In a prepared statement, Rep. Kelly said: “The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act frees Alaskans from overly-bureaucratic and restrictive federal firearm regulation, and allows our state to assume the responsibility for regulation. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the federal government to regulate firearms that cross state borders. The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act makes it clear that Alaskans will be responsible for firearms that are made in Alaska, for use in Alaska, and have ‘Made in Alaska’ stamped on them.

“Outdoorsmen, hunters and all Alaskans defending and feeding their families, and protecting their property, should welcome this new law.”

After the passage of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act in 2009, the other states to enact MFFA clones have been Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, and now Alaska. Other FFA clone bills are introduced in 20 other states.

In the lawsuit by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation to validate the principles of the MFFA, captioned MSSA v. Holder (U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder), currently pending is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the U.S. Oral argument has been requested by Plaintiffs concerning the Motion to Dismiss. A date has been set for oral argument in federal court in Missoula for mid-June, but that date will probably be rescheduled for sometime in early July.

A number of amici (friends of the court) have joined MSSA v. Holder to support Plaintiffs, including the Attorney General of Utah (representing Utah and several other state AGs), the Goldwater Institute of Arizona, the Paragon Foundation of New Mexico, Gun Owners Foundation (Gun Owners of America), the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana (and Western Tradition Partners), Montana Legislators, and legislators sponsoring or cosponsoring FFA bills in other states (represented by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence). The Attorney General of Montana has intervened to support the MFFA. Joining as an amicus in support of the U.S. is the Brady Center (for all firearm restrictions).

All parties have written briefs concerning the Motion to Dismiss. Those briefs are available to review under the “Montana Lawsuit Updates” link on the FFA Website at:
http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com

I will announce to this list when the date and time for oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss is finally set. Some receiving this info may wish to show up to attend the oral argument session. Stay tuned for the announcement tomorrow (Friday) of an interesting additional development in MSSA v. Holder.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

Montana’s HB246 is the talk of the states it seems these days. It didn’t take too long I suppose but with each passing day, more media, not the main stream though, and new Internet media are picking up on the brazen and testy new gun law bill that Montana signed into law last month. I first brought you that story right here on the Black Bear Blog.

I’ll dispense with all the proper speak and get to the nitty gritty of the bill. Montana’s HB246 says that any guns or gun parts manufactured in the state of Montana and sold exclusively in the state of Montana cannot be regulated by the federal government.

Back on April 20, 2009 I made this comment.

While several states are calling for legislation that reaffirms their state sovereignty in opposition to a federal government that is out of control, Montana, it appears, has taken this step a little bit further. No one knows how this will play out in the courts as it is sure to be challenged.

We know that many states now have taken some degree of assertiveness, if only to make a statement in protest of too much governmental control. Montana seems to be the first to draw a big and bold line in the sand, while at the same time dropping a grenade into the court (figuratively speaking) of the U.S. Government.

The Global News Post describes Montana’s bold move this way.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama’s face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Speaking of secession, if you will recall back during the U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the state of Montana was hinting that should the Supreme Court rule against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms as an interpretation of the Second Amendment, then the U.S. Government would be in breech of the contract Montana had with the U.S. Government when it agreed to join the union. Some legal authorities believe that Montana has that “ace up the sleeve” while other states don’t.

Which brings me to an additional point in this discussion. Since Gov. Schweitzer signed Montana’s bill, at least two other states, Alaska and Texas, have drafted similar bills.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, says he’s not really sure how all this would play out in court. As a matter of fact, Marbut says the MSSA is looking into the possibility of taking a proactive approach and filing a suit in court in order to prove the legal principles within HB246.

Tom Remington

Before I present the current Idaho wolf population data, the following highlights from the Alaska Board of Game wolf and bear control program approved in early March 2009 are very interesting. Because Alaska DFG Biologists are the undisputed experts in North American wolf research and in state control of wolves adversely impacting big game populations, this information should be read and discussed by every legislator and biologist involved in the wolf delisting process.

In early February, 2009, before the AK Game Board even met to consider requests for wolf control, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) mounted a television campaign in opposition to aerial wolf control, using Hollywood actress Ashley Judd as its spokesperson. Judd called aerial killing of wolves “senseless savagery,” and attacked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for approving the practice (ID and MT take note).

The Board admitted that its wolf reduction programs, which included allowing hunters to locate wolves from the air and land and shoot the wolves, have been unable to remove enough wolves to meet the necessary quotas for the past two years or so. It implemented the following new programs to increase both wolf and bear removal (ID and MT take note):

• Allowing hunters to place black bear snares on the ground or in buckets attached to trees and including the snaring of brown bears in the McGrath area.

• Letting hunters fly in to hard-to-reach bear-baiting and snaring camps in the same region using private helicopters.

• Authorizing state employees to use poison gas to kill orphaned wolf pups in dens.

• Renewing existing wolf-kill programs for five years.

Although the board rejected ADFG Biologists’ proposal to allow private hunters to shoot wolves from helicopters to prevent potential lawsuits, it allowed state employees to kill wolves from helicopters in areas where a reduction quota was not being met. It also authorized private pilots to use helicopters to pick up wolves killed by private hunters in fixed-wing planes – approved by a new citizen initiative last year (ID and MT take note).

On Saturday, March 16, 2009 ADFG employees began shooting wolves from helicopters in order to boost caribou numbers in the Fortymile herd that ranges from the Steese highway to the Canadian border. The goal is to shoot up to 150 wolves before they get too many caribou calves and before the snow and the wolf tracks disappear.

But when U.S. Park Service officials learned of the plans they objected with the comment, “We don’t want to see the wolf population, or those packs that frequent the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, be eliminated or reduced significantly.” ADFG reminded them the caribou calving grounds were on state land and suggested that’s why National Preserves and Parks have boundaries.

The state finally agreed not to shoot any collared wolves on the calving grounds that might be part of a federal research effort and continued the helicopter gunning (ID and MT take note).

If you are a legislator in Idaho or Montana who is concerned about reducing wolf numbers, what do you think is going to happen when your F&G wolf experts try to let hunters reduce wolf numbers enough to rebuild elk and deer herds that are already in a predator pit? Are you confident sport hunters can kill enough wolves in the rugged terrain in our two states to even stabilize offending wolf populations – much less reduce them by 70 percent?

If expert Alaska hunters, trappers and aerial gunners in relatively open patches of Alaska can’t control several hundred wolves in 4-6 areas do you believe our inexperienced sportsmen can accomplish that feat? And who is going to foot the bill when Wildlife Services is called on to get the job done?

State WS Director Mark Collinge says it will probably require some capturing and radio-collaring of “Judas” wolves to locate the 80 wolves proposed for removal in just the Lolo Zone. And who is going to pay the legal fees when Defenders sues to halt the killing?

This of course assumes that Defenders et al will not sue to stop the delisting – knowing that the feds have much deeper pockets to pay lawyers than a couple of sparsely populated states.

If you were an Idaho Legislator one year ago, you may recall that F&G Commissioner Gary Power and IDFG Director Cal Groen told your Resource Committees they had no intention of reducing wolf numbers (when the minimum 2007 Idaho wolf population was estimated to be 732). The number of dead wolves doubled since then but livestock losses also doubled and the current estimate is a minimum of 846 wolves in 88 packs with 39 breeding pairs.

Nobody knows how many wolves there are in either state but there may well be 1,500-2,000 in Idaho when the pups are born. If Director Groen’s statement (that 40 wolves were found that were killed by other wolves last year) is accurate, they are running out of wild prey and livestock losses will continue the dramatic increase.

The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan ratified by the Legislature and approved by FWS provides that Idaho need not be involved in wolf recovery if adequate federal funds to monitor wolf and prey and manage wolves are not provided. Under the terms of this plan (NOT the so-called Population Plan by F&G that was never approved) you can decline to manage them – and demand the feds control or remove them.

That may not succeed initially but at least Idaho won’t be responsible for the continuing carnage that is inevitable and your constituents won’t be suing you for the potential human tragedy that could occur.

If you follow Lawyer Runft’s advice you won’t have to argue with the Forest Service when they refuse to let you kill wolves from the air in Wilderness Areas. You’ll still be entitled to seek Wildlife Services protection from livestock and other property losses and you’ll be in a position to call the shots rather than ask “How High” when FWS tells you to jump.

Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, I don’t have to make the choice, but you do. Doing nothing means you accept responsibility for what lies ahead. Taking a stand is also a gamble but you still have the 2002 Wolf Plan to fall back on.

Posted by Tom Remington

There will always be people who will have an issue with the killing of any animal and some to the extreme of any living thing whether plant or animal. We witness everyday people who ignorantly support the protection of a handful of animals while being responsible for the deaths of more than they saved. For that, I offer no cures nor do I pretend that I can in all honesty have any marked alterations to their beliefs. I expect nothing different in return either.

With that being said, we have all come to learn, some of us much sooner than others, that Alaska’s Sarah Palin is an “outdoors” person, having grown up in the wilds of Alaska learning to hunt and fish and like many of us growing up in similar geographical locations that provide us outdoor activities, it has become very much a part of our lives. Some people have a problem with that much because they didn’t grow up in it and have very little tolerance for those of us who have. Life goes on.

What Sarah Palin is being haunted by is her support of the use of planes and helicopters to manage wolf populations in a few remote areas of Alaska and some, including hunters, have a problem with that. For those Alaskan wildlife experts, whom Sarah Palin listens to for advise and recommendations, they see aerial wolf management as a bad thing but a necessary thing, albeit controversial. More on this in a moment.

Back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has been a U.S. Congresswoman for the state of California since 1987. She was elected as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 4, 2007. We can only conclude then that Speaker Pelosi approves of the slaughter of as many as 40,000 animals in the state of California from just one event!

The end of September, just about one year ago, the state of California, with the approval of the California Fish and Game Department, poured 16,000 gallons of rotenone, a chemical commonly used to kill fish, into Lake Davis in Plumas County northwest of Lake Tahoe. This action resulted in what the San Francisco Chronicle described as leaving 41,000 pounds of dead fish to be scooped out of the lake.

Some 41,000 pounds of dead fish have since been scooped from the lake at the northern headwaters of the Feather River in Plumas County. The carefully hatched plan was to kill virtually every living thing in the high Sierra lake and its tributaries, assuring that the pike would be exterminated.

The goal here was to kill unwanted species of fish in order to then be able to restore the lake to provide better recreational and fishing opportunities for California residents. In fairness here, members of the California Fish and Game Department really didn’t want to have to do this but felt it was necessary.

“No one wants chemicals dumped in their lake to kill fish and we don’t like doing it, but you have to look at the big picture,” said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the Department of Fish and Game. “It’s something we needed to do and we gave it our best shot.”

So, where’s the outrage?

Actually, the use of rotenone to kill off what is commonly referred to as “crap” fish from waters in order to restore “game” fisheries, is perhaps more common that many of us know. Of course it doesn’t come without some disputes but the facts remain the facts. 41,000 pounds of dead fish equates to an awful lot of dead animals. Again I ask, where’s the outrage?

It’s true that California F&G spokesman Steve Martarano isn’t on the ticket with John McCain as his vice presidential nominee. It’s also true that there are fewer of those who stand up for the rights(?) of fish than do wolves. Aside from “Finding Nemo” most fish stories are about deadly sharks.

Granted there is a mysticism about the wolf, mostly because the majority of people don’t understand the animal. Their perceptions are mostly built from story books, pretty pictures and a movie or two.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I do not and would not approve of hunting, in the classic definition of what us hunters do, from an airplane, a helicopter or any other airborne mechanical device or balloon, etc.. For those that know me, they know that I even have a difficult time with the use of tree stands to hunt from and other things like bait and hounds. Most of that is because I never grew up with any of that so it isn’t a part of my hunting past.

Shooting wolves from an airplane is a tough pill to swallow no matter who you are, but as Cal. F&G spokesman said, “…you have to look at the big picture.” You also have to look at the entire picture as why Alaska feels they have to do this.

For one, the Alaska Constitution says that game animals have to be managed to provide game for its citizens, including subsistence hunting for the natives. Unless you are willing to find a way to travel into these remote areas, we have to believe that the caribou and moose populations are in danger of reaching a point where they can no longer sustain viable populations. It would be irresponsible for Alaska’s wildlife managers and the governor, to do nothing about it. They would be violating their own laws.

Secondly, these areas are remote. They are open to the hunting and trapping of wolves and other animals but it is so difficult to access, nobody will venture in to hunt a wolf because there is little value in doing so. The pelts aren’t worth that much and the cost of getting into these regions makes the effort far from worthwhile.

It is far reaching and disingenuous to state, as I have read countless times, that Sarah Palin is offering high-priced wolf hunts from airplanes in order to make money for the fish and wildlife department. If you think I’m kidding, give the Alaska Department of Fish and Game a call and tell them you want to book an aerial wolf hunt. You’ll soon discover you can’t and you’ll also find out what is involved in being able to get a permit to go on a shoot.

It’s a terrible thing to be a part of something like that but it has to be done, much the same way as killing 41,000 pounds of fish in Lake Davis, California. Is there a difference between the life of a fish and the life of a wolf?

While Alaska continues to struggle to find effective ways to control wolf populations, while protecting herds of caribou and moose, some will continue to call Sarah Palin an animal killer. That is of course their choice to do such and I assume, because this isn’t merely a political stunt, then Nancy Pelosi should also be considered an animal killer.

Wildlife management takes on many forms, much of it the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to. I could have quite easily picked on any politician from just about any state in the Union in order to show that we all contribute to the death of living things everyday. Some we refuse to look at and others we focus on.

If we can get beyond the gruesome images the animal rights groups put up and with an open and honest approach, we soon can come to realize that taking a few wolves conserves the life of many others.

Tom Remington

Forget the far left’s attempt to smear Palin and her family, a left extremism that Barack Obama and many others support, the democrats in general are attempting to make an issue about Governor Palin’s experience. It’s probably a bit objective as to whether Governor Palin has more or less “experience” than Senator Obama. The liberal media, in its support of Obama, is saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t measure up to Obama in experience and that Senator John McCain’s attack campaign against Obama’s inexperience will now backfire, as he has picked a running mate with little experience.

Isn’t it bizarre in some ways that we are even having this discussion? Those who follow Obama think he is their man. They do and say what they think is necessary to get their guy elected. McCain’s camp is doing the same thing but I see it just a bit differently.

I would give the experience nod to Palin for two reasons. One, I think her past in office has presented her with real executive decisions of which Obama has not had. Two, I personally more strongly approve of Palin’s past experience as one I would look for in a candidate. I want a real person, one that actually does remember what life is like, not just talk about it.

But let’s forget about this experience thing for a moment. Palin is fearless and I don’t think it much matters what color suit or dress the opponent is wearing. If you compare two candidates, both with equally little past experience, the kind some people seem to think is vitally important, don’t we then look at other aspects of that person in determining a winner – like character, morals, strengths and weaknesses?

I would trade you one experience card for one gutsy performer. I love a gutsy guy! I’m a sports fan and have been for years. I am always drawn to underachiever athletes who make up for perhaps some natural athletic ability by out hustling the opponent, and I mean out working them. These kinds of people are determined and fearless. It comes out in their performances.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has taken her share of grief over her position on wolf management. For those who may not know, her team of respected wildlife scientists and game commission, implemented a plan that involves the reduction of wolf populations in a very limited number of specific areas where it has been determined that wolf populations are too high and they are decimating the moose and caribou.

Alaska’s constitution demands that game animals must be managed to provide opportunities for its residents to hunt and fish. Allowing wolves in these isolated and limited areas to go unmanaged, is not only illegal but irresponsible as well. Many methods have been tried and due to the geography and other dynamics of the situation, it was decided to utilize aircraft as a tool to cull the wolf population. This has all been done within all the laws.

Palin has heard from just about every animal rights organization and has had to spend Alaskan resources fighting this decision in court but she believes that it has to be done according to law and that the majority of residents agree. A recent ballot measure proved that to be the case.

Palin has stood by her team of fish and wildlife experts and essentially told all newcomers she isn’t changing her mind. She has taken a similar stance on the recent announcement by her own republican party, that the polar bear would be listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. It takes guts to buck your own party but she has proven it doesn’t matter. I think she is a “We the People” person.

When Gov. Palin announced that the state of Alaska was going to file suit against the U.S. Department of Interior over the polar bear listing, it set off a firestorm of anger throughout the world of environmentalists. Back in May when I reported this story, Kassie Siegel from the Center for Biological Diversity, accused Gov. Palin as being either “misinformed” or “intentionally misleading”. Because Palin wasn’t interested in buying into global warming that some scientists think might create some problems for the polar bear, she did what she knew was the right thing to do even though Seigal blasted her position.

“The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this.”

What is refreshing is that it appears the state of Alaska has a governor that holds environmental extremism in very low regard. There is nothing I would like more than to see a president and vice president, an administration and a Congress that did the same thing.

But in reality, I think Palin takes comments made about her by individuals and groups as nothing more than a pesky mosquito – a little DEET and they’ll go away.

But this all pales in comparison to how she handled California Congressman George Miller after he submitted a proposed bill that would put an end to the state of Alaska’s constitutional agreement to manage its own wildlife.

Back in September I told you what Miller was up to and how Governor Palin was handling it. One thing she did was send the honorable congressman a letter(pdf).

Here are a few choice excerpts from Gov. Palin’s letter to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007:

On behave of the state of Alaska, I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food for the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the state’s abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

I am dismayed that you did not attempt to contact the state your bill affects most directly before announcing your legislation. At the very least, we could have helped you correct the many inaccuracies and misstatements of fact in both the written and the oral portions of your media presentation yesterday…………..

I am especially concerned your draft threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states.

In her letter, Palin quite adequately explains to Congressman Miller how much of the predator control program of Alaska works. She ends the letter this way.

With all due respect Congressman Miller, you failed to do your homework. I urge you to learn more about the realities of Alaska’s predator control program, and not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns………

The wolves in this case that Governor Palin doesn’t fear are the “special interest advocacy groups” and their “inaccurate campaigns”, as well as one Congressman George Miller. In all honesty, I just can’t see her being intimidated with anyone who might be a threat to this country, whether they live in California or Tehran.

This is the kind of “experience” that you can’t put a measure to. I want a leader who will stand up to whatever and whoever threatens the constitution of this nation, our sovereignty and freedom.

Tom Remington

You can read Kellyhouse’s editorial at The Voice of the Times.

Tom Remington

“We believe in a balanced approach to wildlife management so we are encouraging our members to vote yes on ballot measure 2,”

ACE also says this kind of “hunting” isn’t fair chase but the Alaska Board of Game counters that they don’t view it as hunting, only as a necessary part of predator control.

“This is about giving a moose a break. Predator management is never pretty. But this is the most humane method available to us,”

Absent from the article is an explanation of one of the major reasons the Board of Game considers it necessary to control predators. Native Alaskans, who depend on harvesting of animals such as the moose and caribou, are seeing reductions in those populations near where they live because of an overblown population of predators, namely wolves and bears.

The same native Alaskans have had their hands tied and can no longer use some of the methods traditionally used to take care of their own predator management. Years ago when the natives began seeing too many wolves, members of the tribe would seek out the wolves dens and kill the pups. Seems cruel, yes, but their lives depended on it. What most people don’t realize is that they still do rely on subsistence hunting to survive.

In the two previous citizen ballots on this issue, the Alaskans voted to stop the use of aircraft for predator control and both times the legislature overturned the vote. Will it happen again?

Tom Remington

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.

When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.

If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?

As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.

* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.

* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.

* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.

* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.

* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.

* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.

Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.

Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.

If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.

What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back – namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.

This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.

As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.

In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?

Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.

Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.

How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?

I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.

There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put together about the polar bear. It’s light, entertaining and worth seeing polar bears dressed in formal attire.

Tom Remington