Barbara Baird is a freelance writer in outdoor and travel markets. A former small-town newspaper editor and reporter, she constantly hunts for news headlines you need to read. Barbara also publishes Women’s Outdoor News online and pens columns for the National Wild Turkey Federation and Shooting Sports USA. Hailing from the Ozarks of Missouri, this avid hunter is now mentoring the second generation of hunters - her own little bevy of Realtree-wearing grandchildren.
Brow Tines and Backstrap
Realtree Outdoor News
Meitin's Bow Blog
Turkey Blog with Steve Hickoff
The Realblog with Stephanie Mallory
The Duck Blog with Joe Balog
Maine Asks Its ‘Intangibles’ to Keep Watch for LPDV in Turkeys
May 1, 2013 | By Barbara Baird
The older I get, the more I realize the value of the word “intangible.” When the state of Maine asks its turkey hunters to report back about a virus in its flocks of wild turkeys, then it is banking on the intangible rewards of having boots on the ground and eyes on the prize from its force of hunters out there right now in the woods.
Some of Maine’s and New York’s wild turkeys have been afflicted with Lymphoproliferative Disease Virus (LPDV) – which causes, according to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, “minor to extreme lesions on a turkey’s head and legs.” The virus spreads by either direct contact or mosquito bites. As with most viruses, not all of the species are affected. The lesions can affect eyesight and eating abilities.
Steve Hickoff, Realtree’s resident turkey expert, said, “On a personal level, I haven’t covered it, though I have been receiving all sorts of news releases from different sources. Based on what I can tell, it’s an isolated deal, although the story itself has gone viral.”
He continued, “I have never seen a turkey with this affliction. This one, the state has decided to get the news out to turkey hunters so they can study it.”
Notice. When game animals become diseased, hunters immediately get the call to watch and report. Many times, hunters are the first to notice the problem. Also, our state game and fish departments ask us to report on healthy flocks and groups of animals and to participate in surveys and such. All of these efforts contribute intangibly to the management of wildlife. In fact, you could say we are "The Intangibles.”
Hikers, climbers, kayakers, geo-cachers – as far as I know, they don’t get contacted by their fish and game departments to be watching. People sitting in their cubicles, donating to HSUS and other animal rights’ organizations are not part of The Intangibles, either.
So, stay safe, and keep watching.
If you are hunting in Maine, be sure to learn more about reporting on LPDV.
Pigs R Us: Why the Country Can’t Make Up Its Mind About Feral Hog Control
April 30, 2013 | By Barbara Baird
When feral pigs make it into the New York Times, you know they have become a problem. When the NYT editors actually use the word “pest” in that headline, then, game’s on. Now, the rest of the world knows what we’ve known for years. Feral pigs are invading our country and hardly anyone cares.
We, in the hunting world, have heard about the northern migration and local releases of Porky and his many brothers and sisters by outfitters just trying to make a quick dime. Erica Goode, in the NYT, writes that feral pigs have been sighted in Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania – places where feral pig populations seemed unheard of before now.
It doesn’t really matter where they came from, because they are here.
As Goode reports, it’s time to figure out how to eradicate this nuisance. She lists three reasons for a zero or slow response time in the past: no national policy dealing with feral pigs, slowness to see the problem and “bickering between agencies.”
Not only are there agency disputes, but also, since hunters and outfitters like hog hunting, they put pressure on legislatures to either do nothing, or regulate at a moderate or slow pace.
Another problem, according to Goode, is the definition of a wild pig, or for that matter, a Russian boar. She writes that shooting preserve owners in Michigan favor a state law that redefines the term “wild animal” to exclude wild boars that are fenced. Again, this tactic appears to be a stalling move – to allow for outfitters to continue with their standard operating procedures.
A quick search on feral hogs and US Fish & Wildlife Service produced a 2012 Feral Swine Management Report, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It states, “As feral swine hunting has grown in popularity across the United States so have feral swine populations. Feral swine populate the landscape by escaping from enclosed shooting facilities and intentionally being released into the wild to increase hunting opportunities. The intentional release of swine by hunters and the accidental release of European wild boar from enclosed shooting facilities are the major factors in the increase of feral swine populations across Missouri (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2012) and New York (USDA 2010).”
It seems simple enough, really. If the problem is the unethical outfitter, than clamp down on those businesses – regulate and prosecute. Also, states need to aggressively pursue eradication of this nuisance animal.
Can feral hogs be managed at all? Perhaps that is the only question that really needs to be addressed. The answer – which appears to be no – means states need to allow immediate removal by all means necessary.
RMEF Joins Other Conservation Groups to Intervene in HSUS-Backed Wolf Suit
April 25, 2013 | By Barbara Baird
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) recently joined other conservation groups to intervene in a lawsuit aimed at returning gray wolves in the Great Lakes region to the Endangered Species Act.
The action stems from animal rights’ groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), filing a suit in a federal court in the District of Columbia against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior last February. Jonathan Lovvorn, chief counsel for animal protection litigation at the HSUS, stated, “In the short time since federal protections have been removed, trophy hunters and trappers have killed hundreds of Great Lakes wolves under hostile state management programs that encourage dramatic reductions in wolf populations. This decision rolls back the only line of defense for wolf populations, and paves the way for the same state-sponsored eradication policies that pushed this species to the brink of extinction in the first place."
In a press release dated April 24, the RMEF joined ranks with Safari Club International, National Rifle Association, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation to intervene.
“It is of paramount importance that everyone recognizes that states, not the federal government, are best qualified to manage a recovered species like the wolf. This suit, like so many previous frivolous filings, will frustrate science-based management and cause conservation damage into the future,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO of the RMEF.
Allen explained that these animal rights’ groups want the public to believe wolf populations will be pushed to extinction, if allowed to be hunted again.
In the release, Dr. David Mech, founder of the International Wolf Center, disagreed with the animal rights’ groups’ claim that hunting and trapping will negatively affect populations.
Said Allen, “RMEF will vigorously defend the delisting because states need to manage wolves just as they do elk, deer, bears and all other wildlife. There is no real science that disputes the fact that gray wolves are recovered and expanding, and there is no compelling reason why states cannot manage wolf populations.”
Responsible management versus emotional knee-jerk reactions combined with an insidious agenda that threatens the sustainability of our wildlife populations.
I’ll take science any day over the HSUS.
A Dog in Every Port: USFWS Trains First Canines to Sniff Out Illegal Wildlife Shipments
April 23, 2013 | By Barbara Baird
On April 4, four outstanding graduates from the US Fish & Wildlife’s first school for “wildlife detector dogs” left their training grounds and headed for assignments at key ports of entry in this country, along with their human handlers. Viper, Butter, Lander and Locket passed their course that prepares them to find illegal species in shipping boxes – such as elephant ivories and rhino horns.
According to a press release issued by the USFWS, the dogs and handlers graduated from a 13-week course at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Detector Dog Training Center in Newnan, Ga. At this site, most of the dogs train to identify fruits and plants that house insects and diseases.
In the release, Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace said, “The recent rapid growth in the global trade in protected wildlife is pushing some species perilously close to extinction. Elephant and rhino populations in particular are declining at alarming rates. The battle to stop wildlife smuggling is one we simply cannot afford to lose, and using dogs and their phenomenal sense of smell to catch smugglers will give us a real leg up in this effort.”
We’ll keep tabs on this topic and let you know how the dogs are doing. We’re interested to see if more canines will be recruited for this task.
Illinois House Endorses Proposal to Criminalize PETA Drones
April 19, 2013 | By Barbara Baird
On April 8, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued a press release indicating it was in the market for a few good drones in order to stalk hunters. The release stated, “PETA aims to collect video footage of any illegal activity, including drinking while in the possession of a firearm, a common complaint from those who live near wooded areas; maiming animals and failing to pursue them so that they die slowly and painfully; and using spotlights, feed lures, and other hunting tricks that are illegal in some areas but remain common practices among hunters.”
In response to that news, a committee in the Illinois House or Representatives sanctioned a proposal on April 15 that criminalizes the use of drones to interfere with hunting or fishing. Proposed by State Rep. Adam Brown, R-Champaign, the new law makes such interference a misdemeanor. In an article at Pantagraph, Brown indicated that after reading about hunters in Pennsylvania being harassed by a drone operated by an animal rights group and the aforementioned press release by PETA, he decided to act on new legislation. Brown said, “I think these drones are a new frontier as far as the invasion of our personal rights.”
On April 15, the Illinois Senate approved a bill that requires law enforcement agencies to acquire a warrant before using aerial drones in investigations. This bill passed by 52 to 1. Sponsored by Sen. Daniel Biss, the bill also prohibits law enforcement from using armed drones.
"It's all about this new technology that if it's not restricted in some way, enables government and law enforcement to have a completely unprecedented level of knowledge of what people do, where they go, and frankly therefore, what they think," Biss was quoted as saying in a Chicago NBC article.
It appears that Illinois is lining up a strong wall of legal defense against aerial drones in its cities, towns, woods and water.
Sponsored by DataSport
- » Alexander: We Don't Need Big Brother Holding Our Hand While We're Fishing
- » RMEF Urges Full Transparency for Conservation Groups
- » 'Open Unless Closed' Pivotal Piece of New Hunting Heritage Act
- » TWRA Tells Corps of Engineers It Will Not Enforce Restrictions on Fishing on Cumberland River
- » Maine Asks Its ‘Intangibles’ to Keep Watch for LPDV in Turkeys
- » Pigs R Us: Why the Country Can’t Make Up Its Mind About Feral Hog Control
- » Illinois House Endorses Proposal to Criminalize PETA Drones
- » PETA Wants to 'Stalk Hunters' with Drones
- May 2013 (6)
- April 2013 (8)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (7)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (9)
- October 2012 (7)
- September 2012 (8)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (10)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (9)
- April 2012 (10)
- March 2012 (13)
- February 2012 (10)
- January 2012 (9)
