Wyoming is on the verge of passing two key pieces of gun rights legislation.

HB-95, The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and HB-113 “Alaska-style” permit-less concealed carry, are facing an up-or-down vote before the Wyoming State House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, National Association for Gun Rights Director of Operations Luke O’Dell was on hand to testify before the Wyoming State House Judiciary Committee on behalf of both HB-95, the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and the HB-113, “Alaska-style” permit less carry.

You may be asking yourself, “Why do I care, I don’t live in Wyoming?”

It’s simple: The higher the bar is set, the more pro-gun pieces of legislation pass across the country, the stronger the gun rights movement gets.

Passage of permit-less “Alaska-style” concealed carry in Wyoming would be a huge step forward toward true firearms freedom. Only in Alaska and Vermont can law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms for their own protection without getting Big Brother’s approval. Should Wyoming join their ranks, the right-to-carry will have taken a major step forward.

Additionally, Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act was written with much stronger language than similar legislation in other states. Wyoming’s bill included penalties for state law enforcement enforcing Federal laws which contradict Wyoming state law.

I’m happy to say that Wyoming Gun Owners, a partner of ours, has been leading the charge for both pieces of legislation.

Now it’s our turn to help out.

If you live in Wyoming, or know someone who does, please have them contact their Wyoming legislator and tell them to vote “Yes” on HB-95 and HB-113.

You can find contact information for Wyoming State Legislators here.

If you’re not from Wyoming, go ahead and drop them a line anyways. Tell them that you support their efforts to advance freedom in Wyoming.

For Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

*Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

donate

From www.nraila.org

Please Thank Attorney General Lawrence Wasden!

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Attorney General Wasden was one of the many who agrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right and signed the amicus brief. Please call Attorney General Wasden at (208) 334-2400 and thank him for standing up in support of the Second Amendment. You may also e-mail him at webmaster@ag.idaho.gov.

Read more:

Browse our entire Directory of Hunts, Fishing Trips and other Outdoor Adventures

May 4, 2009 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule delisting gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes became official.

• Wolf Delisting Rule Becomes Final

April 2, 2009 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule delisting gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes published in the Federal Register. Rule would take effect May 4.

• Final Wolf Delisting Rule

March 6, 2009 – Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will send the delisting rule to the Federal Register for publication. The rule would take effect days after publication, and includes wolves in Idaho and Montana; wolves in Wyoming would remain on the endangered species list.

• Interior Secretary Announces Delisting
• Wolf Delisting Rule Announced

January 20, 2009 – Proposed delisting rule covering Idaho and Montana suspended pending review by the new Obama administration.

January 14, 2009 – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the pending publication of a delisting rule for gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes. The Northern Rockies rule, however, does not include Wyoming, where wolves will remain on the endangered species list.

• USFWS Removes Wolves from Endangered Species List
• Federeal Register Text of Final Rule

October 24, 2008 – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reopened the public comment period on its proposal to delist the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. In a notice published in the Federal Register October 28, Fish and Wildlife asked the public to comment and provide any additional information on the February 2007 proposal to delist wolves by November 28.

• Federal Register Notice

October 14, 2008 – U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy granted the United States’ motion to remand the delisting rule to the Fish and Wildlife Service. He also dismissed the lawsuit that challenged the delisting.

• Remand Order

July 18, 2008 – Federal district judge issues a preliminary injunction that returns wolves in Idaho to endangered species protection and puts hunting seasons on hold.

• Wolf Delisting Court Case

May 22, 2008 – Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopts proposed wolf hunting seasons and rules for fall 2008.

• Proposed Hunting Seasons and Rules

April 28, 2008 – 12 conservation and animal rights groups file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to remove the gray wolf in Idaho and the Northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list, and request a preliminary injunction staying the delisting until the lawsuit is settled.

• Wolf Delisting Court Case

March 28, 2008 – Delisting rule becomes final and Idaho assumes full responsibility for wolves, which will be managed as a big game animal. Fish and Wildlife would continue to monitor wolf recovery for five years.

March 6, 2008 – Idaho Fish and Game Commission adopts Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, which includes a framework for future wolf hunting seasons.

• Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan

March 2008 – Idaho Legislature amends state code IC 36-1107 to allow livestock and domestic animal owners to kill a wolf that is molesting or attacking their animals, making wolf management more similar to black bears and mountain lions.

February 27, 2008 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisting rule posted in the Federal Register.

February 21, 2008 – February 21, 2008 – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed the rule that would remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the federal endangered species list. Delisting will proceed including Wyoming.

January 28, 2008 – Notice of amended 10j rule published in the Federal Register. Rule changes allow wolves to be killed that are in the act of attacking livestock, riding and packing stock or dogs legally present on public and private land, and provides allowances for killing wolves affecting ungulate populations.

February 8, 2007 – Notice of delisting process published in Federal Register. Delisting is proposed in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Delisting may proceed without Wyoming.

January 29, 2007 – Fish and Wildlife Service announced intention of starting the process to remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list. Public hearings set and 60-day public comment period launched.

January 5, 2006 – Memorandum of Agreement between Idaho and the U.S. Department of Interior signed by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and transferring authority for day-to-day wolf management to the state as agent for the Fish and Wildlife Service under the revised 10(j) rule.

May 2005 – Memorandum of Agreement between Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe signed, giving the tribe a significant role in wolf conservation. Tribal officials will monitor wolves within the McCall Subregion and the Clearwater Region and participate with Idaho Fish and Game in other wolf conservation measures.

February 7, 2005 – Revised 10(j) rules take effect, easing wolf management rules, and giving states a role in wolf management under agreements to be negotiated with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

January 6, 2005 – The Fish and Wildlife Service publishes the final revised 10(j) rules in the Federal Register.

Summer 2004 – Fish and Game work with cooperators to transition into wolf management duties statewide.

March 2004 – Wolf management training of Idaho Fish and Game staff members across Idaho was conducted with assistance of cooperating agency wolf specialists. About 300 staff members were trained to understand their roles and responsibilities in monitoring and management of wolves, coordination protocol and outreach, and other management responsibilities.

March 9, 2004 – The Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal Register its proposal to revise wolf management rules under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rules would allow more flexibility in managing wolves and would allow states with accepted wolf managment plans to take over much of the wolf management roles and responsibilities. Fish and Wildlife will make a decision on the rule amendment following a 60-day public comment period.

February 2004 – Wyoming decides to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept their plan. Fish and Wildlife delays delisting until Wyoming plan is accepted.

January 2004 – The Fish and Wildlife Service deems Montana and Idaho plans are adequate, but the Wyoming plan is inadequate for delisting.

November 2003 – The Fish and Wildlife Service requests 11 wolf experts to review the three state plans and determine whether they are adequate for preservation of wolves once delisted.

April 2003 – Legislature repealed law 36-715 and passed HB294 to allow Fish and Game to fully implement the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and work with the Office of Species Conservation prior to delisting in wolf management.

2002 – Work with the Office of Species Conservation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana and Wyoming to develop a wolf de-listing package that would turn over wolf management authority to the states following delisting.

• Increase efforts to record statewide wolf observation records and develop a procedure to document and monitor wolf recovery in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service and Nez Perce Tribe.

April 2002 – Begin working with the Office of Species Conservation in developing a memorandum of understanding with the Nez Perce Tribe, identifying the tribe’s future involvement with wolves and developing a wolf harvest agreement following delisting.

March 2002 – Idaho Legislature passes a joint resolution to accept the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan as written; identifies Fish and Game as the primary entity responsible for wolf management following de-listing; identifies the Nez Perce Tribe as having a significant role in wolf management following delisting.

October 2001 – Gov. Dirk Kempthorne directs the Office of Species Conservation to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, and others in the delisting of wolves in Idaho.

September 2001 – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents 30 pairs of wolves in the three-state area of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, triggering the three-year countdown to delisting.

August 2001 – Draft 16 of the Management Plan was sent out for professional review.

June 2001 – The Wolf Oversight Committee submitted draft 16 of the Management Plan to the USFWS which included recommended changes by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

December 2000 – The Northwest Natural Resource Group submitted a summary of the comments on the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan to the governor’s Office of Species Conservation and the Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee.

2000 – Idaho Legislature approves state statute §67-818, creating in the office of the governor, the “Office of Species Conservation” to coordinate all state-related activities involving federally listed threatened and endangered species.

December 1998 – 24 of the original 35 wolves were known to be alive and were still being monitored. The estimated population in Idaho was 115 wolves. This was the first year that one component of recovery (10 breeding pairs) was attained.

November 1998 – Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee begins working on a new Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.

1998 – Sen. Stan Hawkins ear-marked Fish and Game funds to study predator impacts on big game animals, focusing on wolves in the Salmon region.

1996 – Governor Phil Batt recommends the State become more involved in the wolf recovery process.

1996 – First pups produced in Idaho; 3 known packs identified.

January 1996 – 20 wolves released into central Idaho. Limited involvement by Fish and Game in accordance with Idaho statute.

1995 – Idaho Legislature rejected a Wolf Recovery and Management Plan produced by the Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee which would have allowed Fish and Game to assume the lead role in wolf recovery in Idaho. Nez Perce Tribe leads recovery effort.

January 1995 – 15 wolves released into central Idaho. Fish and Game participates in reintroductions and assumes lead management role if state plan is approved. Otherwise, the Fish and Wildlife Service will proceed with reintroductions on its own and retain full management authority.

Fall 1994 – Final Experimental Population Rules issued and published in the Federal Register.

• Litigation filed by Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Farm Bureau, and others regarding the release of wolves and the use of the Experimental Population designation.
• Negotiations/ Fish and Wildlife Service policy decision regarding involvement of Nez Perce Tribe.
• Public meetings on State plan held to inform public.

October 17, 1994 – Public comment period on proposed Experimental Population Rules closes.

October 14, 1994 – Interagency meeting to develop and prioritize a list of potential release sites.

October 1994 – Idaho wolf management plan is nearing completion. But if the Fish and Wildlife Service does not change the Final Experimental Rules to further reduce protection of wolves and increase protection of livestock interests, several members of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee are pushing to go outside the parameters established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This could jeopardize all state involvement in wolf recovery and management.

September 27-29, 1994 – Public hearings on Proposed Experimental Rule held in Boise, Helena, Cheyenne, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Washington D.C.

August 16, 1994 – Proposed Experimental Population Rules for Yellowstone and central Idaho published in the Federal Register and 60-day comment period began.

• States and Tribe can enter cooperative agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service to take lead if they develop suitable wolf management plans. State and tribal wolf management activities would be funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service until wolves are removed from the Endangered Species List.
• Experimental population areas would be established for the central Idaho and Yellowstone areas. In northern Idaho, north of I-90, wolves will retain full protection of the Endangered Species Act.
• 15 wolves to be reintroduced in central Idaho and 15 in Yellowstone National Park for three to five years or until at least two packs establish and reproduce successfully in two consecutive years.
• Wolves are expected to reach the recovery level of at least 10 breeding pairs that breed successfully for three consecutive years by 2002.

August 10, 1994 – Record of Decision was published in Federal Register.

July 13, 1994 – Secretary of Agriculture signed a letter concurring with the Record of Decision. This assured the full cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service.

June 15, 1994 – Secretary of Interior signed the EIS Record of Decision supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed action and directed that it be implemented as soon as possible.

May 4, 1994 – EIS is completed. The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park as a non-essential experimental population. If states and tribes develop acceptable wolf management plans, they could enter into a cooperative agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service to take lead in managing wolves.

April 1994 – In anticipation that the EIS would recommend reintroduction of wolves into Idaho under a “non-essential, experimental” status and provide an opportunity for the state to take a lead role in wolf management, the state Legislature amended Idaho Code §36-715 to allow Fish and Game to work with the Wolf Oversight Committee to develop and implement an Idaho Wolf Management Plan.

July 1993 – Draft EIS was released and resulted in 160,284 comments from public, agencies, and interest groups. It contained a Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to reintroduce gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho if two naturally occurring wolf packs are not found in either area before October 1994.

1992 – State Legislature amended Idaho Code §36-715 to allow Fish and Game to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare the environmental impact statement. The Legislature established a Wolf Oversight Committee “to guide and advise the department in all aspects of their involvement in the EIS process.”

1991 – Congress directed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare an environmental impact statement on the plan to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.

1991 – The Wolf Management Committee submitted their Plan to Congress.

November 1990 – Congress established a national Wolf Management Committee, directing the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a 10-member committee to develop a gray wolf reintroduction and management plan for Yellowstone National Park and the Central Idaho wilderness area. Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley was appointed a member of the committee.

1988 – State Legislature restricted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s involvement in wolf recovery activities unless expressly authorized by state statute §36-715.

1980s – Numerous field surveys conducted in Idaho to document the presence of wolves.

1978 – In 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relisted the gray wolf as endangered at the species level throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota where it was reclassified as threatened.

1974 – Four subspecies of gray wolves (Canis lupus) were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act – the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains, the eastern timber wolf in the northern Great Lakes region, the Mexican wolf in Mexico and the southwestern United States, and the Texas gray wolf of Texas and Mexico.

Read more:

Browse our entire Directory of Hunts, Fishing Trips and other Outdoor Adventures

A quote I carry in my wallet:

Not all dogs are fit to hunt, nor in the same way are all men gratified by it. Nor, for those of us who share this dogs pleasure of hunting (if you will,) do I ask special tolerance or understanding. We are as we are and if we seem to you to act immorally it is certainly your right to feel so, but I say most seriously that you exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block pleasures permitted by mine. When you prevail you commit a crime against freedom and that’s the greatest immorality I know. ~ Vance Vourgaily

Read more:

Browse our entire Directory of Hunts, Fishing Trips and other Outdoor Adventures

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

http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. (B&B)
With glaring spotlights cast in the eyes of Sarah Palin, this national stage newcomer stood and delivered a speech that had the audience in the Xcel Center on its feet, and no doubt millions in TV land cheering along with them. Palin’s Wednesday night speech at the Republican National Convention attracted 37 million viewers, and the event should be regarded kindly by historians in years to come.

Regardless of your political leanings, you have to agree that this woman can deliver a speech in a way that makes you feel like she is talking directly to you as an individual.

Her diction was excellent, her delivery exceptional and she didn’t hesitate to take on her detractors with hard-hitting jabs interlaced with a little humor. This self-described “hockey mom” may try to give the impression that she is “ordinary”, but don’t let that ploy fool you. In her own words tonight, she served warning to her opponents, “You know what they say about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

Following a barrage of personal attacks against her family members and her own credentials for the office, from both the media and the Obama campaign, she took the offensive, electrifying the audience and giving the Republican Party a jolt that was exhilarating, if not to the political pundits. She also served notice to them as well, with this remark.

“Here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

Earlier in the day, she attended a meeting with Republican governors, commenting afterward that leading a state means you have to make decisions and not just vote “present,” a reference to Obama’s notorious record in the Illinois Senate where he voted “present” dozens of times to avoid taking a stand on controversial issues.

Palin has executive experience that far exceeds being “present”, and after this speech her opponents should have a newfound respect for her poise, her repartee and her pit bull bite.

2008 Copyright Bulls & Beavers LLC

Sportsmen and women who have been struggling with the choices in this year’s presidential race may have found a ticket they can vote for with enthusiasm, when Republican John McCain introduced Alaska’s Governor, Sarah Palin, as his choice for a running mate. Palin is a solid choice for conservative values, second amendment rights and the heartfelt family traditions of hunting and fishing.

Palin became a fast-rising star in Alaska politics, after winning the mayor’s seat in her hometown of Wasilla, in 1996, defeating a three-term incumbent. A short ten years later, she became the first female and youngest governor of the state. This remarkable achievement was not unexpected to her fellow state champion basketball teammates, who nicknamed Palin “Barracuda” for her aggressive play as point guard for Wasilla High School.

Alaska is a state where individualists are treasured and Palin and her family fill that bill. Following her success on the basketball court, she became Miss Wasilla, then runner-up as Miss Alaska, and then moved quickly from beauty queen to first lady of the frontier state. Her husband, Todd, whom she refers to as the “First Dude,” has worked as a commercial fisherman, production operator for BP on the North Slope when he’s not straddling his snowmobile. Todd has won the Tesoro Iron Dog, the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.

Maintaining the difficult pace of a presidential campaign shouldn’t be an issue for Sarah “Barracuda” Palin. She comes from good outdoor stock, with an inclination toward the long run. Her parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, hunt and fish but both have also completed marathons.

As a mother of five children, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Track and Trig, who was born in April of this year with Down syndrome, she is very familiar with heavy demands on her time and the mandatory machinations of multi-tasking.

She’s a lifetime NRA member, which compares well to the gun controlling inclinations of the Obama ticket.

Now, the big question that remains is how her favorite meal, moose stew, will serve on the Whitehouse’ china?

Copyright 2008 Bulls & Beavers LLC. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

John McCain is the preferred Presidential candidate among sportsmen,
as well as the preferred sporting partner

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sportsmen have a solid history of voting, with 9 in 10 currently registered to vote and of those 83 percent say they will vote in the November election, according to a new survey by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. Overall, there are an estimated 40 million sportsmen of voting age in the United States.

“Sportsmen are active voters and prefer candidates who align with them on hunting and fishing issues,” said Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “The attention presidential candidates give to sportsmen’s issues is well-aimed.”

Among sportsmen, Republican John McCain holds a significant lead over White House opponent Barack Obama, with a 14-point margin according to the survey.

Asked who they planned to vote for in November, 45 percent said McCain and 31 percent said Obama.

Support for McCain among sportsmen extends from the voting booth to the field, the survey found.

Asked who they’d like to go hunting with, 49 percent said McCain and 27 percent said Obama. As a fishing buddy, 44 percent said they’d prefer McCain and 31 percent chose Obama.

“Sportsmen view John McCain as good company in the great outdoors,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which helped underwrite the survey. “They’re just not sure how much fun Barack Obama would be in a duck blind.”

By a 2 to 1 margin sportsman said McCain would be a better president on sportsmen’s issues than Obama.

“Politically engaged sportsmen see John McCain as a supporter of their concerns,” Sanetti said. “To sportsmen, I would say, don’t be fooled. Make it a point to know where the candidates you’re considering for office truly stand on hunting and firearms issues.”

A majority of sportsmen polled said that it is important for a candidate to share their views on hunting and fishing issues, although the survey indicated the economy, homeland security and the war in Iraq are the top concerns for all Americans this election season.

When it comes to sportsmen-related issues, sportsmen are most likely to say that it’s essential that a candidate support ensuring gun rights, clean water initiatives, and sustainable energy development.

“With an estimated $76 billion economic impact on the economy annually and direct support of 1.6 million jobs, the next president will need to pay attention to issues that impact hunting and fishing,” said Crane. “Sportsmen need to ask candidates where they stand on our outdoor issues and take this into account when they vote on November 4th.”

Other key findings of the survey include:

A significant portion of sportsmen say this November’s election is more important than past elections regarding their ability to hunt and fish.

On the specific topic of gun rights, sportsmen say firearm issues are more important now than in past elections.

Three-quarters (74%) say they would prefer to elect a president who personally owns firearms.

The telephone survey of 1,009 sportsmen was conducted July 10-24 by Braun Research on behalf of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and Ketchum Global Research. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan group headquartered in Washington, D.C. A leader in promoting sportsmen’s issues with elected officials, CSF works with the bi-partisan Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus in the U.S. Congress, as well as sportsmen’s caucuses in state legislators around the country. The CSF does not endorse political candidates.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, based in Newtown, Conn., works to increase participation in and understanding of hunting and the shooting sports; to reaffirm and strengthen their members’ commitment to the safe and responsible use of their products, and to promote a political climate supportive of America’s traditional firearms rights.

The survey was also supported by National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, Outdoor Channel, American Sportfishing Association and the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

For more information on the survey results go to www.sportsmenslink.org.

For information on the economic impact hunting and fishing has in your state go to

http://www.sportsmenslink.org/reports_and_data/Sportsmens-Economic-Impact.html.

Anybody who follows the endlessly volatile wolf issue–and it’s hard not to follow it with all the news coverage–knows the greens won a big victory last week. Judge Donald Molloy of the U.S. District Court sided with Earthjustice and 12 conservation organizations and essentially relisted, albeit temporarily, the wolf as an endangered species.

So, what now? That’s the question I’ve been asking people on both sides of the debate this week, and I might have the answer, a way to quickly get the wolf debate behind us. Does that sound good?

Actually, everybody generally agrees on the current options before us, but nobody will say which option they’ll pursue. It’s complicated, of course, and we must keep in mind that Molloy’s ruling doesn’t overturn the proposed rule to delist the wolf. It more or less says the wolf is endangered while the courts decide if it is, or not, whereas over the last four months, the wolf has been off the endangered species list and under state control while the legal battle over delisting rages in the background. If agencies prevail in the main case, Molloy’s ruling would merely go down as an aggravating delay for agencies in implementing hunting seasons and state management.

This leaves agencies with three choices:

• Appeal Molloy’s decision to relist the wolf in addition to continuing to fight the main legal battle over delisting.
• Ignore Molloy’s ruling and concentrate trying to win the primary delisting case, forgetting about wolf hunting seasons for this year and perhaps next year, too.
• Suck it up, meet with the greens, and have a little “out-of-court settlement” to resolve the wolf issue right now.

I asked both the Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency in charge of endangered species programs, and Chris Smith, chief of staff for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, what their agencies plan to do. Both dodged that question but didn’t rule out any of the three options.

I called Suzanne Asha Stone, northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, and Doug Honnold, managing attorney for Earthjustice, self-acclaimed as “the nation’s leading environmental law firm,” which is handling the case for the 12 conservation groups, to ask them what the agencies would have to do for them to accept delisting and withdraw the lawsuit. Keeping in mind that Stone only speaks for her organization, not the other groups, and that Honnold can only speculate on what his clients might decide, both gave me the same answer.

The two major sticking points are lack of what’s called “genetic connectivity” and Wyoming’s totally unacceptable wolf control plan. Neither Stone or Honnold would guarantee that fixing these two problems would make wolf delisting litigation-proof, but I strongly suspect resolving them would keep us out of court.

The first point, Wyoming’s dual-status plan that declares the wolf a “predator” (Wyomingish for vermin) in 90 percent of the state so, as Honnold says, “it can be killed by anybody anywhere” needs to go away. Radical pro-wolfers are probably loving Wyoming right now because if the state doesn’t give up on dual status, it may hold up delisting for decades allowing the wolf to reclaim its entire former range throughout the western United States. Already, we have indications of wolf packs forming in Washington and Oregon. Soon, Colorado greens will have their dream come true, wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park to control elk numbers. All thanks to Wyoming.

“It’s going to take the other two states (Idaho and Montana) and other interested parties to push Wyoming to develop a safety net instead of a free-firing zone,” Honnold speculates. Even though the FWS had earlier rejected Wyoming’s plan, “when (former Idaho Governor Dirk) Kempthorne came into office (as Secretary of the Interior), the Wyoming plan that had been unacceptable became magically acceptable.”

And, of course, gave Judge Molloy another good reason to enjoin delisting, giving Wyoming exactly what it did not want–more wolves and more federal control. Altogether now, can we all say “self-defeating insanity”?

The Nation of Wyoming has to be a team player and along with the other states give in to the greens, regardless of how much it hurts. Those bruised egos eventually heal.

Addressing the second point, genetic exchange, also seems easy enough. By definition “genetic exchange” means wolves moving back and forth between the three recovery zones (Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwestern Montana) without being whacked. Even though the Yellowstone wolves have prospered, they have done it in genetic isolation.

Like it or not, it’s a numbers game. As I write this commentary, we have somewhere between 1,500 and 2,200 wolves running around the northern Rockies, but not many of them making it from one recovery zone to the other without getting in trouble and being “controlled.”

Collectively, the three state management plans call for killing down the population to about 1,100 wolves. Based on the science he has read, that number minimizes the change of genetic exchange, says Honnold, and Judge Molloy agreed with him and his clients.

“At a population level of 2,000 wolves, we are likely to have genetic exchange if we can maintain it for two years or more,” Honnold says. “If there were a commitment to maintain a population of 2,000 wolves, I think these genetic issues would be solved.”

That’s the winter population, he adds, not the spring population, which includes the new crop of pups, many of which don’t make it to their first birthday.

The recovery plan and delisting documents call for a minimum of 30 packs or 300 wolves. But the greens believe–and again Judge Molloy agrees–this is not enough to facilitate genetic exchange.

So now, I’m scratching my head. How hard can this be?

We have roughly 2,000 wolves, a tolerable but probably not ideal level for agencies or the livestock industry. I say go with it and move on. It sure trumps any alternative we currently face, such as years of expensive litigation while wolves continue breeding and the real possibility of the greens prevailing in court and keeping the wolf an endangered species for a long time.

And, please, let’s not do the is-there-a-number-between-1,100-and-2,000-that-might-work approach. The greens have an ace in the hole, and Molloy flopped another ace for them, so right now, they have the winning hand. Let’s pick up on that and fold.

Stone tells me the decision must be based on science, but that’s exactly what Bangs says. They simply have different views of the available science, which will probably always be the case. And assuming judges keep agreeing with the green view of the science, wolves will be on the endangered species list.

The agencies have already said that having 1,100 wolves is enough, scientifically, to declare the wolf successfully recovered, so 2,000 wolves would only be more recovered, right?  It might be more wolves than agencies think we need, but less than we’ll have if we don’t get out of the courthouse soon.

“We need to bring the stakeholders to the table and develop an acceptable plan,” Stone proposes. “Montana did a great job in their plan in bringing all the stakeholders together, but this needs to be a region-wide effort. There are people on both sides who are willing to work together for a good outcome.”

Bangs, on the other hand, has little optimism of any such agreement ever happening, not now at least, because his experience tells him people can’t be rational about wolves. “Wolves will eventually wear everybody out, but right now, emotions are too high. It will work out eventually.”

But do we want “eventually”? How many wolves will we have by then? How many millions will be spent on wolf control that hunters would pay to do?

“Wolf management has nothing to do with reality,” Bangs reminds me. “A rational person could sit down and figure this out in a minute. If this were any another animal, this would already be a done deal, but people aren’t rational about wolves.”

“It’s a mess, “ he admits. “And it’s getting expensive. More wolves do more damage. If you want more wolves in more places, you keep the wolves on the endangered species list.”

Is anybody in Wyoming listening?

Bangs also accused me of being “too rational” (which hasn’t happened too often) in suggesting agencies and greens could settle their differences. Nonetheless, I persist in believing we could resolve the wolf issue by the end of next week. All it would take is the agencies collectively deciding to maintain a population of 2,000 wolves (the status quo) instead of 1,100 and pressuring Wyoming to commit to plan something similar to plans written by Idaho or Montana.

This is doable, folks. In fact, it looks easy.

By Bill Schneider, 7-24-08

Obama Regulatory Czar’s Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent
by: Fox News

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process — a “hold” by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who’s says he’s not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won’t push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted “holds” to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

“Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein’s record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal ‘rights’ for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,” the Republican’s spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Cornyn’s hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced him that he “would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals,” and that he believes the “Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense.”

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

Chambliss added in a Senate floor speech last Wednesday that “Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country.”

One of Sunstein’s top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

That’s a large part of the reason Sunstein’s positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Freedom’s David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry — major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn — nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a “stealth campaign” on any one of these fronts — guns or animal rights — by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

“He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries,” he said, noting that “as a regulatory czar, he won’t be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. … What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy,” which is very much in line with “hard core animal rights zealots.” [Read the rest of the article]

Read more:

Browse our entire Directory of Hunts, Fishing Trips and other Outdoor Adventures

The region has an estimated 2,000 grey wolves. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.

Environmentalists sued to overturn that decision.

“There were fall hunts scheduled that would have called for as many as 500 wolves to be killed,” said Doug Honnold of Earthjustice, who had argued the case for 12 environmental groups.

Only 11 people showed at a public hearing Wednesday to gather comment on a proposed state rule that would designate the gray wolf as a species in need of management.

Only four of those that showed said a word, and none complained about the change from endangered to “in need of management” so much as small details of the rules.

“I was hoping for a little better turnout,” said FWP Gray Wolf Coordinator Carolyn Sime.

The recent death of 61-year-old Bill Studebaker, an Idaho poet and teacher, has raised questions about the wisdom of kayaking on the state’s dangerous whitewater, reports this morning’s Idaho Statesman.

Judy Studebaker has heard the talk: Her husband had a death wish.

How else to explain a 61-year-old poet and retired English professor jumping in his new kayak on one of the most challenging stretches of Idaho whitewater and winding up dead?

But Bill Studebaker’s July 4 drowning wasn’t prompted by self-destructiveness, said Judy Studebaker. Rather, he was on a Salmon River tributary to cherish nature, thrill at testing his skills and find calm in the challenge of running expert whitewater.

He was, like thousands of Idahoans who love adventure sports, focused on living well.

“Bill wasn’t out to kill himself,” said Judy Studebaker. “The river quieted his mind.”

Posted by Noelle Crombie, The Oregonian July 13, 2008 07:00AM

As few as 500 wolverines may still exist in the lower 48 states, conservationists say

Wildlife biologists operating in a remote area east of Salmon made an important discovery this spring when they found a “vortex of wolverine activity” in the roadless Beaverhead Mountains.

Basing on results from a winter hair-snaring survey on the west side of the range that forms the scenic backdrop for this east central Idaho community, the biologists took to the air, looking for wolverine sign. Near the headwaters of Carmen Creek on the Idaho side of the Continental Divide, they spotted the species’ distinctive tracks in the snow.

Back on the ground, they hiked into the area and made the rarest discovery of all: a maternal wolverine den complete with a nursing female and her two young kits. The largest member of the weasel family at about 30 pounds, wolverines are dark brown and have light stripes on their sides from head to tail.

The wolverine’s Latin name Gulo gulo means glutton. Their preference for remote forests and high-mountain cirques makes the Smoky, Sawtooth, Boulder and White Cloud mountains some of the species’ best habitat in the state.

Locating the den site for such an elusive and wide-ranging species of animal is rare, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Beth Waterbury said Thursday. Waterbury, Fish and Game’s regional nongame biologist for the Salmon Region, led the hair-snaring project that resulted in the rare discovery.

“That was kind of a career high for me,” she said.

Although the results of a DNA analysis of the wolverine hair is not yet complete, the amount of hair snagged in several locations in the Beaverheads suggests several wolverines may be occupying the area, Waterbury said.

The quest to find the wolverine den was funded by the nonprofit organization Wildlife Conservation Society, an international group dedicated to saving endangered wildlife and wildlands. Leading the project was Bob Inman, a wolverine expert in charge of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program.

The wolverine den discovery comes at an especially crucial time in the management of the species. This week, 10 conservation groups announced that they will file a legal challenge against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an attempt to have wolverines living in the lower 48 states listed as a threatened or endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Back in March, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that listing the wolverine in the same region wasn’t warranted because a healthy population still persists in Canada.

The groups contend the agency’s decision is justification for denying long overdue protections to the animal, which they say is imperiled and may number as few as 500 south of Canada. Conservationists first petitioned to have the wolverine listed nearly a decade ago.

Protecting the last remaining habitat for the wolverine in the lower 48 states is crucial in light of the effects global warming, the conservationists argue. The species is vulnerable to global warming because it depends on deep snow for everything from travel corridors to the snow dens where they raise their young, they say.

Wolverines once roamed across the northern tier of the U.S. and as far south as New Mexico and southern California. Conservationists say the wolverine is now reduced to small, fragmented populations in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming.

According to the groups, wolverines in the lower 48 states represent a distinct population that is only tenuously linked to the Canadian population and are in need of habitat and other protections.

“The Bush administration is essentially outsourcing responsibility for our wildlife to other countries,” said David Gaillard, Rocky Mountain representative of Defenders of Wildlife, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit. “Wolverines are as American as the bald eagle, gray wolf and grizzly bear, all of which might have vanished from the lower 48 if the same reckless policy were applied to them.

“With global warming compounding the many threats facing snow-dependent wolverines, protections are needed more than ever to ensure that this magnificent animal continues to call the U.S. home.”

The groups claim a March statement by the Fish and Wildlife Service that says, “the population (in the lower 48 states) will be at risk of extinction,” is proof the agency was incorrect in its determination that ESA listing wasn’t warranted.

Bozeman-based Earthjustice filed the 60-day notice of intent to sue on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the nine other conservation groups, which also includes Boise-based Idaho Conservation League.

Back up in the Beaverheads, Waterbury, Inman and the other biologists who discovered the den site fitted the wolverine kits—a male and a female—with radio transmitters. They had to dig down two meters to access the tunnel.

“They looked like miniature adults,” she said.

Using radio telemetry equipment, Waterbury and the other biologists will now be able to track the young wolverines to determine how far they disperse from their birthplace to new home ranges.

Waterbury said knowing which mountain ranges act as linkage corridors for the far-ranging species will be especially crucial if wolverines are to be preserved in the northern Rocky Mountain region. Unlike contiguous wolverine habitat to the north in Canada and Alaska, Waterbury described the northern Rockies landscape as a sea of isolated and “discontiguous-type” habitat.

“It’s like a gauntlet getting between what they’re calling sky island habitat,” she said.

Waterbury said the team was unable to place a radio collar on the adult female, especially not after she showed off a display of the ferocity for which wolverines are legendary.

“She busted out of the maternal den and hovered off in the distance,” she said.

Tracking the young wolverines could be a challenge if the past is any guide. Several years ago, Fish and Game biologists working along north central Idaho’s Lochsa River in April fitted an adult wolverine with a radio collar.

Within weeks, they had lost the animal’s signal. But several months later in July, the male wolverine turned up 160 air miles to the south deep in the Salmon River Mountains. His amazing journey would have taken him through the rugged Selway Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return wilderness areas, she said.

“When they want to move, they move.”

By JASON KAUFFMAN
Express Staff Writer

www.mtexpress.com

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has announced plans to kill America’s wild horses rather than effectively manage our wild natural heritage.

BLM claims it can no longer afford to round up wild horses and confine them until it finds people to adopt them, and the agency wants to euthanize these majestic wild beauties or sell them to the highest bidder “without limitation” – meaning sell them to anyone, even if the bidder also plans to kill these horses.

Why does BLM need to round up wild horses and send them to slaughter? The BLM claims that the agency can’t “allow horses to multiply unchecked on the range without causing an environmental disaster.” But there are less than 30,000 wild horses on the range versus at least 3 million grazing cows. So rather than address the environmental damage caused by cattle overgrazing and expanding oil and gas exploration on our public lands, the BLM would rather placate corporate cattle ranchers who view mustangs as competition for forage, and drive wild horses – our country’s symbol of freedom and independent spirit – to extinction.

This plan is simply outrageous. Stand up for our wild horses and send a comment to BLM today. Urge our government to abide by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971 and effectively manage the land to preserve wild horses rather than kill them!

Sponsored by: Care2.com

Whether or not a well regulated militia remains necessary to the security of a free state, as the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares, it isn’t the compelling motive behind the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That, in effect, is what a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, clearing up a constitutional ambiguity as old as the Bill of Rights and at the heart of more contemporary debates over how the U.S. should deal with the biggest epidemic of gun violence among the world’s industrial democracies. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. The upshot of that unambiguous assertion, and its immediate consequence, is that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement for trigger locks is unconstitutional, amounting, Justice Scalia said, “to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” What is ambiguous is how the ruling will affect the spectrum of state and local restrictions on firearm ownership across the U.S.

Mr. Scalia said the court’s ruling “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” But he didn’t provide guidance to lower courts and lawmakers on where the second amendment line should be drawn.

The winning legal team for the case at the high court, District of Columbia v. Heller, planned to quickly challenge local gun laws in Chicago, New York and Detroit, as the New York Times reports. Gun proponents in Texas hope the ruling will help them win the right of people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry guns where the state currently bans them, including government buildings and college campuses, the Dallas Morning News reports. In California, the National Rifle Association plans to file suit today against a San Francisco prohibition on guns in public housing, and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox tells the Los Angeles Times “there will be challenges to all sorts of statutes as we move forward.”

Many gun-control advocates yesterday voiced apprehension about the results. “More handguns will lead to more handgun violence,” Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said, while his Chicago counterpart, Richard Daley, warned the ruling would bring a “return to the days of the Wild West,” as Legal Times reports. Among the dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer was equally pessimistic, saying “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.” But one gun opponent, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, tells The Wall Street Journal there could be a silver lining: the possibility that gun-rights advocates will feel less threatened and be more open to compromise.

The decision drew a lot attention in fellow democracies overseas that take more restrictive views of gun rights. The Times of London asked the liberal American constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe if the U.S. should try to learn from England and Wales, where only 50 people were killed in gun crimes in 2005, compared with 12,352 in the U.S. He replied: “We come from a much more violent culture, one in which it would be much more difficult to enact and enforce a complete ban. Whatever the law, we’re not going to become England.”

By JOSEPH SCHUMAN

In a widely circulated article titled, “What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery,” in the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman, I documented the fact that Fish and Wildlife Service and state wolf biologists are knowingly underestimating wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The article explained that only individual radio-collared wolves, and packs including at least one wolf that has been radio-collared (or otherwise documented as having survived in the wild) are considered in minimum wolf population estimates published by FWS and state agency biologists.

BY TODD ADAMS

Proposed changes announced last week to Rep. Mike Simpson’s Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) preserve economic development for Custer County and motorized access, contrary to claims by an anti-CIEDRA group, Simpson staff say.Lindsay Slater, Simpson’s chief of staff, was responding to claims recently made in ads by the Idaho Recreation Council.

Custer County commissioners Lin Hintze and Wayne Butts say they still support CIEDRA for its economic development provisions. The Challis Messenger was unable to contact Commissioner Cliff Hansen by press time.

The commissioners are on record opposing the designation of more than 300,000 acres of new wilderness, but supporting the bill’s release of 131,670 acres of wilderness study areas back into multiple use.

Simpson proposed the changes to make the bill more acceptable to the Democrats who now control Congress, Slater said. So far, he said, there has been no reaction from Democrats on the House Committee on Natural Resources chaired by Rep. Nick J. Rahall II. Simpson’s bill is still waiting for a committee hearing.

“The number one priority I have relayed to the committee is that Custer County must be compensated with guaranteed economic development money if they plan to take any lands off the table,” Simpson said in a statement last week. “I believe the guaranteed funding mechanism I have proposed will meet the needs of the citizens of Custer County and uphold the promises I have made to the Commissioners.”

Key changes

Simpson removed two controversial Sawtooth National Recreation Area land transfers to the City of Stanley and Custer County totaling 94 acres.

Parcel A, the so-called Benner Street parcel, would have transferred eight acres to Stanley that could have been sold for four homesites. Parcel B would have transferred 86 acres for 10 homesites to Custer County in the Nip and Tuck Creek area above Lower Stanley.

Stanley Parcel C, 73 acres along Valley Creek, remains in the bill and would be used for public purposes, Slater said, such as affordable housing. The transfer of 4,990 acres of BLM lands to Custer County and its municipalities also stays in the bill, he said.

The idea was to stimulate the county’s economy by increasing its tax base. In exchange for removing the two SNRA parcels, Simpson has put in a provision to transfer $3 million to Custer County.

That money would be guaranteed upon passage of CIEDRA and the money would come from diverting 25 percent of federal mineral leasing payments in Idaho to the county until the $3 million total is reached, Slater said.

A separate $5 million appropriation to Custer County remains in the bill, but is not guaranteed upon CIEDRA’s passage. Congress would have to pass a separate appropriations bill for Custer County to see that money.

The county commissioners have said they want to set up an economic development trust fund and use the interest to fund economic development projects.

Voluntary buyouts of federal grazing allotments held by East Fork ranchers are back in the bill. A national conservation group that wishes to remain anonymous has offered to put up $2 million to retire livestock grazing, Slater said.

CIEDRA originally proposed a federal appropriation of $7 million for the buyouts, but Simpson eliminated that provision after the Idaho Cattle Association opposed it.

Advertisements

An IRC ad in last week’s issue of The Challis Messenger stated, “CIEDRA?No land and money guaranteed! Simpson backs out on CIEDRA deal with Custer County. Simpson’s promises of land transfers are removed from the bill.”

“They’re lying,” Commissioner Hintze told The Messenger. He said Simpson backed off on the SNRA parcels because groups opposed CIEDRA for selling off public lands for the development of trophy homes.

“They’re happy because there are no houses,” Hintze said. “We’re happy because we get the money, the $3 million.”

An Idaho Recreation Council commercial running on KSRA radio urges listeners to contact the commissioners and tell Simpson to “kill this bill before it kills our way of life.”

Sandra Mitchell, director of public lands for the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, a member group of IRC, admitted the ad was misleading. It didn’t specify that only two of the three Stanley parcels were removed, she said, or mention the 4,990 acres of BLM land transfers still in the bill.

The group’s latest statement specifies that just the two parcels totaling 94 acres have been dropped, Mitchell said. “Gone also is the ?Boulder White Clouds Management Area’ which would have protected some degree of motorized recreation access,” she wrote in a May 28 guest opinion to the Idaho Falls Post Register.

Slater said that’s not true ? removal of the management area does not change motorized access. Motorized trails stay the same and are detailed in Map 9, “CIEDRA Travel Plan” on Simpson’s website.

“The term and reference to the Boulder White Clouds Management Area is eliminated,” Slater wrote in a summary of changes, because it was controversial and confusing. CIEDRA opponents were concerned it would weaken land management in the SNRA.

The former management area perimeter included the 318,765 acres of wilderness that CIEDRA proposes to designate, plus surrounding non-wilderness lands that would maintain current management by the Salmon-Challis and Sawtooth national forests, the SNRA and the Challis district of the Bureau of Land Management.

Hintze challenged Mitchell; the IRC and others opposed to CIEDRA to come up with a development alternative for Custer County. “If IRC can come up with an alternative, I don’t want more wilderness, either,” Hintze said.

Mitchell told The Messenger the alternative is long-term growth in the form of a recreation economy that preserves current levels of motorized and mechanized (mountain bikes) access to the Boulder and White Cloud mountains.

The money, whether it’s $3 million or more, is tempting to take, but is only temporary and won’t last, as will recreation, Mitchell said.

“The money provisions of CIEDRA are payoffs to the locals to support CIEDRA; once the bill is passed that support is no longer needed,” Mitchell wrote in her opinion piece.

Studies have shown that snowmobiling, mountain biking and such recreation keep rural economies going.

Snowmobilers spend up to $319 each per day, Mitchell said, adding there’s a lot of snowmobiling in the Boulder and White Cloud mountains from which Stanley benefits.

As a compromise, IRC has said it’s willing to support about 40,000 acres of wilderness, versus the 300,000-plus acres now proposed.

INDEX, Snohomish County — After years cajoling fellow lawmakers, strategizing with environmentalists and attending countless community meetings, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray stood on the bank of the Skykomish River Friday and looked into the newly created Wild Sky Wilderness.

“Rick,” she declared, pointing to a forested mountain and then gleefully slapping the arm of U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, a fellow Democrat, “we did it!”

Murray, Larsen and several dozen wilderness advocates, congressional aides and Forest Service officials, many seasoned veterans of the Wild Sky campaign, gathered near the tiny mountain town of Index Friday to celebrate the creation of Washington’s first wilderness area in more than two decades.

Wild Sky boosters said their success heralds future campaigns for creating still more protected wilderness in Washington.

“We broke the logjam,” said Murray, who helped lead the effort in Congress. “I think now people are saying, ‘Well, this is a doable process.’ ”

But it wasn’t easy.

Environmentalists first conceived it in 1999, hoping to protect a slice of lowland forest near Seattle, and introduce a new generation of citizens and politicians to the idea of creating wilderness areas.

In the ensuing nine years, it weathered opposition from a powerful House committee chair, threats of a Senate filibuster and hours of careful negotiation with snowmobilers, campers and other interest groups afraid they would be shut out of their favorite places. Along the way, it shrank from a proposed 126,000 acres to the final 106,000 acres of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

The effort made the victory celebration that much sweeter for Mike Town, founder of Friends of Wild Sky and an environmental-sciences teacher at Redmond High School.

“I can’t wipe the smile off my face,” Town told the crowd. “My jaw muscles are getting fatigued.”

The land includes low-lying forests, some logged decades ago, some with centuries-old Douglas firs. There are high alpine ridges, sheer granite cliffs and the North Fork of the Skykomish River, where steelhead leap upstream. Town takes students to a stream flowing out of the wilderness where pink salmon still spawn so plentifully they fill the creek from bank to bank. All of it lies a few hours drive from Seattle, near Highway 2.

The wilderness designation bars virtually all mechanized activity there — no logging, motorcycles, cars or new mining claims. You can’t even legally fire up a chain saw. Wild Sky advocates carefully drew the boundaries to avoid opposition from snowmobilers and the heavily used Barclay Lake.

Mark Rey, a Bush appointee who oversees the Forest Service, spoke at the event, praising the Wild Sky proponents for taking a moderate approach that built broad support for the wilderness. He also announced plans to name a trailhead leading into the wilderness after the late Jennifer Dunn, the longtime Republican congresswoman from Bellevue who supported Wild Sky, and who died last September.

Still, today the wilderness faces obstacles of a more practical sort. One of the main roads leading to it was cut off by flooding several years ago and has yet to be repaired.

That, combined with lingering snow on the ground, meant Larsen and Murray never set foot inside the wilderness Friday. But the weather cooperated, giving the revelers a clear view of craggy Gunn Peak and Merchant Peak, both now protected as wilderness.

Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall@seattletimes.com

Open Season

May 18, 2008 6:00 AM

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) announced this week the creation of a fund with the sole purpose of combating the world’s number-one anti-hunting organization. Money collected through the Sportsmen Against HSUS fund will be used in the continuing battle against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its animal-rights campaign.

The new fund will focus on educating the public, the media, elected officials, sportsmen and the many others targeted by the animal-rights group. It also will fund campaigns to combat the public policy threats initiated and supported by the HSUS. The antis’ lobbying machine claims to have played a role in getting 86 different state laws passed in 2007 alone. The group also filed more than a dozen lawsuits last year.

The HSUS is America’s leading opponent of hunting, fishing, trapping and scientific wildlife management. It led the charge in a 2006 ballot campaign to ban dove hunting in Michigan, contributing $1.6 million to the effort. Among other voter issues, it also took the lead in the 1994 ballot campaign to ban cougar and bear hunting with hounds and bait in Oregon. It opposes hunting on National Wildlife Refuges and other public lands. It has filed lawsuits to impede the management of gray wolves and grizzly bears.

Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of HSUS, has a sordid history of leading the anti-hunting crusade. When he was the national director of the Fund for Animals, which has since merged with HSUS, he said, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States “¦”

Pacelle has divulged the agenda of the HSUS, saying, “More money will mean more pet protection, but also more ballot initiatives to restrict inhumane and unsporting hunting practices, more state legislation, more local ordinances.”

The USSA now is taking the fight after the HSUS’s continuous attacks against sportsmen’s rights, and rightfully so.

“The name Humane Society disingenuously implies that the organization is in the business of taking care of stray dogs and cats,” said USSA president Bud Pidgeon. “The HSUS does nothing to make the public think otherwise when tugging at the heartstrings of Americans when asking for donations.”

It is more important than ever that all sportsmen unite to combat the principal enemy of American conservation and the outdoor sports that make conservation possible, he said. To contribute to the Sportsmen Against HSUS fund, please contact the USSA at 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, Ohio, 43229. For more information call (614) 888-4868, or email info@ussportsmen.org.

A federal judge this past week told the Department of Interior it had until May 15, 2008 to make a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And the environmentalists went wild!!!

If you follow the link category to the right under “Endangered Species“, you’ll find plenty of articles and links to the ongoing debate about whether the polar bear is in danger, whether the world is in danger and if it’s all caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from carbon dioxide.

I laughed out loud a few days ago, when Al Gore, during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes said that those of us who won’t jump on his flim-flam bandwagon, were like the Flat Earth Society people and that we believe the lunar landing was staged on a lot in Hollywood. What was hilarious about it was that the Flat Earth Society was made up of people like Al Gore, who refused to listen to any kind of reasoning whether logical or scientific, that showed the earth wasn’t flat. I know of hundreds of people personally that are not sold on Al Gore’s theory of man-made global warming but are open to listening to debate on both sides of the issue. So who’s a Flat Earther?

Without debate, media, politicians and American citizens are blindly plowing ahead, often times willy-nilly, to save the planet – in this case the polar bear. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle provided readers with an editorial about the plight of the polar bear. 100% of the piece (and yes I realize it’s an editorial) was presented as fact that ice is melting everywhere in the arctic, that this is caused by man and that the polar bear is dying off. They even repeated projections from recently discovered to be faulty models that said the bears would be extinct by the year 2050. There is just as much scientific evidence, particularly the newest data, to refute everything the Chronicle repeats as climate change facts.

But what I find as the most disturbing part of the editorial is their position on what they deem to be more important to the American people; affordable energy and a healthy economy or swallowing a politician’s theory on global warming.

It’s unlikely that in its final year in office, the administration will reverse its policy of protecting business interests instead of the environment and endangered species. The courts should not have to tell the administration to enforce environmental statutes rather than undermine or ignore them.

Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act isn’t a simple matter of adding it to a list and then we hope it gets better. There has to be intelligent discourse among sane people in order to realistically determine the all-encompassing affects of making such a move.

I have worked some in my past articles that I hoped would, if nothing else, get readers to ask questions and think more about this issue other than how it is going to affect next Christmas’ Coke commercials. Huge Hewitt of Townhall has also covered more in depth as to what actually can happen to our economy, through the federal permitting process for growth and development. He offers more thoughts on that today.

The short version: If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort –even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases– those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Hewitt practiced Endangered Species Act law for two decades and should have a pretty good understanding on how administering the Act works. In several of his articles about the polar bear listing, he refers to Section 7 of the ESA(pdf – scroll down to find Section 7) often. The first part of Section 7 I believe spells out quite clearly, even to those of us without a law degree.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementationof such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

The two biggest remaining questions which may never get answered are; Is the polar bear really threatened and to what degree should we as a society carry out the protection of an animal species while putting our own well being at risk?

I know of nobody who wants to see the polar bear disappear. Many scientists don’t believe it will nor that it is threatened. What the Houston Chronicle failed to reveal, as has many other media sources, is that only two areas of polar bear populations are decreasing somewhat in size. The remainder are holding steady or growing. It is my opinion that we have as yet to scientifically determine whether the bear is in danger.

Remember that should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list the bear, it will be because they think man-made climate change will destroy the bear down the road somewhere. This has never been done before. Hewitt, from a perspective of having been there and done that, clearly points out that we don’t know what we are in for. The courts can only make rulings that are based on the content of the Endangered Species Act.

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington