Realtree Outdoor News | Realtree ®

Subscribe via RSS or Email

Pay to Play

May 31, 2012  |  By Barbara Baird

If you do this, you might be like me. You'll start out reading a column about Colorado's mule deer population on the decline in certain areas and finish wondering if hunters and anglers should be the only ones supporting budgets of wildlife departments at state levels.

In a column written by Scott Willoughby in the Denver Post, "Don't blame hunters for loss of deer population," he writes that even though the state's game agency has adjusted the numbers down for available tags in some areas where the mule deer numbers have decreased -- and he means for the past 15 to 20 years -- the population continues to decline. Which means to Willoughby, that hunters aren't the problem or, at least, the only problem.

Other factors might include the following:

  • An increase in predator populations, such as coyotes 
  • Winter habitat quality and quantity on Western Slopes 
  • Summer drought effects on shrubs and other legumes
  • Invasive weeds
  • Uncontrolled fires

Willoughby writes, "But while the state's wildlife belongs to the people of Colorado, the agency does not receive state tax money and has long relied on the sale of hunting and fishing licenses to pay for wildlife management. Elk and deer licenses historically provide more than half of license revenue, and license revenue accounts for a lopsided majority of the division's overall budget."

If the wildlife in the state belongs to all the people, then why don't all the people pay a wildlife tax? Or fee of some sort?

Two radio-collared elk in the restoration project undertaken by the Missouri Department of Conservation near Peck Ranch. Photo courtesy of MDCIn this day and age of budget reductions at state agency level and reduced hunting numbers nationally, it is prudent to say, "You pay. You play."  This means hikers, bird watchers, videographers, off-road vehicle enthusiasts and anyone else who uses and enjoys state lands.

Or maybe, cut some more fat out of state budgets and make the state pay for taking care of the people's wildlife. It may even boil down to this decision: continue to support a decrepit train system or boost wildlife management. Pour more money into public transportation for a few or wildlife for all.

For the record, Missouri passed a conservation sales tax in 1976 that takes 1/8th cent from every dollar spent and it supports fish, forest and wildlife conservation. It goes directly to the Missouri Department of Conservation. We can see the results in this state, even in difficult economic times. Take, for example, the reintroduction of elk in the state recently.

How about you? Would you like for your state to follow suit and pass a conservation tax that everyone pays?

 

 

 

 

 

Continue reading...

Wolves in the Wall Street Journal

May 30, 2012  |  By Barbara Baird

When the federal government delisted wolves last year, it opened the doors for states to manage new hunting seasons and of course, for anti-hunters to protest these hunts. 

Minnesota will be holding its first wolf-hunting season this coming fall and winter. Wisconsin and Michigan have followed suit and also will hold wolf hunts. Minnesota has the largest population of wolves in the lower 48. 

The "Wall Street Journal" jumps into the fray and reports on the strife associated with hunting wolves – mostly because of the methods: night and dog-related. In an article titled “Wolf Hunt Stirs Passions in the Midwest,” Joe Barrett writes, “There are about 3,000 wolves in Minnesota, 800 in Wisconsin and 700 in Michigan—far above the federal goals for sustainable populations of 1,400 in Minnesota and 100 in Wisconsin and Michigan combined.” He adds, “But defenders of the wolves counter that since the delisting, farmers have gotten enough flexibility to kill wolves that threaten livestock and pets—and that the predators should be allowed to play their role keeping deer and other animals in check.” 

Photo courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesDid you read that last line? “Predators should be allowed to play their role keeping deer and other animals in check.” 

Barrett quotes Howard Goldman, director of the HSUS in Minnesota, "We believe there's no biological reason to hunt wolves in either state. The hunts are basically recreational killing.” 

Goldman’s philosophy repudiates the work of biologists who have conducted surveys to estimate populations of wolves, and it also insults hunters. Again, we see that the HSUS asserts that biologists and wildlife departments cannot be right. Barrett writes, “The animal-welfare group successfully reversed the removal of wolves from protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act twice in recent years and is considering another lawsuit since they were delisted for the third time in January.” If you are wondering what happens with this back-and-forth maneuver, please read this 2010 Realtree news item, regarding wolves in the West.

Frankly, I’m tired of reading that the HSUS is an “animal welfare” group. Red flag on that play. The wolf numbers in the aforementioned three states are well above federal goals for sustainable populations. So, it seems that as long as the feds were protecting high numbers of wolves, the HSUS had no problem. But, introduce hunting to reduce those numbers, and the HSUS is all over it – again. And why? Same old song: the HSUS wants to kill hunting in this country. Period. 

Are you going wolf hunting this year? Are you watching the HSUS and what it is doing behind the scenes and once again, in the courts, in your regions?

Continue reading...

All Night Long Hog and Coyote Hunting in N.C.

May 21, 2012  |  By Barbara Baird

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has proposed night hunting of feral hogs and coyotes -- with flashlights, on private lands only – as part of its plan to control two types of wild animals that are showing up in urban neighborhoods. State officials have been expanding rules on trapping and hunting coyotes and feral hogs, but believe they need to open hunting to nighttime, as well. If approved in July, the change will be effective Aug. 1.

Feral swine love water. Photo courtesy of USGSAccording to a North Carolina biologist with the state's wildlife commission, Colleen Olfenbuttel, in the PilotOnline.com, “Coyotes are here to stay.” So far, the coyote has been documented in 100 counties. 

Feral hogs are on the rise, too. Doubling their numbers every four months, feral hogs continue to roam free. Over on the Outer Banks, they are wreaking havoc on the wild horse habitat. 

If the rule is approved, hunters will be able to hunt year-round, except on Sundays. Once again, that appears to rule out the one day when hunters might be able to hunt, but hey, some of us have already addressed how we feel about bans on Sunday hunting here. 

The article also included a great tip from local hog hunter Richard Pridgen. He says he carries a half-full bottle of water in his pocket (didn’t say which one) and if he can hear it slosh, he says he’s walking too fast. The hogs will hear it, too. 

Do you have any tips you'd care to share with us for hunting hogs? What do you think about hunting in the dark?

Continue reading...

No Limits on Some Wyoming Cougars?

May 17, 2012  |  By Barbara Baird

Last February, more than 100 people attended a meeting in Hulett, Wyoming, to voice their concerns to the state's game and fish department about the rise in the mountain liion population, and particularly, the effect that this increase is having on their safety, and the safety of their pets and livestock. As a result of that meeting, Wyoming Game & Fish Department (G&F) proposed adding an additional hunting area to the two that already exist: Hunt Area 32 near Hulett will have an unlimited quota during the standard Sept. 1-March 31 season. According to a news report at Trib.com, "Hunt Area 1 near Sundance will keep its current quota of 24 lions, but the size of the area will be cut by about one third. The Newcastle area’s size will be cut in half and the quota dropped from 30 to 12 lions."

Photo courtesy of Wyoming Game & FishOver at the Cougar Rewilding Foundation, they are in red alert mode by this news. They report that the G&F has declared that area of the Black Hills to be a “sink,” which they definie as “mortalities caused by legal hunting are to exceed additions to the population through births and immigration.”

Futhermore, they report, “This planned drastic reduction fits in with the plans of the South Dakota Department of Game, Fisheries and Parks, which hopes to reduce their Black Hills cougar population to 150 individuals (a highly suspect over-estimate) or even fewer.”

Check online to see the list of meeting places regarding this topic. The Trib.com also states, "Game and Fish officials increased mountain lion quotas two years ago. The seasons are generally set every three years, but because of public concern, officials are proposing resetting these quotas one year early." Based on cries from anti-hunters, the state's G&F is reacting. Here’s what I project the anti-hunters will say or do in any proceedings regarding opening this area to unlimited permits, based on past experience with such groups:

  • Claim that the numbers lie, that the biologists in the wildlife departments are not using proper science to count populations; that perhaps these biologists are hunters with agendas or that the Game & Fish Department wants to line its coffers with money from permit sales
  •  Claim that people attend public hearings, but are “afraid” of hunters and of voicing their opinions for fear of retribution from nasty people with guns
  •  Claim that the only reasons hunters practice the age-old traditions is because of a lust for a trophy

While it is important for state agencies to connect with state residents about changes in proposals, I hope that the department will rely on its science, instead of emotions of non-hunters and non-conservationists, when making its final decision.

Can you think of any other tactics anti-hunters might use to derail this proposal? What about your state? What's going on there with your game department and the anti-hunting agenda?

 

Continue reading...

Should Lost Hikers Pay for Recovery Services?

May 13, 2012  |  By Barbara Baird

This one should read “Hiker from Sandwich Drinks a Slim Fast and Gets Lost.” 

Photo courtesy of New Hampshire Fish and Game DepartmentHaving fueled himself on a Slim Fast earlier in the day, hiker Mark Walsh, of Sandwich, Mass., decided to trek up Mount Madison, late in the afternoon on May 7. Mount Madison is the northernmost point in the Presidential Range of New Hampshire. He carried two T-shirts and a little water. He did not take along gear, flashlight or food. Fortunately, he brought his cell phone, and was in range for service – or else, this story might not have had nearly as happy an ending. 

Temperatures dropped into the 30s. When Walsh realized he was no longer on the Pine Link Trail, he called for help. Nine people responded, including members of Androscoggin Valley Search and Rescue Team, American Mountain Club searchers, and the local Fish and Game folks. They found Walsh at 11 p.m. Sgt. Wayne Saunders, of the New Hampshire Fish & Game Department, in an article in the UnionLeader.com, said, Walsh was located “a good distance” off the trail. 

Here’s the problem. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is self-supporting. That means, it uses revenue from fishing and hunting license fees, federal funds (Pittman-Robertson Act) and other sources to meet its budgetary needs. In fact, on its website, the new Hampshire Fish and Game Department states, “Most people don’t know that their tax dollars do not fund Fish and Game.” 

Therefore, Saunders and many others believe hikers such as Walsh should pay for the recovery services rendered. The Fish and Game Department has the option of recommending that the state request reimbursement for recovery services. 

You know, in my little town of Snorewood, we have to pay a fee to the local volunteer fire department or else … if we have a fire at our place, we’ll have to pay the normal rate for extinguishing it – which could run into thousands of dollars. What I’m thinking, is that perhaps hikers need to pay a fee to get a tag similar to hunting tags in the state. And while we’re at it … birdwatchers, too. 

That way, their dollars can go toward finding them when they get lost. 

Time to buy another hunting and/or fishing license! What about a hiking license? Photo courtesy of New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept.What do you think … about making the soft adventure sport folks pay to play? We already do, through taxes on firearms, ammo, gear along with permits, tags and special stamps. What about them? Shouldn’t they have to pay for the pleasure of enjoying the outdoors, too?

Continue reading...