April 18, 2014

Radical Groups Intend to Sue Idaho to Protect Canada Lynx

LynxintrapThe usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.

Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.

First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.

So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?

The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.

With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.

The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.

There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.

As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?

If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.

It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.

The Largest Otter Ever Recorded

In V. Paul Reynolds’ latest outdoor article, he tells of his discovery of what was left of an old log cabin in Maine’s Aroostock County in the DeBouillie area. Through research he finds out, through a nephew of the cabin’s owner, that the cabin used to be the winter abode of trapper Walter Bolstridge:

The cabin was a trapper’s winter digs. And the trapper, Walter Bolstridge, was my friend’s uncle. According to Floyd his Uncle Walter would hire a bush plane to fly him and his gear into the roadless DeBoullie area in October. He would stay and trap. In March he would come out with his furs in time to make the Annual Town Meeting. Imagine that! What a special breed of man he must have been.

By the way, Uncle Walter may still hold the record for having trapped the largest Otter ever recorded. He got his name in the newspaper. The Maine Fish and Game Commissioner at the time, George J. Stoble, said that the critter, which Bolstridge trapped on the Fish River, was a world’s record otter.

Well, with a lot of help from a friend, who did some of his own research, this is what he found about Walter Bolstridge’s world record otter:





Gene Letourneau: Subsidizing Honest, Capable, Experienced Trappers Makes More Sense

SportsmenSayGene L. Letourneau of Maine was a outdoor sportsman, an outdoor writer and author of many books covering several topics, including game animals, hunting, trapping, fishing, and more. In one publication, “Sportsmen Say,” a book published in 1975 by Guy Gannett Publishing Company, Letourneau talks about Maine coyotes; something he calls the “new wolf.”

Read below his 1975 perspective and then following this excerpt, taken from pages 73 and 74 of the book, I’ll offer some discussion and commentary.

However, the larger animal or the new wolf, may be coming in from eastern Quebec where in the winter of 1973-74 they were considered common in some parts of the Gaspe Region.

By 1974 the establishment of this new predator in Maine appeared permanent. Some people welcomed it, others deplored it. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game were trying to satisfy both factions, an impossible dream.

There were suggestions for their control such as hunting them with dogs, calling or tracking them, all idealistic but hardly effective in Maine.

As a hound enthusiast of more than fifty years and being familiar with the hunting of coyotes in some states with dogs, I can only say that any of these three control methods would be a waste of time and money. Subsidizing honest, capable and experienced trappers to operate in the trouble areas would make more sense.

While the Fish-Game Department is aware that the economic value of such an animal cannot be compared with that of the whitetailed deer, it has made no plans to attempt a population control program of the new predator.

Dr. Richens says he expects the animal’s range and number to increase in Maine. But he adds that it is his “personal opinion that coyotes will have little effect on the whitetailed deer herd. They will not kill a significant number as compared to the usual damage done by dogs.”

A state-wide leash law on dogs, however, enacted in 1973, has resulted in a tremendous decline in deer killed by them.

Not everyone agrees with Dr. Richens on the relative effect of the new predator on deer. But a Game Division spokesman sums up the situation with “We’ve got these predators and there isn’t much we can do about them.”

Henry Hilton, a research assistant at the University of Maine Orono Wildlife Cooperative Unit, began a study of the Maine coyote in 1973, planned to spend more time with Warden Sirois studying coyotes in the Big Black River area.

Hilton discounts the “new wolf” theory advanced by Dr. Coppinger and quotes the latter as using the name because is saves a lot of time. He adds, however, that in this matter of professional disagreement Dr. Coppinger stands alone. Hilton contends the animal is not a wolf.

In two years of research Hilton says he will accumulate a good amount of information involving over 100 of the animals, including food and hunting habits and their relationships with deer.

While he agrees with the writer that there is sufficient evidence in Maine that this new predator kills deer in winter he adds “this does not mean that there is a problem.”

No everyone will agree with Dr. Richens or Hilton on the relative effect of the new predator on deer in Maine.

A Game Division spokesman summed up the problem this way: “We’ve got these predators and there isn’t much we can do about them.”

After approximately 40 years, can we conclude that Letourneau was knowledgeable and prophetic?

Gene said the “new wolf” “may be coming in from eastern Quebec.” That seems to have been the case – knowledgeable – check!

Letourneau said that Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (then Game) idea to control the “new wolf” could be done with tracking, hunting with dogs and calling – knowledgeable and prophetic – check!

His statement that, “Subsidizing honest, capable and experienced trappers to operate in trouble areas would make more sense,” was extremely knowledgeable and prophetic – check!. But then MDIFW and the Maine Legislature stole away from trappers the best tool in the arsenal to control the “new wolf.” The snare.

I should like to point out that Letourneau said to use these trappers in “trouble areas.” Did he mean around slaughter sites in deer yards during tough winters? I think so – prophetic – check!

I think it safe to say that Gene Letourneau was knowledgeable enough to predict that his “new wolf” would be a problem for deer in winter deer yards, at a minimum. While others made claims that these new predators were NOT wolves and that these new predators would NOT be a problem for deer, history has shown otherwise.

And with this, it’s quite clear that Mr. Letourneau was both extremely knowledgeable and prophetic – check and check!

Good calls.

IDFG: “How Little We Know About Animals That Live in Our Forests”

IdahoLynxAn Idaho wildlife biologist, part of a five-year program, “to collect information on 20 little-studied creatures in the Idaho Panhandle and northeastern Washington”, was quoted as saying after trappers captured a Canada lynx:

“I was surprised that there were lynx in the West Cabinets,” said Michael Lucid, who’s heading up the Multi-Species Baseline Initiative for Idaho Fish and Game. “It shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.” (Emphasis added)

I have no intention to pick on or embarrass any particular employee of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) or even the department as a whole (I know. Shocking isn’t it?). The statement made probably has more truth to it than most people know and that some shouldn’t be too eager to make.

The article makes claim of two things. One, Canada lynx is at least one species that is “little-studied” in portions of Idaho. Two, the biologist admits “how little we know” about certain animals his department is responsible for managing and caring for.

But I’m not here to blame IDFG necessarily for not knowing anything about Canada lynx. Instead, I might suggest that one might think that it would be a good idea to have even more than casual knowledge about a species before it is placed on the Endangered Species Act list of endangered and/or threatened species.

Consider this. The Endangered Species Act(ESA), has something to say about what must exist before any species can be considered as being threatened or endangered and protected by law. Note: The ESA, once implemented, can cause severe limitations and restrictions on private property, property rights and even a state agency to effectively run their own wildlife management programs. In short, administering the ESA for any species in any state should be considered a most serious undertaking, due to the potentially devastating fallout it can cause.

Having said that, isn’t it reasonable to expect that any professional wildlife administrator/biologist, governmental and non governmental agency, politician, etc. would want to know more about a species than “how little we know” BEFORE a species is listed and costing so much?

So, what does the ESA say must be the conditions in order to consider listing of a species?

SEC. 4.[16 U.S.C. 1533] (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

I should also note right here that in order to remove a species from federal protection, ALL of the above criteria must be met.

I ask. Are the above five conditions that this law, enacted by Congress, something that fits the demand and execution of listing the Canada lynx in portions of Idaho that, according to one biologist was, “little-studied creatures” and “shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.”? In other words, how can one honestly administer to protect a species it knows nothing about?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has studied the Canada lynx extensively (enough to list a species honestly), then why is it necessary for the IDFG to conduct its own study of a species they say is “little-studied” and admittedly they know nothing about? One would think it sensible to contact the USFWS and get the critical information about the lynx that they MUST have compiled before making such a critical decision about whether or not to list the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species. They did do this, didn’t they? And it was specific to Northern Idaho, right?

If they did this in Idaho, who did the work? Obviously it must not have been IDFG employees because they say the lynx hasn’t been studied and they don’t know anything about it. If USFWS has the information, shouldn’t that be shared? And if so why spend more money to learn the same things? Or is this busy work being paid for through grants in order to keep more government employees at work?

Well, here’s the Canada Lynx Listing Decision page from the USFWS website. You go to work and find in there where studies were conducted and information gathered, specifically for Idaho, that would scientifically warrant placing the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list where it has been designated. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, you can also find information on the IDFG website about the trapping of the lynx in Northern Idaho, but there’s nothing there that answers any of my questions.

And thus, I am left with an even bigger question of which I don’t suspect to get an answer for. Is there ever any real specific information gathered before listing ANY species or do USFWS “experts” just use the same regurgitated information available from Alaska, Colorado and West Canine, and only cherry pick through the information that fits their narrative and agenda and ignore the rest?

Maine is another state where the Canada lynx is listed as a threatened species. And like many species the lynx is not threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” But for political purposes, Canada lynx and other species recognize boundaries when it is convenient for USFWS to do so and ignored when it is not.

While the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources fakes their way though making people think they are seriously proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act, how about I suggest that before any species can be listed anywhere in the United States (and by the way, the United States thinks it has the right to list species in other countries.) specific studies must be done by third parties and paid for by those agencies requesting the listing, before any decisions can be made about federal restrictions.

I think it’s obvious nobody knows anything specific about Canada lynx in Northern Idaho and yet, the USFWS took it upon themselves to flex their muscle and blindly list portions of the Gem State as lynx critical habitat and historic range.

Had this effort been done correctly the first time, it would look something like this. Whoever the entity or agency seeking to list the Canada lynx as threatened or endangered, would have to be prepared to foot the bill to conduct the third party studies to support or refute the claims of those claiming the lynx was in danger. Then IDFG, in this case, could have taken the money and conducted the necessary studies on lynx to determine the existing population of lynx, the health and range, and condition of the habitat. This all being done BEFORE any proposals are drafted for consideration of listing.

Yes, we probably know very little about some or most animals in our forests, but when it comes to the politics of the Endangered Species Act and the money that can be made from it, it’s quite amazing how much information can be faked.

And don’t forget, this is Stop Government Abuse Week.

With Manly Men Degradation, So Goes Hunting, Trapping, Fishing

People could spend a great deal of time discussing whether or not the feminizing of men in this country, and probably worldwide, is a deliberate scheme planned by “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” The reality, however, is a disturbing trend for those of us who desire to fight against those “progressing” to a new world order of unisexism, i.e. adding a bit of manliness to the female species with major modifications to the manly man into a big fat wuss!

For many, hunting, fishing, trapping, survival in the woods and enduring the elements, is a manly occupation and recreational interest, in addition to the implementation of resources to provide healthy food for the family. Ah, yes, manly endeavors! The “rulers of the darkness of this world” see such a lifestyle as a threat to them and their perverse world and therefore must work to change it.

With this changing, the task of putting an end to such things as hunting, trapping, fishing, access to land, etc. becomes easier; therefore adding to the substantiation of the idea that the wussification of man is a planned event.

If you might recall, back in December I posted a video of an advertisement the Obama administration either used or was considering using to promote their fascist Obamacare. By today’s standards, many would think of the sick and perverse ad as being beefcake and manly, but it is quite the opposite. The point being that the target audience, in which the media willingly beats the drum, is the young people, as it is their money that is needed to fund Obamacare. The audience is, by and large, effeminate, and thus the need for such a commercial.

Along the same lines, Pajama Boy, has become the poster child for Obamacare and an example of the kind of “man” this new generation of entitlement mentality has created.

Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez says of Pajama Boy:

It is now unfashionable to be the old manly man. When the Obama administration launched a campaign to attract enrollees into Obamacare, did they they front up a two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping he-man? Hell no. They employed “Pajama Boy” to lure the mice into the trap. This is who they reckoned the rising generation would admire. The heck with aspiring to be a test pilot or an astronaut. What people want today is the “funemployment” guy; the thing who drinks hot chocolate in his parents’ basement preparatory to selling them on subsidized, crap insurance. Pajama Boy is the new beau ideal. Why would the PR men have used his visage to grace their ads if women preferred “manly men”?

You can make the half-serious argument that in order to be a winner in today’s world it pays to be a loser. After all, you get subsidies. You get sympathy. You can play the victim card. Above all, you get the girl.

Isn’t everything, at least that is real, about hunting, fishing, trapping, of the “two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping, he-man?” If then, the men (I use the term very loosely) are becoming sissified, aren’t they then having everything manly bred, manipulated and indoctrinated out their existence?

With the constant barrage of animal rights, natural regulation, the hands-off approach to wildlife management and the lie that hunting, trapping and fishing are “inhumane”, then it would stand to reason that those activists wanting to rid the world of manly men, including the barbarism (in their eyes) of hunting, fishing and trapping, will target the Pajama Boy population of feminized boys.

In 2004, Maine fought against the less mature onset of this feminism movement to ban bear hunting and squeaked out a victory. Will they be able to this time? I can say that the effort will be harder to ward off. I’m not predicting the outcome.

Fernandez says:

But the insight of mutual degradation may provide the right clue. We probably seek people in proportion to our own aspirations. Our romantic goals are formed from our inner state. If we develop a taste for basements, then we look for stuff there. Civilization has lost its taste for manly men, not because those vanished figures are any less admirable but because steadfastness, courage and the need to be true have gone out of style.

It will be November before we find out what’s in the basements of Maine houses.


By The Company You Keep

*Editor’s Note* – The following by James Beers is another perspective and response to the letter I published yesterday about an effort to ban trapping on public lands. Please refer to my article for my view point and a copy of the letter Mr. Beers refers to in his article below.

By the Company You Keep

To whom it may concern:

The following letter from Mr. Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Foundation was forwarded to me by Dr. Charles Kay, Wildlife Ecologist at my Alma Mater, Utah State University. I consider them both good friends and front line allies in the war (the correct word) to save rural America’s culture and traditions as well our Constitutional rights. I hold each of them in the highest regard.

Mr. Marbut is writing the letter a Montana State lawyer/bureaucrat to resist an initiative in Montana to ban trapping on public lands.

Trapping has always been a prime target by animal rights radicals and environmental extremists for eradication as a third (after introducing deadly and destructive predators and banning guns) step in destroying rural American economies, families and property values. A little tale about trapping and those that would eradicate it is in order.

In the late 1990’s near the end of the reign of President Clinton, the 2nd woman (oh there is such joy in remembering that “achievement”) Director of US Fish and Wildlife Service and her (former Congressional staffer) Assistant in charge of the millions in state excise taxes stolen from state fish and wildlife programs only a few years earlier were outraged when the European Union backed down from a 6-year threat to ban all furs from the US, Canada and Russia unless they banned the leghold trap.

Now the leghold trap is the only effective, tried and true method to harvest the annual renewable take of furs by private trappers for the fur market and the best control method by private and government control agents to catch and transfer or kill deadly, destructive and harmful animals. The US was the largest exporter of furs followed by Canada and then Russia. Europe was the largest importer of furs in the world. UN politicians and bureaucrats were bribed and cajoled by the same radicals and extremists behind all the government campaigns that are destroying Rural America as I write this. The Director at the time and her Assistant were in the pockets of those radicals, thus their outrage about the European Union back-down since they has been promising the radicals and extremists that they would be successful.

During the final year of the reign of President Clinton, the Assistant met with White House and OMB politicos and tried hard to get an Executive Order signed by the President BANNING TRAPPING ON ALL FEDERAL LANDS. He was unsuccessful mainly, I guess, because a Presidential Election was right around the corner and the trapping ban and all the inevitable economic loss to trappers and furriers (many, many millions) plus the inevitable explosion of animal damage without any available remedy was sure to cause significant vote ripples.

So the other Party got elected anyway, and the erstwhile Director and the “Assistant”? The Director, who had made the Defenders of Wildlife THE federal wolf damage compensation Pooh-BA (a radically questionable move making it impossible for her to go to work for them for 3 years) was hired by the National Wildlife Federation (mouthwash, please) in a high-paying non-job from which she was “let-go” with a golden parachute “package in 2 years and after a one-year hiatus was hired by (guess-who?)
the Defenders of Wildlife where today she reigns as Queen of DOW.

And, what of the Assistant? He was kept around as a “Science Advisor” for 8 years by the reputed “opposition” party until the current Party took over despite all the mess Bush left. Soon the old “Assistant”/”Science Advisor” was named Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service where he reigns as he “services” the rest of us, especially Rural America.

So, I ask you: if we are known by the company we keep, who do you stand with? Is it two brave American heroes like Mr. Marbut and Dr. Kay or two ne’er-do-wells like the Queen of the Defenders of Wildlife and the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service?

As for me, I stand with Mr. Marbut and Dr. Kay and ask you to do the same. We truly are known by the company we keep.

(Mr. Marbut’s letter follows.)[Please follow this link for a copy of the letter in reference.]

Jim Beers
27 January 2014

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

Trapping Tip: Snowman Set

PHOTO: Humor


Canada Lynx in Maine “Above Historic Levels” – Feds Stonewalling ITP

LynxThe protection of the Canada lynx in Maine and other regions of the country, is an excellent example of some of what is terribly wrong with the Endangered Species Act. Section 3 (20) states: “The term “threatened species” means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

The same wording is applied to the term, “endangered species.” I chose “threatened species” as the Canada lynx in Maine is classified by the Feds as “threatened.”

What is most often overlooked by environmental zombies, whose purpose is to end all activities human, is the reference “a significant portion of its range.” To declare the lynx in Maine “threatened” and therefore protected by the Federal Government is a joke and makes a sham of the entire purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The state of Maine may opt to protect the lynx within their borders but to do so shows a lack of understanding of species range and therefore can only be explained as politically or agenda driven (We can add money-making to this list).

In 1999, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) began a study of the Canada lynx. That assessment, completed in 2012, is available on the MDIFW website. The authors of the assessment openly state that the lynx in Maine sits on the very outer edge of the cats’ “historic range.” Maps made available on the MDIFW website of the Lynx Assessment clearly show the “historic range” of Canada lynx in North America and any half blind person, with nearly zero math and geography skills, can conclude that that tiny portion of Maine, being at the outer edges of lynx range, is but a drop in the bucket compared to the total historic range. And while Canada lynx thrive in a “significant portion of its range” activists and greedy biologists overlook the obvious for personal goals and political agendas, and we the tax payer pay for it and allow it.

In addition to the range issue, one of the biologists undertaking the lynx study, points out that there are many factors that attribute to the population fluctuations of lynx in Maine. Lynx require a specific kind of habitat and their favorite food, the snowshoe hare. Generally speaking, when the hare is gone, so too are the lynx; retreating to the north where the food is. With this knowledge does it make much sense to implement government restrictions on Maine people in hopes of somehow protecting a species that doesn’t need protecting? That historically has produced a roller coaster ride of population numbers due to so many variables, many of which we humans cannot control?

But there’s a lot more to this story than whether or not the ESA is administered as it was intended. In Maine, once the political lynching of a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) head was complete, environmentalists moved in to get much of Maine designated as Canada lynx critical habitat. Among putting restrictions on landowners, it would eventually have a great influence on trapping, the elimination of the use of snares and a drastic reduction in the ability of trappers to catch coyotes, that with overgrown numbers were raising the dickens with the whitetail deer herd and still are.

Animal rights activists and environmentalists sued the State of Maine to stop all trapping because the activity was threatening the Canada lynx in their opinions. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) et. al. believed continued trapping met the definition of “harassment” under the guidelines of the ESA.

An agreement was reached between the State of Maine and AWI, in which Maine made changes to the size of traps, among other rules, that would better protect the Canada lynx. That consent decree was signed on October 20, 2010. More on the specifics of the Consent Decree in a moment.

According to the Lynx Assessment, Maine currently sees historically high populations of Canada lynx. It is estimated over 1,000 lynx live in the Pine Tree State. In addition, in Northern and Western Maine, these areas offer, at present, a carrying capacity of between 1,100 and 1,800 lynx, according to the Assessment.

With so many lynx present in Maine, a rational human being might ask why the lynx is a protected species. That is a good question and the only answer I can offer is that more than likely the Canada lynx will remain a protected species because it has, 1.) become a great tool for the environmentalists and animal rights groups. While these groups want to end trapping, hunting, fishing and any “consumptive” outdoor sport, they also understand that incremental destruction of the outdoor sporting heritage is quite effective. Environmentalists, under the support and control of the power brokers in Washington and New York, will prevail in the long term. They always do. 2.) It’s a great money maker for these groups filing lawsuit after lawsuit in order to get what they know the Feds and the Courts will give them in the end. It’s quite a racket actually.

Also bear in mind that in order for any species to be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” it must meet certain criteria. In order for a species to be removed from protection of the ESA, the same criteria must have been resolved. So, the question I want to know is when the criteria for listing is not adhered to, what hope is there it will be when it comes time to delist?

Due to the lawsuit filed by AWI, the Commissioner of the MDIFW opted to place a ban on the use of snares. Snaring around deer wintering areas during periods of deep snow, was a very effective way of mitigating the losses of deer by coyotes. How the ban actually worked its way into the Maine Code is a lesson in corrupt politics and slimy, back door shenanigans by politicians and what appears to be MDFIW employees.

According to the Consent Decree that I spoke of earlier:

The consent decree remains in effect unless and until the FWS [USFWS] acts favorably on Maine’s application for a federal “incidental take permit”

An Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is a permit issued by the USFWS, with guidelines to protect a species, set up through negotiations, to also protect the state and sportsmen from lawsuits that might be filed due to the accidental “taking” of a protected species.

From the time that the Feds listed the Canada lynx in Maine as a “threatened” species, sportsmen have been hounding the MDIFW to apply for and get an ITP. The application process began in 2006. We are now in the year 2014 and according to the Lynx Assessment:

The USFWS reviewed MDIFW’s application and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Department’s application as required by law. A 90-day public comment period on the Department’s
ITP application and USFWS’ EA closed on February 7, 2012. As of July 2012, the USFWS is responding to approximately 350 unique comment from the more than 6,000 comments received and preparing their findings before making a determination on our permit.

And there is no guarantee that the USFWS will issue an ITP. Why not? For one, they probably just don’t want to. And two, from the very moment that Maine applied for an ITP, corruption was rampant among certain employees of the MDIFW. One such employee now works for the USFWS and I’m sure is instrumental in prohibiting or at least stonewalling the process of Maine receiving an ITP.

The Consent Decree prohibits the MDIFW commissioner from making any changes to trapping laws. In communications I have had with the current commissioner, he claims he has the authority to implement snaring as a tool to manage predators and game species. I disagree but at this point it matters not so long as Maine is hamstrung by the Consent Decree. And, Maine will remain in that condition until such time that the Feds issue that all important ITP. Will they? Even now with lynx at historic high numbers, what reason do they have not to? It seems a heck of a lot more that they had to list the lynx as threatened in the beginning. But that’s rationalizing. Something government does not do.

It’s been 8 years since Maine began its application process for an ITP. This is government bureaucracy at its finest, along with the politics of environmentalism; a disease that runs rampant in all of our federal as well as state fish and wildlife agencies.

For some the frustration level is very high on this issue. All I can say is don’t hold your breath. If the day ever comes that Maine receives an ITP, nothing is going to change, at least significantly, as it pertains to trapping/snaring regulations. One can, however, expect that within a short time of the issuance of an ITP, another lawsuit against trapping will be filed. There is never any ending to this nonsense. It’s a way of life.

RMEF Opposes Lawsuit over Idaho Wolf Management

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG) in opposition to a lawsuit aimed at stopping the management of wolves in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.

“There is nothing illegal about this management activity,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It clearly falls within the guidelines of Idaho’s federally-approved wolf management plan.”

IDFG hired a hunter in late 2013 to track and kill wolves from two packs in central Idaho after determining wolf predation is a major factor preventing ailing elk populations in the area from recovering.

“The wilderness is a special place, but it is different from a national park,” said Virgil Moore, IDFG director. “Backcountry hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing are treasured opportunities, and Fish and Game has actively managed wildlife in central Idaho since before the area was designated wilderness.”

Moore stated aerial surveys in the Frank Church Wilderness indicate elk populations dropped 43 percent since 2002 and wolf populations are too high in relation to elk numbers. He also said there are at least six documented packs in the Middle Fork Salmon zone and several more across the wilderness area.

“Wolf hunting and trapping by sportsmen in the Middle Fork zones have not been sufficiently effective in reducing elk predation. Even if successful, this action will in no way come near to eliminating wolves,” added Moore. “That is not, and never will be, our goal.”

Last year IDFG managers estimated Idaho’s wolf population at 683, an 11 percent drop from 2012, but more than 300 percent above the original minimum recovery goal of 150 established in the mid-1990s. The highest total was in 2009, when it estimated 859 wolves were in the state.

“There is a small fraction of people that believe the wolf deserves special rules and designations above and beyond all other wildlife. Wolves need to remain under state management like elk, deer, bears and lions in order to ensure balance and that there is sufficient habitat for the survival of all species,” added Allen.

RMEF also remains committed to learning more about wolves through research efforts. Since 1989, RMEF invested nearly $664,000 in research grants to advance scientific understanding of wolves, wolf interactions with other species, and overall wolf management. The total includes more than $200,000 in science grants in just the past five years. Most of the contributions paid for independent research by leading universities, state and federal wildlife conservation agencies and tribes.

Looks Like Maine’s Fur Prices Have Dropped….Again

As was written to me in a comment, “Ya gotta do it for the joy not the money.”


Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com