foot in the reintroduction door, they kick it open and file lawsuit after lawsuit to stymy the delisting process while using the wolf as a fundraising tool. Colorado’s elk population will be next in the crosshairs,” cautioned Allen. ”And by the way wolves are nowhere near endangered.”

Share

Eagle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests; Final Rule

Executive Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finalizing revisions to permit regulations for nonpurposeful (incidental) take of eagles and take of eagle nests in part 22 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The revisions are intended to create a permitting framework that we can implement more efficiently and thus encourage greater public compliance while ensuring protection of bald and golden eagles. Our goal is to enhance protection of eagles throughout their ranges through implementation of mitigation measures that avoid and minimize, and compensate for, adverse impacts from otherwise lawful activities.

The Service is modifying the definition of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act’s “preservation standard,” which requires that permitted take be compatible with the preservation of eagles. We are also removing the distinction between standard and programmatic permits, codifying standardized mitigation requirements, and extending the maximum permit duration for eagle incidental take permits (50 CFR 22.26). The regulations also include a number of additional revisions to the eagle nest take regulations at 50 CFR 22.27, as well as revisions to the permit fee schedule at 50 CFR 13.11; new and revised definitions in 50 CFR 22.3; revisions to 50 CFR 22.25 (permits for golden eagle nest take for resource development and recovery operations) for consistency with the Sec. 22.27 nest take permits; and two provisions that apply to all eagle permit types (50 CFR 22.4 and 22.11).<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wish to Be a Lynx Rather Than an Eagle

Actually, animals don’t matter when it comes to politics and profits.

But don’t go look!

Which reminds of the story of Barack “Walking Eagle” Obama, at a press conference, attempting, in his mumbling, stumbling, knuckle-dragging way, to speak about the need to protect the spotted owl. He told of the time he once ate a spotted owl. One reporter asked what it tasted like and he replied, “It was a cross between a bald eagle and a northern loon.”

If Obama’s greenie projects, to repay the cronies that got him elected, wanted to be put windmills up in the middle of the largest population of nesting spotted owls, you can bet it would happen.

We now see how, depending upon which environmental group and who forked over the most money for Obama’s “selection,” there is no rhyme or reason nor consistency in the hows and whys of the issuance of Incidental Take Permits – a Federal license to kill endangered animals.

So that Obama can pay off his political payback bills to his hacks before leaving office, in order for some of his crony wind farm owners to build their 500-plus windmill project, the Government is going to issue them an Incidental Take Permit to kill as many as 2 bald eagles and 14 golden eagles a year. The deaths occur from rotating windmill blades chopping the eagles and many other bird species into chucks fit for a stew. (Rumor has it the “road kill” is used in dog food.)

A previous study showed that such a wind project would result from between 46 and 64 eagle deaths. But, that information was discarded because it didn’t fit the president’s narrative on cronyism.

In comparison, Maine, in recent years, was issued an Incidental Take Permit that would allow trappers to kill one half a Canada lynx a year for ten years. Sound equitable to you? What a deal!

If lynx could fly, one has to wonder if some of the wind projects in Maine would have been granted Incidental Take Permits allowing for the destruction of 46 to 64 lynx over a prescribed period of time.

More information on the Incidental Take Permit for Eagles in Colorado.

Some online comments here.

And information about Obama’s environmental buddies putting up reward money to prosecute whoever killed two Canada lynx in Maine recently.

Share

And People Think Little Red Riding Hood is a Fairy Tale

This not only is a fairy tale, but it’s the biggest lie of the century.

“Phillips described the benefits of wolf recovery in terms of a “trophic cascade.” Essentially, that the reintroduction of wolves in Western Colorado will have a widespread effect resulting from the predation of elk. Most directly, it has the potential to cleanse the herd and mitigate the prevalence of chronic wasting disease. If wolves have a “big enough effect on prey, it can benefit willows and Aspens for example. They can grow more robust and many species can benefit from that,” he said.”<<<Read More Nonsense>>>

Share

Colorado Has Too Many Black Bears – We Told You So

*Editor’s Note* – When Colorado decided to effectively ban every method to legally harvest black bears, with the exception of one man and one rifle, we warned the public and officials that when social demands, orchestrated by the environmentalists, remove the tools necessary for wildlife managers to control wild animal populations, problems like those now appearing in Colorado would persist.

This is the same message that many of us sent to voters in Maine who, thankfully, opted not to do away with the hunting and trapping tools needed to keep bears in check. Now Colorado is considering increasing bag limits on bears and/or lengthening the season. Good luck with that. Maybe they should consider repealing the ban and allowing baiting and hounding.

The Post Independent reports higher numbers of bear-human conflicts has led to more relocation of the animal, but more relocations have led to less available locations for more relocations. According to the newspaper, Parks and Wildlife has relocated six bears and put down 17 this year in Management Area 17, which includes Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and most of Pitkin and Eagle counties.

Parks and Wildlife District Manager Dan Cacho told The Post Independent relocation gets complicated when that many incidents occur in one spot because officials want to move the bears “at least 100 miles away” but still need to keep them in Colorado.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

As Part of a 3-Year Study, Colorado will kill bears and lions to see if it will boost deer herds

*Editor’s Note* – I changed the headline for this story to one that is quite a bit more honest as it pertains to what is actually going on in Colorado. Reading the article that is in the link, will give you understanding as to what I mean.

“We remain well below where we would like to be in terms of overall mule deer numbers,” said Northwest Regional Manager Ron Velarde. “There is no one reason and no silver bullet solution to this problem, but many in the public identified predator management as one factor that could yield positive results, and we agree.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Colorado Mother Fights Off Mountain Lion To Save Her Son

A Colorado woman managed to fight off a mountain lion that was attacking her 5-year-old son.

During the harrowing rescue Friday evening, she “reached into the animal’s mouth and wrested her son’s head from its jaws,” The Aspen Times reported.

Source: Colorado Mother Fights Off Mountain Lion To Save Her Son : The Two-Way : NPR

Aspen

Share

A Wolf Letter to the Denver Post

(Kept to 151 words)

As a 32 year Biologist/Refuge Manager/Special Agent employee of USFWS:

  1. Wolf presence or absence is not and should not be a decision for persons outside Colorado.
  2. Wolves kill livestock; reduce big game herds, hunting opportunities and licenses,; and they kill dogs.
  3. Wolves are extremely effective vectors of over 30 diseases and infections of great danger to humans, wildlife and domestic animals.
  4. Wolves are deadly threats to rural children, elderly (women in particular) and adults as when rabid.  Asian, European and North American history and current events confirm this routinely.
  5. If Colorado residents choose to introduce or tolerate wolves, Counties should retain the final decision for Local elected officials to decide whether or how wolves are to be controlled, tolerated or exterminated in their County.  Local officials are the most responsive to those local residents that would live with wolves and their very many social, biological and economic ill effects.

 

Jim Beers

15 February 2016

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.  You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Colorado Faces Fascist Government Dealing With Wolves

*Editor’s Note* – I’ve highlight the most relevant part of any discussion involving the spreading of GI toxic wolves across the entire landscape of the United States. We live in a fascist state where the Federal Government dictates to everyone what will be. Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and any other state can oppose wolf introduction and be damned. We operate in a rigged system of totalitarians. Expect wolves and disease on every doorstep in America once the fascists are through.

It amazes me how this corrupt government is all concerned about following the letter of the law…when it’s convenient for them and promotes their fascist regime. When it doesn’t they piss on the rule of law.

Federal officials declined to comment. They’re not required to seek state blessings as they develop a Mexican wolf recovery plan by the end of 2017 to prevent extinction.

Source: Colorado turns cold shoulder to endangered wolves – The Denver Post

Share