Anti Hunting Extreme

[robby denning]

From Big Game Forever
Folks,

It is starting to happen. We are starting to see the greater extremism when it comes to efforts to block wolf and other predator management. From “dangerous” and “illegal” sabotage to lawsuits to aimed at blocking federal predator control programs.
Here are just a few examples:

NPR Report: Earth First tries to sabotage wolf-hunting season
Quote: “the manual lays out strategies for releasing that wolf back into the wild. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim says that's not only illegal, it's dangerous. RON AASHEIM: ‘You bet it's dangerous. And some of their techniques, you're talking about a wild animal, a predator, and, you know, they're hundred-pound animals.’” http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/226010295/environmental-group-tries-to-sabotage-wolf-hunting-season

Associated Press: Wild Earth Guardians says USDA Wildlife Services Predator Control should be suspended
Quote: “ The conservationists said the program that spent $127 million to exterminate more than 5 million animals in 2010 should be suspended nationally until USDA updates its scientific analysis that's based largely on an environmental impact statement conducted in 1994 when the program was much smaller.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=27...al-filed-to-stop-usda-predator-killing-in-nev

Animal’s Rights Rhetoric moves to the forefront in wolf delisting
Quote: “When wolves loose protection, they die.”
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/wolves-deserve-recovery-take-part-in-the-national-day-of-action/

The bottom line is simple: Powerful special interest groups are trying to use unmanaged predators to cause the decline of wild game numbers in America. Responsible predator management is an important component of maintaining and/or restoring abundant wild life numbers. We need American’s sportsmen and conservationists to fight for the future of wild game in America.

Please help spread the word. Please forward this email to every sportsmen you know and ask them to send a letter of support using our automated system at http://capwiz.com/biggameforever/issues/alert/?alertid=62830341&PROCESS=Take+Action

We can no longer afford to take abundant wildlife in America for granted. We need millions of sportsmen to answer the call if we hope to preserve our outdoor heritage.

Thank you for your support,
--
Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
[email protected]

 

[Where's Bruce?]

It's a liberal vs conservative fight...plain and simple. Vote for those on your side.

 

[ftballman125]

It's a liberal vs conservative fight...plain and simple. Vote for those on your side.

Do that. But also try to raise some awareness of the population dynamics issues with people who don't understand them. A lot of the 'don't kill the kitty' arguments stem from thinking the predators are cute but not understanding the need for population regulation...

 

[Heather Stomper]

We need hunters and sportsmen and women to jump in and post comments in the various states and federal comment sections on delisting.
In Washington the arguments against delisting are running about 9 out of 10 against delisting. The issue will come up in 2014 in WA and our lobbyist in Olympia says we need the voice of hunters to be heard loud and clear.
I have a strong personal belief that as hunters we need to belong to and support the organizations that are supporting us and protecting our right to hunt, own firearms and access public land. In my humble opinion, everyone here needs to investigate, research and consider joining Safari Club International and their local chapter.
SCI is the only organization that has as its mission protecting the hunter and the hunter's rights. The 'critter' organizations are important and critical, but are focused on the 'critter'. Without the hunter the critter will cease to exist.
We will win the fight only if we are united in our efforts as hunters and sportsmen.

Randy Bauman
Vice President
Central Washington Chapter, SCI

http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/

 

[robby denning]

Another email I got today from BGF

Folks,

Livestock producers and sportsmen have tried to educate the general public on the impacts from unmanaged wolves. Unfortunately, they continually deal with misinformation that is widely published as authoritative. Some of the misleading statistics even come from government agencies whose methodologies fail to account for the scope and scale of actual loss. In other words, a lot of well-intentioned people are confused by what is really going on. A rancher from Montana recently wrote a great letter detailing this situation. It is worth reading.

A Bit of Background

At the recent wolf-delisting hearing in Washington D.C. a very nice woman approached me. I had just finished my turn at the microphone in support of the pending national wolf-delisting. I had talked about the impacts to hard working families in rural America, the loss of wildlife and the hope that predator numbers can be returned to more balanced numbers through responsible management.

"I have some information on ways ranchers and farmers can protect their livestock without harming wolves!" she shared excitedly. She continued, "just give me your email and we can produce some win/wins here." It was evident that she was sincere in her offer and was genuinely trying to be helpful.

Hard Working Rural Communities Bear the Burden

What she didn't know is that I have spent countless hours in the homes of livestock producers across the country who have tried "non-lethal deterent" strategies like flaggery, hot fence and even range riders. Not only are these techniques extremely expensive, but they had failed to slow livestock kills from wolves. When these ranchers explain the shortcomings of these techniques, they are often attacked for being "untruthful" or being a "wolf-hater." I truly sympathized for these hard-working families that are paying a heavy price for the federal government's experimental wolf programs. In fact the data strongly suggests that they bear most of the economic burden from wolf depredation.

Rancher's Letter Everyone Should Read

A friend recently sent me a link to a letter written by a hard-working Montana rancher. The letter explains that his calf survival has plummeted from 5% loss to approximately 33% loss since the wolf-program started. Based on the economics of ranching, this is the difference between making a living and losing the farm. Here is a couple of great quotes from the letter:

"I read Gretchen Smith’s letter in the winter 2011 issue of Range that characterized wolf impacts for last year in total at 75 head of cattle, and that this loss was compensated for through the reimbursement program. I also read in Western Ag Reporter of Carter Niemeyer’s position that adverse affects of wolf harassment are minimal on livestock & wildlife. If these points were true I think we stockmen, sportsman, and people like us who simply enjoy all wildlife and not just predators would be overjoyed."

"Stockmen experience some death loss and infertility in the best of circumstances. Our norm was 4% – 5% unbred cows with a low death loss under 1% before wolves were a factor. Now our negative cattle trends mirror the negative wildlife trends in our area. In my experience these negative wildlife and cattle trends directly relate to the increase in wolf numbers, the increase in wolf encounters with cattle & wildlife, and the increase in wolf depredations."

I strongly encourage you to read his full article at:http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-years-experience-dealing-with-wolves-on-montana-ranch/

Real Data Should Internalize all Economic Losses to Ranching and Hunting Economies

A few interesting points from his letter. First, the writer feels that livestock impacts from wolves follow similar trends to elk population decline. Second, some non-lethal tactics which showed some promise in the early stages, are less successful when wolf numbers and predation increase. Third, economic impacts are not just from confirmed kills, they also extend to unconfirmed kills, lowered pregnancy rates, aborted calves, low weights from stress and grazing disruption all combine to produce a bleak economic picture for many ranchers. Fourth, wolves are difficult and expensive to manage.

It is interesting to note that wolf-advocates go to great lengths to censor this type of information. Biologists and scientists who write correct data are ruthlessly attacked. Funding is pulled from researchers. Authors of articles are rebuked publicly and privately. Pressure is exerted in a litany of ways to prevent dissemination of correct information. The combination has led many residents of rural communities to loose faith in the system. Many of the people I have talked to wonder why their stories are ignored by the media and by many politicians from urban districts.

The Time and Expense of Restoring Wildlife, Balancing Wolf Numbers

Thank you for supporting these hard-working Americans. State management of wolves is a common-sense solution to allow state's to manage wolves in a responsible manner. Good people across America have been hurt by the delays in wolf-management. States are faced with an expensive "clean-up" effort after years of uncontrolled wolf numbers. The good news is that many states now have authority to restore numbers to more balanced levels. The question is, how long it will take. Wolf populations are highly resistant to management. Removals can be very expensive. Even small reductions in wolf-populations are difficult given restrictions on wolf-management tools and techniques.

Who will pay for moose, elk and deer restoration?

Who will pay for wolf management and wildlife resoration? At this point it appears that states are stuck with the bill. This is a particularly difficult situation for state wildlife agencies. Delayed wolf management has decimated biologically and economically important wildlife herds in these states. As a result, states have an significant added expense at the same time dealing with millions in lost annual revenue. Some wolf-advocates are now pushing for abandoning the user based North American model and replacing it with more general fund taxes. Which begs the question, should these states bear the burden for a federal government program that didn't work out as promised? It is just one of a number of difficult questions resulting from years of litigation and delays which prevented states from protecting wildlife populations and livestock in their states. It is becoming increasingly clear that sportsmen and ranchers will once again play an important part in restoring wildlife populations and restoring balance to these hard-hit areas. I hope we are equal to the task.

--
Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/