Tanner Colten Moad, 5 years old, is one of the coolest kids I know. The youngest of 4 children of mine, Tanner never stops moving.
Before gun season in central eastern Oklahoma, the traditional bow season usually takes priority. I had taken the first week of bow season off from work in an attempt to tag out early at the request of my wife Lori. In her mind, if I was to tag out early, my deer season would then be “dear” season, with lots of additional chores getting done that get overlooked during each year’s deer season.

As a bow hunter, I was able to harvest a doe pretty quick, and two days later, stuck a nice 8 point that only took two steps before falling over. I had watched that buck spare with a 9-point two days earlier, and was in hopes I could manage to get the edge on one of them as both were very big bodied deer. Well, upon getting the close up view of the 8-point I had just harvested, I realized that half way up one side of his G-2, his antlers were completely broken off. A few of his other tines were damaged as well, which led me to believe that the 9-point he had previously been sparing with, probably wasn’t sparing anymore.

With bow season quickly becoming gun season, my son Tanner, was getting pretty excited about going hunting with dad this year. I had to work the first day of the season, but promised to take him on Sunday. Sunday afternoon, around 3:00pm, I was off to the deer woods and had my little man right there with me on the 4-wheeler. We drove to a spot where not much hunting activity was going on, and climbed into the buddy stand that was located there. The buddy stand had the camouflage netting around its fall protective bars and I knew that if a deer did come in, that the anticipated movements of my son would go undetected.

To my surprise, Tanner, sat quietly in the stand with me, pulled out his binoculars, and commenced to scanning the woods all around. When a squirrel would drop an acorn from a tree, it would hit the leaves, and Tanner would turn quickly to identify what made the noise. He would whisper to me that he thought he heard something over there, or over there, and over there. I know this sounds crazy, but I loved every minute of watching him pay attention to what was going on in the woods around him. Now he was hungry, 15 minutes after we were in the stand. He pulled out a package of crackers and quietly munched on them while looking around. We switched positions about 10 times, so he could see everything. He would ask me questions about all kinds of woods activities and now sat in my lap to get a better view. About 1 and ½ hours in the stand now, Tanner started doing the chicken head. You know, when someone is trying desperately not to fall asleep, but their eyes roll back, and their heads starts popping up. Well, it wasn’t long before “Mr. Energy” was resting against my arm, quietly sleeping.

Soon as Tanner decided to snooze, I elected to stay in the stand since there was only about 30 minutes left of daylight. So I positioned Tanner so he could lay down across the buddy stand seat that was covered with a camouflage blanket, and I would stand up. After positioning Tanner towards comfort, I stood up in the stand, now facing the rear, and spotted a nice buck standing there watching me. I touched Tanner on the face and arm attempting to wake him from his afternoon nap. I whispered to him “Tanner, there is a deer, wake up”. No response. So I looked back up the deer was gone. I positioned my rifle across the stand bars and waited for the deer to exit the brush. Just as I thought, he walked right through the opening in the brush headed for the deep woods. I announced I was there with a mouthed made “grunt”. He stopped and “bang”. As soon as the shot rang out, “Tanner, jumped up, wide eyed and said “Did I GET HIM?. Excited now, he really wanted to know if he got a deer. I smiled at him and excitedly said yes son, you got a big old buck. He jumped up and down in the stand and hugged me, and said “Well, where is he? Let’s go get him.” His little voice was squeaking high and low with excitement. This was his first experience in the deer woods hunting, and man he sure loved it, as did I. We climbed down the stand together, and went to where the buck was standing. I showed him the blood on the ground and explained to him that he should walk beside the blood, not in it, when he was tracking a deer. He started to walk beside the trail when he squeaked again. “I found him, he is right there” pointing. All of these events happening so fast, I wanted them to slow down some so I could savor the enjoyment of watching him. I showed him the caution of approaching a wounded or dead animal, helped him count the points on the antlers, and hugs and pride just rushed through me. After all, this hunt was supposed to be all about him.

He helped me load the deer on the 4-wheeler, and away we went to show the family. Close to the house now, I walked beside the 4-wheeler and allowed Tanner to drive up to the house. Picture this, A five year old boy, dressed in a camouflage shirt and orange hat with vest, driving a ranch 4-wheeler with a rifle in the rack on the front, and a 140 pound 8-point deer strapped to the utility rack in the back, coming out of the deer woods and driving up to the house with his mother waiting for him with a camera. Wouldn’t you be proud? I know I was. Tanner will never forget his first deer hunt, but neither will I. I think Lori, my wife and his mother, took a million pictures that evening.
Not only that, but he beat me this year with his deer. Mine during bow season was 150 pounds, but his rack was bigger. It is good to start them off young.

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.

By Mac Moad

The first week of October was finally here.  The first three days were spent in my favorite stand watching 3 raccoons in which I had named Larry, Curly, and Moe.  The mother raccoon was slightly bigger than the two younger ones, and seemed curious to every movement surrounding them.  The days here in eastern Oklahoma in October were still in the 80’s with mosquitoes buzzing everywhere.  I was wondering if it were still to hot to hunt and questioned myself again over and over.  Each day so far, I had hunted morning and evening with only a few does showing up.

Our family is one of three families (all related) that live on the mountain with about 360 acres of land owned by our families.  Each year we hunt, we always establish the rules.  {8 Point or better for the husbands} {Wives and kids, buck or doe} Now last year I hunted all year and didn’t harvest one deer, but I had seen enough antlers to keep me excited.  Every time Bill and Grover, my brother in-laws, sure let me

know how I got spanked on last years hunt.  Both are avid rifle hunters and tagged out the year I brought home nothing.  I was thinking about this already early in this season while elevated about 18 feet up in my climber.  I wondered, as every other hunter does, will this be my year.  As I looked down from my stand at the raccoons again on the 4^th morning of October 2007, I was once again thinking of how pretty they were and how every day I am in the woods, I look for the highlight of the day.  Whether this was the highlight of the day again, or was an owl going to sit on the limb next to me, a squirrel sitting on my boot, quail leaving a fast trail for a coyote, bobcats on the prowl, turkeys rustling, what was going to be the highlight?

Then, I saw movement directly in front of me.  I was a deer for sure, and no does were present yet.  I had placed my stand in what my wife calls the quiet spot.  High cedars with no brush, not to thick, but perfect for a good bow shot.  A well used doe trail to my right, and another trail coming in from the left, thicker trees to my front.  I could see about 40 yards around me with a creek bed behind me on a down hill gentle slope. The deer in front of me wasn’t spooked or aware of my presence as it slowly made its way directly toward me.  Sun to my back and the breeze in my face, finally, I could see him completely.  “Very nice buck” I was thinking.  As he moved closer and closer, I could count 4 on one side and 4 on the other.  Not sure if I wanted to take the shot just yet, I moved into position just in case.  Standing now and ready to draw, I used the bow as if I was hiding behind its small limbs.  The buck was much bigger than I originally thought the closer he moved to my stand.  20 yards and still coming, 10 yards and still coming.  He stopped, head concealed by a large cedar tree.  I came to full draw and picked my shooting lane.  As if knowing I was now ready to shoot, the 8 point stepped from behind the cedar and moved closer, directly into my shooting lane.  7 yards, I picked my hairs on the buck, just behind the shoulder and quartering down.  I could sense the raccoons to my right and felt a sense of calm, took a large breath, let it out half way, became steady as a rock and released.

{‘Wham”}  I dropped him in his tracks.  I intended to penetrate spine, heart, and lung if possible for a deadly and swift kill.  My broadhead did exactly that.  I stood for a moment and watched the buck lie still and quiet.  Larry, Curly, and Moe were nowhere to be seen.  I called my wife using my cell phone and quietly whispered I had a good buck down, her response to me was “why are we whispering”.  Laughing a little I said, I am in the quiet spot.

After checking the buck in and heading to the processors, I continued to hunt the evening in another stand.  Each day I hunted, I elected to use my climber instead of pre-placed stands used each year.  October the 7^th, 3 days after my first buck of the year, my 14 year old son was ready for action.  This would be his first year bow hunting, and he practiced every day for the last two months.  He was actually quite good shooting the pillow target and 3D’s, in which I was very proud.  Sunday after church, he would be in the woods with me for the evening hunt.  Everything seemed to go wrong.  I found out he was afraid of heights the hard way, but patiently, I assisted him into a lock-on stand with steps, explained the safety belt, strapped him in and climbed down.  I hooked his bow on the bow string and up and away the bow went.  While the bow was being pulled up by my son, I was watching all around me, trying to quiet down the woods, when {Wham}!!!!  My right hand was numb.  I looked at my hand and there was a deep cut to the bone on the top.  My son had almost had the bow in his stand when the bow string slipped.  The bow caught me square across my hand.  Seriously nervous and seeing the blood, my son asked if I was alright and maybe we should just go home and get the hand took care of.  He said he was so sorry and it just slipped, and…………  I assured my son everything was fine, helped him get the bow up the stand, and assured him he was ready to hunt.  “Don’t worry about me son, you just keep your eyes out for the big one.  I will be about 100 yards straight across the creek.”  I pointed with my other hand where I would be, wished him good luck, then started walking away from his stand. After crossing the creek and out of sight from Chase, I stopped and looked at the top of my right hand.  I was hurt pretty good, and I still couldn’t make a fist yet.

Not wanting to leave the woods with my son still in a stand, I elected to set up on a trail I knew of and wait it out.  I pulled off the climber from my shoulder and worried a little about if I could even use the stand to climb or not.  After setting up the stand at the bottom of the tree I picked out, we were going to find out if I could climb with one hand.  It actually wasn’t that bad.  Up the tree I went, got situated, smiled a little at how stupid I was to stand directly under my sons stand when he was raising his bow then shrugged it off as “my stupidity, my fault.” Now situated and seated in my stand, I wondered if I could even draw my bow back with the bum hand.  So, I stood up quietly, drew the bow and wow, man did that hurt.  I sat back down and thought once again, I hope a big buck goes by my son instead of me this evening.  Not real sure I could even draw again.

45 minutes later, about 6:05pm, I caught movement from over my right shoulder.  Yep, you guessed it.  It was a buck, but a very small buck.  Knowing that early in this season the bucks were still traveling together, I stood, turned and prepared.  Sure enough, 5 yards behind the 4 point, was a small basket 8 point.  Immediately I decided not to shoot this small 8.  To my surprise, directly on his heals was a really nice 8 point.  Now I was getting excited.  By the way, the first buck in front had walked directly under my stand and was now in front of my stand.  I drew slowly, aimed center mass of the shooting lane in a gap in the brush.  The small 8 point buck walked through the gap, and then “There he was”,  A fine 8 point standing in the gap.  Once again, I picked my area of hair behind the shoulder, quartered down, controlled the breathing, paused, and slowly squeezed the trigger release.

{Wham} I dropped him in his tracks.  I intended to penetrate spine, heart, and lung if possible again and sure enough, the broadhead did the work.  Can you believe this, 6 yards, another nice buck on the ground, just laying there.  I stood in amazement, I was shocked.  This was a really nice buck, pretty wide and may score as well.  The odd thing about this was, “dropped in his tracks.”  The very thing every hunter hopes for is to find the deer, or even better a swift and clean kill.  Well, not only did I find the deer three or four days ago, I found this one too.  I was like a dream.  Two 8 point bucks, both bow kills, both in the same week, both dropped in their tracks. I realized after a brief moment of silence, that my hand did not hurt anymore, and to make things even better, my son was on this hunt with me only 100 yards away. The two bucks that were in front of this one, there would be a good chance Chase saw them or even may get a shot.  But what will always cross my mind is how big was the buck that was still coming in from behind the buck I harvested.  I saw him jump when I released.  I climbed down and walked to Chases stand, walked cautiously up to the side of him and told him we had a good buck down.  Excited, he said he saw two bucks running and asked how big my buck was.  I told him, “well, I don’t know really, maybe you should help me track him”.  Chase was so excited when he walked up to my tree, buck in plain site.  “Man, I’m gonna get me a buck like that” I went to retrieve the 4-wheeler, we loaded the deer and headed to the house.  I was kind of in a hurry as the darkness was starting to set in, and I still needed to check this buck in too.  Arriving at our home on the mountain, my father stepped out on the deck and observed our approach.  My father had just come in from out of town that day to visit us for a week, so that was kind of cool him seeing me bring in another deer.  He was a big deer hunter with hunting skills that I always admired.

As far as the wife goes, she was so excited.  Not so much that I had gotten a nice buck, but that I had gotten two nice bucks with a bow in the first week of hunting season.  She rubbed it in real good to her two brothers whom still hadn’t harvested anything.  The next morning, as I watched the brother in laws roll out to the woods to deer hunt, I told them the same thing I always told them.  “Good luck and I hope you get a big one” Every bit of this is true, and I honestly believe this will be hard for me to beat next year.  After all, now my season just went from deer season, to “dear” season.  Being tagged out in the first week of bow season is a sure sign that honey-do’s will be a major part of the rest of my season.

Whether hunting public or privateland, the fundamentals of calling elk remain the same.

By Michael Waddell

We heard the bull bugle at first light and snuck into his core area. When I hit a lick on my bugle, the bull simply came unglued and stormed our position like a tank, crashing through brush and small lodgepole pines like they were atchsticks. Before we could react he was in our lap and we were pinned down, myself hiding behind a camera, too afraid to even touch the tripod for fear of my shaking hands would run the footage. All I could see of my partner edged against a stunted pine was the tip of his undrawn arrow shaking uncontrollably on the rest. Before a shot presented itself, the bull smelled a  rat and disappeared as quickly as he arrived.

While this experience didn’t result in a dead elk, it did hopelessly addict me to calling them. It seems that in all walks of life, be it the animal kingdom or humans, communication is a key ingredient for all social interaction. However not all living things communicate to the same degree. If you ask my wife, I am sure she will tell you I lack in the communication department, in fact I am sure she believes I don’t listen to her at all, but when it comes to communicating with animals I can barely shut up. Of all the animals I love to communicate with elk rate right at the top. By nature elk are very vocal. The uninitiated often simply think of bulls bugling, but cows, calves and bulls make all sorts of noises year around. If you encounter a larger herd of elk while you might not hear a thing from a distance, if you get close you will hear lots of subtle vocalization. Most of the time these are sounds of contentment, but depending on what’s happening the vocalization reflects it. Elk can convey contentment, danger, curiosity, or a cow in heat. Bulls for instance only bugle primarily in the rut, but they also communicate to establish a pecking order. After spending a considerable amount of time chasing the mighty wapiti, I’m convinced every elk in the herd knows each other by sound alone. This happens with the cows as well as the bulls and based on my evaluation somewhere in this mix is the deadly secret to calling elk archery-close.

Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

It seems that the more vocal a herd the better the odds are for success at calling them. Some cows call subtle, while others are loud-mouth ladies actively looking for a date. By listening it gives you a better opportunity to imitate the particular tones and intensity of the herd. By calling we are automatically intruding into the social club without an invitation. The closer we can sound to a known elk, and match that intensity the better the odds are of filling a tag. Even though we may sound like an outsider to the herd, luckily for us, love crazed bulls are not looking to be intimate with just one or two cows they are looking for all the love of every cow in the world, so taking advantage of their sexual frustrations and promiscuity is what we aim to do. It doesn’t take a world champion elk caller to trick bulls within range. By simply paying attention to the herd and understanding simple elk rhythm, tone and more important volume when calling, a hunter can depend on an elk call to be a valuable asset to dulling broadheads.

Public Versus Private Land

Since I started hunting elk 16 years ago, on private as well as public ground, I have realize that comparing these two different types of ground are like comparing night and day and it is all about the amount of pressure each receives. Generally speaking private ground bulls are way easier to call than public ground animals, but this is not always the case. Some private land does get a lot of pressure, which can make for some pretty tough calling duels with elk that can serve you up a humble pie every time you bust out a call. While conversely some public land either through sheer remoteness or hard-to-get tags is like calling the best private land in the nation. Hunting un-touched land and cow calling to bulls that have never heard a Hoochie Mamma would obviously be nice and it wouldn’t take long working over these uneducated elk to start feeling like an elk calling pro only to be deflated the first time we went to the national forest and mixed it up with bulls so well-known by local hunters that they have knick names. However, regardless of where you hunt the basics of calling remain the same. Start with mastering the cow call and all its various inflections. Your basic reed type calls are the easiest to learn as well as get proficient with. You will find two kinds; both are bite down reed-type of calls, one being enclosed and the other having an open reed or reeds. These calls make a very realistic sound and before your wife can run you out of the house you will master the basics.  I rely heavily on the cow call and think most of the time hunters are better off sticking with it over a bugle no matter where he is hunting. But learning how to make a basic bugle is important, especially for locating bulls at a distance before getting close and working him with your cow call. In addition, sometimes it is the bugle that finally provokes a dominant bull to commit, especially during the early season when bulls are still sorting out their peckin’ order.

Earning Your Public Ground PhD

Lets face it, unless you have deep pockets much of the private ground in the West is pretty much off limits, so you have to learn to hunt public land. This is not a bad thing as public ground comprises millions upon millions of acres across the West and happens to have some of the biggest bulls found anywhere. While it can be tougher than private, once you learn how to hunt it you won’t be disappointed. Over the years, one of my favorite places to hunt is the Gila National Forest, in New Mexico, and even though this is a trophy area tags are fairly obtainable through application. In the Gila, the trophy potential is off the chart, sporting some of the biggest bulls in the country, but just because the big ones live there doesn’t mean thatyou automatically make one call and they come running to get in the back of your truck. These mature jokers have a PhD in avoiding hunters. Over the last six years I have hunted this area religiously and have had the opportunity to shoot some nice bulls all by using elk calls as an aid to close the coffin. Notice I said, “as an aid”, meaning the call was just one thing in a bag of tricks to help smoke these monarchs. My biggest bull that came out of the Gila was a 378 P&Y bull that had earned the name Professor because he always seemed to take you to school when you applied too much pressure. However, this bull was vocal and would bugle his butt off. He also seemed to be fairly easy to find, not only by his gnarly, raspy bugle that set him apart, but frequently he could be found early in the morning in a large meadow just south of a particular water hole that always attracted a large herd. The Professor was not the only bull in the area that had large headgear, but it was The Professor that seemed to call the shots. I had caught this bull in the open several times, but calling seemed to really make him uneasy when you were in close. The Professor however would bugle hard to distant cow calls and seem to be whole heartedly interested, but had a sixth sense when you moved in for the attack. Final we decided to have a caller stay behind as we worked him coming off the meadow at daybreak. By doing this we could keep him interested and bugling as we stalked in closer. The caller always was no closer than 80 yards behind me. While the caller kept him occupied, I slid within 50 yards and gave him a G5 Tekan right behind the shoulder. This hunt was really a stalk, but the call and caller had a big part to do with his demise. Once we started quartering the bull up, we found a piece of an old arrow lodged just below the backstraps, so obviously someone had him in close before and gave the Prof and education, which explained why he was so wary.

The Double Team

As this old bull showed, hunting with a partner can work extremely well. It not only puts the hunter out in front of the call, but it gives the hunter a chance to move and adjust the angle based on where the bull might be approaching. Likewise, the caller has the flexibility to move as well and apply a lot of different calling techniques. The double team plan worked again on another hunt. It had been hot and the bulls were only bugling early and late. As soon as the sun would rise the elk woods would turn in to a ghost town.
Just after daybreak on the fourth day of our hunt we heard this bull bugle. He hit it only two times, both very weak and he sounded like the littlest rag horn in the land but with no other game in town we went after him. Getting as close as possible to where we thought the bugle came from I eased up and sat down by a pine stump while my buddy moved back and to my right about 40 yards. Neither of us were very optimistic about our chances. My buddy made one or maybe two very soft cow calls on a two reed diaphragm then he started raking a tree and rolled a few rocks. We sat there for possibly 10 minutes in silence, then out of nowhere appeared a wide 340 inch 6 x 6 coming directly to us, at 25 yards the bull let out a soft chuckle, looked over his surrounding and kept walking in the direction of where the last rock had been rolled, which led him 16 steps from my pine stump. By now I was at full draw waiting for a broadside shot. When the arrow left my bow, I knew we had killed a call shy monster by keeping it low key and staying patient. Needless to say, I was never convinced by the two times he had bugled earlier that he was a shooter. This was a lesson in itself. Never judge a bugle until you can see what is making the sound.
The most exciting way to bag a bull elk is to get him in close, and the best way to do that is with a call. Confidence in your call is critical, because if you’re insecure about using your call there is a good chance you will spook elk. Have confidence in your calling ability and become just another elk in the herd where you are hunting. Find a call that works for you and not what works for some else. Think like an elk and do as elk do. Realism, rhythm, and volume control can make the difference between bringin’ them in or running them over the next ridge. And remember its not always about calling, it can be just patiently listening to the sounds around you and applying minimal calls, while practicing good woodsmenship, and stalking skills that could help you put that monster on the back of the truck.

By Michael Waddell

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.

Things I am looking for, but not limited to.

•    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.

Spring gobbler season is now on the horizon and felt it was time to touch on some important questions that are asked frequently by turkey hunters across the nation. I have enlisted the assistance of two my friends Sadler McGraw and Chris Kirby to aid in answering the questions. We will all shed different light with our opinions on these commonly inquired about topics.

Sadler McGraw has established himself as one of the most prolific competition callers in the last decade. He is a member of the Woodhaven Custom Calls Sting Team since it‘s inception five years ago. His list of accolades includes, 14 Alabama state titles, Yellville National and Southern Open Champion. As well he has been runner up at the World, Grand Nationals, US Open and Grand America calling competitions. He is also no stranger to friction divisions winning the 2008 World, 2008 Yellville National and 2007 US Open. He has won or placed in over 50 contests, including owl hooting divisions.

Chris Kirby is the president of Quaker Boy Game Calls. He has won or placed in over 75 turkey calling competitions, including winning the coveted World and the Grand Nationals. He has recorded multiple grand slams, hunting the wild turkey extensively all over the United States. He is with out a doubt one of the foremost experts in hunting and calling these majestic birds.

1. What do you do when a gobbler hangs up out of gun range?

If he has answered my calling in route to where I am set up and I am able to observe him where he is hung up at, I will increase my calling intensity and frequency to provoke several gobbles. Then I will go completely silent for an undetermined amount of time. There is no set limit, just what feels right. Some times it will take two or three times to make him break and close the distance those final crucial yards. If he won’t commit, let him drift off and try to relocate to a better set up. – Sadler McGraw

2. How often do you call when you have a gobbler answering you?

I will bombard a turkey with excited calling from the tree all the way to the gun if he wants to hear it. But, most times I test the water to see how fired up he is. I let him dictate how much I call. You do not want to exhaust your repertoire at the start of your engagement. If this occurs you wont have anything left that he hasn’t heard in the first five minutes of the hunt. – Sadler McGraw

The gobbler dictates to me how much I call. I like to get the conversation in my favor. I.E. I call, he answers, I call, he answers, I call, he doesn’t answer…. Not a good situation, he could be coming, going or staying put. I like to reverse that and answer him. He gobbles, I call, he gobbles, I call, he gobbles, I wait…… Put the onus of the search back in his court. Let him gobble 2 or 3 times and then answer, his desperation to breed will most likely bring him in. – Chris Kirby

The minimum it takes to lure him into gun or bow range. I only raise my frequency of calling when he has stopped his forward progression. I hunt many of the same WMA’s that you the readers hunt and I can speak for all of us when I say the more he gobbles the more hunters he will attract. – Scott Ellis

3. How much should I call to a gobbler on the roost?

When I set up on a roosted gobbler, I try to set up within 100 yards of his tree. As everything starts to wake up, I like to tree yelp until I receive a direct response from him. I will usually repeat this process a couple of times. If there are vocal hens roosted nearby, I do just a little more than what they are doing. Then you hope he flies down in your direction. – Sadler McGraw

I don’t like to “make” a turkey gobble a ton while he is still on the roost. All he is doing is calling in other hens. This happens naturally in the spring. You also Run the risk of attracting other hunters. I will call enough so he knows where I am at and wait until he gets his feet on the ground. That is when the game begins. – Chris Kirby

4. What is the best shotgun and load for turkey hunting?

The best shotgun is the one that you are most confident in. I have said before the reason that I shoot a 3.5” is that there is not a 4” magnum in production yet. But seriously, what ever gun ,shell and choke combination you choose, make sure that you know the guns limitations. – Sadler McGraw

With today’s shotguns, shells and chokes the turkey hunter is left with many options. Try as many loads and chokes with your gun as possible. Conduct a patterning session with your buddies with everyone, at a minimum, bringing different loads. This will enable you to experiment without as much of a financial burden. Choose the combination that performs the best in your gun. – Scott Ellis

5. What are the main calls(turkey vocabulary) I should learn to spring turkey hunt?

If I were told I could do only use one sound this year while hunting it would be the plain hen yelp. That is the sound that I hear most often from hens during the spring. It is a sound that gobblers respond to in almost every situation. It is easy to perform on any call, and with minimal practice you can gravitate from plain hen yelps into more aggressive calling if the hunt dictates it. – Sadler McGraw

During the spring, there are three basic sounds you need to employ. Yelping, cutting and clucks and purrs. Master these basic sounds and then add personality. Basic yelps are just that, add some speed and volume change and it will intensify the conversation. Mix in some excited yelps and cutting together to fire him up and then finish him off with the relaxing yet intense cluck and purr. – Chris Kirby

6. What key factors should be taken into consideration when I am setting up on a gobbling turkey.

Before I set up, I try to deduce what would be the gobbler’s path of least resistance in route to my position. I like to set up so that I can capitalize on natural and man made terrain features such as creeks, bluffs, thickets, ditches and roads that will funnel the turkey to me. If needed, I will then decide where I will position my decoys. – Sadler McGraw

The set up can make or break any spring hunting scenario. It is probably the most important aspect of the hunt. There are a couple of key thoughts to consider. Always be mindful of obstructions and barriers that could hinder a turkeys progression to your location. If hens enter the equation, place yourself in between the gobbler and his harem. When attempting to locate a gobbler(if your running and gunning) identify a suitable set up before you make a sound. This is why it is best to first locate a gobbler with a non-turkey sound. This will give you time to search for the best available position to begin your conversation with the gobbler. Lastly, always consider visibility. It is futile to attempt a set up when you do not have the ability to spot the gobbler as he approaches. – Scott Ellis

7. What is the best tactic to employ on pressured turkeys?

If I have a pressured turkey that I have not been able to do anything with in the morning, I will start out by leaving him alone in the morning and will hunt him in the afternoon. Here in my home state of Alabama, we are allowed to hunt in the afternoon, and it has allowed me to take a lot of long spurred gobblers that wanted no part of me during the morning. I don’t change my tactics, except pursuing him in the afternoon. Remember, turkeys don’t get call shy, they get people shy. – Sadler McGraw

First and foremost I will curtail any aggressive calling. Hunting public land my whole life I have learned that both hens and gobblers will become less vocal when pressured. I will imitate a lone hen in quest of company with soft three to four note yelps, mixed with purring and clucking. I have also found that setting up and blind calling in an area that you know occupies turkeys is more productive than, my favorite method of hunting, running and gunning. I will set up in areas that the hen’s are frequenting regularly. Whether it is due to a food source, water, or a roosting area. Remember where there are hens there are gobblers. – Scott Ellis

8. When a turkey gobbles but heads the opposite direction why, is he doing this and what should I do?

When you have a turkey that strikes out in the opposite direction you have to make a decision, “do I try to circle in front of him or do I go find a gobbler that is more cooperative?” If he is the only gobbler that you have to hunt, by all means get in front of him and try to figure out where he wants to go. If you have other turkeys located go after them and save this one for when he is ready. I always say a gobbler has five minutes every year that he will succumb to a call, you must decide if you are there for the right five minutes. – Sadler McGraw

More times than not a turkey that answers you, but is putting ground between himself and you is either following hens, call shy or has a predetermined destination. Before he gets completely out of earshot, I elect to call with as much excitement and lust as humanly possible. Over the years this tactic has sometimes yielded success. More times than not he continues on his wayward track. If this fails, reposition on him. Make a generous loop around him and in front of him. Ensure you provide yourself with a generous buffer between you and your quarry when making this move. Spooking him is a definite possibility. Set up and either make the decision to call or just have him walk by and perform an ambush. Sometimes a turkey hunt does not include pretty calling in a perfect situation. Remember we’re not turkey calling were turkey hunting. – Scott Ellis

9. What should I do if I hear hens yelping and cutting in the distance?

I will attempt to call any hen’s that are vocalizing during a spring gobbler hunt. Many times there is a gobbler either with them or in the vicinity. Sometimes you can call the whole flock to you with the gobbler in tow. Other times a gobbler may over hear all the sexy conversation and stop by to say hello. At worst you get to learn from the master herself the wild hen. – Scott Ellis

10. How long should I wait if I’m working a tom and he then goes silent?

The easy answer is 30 minutes longer than whatever you feel was a long enough wait. Patience probably harvests more turkeys than any other factor alone. Whether your set up blind calling or just waiting unwearyingly on a stubborn long beard to approach your calls, one key point to remember is how far was he from you when he last gobbled and was he moving toward you or away from you. Common sense will tell you if he was traveling away from you and goes silent it is time to change calling locations and attempt to relocate him. If he is advancing toward your position and then ceases gobbling, raise your level of awareness ten fold and do not move a muscle. Listen intently for soft foot steps, spitting and drumming. Search intently for that gorgeous red, white and blue neon bulb glowing in the spring woods. – Scott Ellis

11. When should I use a hen or gobbler decoy?

I let the terrain and timber type dictate my decoy set ups. If I am in an area where a gobbler can make eyesight with my decoys from a considerable distance, I like to employ a strutting decoy and a hen together. This is especially effective in fields or wide open hardwood swamps. I think when a gobbler can spot the strutting decoy from a distance; he will have confidence to approach. If he emerges from a more dense area and he is startled by the site of another strutting gobbler, he feels there could be confrontation and will sometimes decide to go else where. – Sadler McGraw

Being forthright, I am not an advocate of decoys. Since decoys were revolutionized back in the early 90’s I have deployed them in various situations and scenarios. I have had more turkeys shy away from decoys, than approach full bore, whether looking for a fight or looking for love. I believe in having a gobbler search for the hen he is hearing. This can be accomplished by proper set ups. Position yourself where you can see the gobbler, yet the hen is searching for could be hidden from view. Understandably this will not always occur, especially when setting up in hardwood bottoms and open timber. In that situation I will muffle my calling and call much more sparingly, especially when having made eye contact with him. Chances are if he advances close enough to verify that he cannot locate the hen he is hearing, he will be in gun range. – Scott Ellis

12. What is a good tactic to use on field gobblers?

The field gobbler is my favorite to hunt, just for the simple reason of being able to view him approach from a considerable distance. I am a huge fan of the strutting decoy for field gobblers. If I am in a situation where multiple gobblers are using the same field, I will deploy a strutting decoy and a single hen decoy for my setup. If the gobbler and I are on the same side of the field, I will try to place the decoy just past my set up in case he hangs up out of gun range. This will enable me to harvest the tom even if he does not make direct contact with decoy. Also, remember to have the strutting decoy facing you, frequently the gobbler will approach the decoy head on in an apparent confrontational scenario. If you position the decoy away from you and he approaches it face to face, it will hinder your ability to make the shot. – Sadler McGraw

13. Speaking for yourself, what one factor has harvested more gobblers than any other?

Patience and confidence in my calls and calling ability. You can’t expect every gobbler to come running in. When you are in the woods with a gobbler answering, at one point you are going to think you have to do something right now…. Change location, change you call, change your calling sequence, call softer, call louder….. This is a critical moment. Stop and do nothing for 10 minutes. The gobbler is not going to leave the country. Look at your watch and wait 10 minutes, it will feel like forever. However, it will give you a moment to adjust and think more clearly about your next move. You never know, the next time you here or see him, it could be right in your lap. – Chris Kirby

14. How does having better than average calling skills benefit the turkey hunter?

Having the ability to produce realistic turkey vernacular will ultimately increase your odds of harvesting that elusive long beard. Learning all of the wild turkeys extensive vocabulary, learning their meaning and being able to emulate those sounds will put you at an advantage over about 95% of your competition in the turkey woods. Finding a good call such as any of the Woodhaven Custom Calls line will also aid in reproducing better than average turkey sounds. Combine these skills and good woodsman ship ability, a successful turkey hunter will emerge. – Scott Ellis

15. What do you use to locate gobblers with?

The crow call is my preferred locator here in the Deep South. I use a “Real Crow” from Woodhaven Custom Calls. You hear crows from dawn to dusk every day, and very often when you start using the crow call, other crows will join in. This is what will trigger a gobble. Owl hooters are productive at daybreak, but I seldom elicit a shock gobble after the first hour of the day. A crow call will work any time, any where and on any sub species. – Sadler McGraw

Through the years I’ve probably used every loud, raucous, animal sound that occurs in the wild. High ball mallard calls, elk bugles, bellowing cattle, pileated woodpecker, etc. It is not logistically feasible to carry all of these types of calls as part of your turkey gear, but I will throw in a duck call or even a coyote howler for good measures. The obvious choices are crow, owl and hawk. I’ve had great success with all of them throughout the day. I feel geography plays a key role in what gobbler’s will respond with the most success. I feel whatever sound a turkey hears less of he will respond to with more frequency. Bear in mind a tom will gobble at a car horn or a clap of thunder. I’m not condoning the latter, but do not be afraid to utilize slightly unorthodox tactics to elicit a response. – Scott Ellis

Scott Ellis
Woodhaven Custom Calls Pro Staff
Tru Glo Fiber Optics
Thermacell Pro Staff
3 time Florida State Turkey Calling Champion
3 time Florida State Gobbling Division Champion
2006 Southern Open Turkey Calling Champion
2009 North Carolina Tarheel Open Champion
Member: Florida Outdoor Writer’s Association

~Ever wonder why some set ups work and some don’t?~

As a die hard turkey hunter and seminar speaker for both “Hunters Specialties” and “Northwoods Adventures TV“, I get asked a multitude of questions each season on how to set up on turkeys. Do you use a decoy? Do you roost birds every time? Do you ever “run-and-gun”? How important is specific camouflage design? Well, for me, the most important aspect of the hunt is a good set up so let’s start there.

Here in the Northeast, our turkeys tend to start gobbling in mid-March and strutting activity becomes widespread about the same time. It’s then that I’ll put my scouting tactics into overdrive, even though the season doesn’t open until the very end of April. Why? Because good preparation will always tip the odds in my favor. I always recommend having several good sites scouted out, in the event my first set up gets busted by hunters, which happens frequently since I hunt an area in mid-coast Maine with very high hunter density levels. That, plus 90% of the properties I hunt are all public access land, so I’m almost always being stepped on by other hunters. That said, the first thing I do is get a good aerial photo of each property and formulate my plans.

Locating and Planning the Proper Set Up

Once I’ve become familiar with each parcel or property, via an aerial map, I’ll head right out and begin the process of locating birds. For me, the easiest thing to do is hit a likely spot, park my truck, and just listen for gobblers at the crack of dawn each morning. I’ll do that about two to three weeks before the season, making sure to hit each property individually, and since turkeys generally hold close to the same roost sites unless busted, I can get a good fix on where they are, to within a few hundred yards. Then it’s just a matter of putting in the footwork to find the best place to set up for each.

If at all possible, I’ll pick a site, listen for the gobbling to begin at daybreak, then sneak down the trails or through the woods to get within 200 to 250 yards of them and wait for them to fly down. If time is on my side, I’ll pay attention to where they’re headed and then, after they’ve moved off, pick the best spot for a set up for the next day. Here’s where careful planning comes in because there are several key factors involved if you want to maximize your chances for success.

First, locate the point of sunrise at that location and make sure to set up with it at your back or at least from either side. With the sun behind you, you’ll also have the tactical advantage over a turkeys superior eyesight. If you’ve ever set up in haste only to find the rising sun staring you straight in the lookers once it’s cleared the trees, you’ll know exactly what I mean; been there, done that! Next, based on where you feel the turkeys will be flying down, try to pick a spot about 100 to 125 yards away and choose a natural bend or indentation in the tree line that will keep you out of an incoming turkeys direct line of sight. If it’s possible, it’s always a plus if when a turkey first appears, it’s already within range.

I like to hunt without a blind, preferring to sit with my back against a tree, and at least 10-15 feet off the field or trail edge, utilizing the natural surroundings of the woods for the best cover. Sit down and find your sweet spot, then proceed to trimming out just enough brush to create good shooting lanes around you, being careful not to remove too much. Also, make sure there are no small trees or branches that will inhibit swinging your gun, should you need to adjust on that incoming bird.

When it comes to vision, it’s said that a turkey can see movement from hundreds of yards away so good camouflage is crucial. It makes no difference what brand or style you use, as long as it closely matches the immediate surroundings and blends into the background well. Sometimes I like to wear a green camo top to match the budding bushes around me, while wearing pants that may be predominantly browns and greys, to match the leaf litter of the forest floor. A stark contrast splitting your body can do wonders in breaking up the human form. One key element in using your camo effectively would be to always position yourself in the shade, because being exposed in direct sunlight can draw immediate attention to any and all movement you make.

Decoys

To use or not to use? I say, whenever possible…..use them. Decoys tend to draw the turkeys attentions away from you and gives them something to focus on. Some hunters believe decoy use can be a controversial issue at times, and to a certain extent I agree, however I feel that if you understand turkey biology in even the simplest form, it can be overcome.

I always place my decoys about 10-12 yards in front of me and for several reasons. First, if a tom has made the decision to commit, he will either come right to the center of the action or, if he turns out to be a satellite gobbler or insubordinate, he may hang up just a few yards behind them. I’ve seen seasoned pros set their decoys out to 25 yards, only to have such a bird hang up about 15 yards beyond them, making the hunter’s shot about 40-50 yards. Of course, with a good choke, that’s not unreasonable but why take chances? With my set up, even if one fetches up behind my decoys, chances are he’s still well within 25 yards and more than enough for even a youth with a much smaller gun.

I’ve also found from my own personal experiences coupled with mistakes I’ve made in the past, that there certainly can be times when the decoys will spook birds. Here’s what I would suggest; At the start of the season, go with a love scenario that includes an aggressive jake, (strutting decoys work the best), a standing “alert” hen, and a submissive hen, or one in the breeding position. About mid-way through the season I tend to either go with just a strutting jake and a feeding hen to only a couple feeding hens, the reason being that once the season is that far underway, many toms and jakes have had fights over dominance already, and have been whipped more times than they care to repeat. It’s at that time, and the end of the season especially, that I notice more toms, even mature birds, shying away from decoys if they show an aggressive jake. Sometimes if you don’t re-evaluate the time of the season, you could end up losing out on a good bird that you otherwise might have harvested.

Decoy placement can also be a factor, especially if you are hunting with your bow. Whether in a blind or not, drawing is always tricky to do when there is more than one set of eyes on you, and for that reason I like to set up my decoys in a specific manner. If I’m using a jake, strutting or otherwise, I try to set it up facing my position because a dominant bird will always come around to the front of the competition. By doing so, he’ll have his back to me and will give me the chance to draw unseen. Hen decoys can be set up in similar fashion because if a tom thinks she is walking away, he might be more apt to come in around her in an attempt to change her mind.

Calling

I like to set up in the blackness well before pre-dawn, and am often all settled in by 3:30 or 3:45am. I will not call, even once the hens start, as they will often call for a long period of time before fly down. I do like to get a position on where the gobblers are, and listen to how they interact with the hens, if present. When I feel fly down is close, I’ll add my voice to the others by means of very soft tree calls, increasing in volume only in response to that of the hens. Too much calling or calling too loudly too early can result in the hens either flying down and dragging the gobblers away quickly, or will result in leaving the toms treed longer than usual, as they gobble back incessantly, waiting to see the hen that’s making all the ruckus appear before they fly down.

I take special notice when a boss hen responds to my calling and will know her by the way she alone reacts. Such a hen, when encountered, should be drawn in if possible, because she will more times than not, drag several toms in with her. You will know her by her changing pitch and tone, because she will immediately become agitated at you, (the challenge hen), and will try to silence you by way of talking over you. I like to imitate her calls as closely as possible but I try to be more aggressive in my volume and added “cutting”. Usually, she will not stand for this and will come right to me. The plus side, as I mentioned, is that she will probably be bringing the toms with her, but the downside will be that she, (like an old smart matriarchal doe), will be searching for me, and if she sees me, will quickly alert the others and be gone. For that reason, I like to have at least one standing alert hen decoy present in my set up. With any luck she will focus on it and attack it, leaving me free to focus on the gobblers.

If you take the time to consider all the major components involved with making a proper set up, you have greatly increased your chances of putting a tag on a big old tom. A successful turkey hunter is one who has seen the gamut of all that can go wrong, has learned from his mistakes, and who has done his best to make adjustments in his favor. However, because a turkey’s attitude can change as often as the weather, none of us will ever have a fool-proof system, and quite frankly I’m glad we don’t. I personally love the challenge involved with each hunt, because elements and conditions are constantly changing, and to me, that’s what real turkey hunting is all about.

About George Dovel: Following several decades of close association with state and federal wildlife mangers as a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, a qualified volunteer on assorted wildlife research projects and a member of several fish and game advisory committees, George Dovel offers a unique perspective on what has happened to wildlife resource management. With record low big game and upland bird populations existing throughout the U.S. in 1969-1973 he edited and published The Outdoorsman which is credited with helping to restore scientific game management. The new crisis in game management throughout the West resulted in resurrecting The Outdoorsman in March 2004 to provide factual information for outdoorsmen and their elected officials.

On July 3, 2007, a public meeting of an ad hoc committee formed to discuss future funding for IDFG took place at F&G Headquarters in Boise. Chaired by Senate Resource Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, the members included House Resource Committee Chairman John A. “Bert” Stevenson, Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron and former F&G Commissioner Representative Fred Wood.

Sen. Schroeder indicated that the Committee was formed in response to Fish and Game’s request for an additional funding source. Three additional members representing the agency’s perspective were F&G Commission Chairman Cameron Wheeler, Vice-Chairman Wayne Wright and IDFG Director Cal Groen.

Comm. Wheeler commented, “We have a more complex society now,” and said he had a feeling that (society’s) priorities are different than they were 15 years ago. This reflected the Department’s justification in its 15-year planning document, “The Compass”, for expanding its traditional role to include managing wildlife and plants for other than hunters, fishermen and trappers.

Game, Fish Programs Cut to Fund Nongame

Commissioner Wright said he viewed the Committee as a great first step to identify and prioritize F&G’s problems, which, he said, include losing critical habitat for game. Then he stated that IDFG has only 25% of the funds needed to fund its non-game activities.

Director Groen’s comments basically agreed with Wheeler’s and Wright’s but he added that the new emphasis on (non-game) “preservation and prevention” during the past 15 years has resulted in less enforcement, less fish stocking and the need to broaden the funding base. He suggested F&G needs to protect traditional hunting and fishing (license) dollars so they are spent for hunting and fishing.

Although it was inevitable under the circumstances, the candid admission by Wright and Groen that IDFG has been using sportsmen’s license dollars to fund the bulk of its non-hunting and fishing activities was “a first”. Recently outgoing Director Steve Huffaker assured Commissioners that no license dollars were being used to fund nongame.

“The Compass” Promise To Sportsmen Ignored

When several Commissioners and Natural Resource Policy Bureau Chief Tracey Trent rewrote The Compass to satisfy sportsmen’s concerns on December 23, 2004, Trent included the following language under “Funding”:

“The Department’s main funding source comes from one segment of the population—hunters and anglers–primarily through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This money has been—and will continue to be—used to manage fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

“The Department will not use hunting and fishing license fees to meet all the desires of the public, other agencies and local governments for managing fish, wildlife and native plants.” (emphasis added)

Despite assurances to the Commission by Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) Biodiversity Program Leader Rita Dixon that her group has secured adequate matching funding outside IDFG, thousands of dollars of hunter’s and fishermen’s license money is spent by several F&G Bureaus every day in support of this activity. Much of this money comes in the form of incidental logistical support that is never charged to CDC or any other non-game activity.

Don’t “Beat Dead Horses” – But…

During the July 3, Committee meeting Rep. Wood commented that he hoped the Committee didn’t “beat too many dead horses” and that is good advice if the horses are dead and buried. But continuing to repeat the unsupported claim that the citizens who fund resource management want to change emphasis from providing sustainable harvests of game and fish to building birding trails and interpretive centers and focusing on assorted non-game species indicates the “outlaw horse” still needs attention.

These and other unfunded mandates were imposed on Idaho fish and game managers by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and their fellow travelers Defenders of Wildlife et al – all based in Washington, D.C. When these groups couldn’t convince Congress to support their biodiversity agenda using terms like “Conservation and Reinvestment Act” and Teaming With Wildlife”, they changed the name to “State Wildlife Grants” (SWGs) and claimed their proposed legislation would save states millions of dollars by preventing assorted creatures and plants from being listed as endangered.

SWGs Encourage New ESA Listings

Instead, some states have improperly* taken additional millions of dollars from sportsmen to use as matching funds, to provide the preservationist groups with the very data that is required for them to petition to list even more species. To add insult to injury, Idaho sport license buyers – not the CDC non-game entity – paid for much of the prolonged research to prevent the Westslope Cutthroat Trout from being listed. (* The SWG funding rules prohibited use of sport license fees or federal excise taxes as matching funds).

This information has been documented by experts in previous Outdoorsman articles and is mentioned here to remind the alternate funding Committee and other Idaho Legislators of what they are being asked to fund. Sen. Cameron is well aware of the implications of seeking additional funding for nongame programs.

Nongame Programs Mushroom in 10 Years

During the 1996 legislative session he argued against JFAC approving funding to hire six nongame biologists “to help non-hunters enjoy the state’s nongame wildlife programs,” insisting it would result in premature need for fee increases. But F&G Finance Chief Steve Barton assured JFAC members that IDFG would have a $2 million surplus In FY 1998 and would remain solvent at least through FY 2000 so they ignored Cameron’s warning.

Three months later, Barton reported a deficit of $530,900 in the fund equity balance for FY 1997 and a projected deficit of $1,462,000 for FY 1998. Hiring those six regional nongame biologists at a reported cost of $200,000 in FY 1997 mushroomed into a Natural Resources Policy Bureau budget of $3,429,000 in FY 2006 plus more than two million dollars in admitted nongame expenditures in the Wildlife Bureau budget alone.

Should F&G Provide Environmental Services?

During the July 3, 2007 meeting Sen. Cameron said the Committee must ask whether or not the Department should be providing environmental services and whether they should provide non-game. He said each member should ask, “Do I want the Department to have these other responsibilities, which shouldn’t be on the backs of the sportsmen?”

Sen. Schroeder expressed the concern that sportsmen opportunities will be diminished and said we must ask whether F&G should be providing expertise to other agencies for free. “Why are we doing analysis for private sector entities who don’t allow (sportsman) access?”

But Rep. Stevenson responded, “We think of these needs we have and we already have the biologists. I’m uncomfortable at hiring new ones – we need to find a way to extract some money.”

F&G Becomes “Fish, Game and Flowers”

A similar argument was used in 2003 when a majority of Rep. Stevenson’s Resource Committee members supported House Bill 67. The bill removed the authority and duty of Parks and Recreation to manage wild flowers and plants and gave it solely to Fish and Game, along with the responsibility to manage rare and endangered plants.

Parks and “Rec” spokesmen said although it had been their responsibility for several decades and they were receiving federal money to do it, they had not hired botanists and had used the Conservation Data Center housed in IDFG headquarters to track rare plants. They turned over the federal money, which ultimately covered only half of the costs, to IDFG and said this would prevent duplication of effort by the two agencies.

Sportsmen Pay For Biodiversity Agenda

Several House Resource Committee members, who opposed the bill, raised concerns that the transfer would allow sportsmen license fees to be used to manage endangered plants. But IDFG Director Huffaker said the CDC was created 15 years earlier as an aftermath of the Endangered Species Act and claimed that during that time sportsmen money has never been used for anything that would not benefit sportsmen.”

Huffaker’s statement reflects his willingness, and that of several previous IDFG Directors, to mislead the resource owners and their elected officials in order to promote the biodiversity agenda of IAFWA, The Nature Conservancy and the United Nations. Four years earlier, former F&G Director Steve Mealey documented $2.9 million of sportsmen license fees that was spent by IDFG that year for non-game/fish activities with no tangible benefit to sportsmen.

In a public Commission meeting Mealey described Administration Bureau Chief Steve Barton as “a magician who can always come up with money from somewhere when it’s needed.” The problem was that the money Barton “came up with” was always sportsman license fees – including dedicated funds that were misappropriated (with the Director’s approval according to Barton).

How Did We Get in This Mess?

Instead of repeating the IAFWA claim that “changing public attitudes during the past 15 years” have caused a major shift in management priorities, the Committee needs to examine facts to determine when, why and how the funding shortages really began to occur.

During the first 40 years of its existence IDFG used appropriate biological tools to manage wild game, fish and furbearers, and paid the costs with income from sport licenses (user taxes), fur sales and fines. For most of the next 40 years the cost of managing game, fish and furbearers was paid by a combination of license fees and federal excise taxes on guns, ammo and fishing equipment (still user taxes).

Dramatic Change in F&G Priorities

A comparison of actual F&G expenditures in FY 1980 when Jerry Conley was hired to replace retiring F&G Director Joe Greenley, and in FY 1996 three months before Conley resigned, reflects the change in priorities from managing wild game to promoting nongame, biodiversity and wildlife watching.

Actual IDFG Expenditures in FY 1980 and FY 1996

FY 1980 % of Ttl FY 1996 % of Ttl

Administration 904,200 – 8.7% 7,874,500 – 17.4%

Enforcement 2,239,900 – 21.7% 6,832,500 – 15.1%

Fisheries 3.098,600 – 30.0% 16,105,900 – 35.6%*

Wildlife 3,212,600 – 31.1% 8,095,300 – 17.9%

Info & Education 397,900 – 3.8% 2,373.500 – 5.6%

Engineering 397,600 – 3.8% 808,600 – 1.8%

Nat Resource 84,500 – 0.1% 1,623,500 – 3.6%

Set-Aside Fund 0 – 0.0% 1,544,400 – 3.4%

Total 10,335,300 45,258,200

(* The increase in the percent of the total budget spent by the Fisheries Bureau in FY 96 resulted from ~$11.9 million dollars in mitigation money received from Bonneville Power, National Marine Fisheries, Idaho Power, FWS and others, plus $3.4 million in D-J federal excise taxes on fishing equipment sales.)

Wildlfe Funding Cut – Adminstration Doubled

In FY 1980, game and fish populations were healthy and increasing but by 1996 many had reached record lows. The single largest source of income to IDFG is from deer and elk hunters yet the percent of total income spent by the Wildlife Bureau had been cut nearly in half while the percent spent by Administration had doubled, hiding the use of license fees to support non-hunting.

The percent of total money spent by Enforcement and Engineering had also been cut dramatically while the percent spent by I&E (Communications) and Natural Resource Policy had skyrocketed. F&G spending for non-hunting/fishing activities was completely out of control and Governor Batt ordered the F&G Commission to make drastic cuts in non-essential spending for FY 1997.

Spending Cuts Targeted Hunters and Fishermen

The austerity program began with the Commission cutting its own travel and meeting expenses but the newly appointed Commissioners deferred to the “old hands” who had supported the nongame/biodiversity/watchable wildlife expenditures, to make the important cuts. They, of course, allowed Jerry Conley and Steve Barton to decide which programs would be cut, which sportsmen charged was “putting the rabbits in charge of the cabbage patch.”

Although Conley and Barton claimed they had made “across-the-board” cuts in all Bureaus, the analysis by Legislative Budget Analyst Jeff Youtz one year later revealed that the cuts only impacted hunters and fishermen. From FY 1996 to FY 1997 the number of resident hatchery fish produced dropped from 27,417,781 to only 19,970,000, including 390,000 fewer “catchable” 10-12” trout raised and stocked in Idaho lakes and reservoirs.

The number of anadromous hatchery fish produced declined from 6,493,599 to only 5,125,698 and there was a 50% reduction in moose sheep and goat census and 100 fewer helicopter hours flown counting deer, elk and antelope. Wild pheasant trapping and transplanting was cut 50% and weed control and restroom maintenance on WMAs was curtailed.

The number of law enforcement personnel was reduced and several officers’ duties were shifted from law enforcement to other activities. Yet the number of teachers trained in “Project WILD” and the number of nongame presentations to schools increased by 33%-46%.

While actual Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau spending decreased by 7% and 10% respectively, Natural Resource Policy Bureau spending increased by 36% in FY 1997. Ignoring the priority established by the Governor and the new Commissioners, Conley and Barton continued to increase biodiversity, nongame and watchable wildlife funding using “leftover” license fees.

What’s in a Name?

If you run a computer thesaurus or spell check program on “biodiversity”, “nongame” and “watchable” wildlife, you probably won’t find some of those words. Yet they have become the bywords of environmental protectionist groups and state and federal wildlife management agencies.

Until environmental extremism replaced game and fish management during the late 1960s and 70s, “wildlife” was defined as “mammals, birds and fishes hunted by man.” In 1976, following IAFWA recommendation, IDFG quietly suggested the Idaho Legislature change the definition of wildlife to the UN’s “any form of animal life, native or exotic, generally living in a state of nature.“

That change in definition in I.C. Sec. 36-202(g) opened the door for F&G biologists to justify protection of any “critter” regardless of its harmful effect on other species that were generally considered beneficial or desirable to humans. For example, it is used to supercede even the ESA by prohibiting the control of predators that prevent recovery of pygmy rabbits.

“Biodiversity”

In 1974 The Nature Conservancy launched the first of its state “Natural Heritage Programs” advocating preservation of “natural diversity” (ecosystems made up only of so-called “native” species). In 1984 a joint effort by The Nature Conservancy, Idaho Parks and Recreation and the IDFG Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program formed Idaho’s Natural Heritage Program.

In 1986 a National Forum on Biological Diversity used the term “biodiversity” to describe TNC’s agenda of restoring a diverse mix of “native” species to ecosystems – rather than manage to maintain healthy populations of existing species that are beneficial to humans. The introduction of Canadian wolves into areas where wolves have been absent or significantly reduced for more than a century is a major component in the plan to restore “biodiversity” in “native” ecosystems.

The following year IDFG followed the IAFWA recommendation and took over full management of the Natural Heritage Program (also referred to as the “Conservation Data Center” or Idaho CDC). The FY 1998 Stockholder’s Report states the following Purpose for the CDC:

“Collect the best biological information on rare or special status animals and plants, plant communities and habitat areas. Manage this information in a series of interrelated databases. Disseminate this information as widely as possible to potential users. Interpret and synthesize this information to support proactive habitat conservation efforts.”

Contrary to Huffaker’s claim to the Legislature (see Sportsmen Pay For Biodiversity Agenda on page 3) the entire FY 98 CDC budget of $11,699 was funded with sportsman license fees. In fact the largest item (“Technical Assistance”) in the Natural Resource Policy budget in FY 98 was funded with $482,915 of license dollars and $396,898 of federal aid.

The Purpose: “Provide fish and wildlife technical assistance to federal and state agencies, local governments, private individuals and entities and others to minimize or eliminate impact to fish and wildlife populations and habitats from a wide variety of projects and proposals.” These free services paid for mostly by sportsmen, result in the concerns expressed by Sen. Schroeder (see Should F&G Provide Environmental Services? on Page 2).

The “Official” Definition of Biodiversity

During the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the definition of “biodiversity” adopted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity was:

“The variability among living organisms from all sources, including, ‘inter alia’, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”

Biodiversity includes every living organism in each designated ecosystem, including several million species, many of which are microscopic, that will never be included in an ESA listing. However scientists estimate there are between 1 million and 100 million larger species that can be seen with the naked eye, with estimates of from only 3-5 to as many as 140,000 disappearing every year.

Virtually every scientist agrees with the Nature Conservancy opinion that it is not possible to restore all of even the relatively few species that are already listed as endangered or threatened. Most concede that 40% of freshwater fish in South America have never even been classified and only a tiny unknown fraction of saltwater species have been identified.

On their respective websites, both TNC’s Chief Biologist and IDFG’s Nongame and Biodiversity staffs admit there are too many nongame species to attempt to manage them individually. They say they “attempt to take a habitat and landscape-based approach to nongame wildlife conservation and management by advocating protection of specific plant communities” such as the shrub-steppe ecosystems of southern Idaho.

Two Questions That Need Answers

The IUCN* “Red List” of 40,168 species and 2,160 subspecies assessed in 2006 claims that 16,118 of the main species (40%) are threatened with extinction. Most of these threats are blamed on human induced habitat loss or degradation. (* International, Union for Conservation also called “World Conservation Union”)

Whether it’s the UN, TNC, IDFG CWCS Team or other involved groups, their biologists agree that since humans appeared on earth their activities have been the major cause of biodiversity loss. Some claim this will cause dramatic irreversible changes during the next 100 years while others point out that the present degree of loss in biodiversity can be sustained for many thousands of years without reaching the 20%+ loss that occurred during the five major mass extinctions of the geological past.

When white explorers crossed large stretches of Nevada in the early 1800s they reported a land nearly barren of game with only a few scattered half-starved Indians. Irrigation development by white settlers turned large tracts of that land into a virtual paradise, rich with lush habitat and assorted game and other wildlife species.

Why should the agency charged with perpetuating and managing Idaho’s wild game and fish for hunting, fishing and trapping be working to restore a “natural” feast or famine condition? Why does IDFG support the agendas of national and international environmental activist groups rather than give its allegiance to Idaho citizens who own the resource and to their elected officials?

The IDFG “Nongame” Program

For many centuries game managers in all parts of the world have recognized that conditions which produce abundant game populations for humans to harvest also support an abundance of other species. But for more than two decades environmental activists who do not support hunting have lobbied Congress to authorize and fund management of species that are not sought by hunters and fishermen.

Rather than refer to these species with the accurate terms “non-hunted” or “non-game” the activists created a new word, “nongame”, to promote those species as having at least equal value to traditional game animals, birds and fishes. But as with many other confusing words or phrases invented by wildlife biologists, a non-game program may have nothing to do with nongame species.

Different Nongame Classifications

Readers with internet access who are interested can read the Idaho vertebrates listed as “nongame” by entering: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/ and then click on “Mammals” or “Amphibians and Reptiles.” Then to view the list of birds click on “Nongame Bird Program”, and then click on “List of Idaho’s Bird Species” in the lower right hand corner.

These three lists include only the 619 or so vertebrate species (having a backbone) that have been recognized as living in or migrating to Idaho – of which 523 are classified as nongame. The 619 include 111 mammals, 39 amphibians or reptiles and the rest birds, but do not include Idaho fish and hundreds of assorted mussels, snails, crustaceans, insects, etc. also found in the CWCS list of “Idaho fish and wildlife species.”

As reported in the April 2004 Outdoorsman, IDFG “management” of nongame species consists of giving most of them protected status, which automatically invokes severe federal penalties for killing, possessing or attempting to trade or sell the species or any portion. Its tacit admission that neither Idaho reptiles nor amphibians need protection is obvious since up to four native amphibians and reptiles of each species may be captured and held in captivity by holders of a valid Idaho hunting license.

On July 23, 2007, KTVB Boise news reporter Carolyn Holly featured a dog that had been bitten repeatedly by a rattlesnake when it jumped between the snake and a small child. The cameraman also showed an adult (the child’s father?) displaying the snakeskin which had been illegally removed and tacked on a flat surface for drying.

Although the F&G rule that became permanent law on April 6, 2005 says the protected status is not intended to prevent protection of personal health and/or safety, who decides when killing a protected species is warranted? The popular theme that people are “intruding” in rattlesnake, wolf, bear or lion habitat implies that humans should either be content to live and work in crowded urban “islands” of human habitat or suffer the consequences from predators that are protected in all of the surrounding rural and wilderness areas.

The 1992 UN Biodiversity Treaty

That has been the published agenda of the UN and its non-governmental organization (NGO) international allies (TNC, IUCN, etc.) since its Conference on Human Settlements in Toronto in 1976. Unfortunately it is also partly the agenda of the IAFWA, which dictates the agenda of all state and provincial fish and game agencies.

After the UN “Convention on Biological Diversity”, also called the “UN Biodiversity Treaty”, was presented at the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, former President Bush refused to sign it. But new President Bill Clinton signed the treaty on June 4, 1993 and Vice President Al Gore was already constructing his “White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management” in preparation for implementing the Treaty.

The U.S. State Department officially transmitted the Treaty to the Senate on November 20, 1993 asking for “fast-track” ratification and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 3 to recommend ratification. A massive effort by America’s natural resource users and grassroots groups killed the ratification but the Clinton-Gore team continued to implement it and the UN “Agenda 21” provisions as if the treaty had been ratified.

F&G Allegiance to Biodiversity

Despite the fact that the Treaty has still never been ratified NGOs including IUCN, TNC, the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club continue to support its “Wildlands Project” agenda. My efforts to discuss these issues with IDFG officials usually results in that “glazed-over look” and their failure to continue the discussion, yet examples of their allegiance to the Biodiversity Treaty are abundant.

For example, three months after the Idaho F&G Commission passed the rule making rattlesnakes a protected species, an Idaho Statesman article by Darin Oswald on the Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel quoted the following from the IDFG Nongame website on the squirrel’s recovery. “Threats: (are) Shooting, poison, predators like rattlesnakes, habitat degradation and the replacement of nutrient-rich native plants with less nutritious invasive alien plants.” (emphasis added).

When I pointed out, in a letter to several legislators, the inconsistency in protecting a major predator of several species listed as “Candidates” for ESA listing by the federal government, IDFG deleted the “predators like rattlesnakes” from the “threats” to ground squirrel recovery and substituted “overgrazing by livestock”. Currently the CWCS “Appendix F: Species Accounts and Distribution Maps for Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need” has deleted all reference to predation as a cause of decline for most of the species that are included.

The UN/TNC/IAFWA/IDFG excuse for not including predation as a cause of species decline is, “Native prey species have evolved and co-existed with native predators for thousands of years.” They have no intention of controlling predator numbers to the extent that scientific research shows is necessary to allow prey species to recover once they decline to an unhealthy level.

Because their allegiance is to biodiversity rather than game management, IDFG will continue to ignore science and claim that planting more big sagebrush will restore healthy pygmy rabbit populations and that promoting quaking aspen growth will restore healthy mule deer herds. But why wasn’t the biodiversity treaty ratified?

Why the Treaty Was Not Ratified

In 1994, with Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) heavily involved in environmental reform, what caused him to pull the Biodiversity Treaty at the last minute instead of allowing the Senate to vote for ratification? The answer is that he learned that the UN and the Treaty supporters weren’t telling the truth about the “Wildlands Project” that would be implemented if Congress ratified the Treaty.

The mind-boggling goal of the Wildlands Project was, and still is, to set aside up to half of the North American continent as “wild land” for the preservation of biological diversity. In the U.S. these proposed wild core areas would be created from public lands such as National Forests and Parks, each comprising from 10,000 up to 25 million acres, and would allow little, if any, human use.

Wildlife corridors, to enable animals to migrate to other areas as a result of predicted climate changes, would also be protected from humans. Buffer zones consisting primarily of private lands, often acquired by purchase or restricted easement, would allow limited use by humans.

On September 30, 1994, a 4-foot by 6-foot version of the foregoing map was presented on the floor of the U.S. Senate along with portions of the UN’s “Global Biodiversity Assessment” (GBA) required by the Treaty. The GBA identified the Wildlands Project as the vehicle for implementing the Treaty, and the map (along with others not included here) illustrated the proposed lock-up of vast areas in North America.

Although the color map is too small to see state boundaries and the few “normal use” or Indian and military reservations clearly, the many dark red areas in each state are the Core Areas and Corridors closed to humans. Most of the rest are the Buffer Zones where human use would be carefully regulated.

NAFTA Implements Biodiversity Plan

The tan area (gray if this is printed in B&W) along the U.S.-Mexico border is a 120-mile-wide “International Zone of Cooperation” which has already been established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA also created the “North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation,” a Montreal-based agency representing the United States, Canada and Mexico, which says the continent aces a “biodiversity crisis” with half of North America’s most “biodiverse” eco-regions severely degraded.

For several years Canada has been forced to increase its seal harvest significantly in order to continue harvesting cod but this group blames declining populations of cod and other food fish on over-harvesting by humans rather than on predation by protected marine mammals. Recently it convinced the Canadian government to reduce the harvest of excessive seal populations – resulting in further decline in cod populations and harvests.

“Restoring Large Meat-Eating Predators”

The failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty as ~188 other nations and the European Union now have, slowed – but did not stop – implementation of the Wildlands Project. A visit to the Wildlands Project website lists the same goals it had in 1991 – restoring large meat-eating predators to a landscape where wilderness has also been “restored”.

All life (human and non-human) would have equal value, and resource consumption above what is needed to supply “vital” human needs would not be allowed. It says its “primary objective is the closing and removal of roads on public lands.”

It boasts that it is supported by hundreds of organizations both in the U.S. and internationally, working to achieve its goals and it describes projects by other organizations (like the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative) that complement the Wildlands Project. Several of these groups, including The Nature Conservancy, receive millions of dollars annually in federal money, income from property transactions, and tax deductible donations from individuals and trusts.

Bit by bit they are implementing the UN plan to displace rural Americans and relocate them in “sustainable communities” while restoring their vision of North America as a “pre-Columbian wilderness untouched by humans.” That, of course, means that wildlife will not be managed in this vast wilderness network and many state wildlife managers, including IDFG biologists, have already adopted that “hands-off” philosophy of “managing” wild game.

Although these biologists still pay lip service to their mandate to preserve protect and perpetuate wild game and manage it to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping, they refuse to use any of the biological tools that are needed to do the job. These tools include reducing hunting season length and vulnerability, mitigating the impact of extreme winters or other natural disasters by promptly providing emergency feed where indicated and effectively controlling predators, and maintaining healthy male-to-female-to-juvenile ratios in populations at or near the normal carrying capacity of their range.

“Wildlands” Not Justified by Science

Instead they have slowly embraced the philosophy of “deep ecology” admitting that ecosystems are too complex to manage or even understand. Once large predators that existed prior to Columbus discovering America are free to roam the North American Continent, many believe their sole responsibility will be to enforce restrictions on human activity.

The architects of the Wildlands Project freely admit that science cannot be used to justify their project as follows:

“The Wildlands Project requires not only a re-thinking of science, politics, land use, industrialization, and civilization, it also requires re-thinking humanity’s place in nature. It requires a new philosophical and spiritual foundation for western civilization. That foundation is the ecophilosophy of deep ecology. Deriving much of its ideology from Buddhism and Taoism, and the philosophy of Spinoza, deep ecology contends that science has little to tell us about living in harmony with the planet, and other non-human life forms.”

The Biased “Fishing & Hunting” Survey

With the new emphasis on promoting sport hunting and fishing following the end of World War II, industry reps lobbied for a Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW) survey of hunters and fishermen in the lower 48 states. The International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners (later changed to IAFWA) told FWS the survey was needed to determine the economic value of hunting and angling to the national economy, and recommended it be funded with sportsmen excise tax dollars.

The second BSFW survey, including Alaska and Hawaii, was requested for 1960 and, since this was all about money, responses from hunters or fishermen who did not spend more than $5 or take at least three hunting or fishing trips were not included. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) conducted a similar survey of all types of outdoor recreation (including camping skiing, boating, bird watching, etc.) but did not exclude those who did not take enough separate trips or spend enough money.

“Incidental” Hunters, Fishermen Not Counted

In the 1965 BSFW Survey, FWS included information on “incidental” wildlife photographers and wildlife watchers from the BOR survey. Yet it did not include those it referred to as “incidental” hunters and fishermen in its own survey simply because they did not spend enough money or take enough trips.

The U.S. Census Bureau was paid to conduct both surveys in 1965 and in most other years but the information collected was for very different purposes. The questions concerning income, degree of education, etc. on the BSFW survey funded by Sport Fish and Wildlife Recovery dollars are designed to enable industry groups to profile and target potential customers.

The following totals from both 1965 surveys show that 34% of hunters and fishermen who paid state and local taxes and purchased hunting and/or fishing licenses were treated as if they didn’t exist in the national BSFW survey they were required to help pay for:

Respondents BSFW Survey BOR Survey

Hunted only 5,000,000 5,000,000

Fished only 19,000,000 31,000,000

Hunted & Fished 9,000,000 14,000,000

Total Participants 33,000,000 50,000,000

In his presentation of the 1965 survey data to IAFWA, BSFW Director John Gottschalk implied that the one-third of hunters and fishermen who didn’t spend money to travel long distances, stay in motels and hire guides were not “serious” sportsmen. He used terms like “real” fishermen to describe anglers who spent a lot of time and money and said, “The 1965 Survey mainly covers the more enthusiastic sportsmen – those we call ‘substantial’ participants.”

Surveys Emphasize Non-Consumptive Recreation

That survey’s bias in favor of casual wildlife watchers and other non-consumptive wildlife advocates, regardless of whether or not they contributed to the economy, signaled the beginning of a shift in emphasis to promoting “non-consumptive wildlife-based recreation.” The 1975 Survey was the first time the BSFW collected its own estimates of wildlife watching and the survey questions and methodology continued to change every five years.

The 1991 Survey continued efforts to improve accuracy of state information at a cost exceeding $13 million, with additional emphasis on increasing the percentage of non-consumptive wildlife recreationists compared to hunters and fishermen who also enjoy seeing and observing wildlife.

That Survey and subsequent Surveys did not include wildlife watching or photographing that occurred on hunting, fishing or game scouting trips. Yet it included virtually every non-sportsman activity from backyard bird feeding – to visiting the city park to watch ducks or feed pigeons popcorn – to taking a cross-country trip during which the respondent observed or photographed wildlife.

“Watchable Wildlife”

On December 3, 1990 four preservationist groups signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with eight federal agencies and IAFWA agreeing to cooperatively develop, implement, maintain, and enhance a “Watchable Wildlife Program” on Federal and State lands. The MOU stated, “IAFWA represents the interests of State wildlife agencies, each of which has responsibility for and interests in promoting Watchable Wildlife opportunities within their respective States.” (emphasis added)

The MOU specified that the eight federal government agencies (including the Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force and the BLM, FS, FWS, NPS and Bureau of Reclamation) shall assure the diversity of wildlife and habitats in the lands they manage. This includes assistance provided by Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation and/or the Isaac Walton League of America.

The goals include educating the American public about “its responsibility” to preserve “all” wildlife and providing the opportunity to observe “native” North Americn wildlife species. Although the program is often referred to as a “federal” program, it is a nationwide program initiated by Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), which continues to play a leading role in its development.

DOW, called the “Anti-Steel Trap League” during its early years, is well known for promoting biodiversity and for using the courts to protect wolves from sport hunting or trapping and control by state wildlife managers. Yet a DOW representative is part of a three-person IAFWA committee which establishes the criteria for the state CWCS nongame species plans.

A New Definition of Wildlife Watching

The millions of dollars spent by the federal and state agencies to promote non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation did not halt the decline in wildlife watching reported in the 1980-1996 Surveys. But DOW and IAFWA convinced every state, including Idaho, to change the definition of “wildlife” watching to include, not only traditional bird watching, whale watching and viewing big game animals, but also the following activities:

· Photography of animals, plants and landscapes

· Wildflower walks

· Plant or mushroom identification

· Watching salmon or other fish

More Deception About Wildlife Watching

DOW selected coastal states like Washington, Florida and California with several hundred thousand tourists who came to view the unique scenery, and convinced the state wildlife agencies to also consider these tourists as wildlife watchers. Now, in addition to backyard bird feeders and visitors to the city park, virtually every camper, hiker or tourist can qualify as a “wildlife” watcher.

Idaho’s neighboring state of Washington was listed in fourth place among the top “wildlife” watching states in1997. After six years of working with DOW to make wildlife watching pay, the Washington Department of Wildlife’s website says, “Over $1.7 billion is spent annually in Washington on wildlife watching activities.”

It says the money is spent locally on food, lodging, transportation and equipment and credits wildlife watching with supporting 21,000 jobs. Yet on another page it admits that most of the wildlife watching is incidental “while engaged in some other form of tourism, and/or outdoor recreation.”

Washington is one of a small group of traditional “tourist” states that conducted research into the economic value of wildlife watching (“nature” watching) and then supplied the info to the BSFW Survey to estimate how much “wildlife” watchers spend. Of course most tourists and other travelers enjoy seeing wildlife, but the claim that all the money most of them spend results solely from watching wildlife is a gross exaggeration.

When the 2001 Survey data was released in 2002 anti-hunting groups and state nongame biologists praised the small increase in total wildlife watchers compared to a decrease in hunters since 1996. They ignored the fact that the number of wildlife watchers (and feeders and photographers) had steadily declined since the 1980 “watcher” survey.

New MOU Adds Agencies, New NGO

In 1999 DOW and the three other NGO groups that had signed the 1990 MOU decided to form a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit corporation called “Watchable Wildlife, Inc.” (WWI). On October 16, 2002, they signed another MOU with the eight original federal agencies and four new ones* plus IAFWA. (* National Marine Fisheries Svc., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

The new MOU gave WWI increased powers and says, “Watchable Wildlife Inc. is dedicated to advancing wildlife viewing as a viable economic and conservation enterprise for communities throughout Canada, the United States, and Mexico. WWI is committed to helping communities realize the economic potential of nature-related recreation while conserving native plants and animals in their natural habitats.” (emphasis added)

FS, Others Teach UN Biodiversity Agenda

The Forest Service “NatureWatch” website advertises that its 192 million acres (300,000 square miles) of habitat for thousands of species of wildlife, fish and wildflowers offers thousands of “NatureWatch” Viewing Sites. Its Mission: “To provide children and adults the opportunity to safely view, and participate in, activities and programs that raise their level of awareness and understanding of wildlife, fish and plants, and their connection to ecosystems, landscapes and people.”

Along with 11 other federal agencies, the FS is teaching the UN biodiversity message to the urban American tourist. First-time watchers are provided a viewing guide and ethics information with the “look-from-a-distance-but-don’t-touch-or-feed wildlife” message (a similar message is available from other agencies for observing marine mammals, etc.).

Check Out IDFG’s Nongame Website

If you have internet access check out the IDFG “Nongame” and “Watchable Wildlife” website to confirm the activities “wildlife” watching includes. Then click on “Wildlife Viewing Tips and Ethics” to get the same “look-from-a-distance-but-don’t-touch-or-feed wildlife” message.

You’ll learn not to walk through grass or water or off of established paths because “damage to the habitat affects all species in the ecosystem.” Continue to read “Don’t alter the environment by feeding the animals. Feeding wildlife supplies more food than would normally be provided by nature.” (emphasis added)

Now you know the real reason IDFG wildlife “managers” refuse to feed mule deer that are obviously starving to death during extreme winters. During the August 4, 2007 Mule Deer Management Workshop in Pocatello, County Commissioner (former Idaho Sen.) Lin Whitworth asked why, if they refuse to feed starving deer with the dedicated fund provided by sportsmen, F&G does not give the money back to hunters. He got no answer.

Biodiversity To Trump Other Resource Use

Whether you are a member of the Alternate Funding Committee, an Idaho F&G Commissioner, a Legislator representing your constituents, or a frustrated mule deer or pheasant hunter, the following statements in the 1140-page UN Global Biodiversity Assessment explain how protecting biodiversity will limit human harvest of natural resources:

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric (man is superior) view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation.

“We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.”

Palouse Prairie SAFE Program

From Agenda 21 to UN Heritage Sites, the Treaty that was never ratified is being implemented by every state and federal agency involved in natural resources. By the time you receive this issue the “Palouse Prairie SAFE program” will have been initiated, signing up a small number of growers to convert their cropland to fields and corridors of permanent native grasses, forbs and shrubs.

The program is designed to convert only one percent or less of the Palouse cropland to native species, yet the estimated minimum cost of the 10-year project is $11.2 million. A survey of sample fields for savannah sparrows and grasshopper sparrows will be conducted three times to see if they were attracted by the plantings.

According to IDFG CWCS data, this project will recover populations of these and other declining birds, including non-native pheasants, “which will provide more local economic benefits.” A similar multi-million dollar habitat project designed to save declining pygmy rabbit populations in Washington during the past decade resulted in predators killing all of the remaining wild rabbits (see “A Wasted Effort” in the October 2007 issue).

Because many Idahoans dislike the impact development has on our traditional rural areas, some are willing to close their eyes to reality and pretend that by spending billions of dollars nationwide we can turn back the clock a few centuries and re-create so-called “native” ecosystems. But, unless we allow the UN to overrule our Constitution, these lands remain in private ownership and will ultimately be sold.

Sustainable Development – UN Agenda 21

The United Nations University – Institute of Advanced Studies, a “virtual” university headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, continues to provide direction for “Sustainable Development” for thousands of U.S. cities. This implementation of UN Agenda 21 purportedly addresses both “Brown” agendas to improve air and water quality for the poorer cities, and “Green” agendas to reduce damage to ecosystems by more affluent cities.

In 1993, 25 days after President Clinton signed the UN Biodiversity Treaty, he signed an executive order creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Consisting of 29 non-elected federal officials and representatives of major environmental organizations (including the National President of TNC), the Council adopted the UN’s definition of sustainable development and translated Agenda 21 into 154 public policy recommendations to be implemented throughout the United States.

Missouri Promotes UN Agenda

In November 1995, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) issued a “Coordinated Resource Management Plan to sustain our natural environment” which also endorsed the creation of a “UN Biosphere Reserve” in the lower Ozarks. The Reserve was promoted by TNC and by agency officials who were members of the President’s Council.

But Missouri residents, who own 93% of the land, discovered that the language and methods in the Resource Plan were similar or identical to those in UN Agenda 21. They objected vigorously to the Plan and former IDFG Director Jerry Conley was hired as MDC Director to use his experience in Idaho to implement the plan.

Conley Denied UN/NGO Influence

But Missouri residents convinced their legislators the Plan was designed to implement the mandate in the UN Biodiversity Assessment and Conley was forced to cancel it on March 19, 1997. In a March 27, press release, Conley ridiculed citizens’ groups that had expressed concern about the United Nation’s influence on the CRMP as “pure unadulterated bunk.” He said concerns about shifting governmental authority over to non-elected groups was “absolute hogwash.”

Yet three years later in 2000, Congress gave IAFWA, assisted by DOW, the authority to administer the newly enacted State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program which directs state wildlife agencies to support biodiversity as dictated by DOW. The “unholy alliance” of this state wildlife agency lobbyist with DOW and other predator preservationist groups also convinced Congress to enact the Multistate Conservation Grant (MCG) Program.

MCGs are also administered by IAFWA, but unlike SWGs its program allows IAFWA to award $6 million from the previously-untouchable P-R and D-J sportsman excise tax funds to any state(s), agency or nongovernmental group. The only requirement for the NGOs (including anti-hunting groups) to receive a grant is that they must submit a statement agreeing not to use the grant money for any activity that promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish.

The Truth

The IAFWA, DOW and other NGOs are neither elected nor accountable to American citizens yet they continue to promote the “restoration of native ecosystems” agenda espoused in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment. The results of their efforts to de-emphasize hunting, fishing and trapping are immediately apparent when you view and explore the Missouri Dept. of Conservation website.

From its “Grow Native” biodiversity program (a collaborative effort with the State Ag. Dept.) to its “Master Naturalist” program, the emphasis on “preserving sustainable native plant and animal communities” and providing present and future generations with “diverse and balanced outdoor recreation opportunities” brings home its real agenda. Hunting, trapping and fishing are briefly mentioned as a necessary tool in providing money and controlling some wildlife and fish populations, but “preserving our ‘outdoor recreation’ heritage” is the central theme.

Public Funding Leads To Other Activities

During the IDFG July funding meeting Senator Cameron expressed concern that the Department would become like Parks and Recreation and that is exactly what has happened in states like Missouri after they received additional funding form sources other than hunters and fishermen.

In 1975 the MDC and its NGO support group, the Missouri Conservation Federation, decided to seek additional funding from the general public with a 1/8 of one percent sales tax. It enlisted help from licensed hunters and fishermen who traveled from house to house convincing the public to amend the State Constitution to help fund fish, game and timber management.

The amendment, approved by voters in 1976, provided that the sales and use tax money, and all other MDC income, must be used “for the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and wildlife resources of the state…and for no other purpose.” The purchase or other acquisition of property for said purposes was also allowed. (emphasis added)

The amendment was originally very popular among sportsmen and timber interests because it offered a Constitutional guarantee that fish, game and timber would be restored and conserved. County and State officials supported it because it also provided that a portion of the money must be used to pay the full tax value (in lieu of taxes) for any property acquired by MDC.

Missouri Ignored Spending Restrictions

The wording in Article IV Section 43(b) has never been changed yet MDC now spends millions of the sales tax dollars every year on providing elaborate camping facilities, bicycle, hiking and horseback trails, interpretive centers and wildlife watching facilities. Disgruntled sportsmen point out that it was hunters and fishermen who campaigned, knocked on doors and drove people to the polls for this tax to pass – yet none of these programs make any effort to recruit a new generation of hunters.

In 2003 Missouri Senators proposed SJR 103 to divert half of the $96 million annual sales tax revenue from MDC to education, and implement a sunshine clause that would require the tax to be re-approved every four years. It was defeated by lobbying from those who benefit from the programs.

Missouri Legislator Cites Abuses

In 2005 the sponsor of SJR 3 praised increased timber, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching revenues, but cited examples of inappropriate use of the tax fund. These included excessive payment for land purchases, expensive conferences (one costing $30,000 for several employees), $900,000 spent for catering in 3 years, no cost reports or use records for 1,300 highway vehicles, and ownership of three airplanes and one helicopter.

SJR 3 proposed a re-authorization of the tax once every 10 years with the following explanation from its sponsor:

“Unfortunately, this is the only department in the state that does not have a system of checks and balances. They can spend their money and regulate what they want without one person making them accountable for the spending of our tax dollars. In the unlikely event the conservation tax is not approved by voters, this will not end the department because federal regulation ensures hunting and fishing license fees will not be used for any purposes other than funding state fish and wildlife agency.”

The Same Thing Could Happen Here

The Missouri Senator could have been describing IDFG with its history of unlawfully using dedicated emergency feeding and fish hatchery funds for non-game/fish activities. These fees and the matching P-R and D-J funds are use taxes that hunters and fishermen pay.

Unlike MDC, IDFG has not yet reached the stage where it purchases and sets aside core areas in a “Natural Areas System.” But its willingness to misappropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars, with approval of its Deputy Attorney General, indicates that lack of unlimited funding is the only thing that’s stopping it.

In its Five-Year Accomplishment Report titled “Idaho State Wildlife Grant Success Stories,” the IDFG biodiversity team brags that it spent $6.8 million during the first five years of its existence. The result of this expense was recommending that sagebrush habitat be preserved (duh!) and IDFG purchasing a 101-acre lease to protect Idaho habitat used by the Columbia Spotted Frog.
Wildlife Watcher Subsidies Expensive

But now that it must match the SWG money 100% rather than the 33% match required through FY 2006, it’s asking for another handout because, unlike hunters and fishermen, nongame wildlife watchers will not pay for the “free” programs they receive. But what about the National Survey that claims wildlife watchers contribute billions of dollars?

Although the Preliminary 2006 Survey Report claims another small increase in their numbers, it admits there are still fewer wildlife watchers than there were in 1991 – and far fewer than existed in 1980 (which it says shouldn’t be used for comparison). If that is true how can the state and federal agencies justify their multimillion- dollar expenditures for Watchable Wildlife facilities, birding trails, and massive promotional campaigns for the past 17 years?

Grossly Exaggerated Biodiversity Losses

Despite its obvious inaccuracy and bias, the Report admits that state wildlife agencies use it to justify their requests for additional nongame funding. But even if we ignore the high cost of Watchable Wildlife, how can we ignore the claimed loss of up to 140,000 native species from native ecosystems every year?

The short answer is that is an absurd exaggeration with no basis in fact. If you run a Google search on “biodiversity loss” you will come up with about 1.9 million responses. If you spend a few weeks verifying what has actually been documented you find that the accepted figure of verified life forms on the planet (animals, plants, fungi, protozoans, bacteria, viruses, etc.) is 1.4 to 1.9 million.

Most of these have not been classified but more than half are insects, which make up 73% of the known “animal” species. The estimated total of all life forms based on this known number is 3.63 million – far fewer than the 10-100 million claimed by the doomsayers.

During the last 504 years the known number of just birds and mammals that have gone extinct worldwide is 136. That represents a loss of only about one every 3.7 years, which hardly qualifies as a biodiversity “crisis”. Remember that most of the world’s life forms are insects with little or no species loss (except minor losses in small isolated environments).

The known number of all species (including microscopic) lost in the last 504 years is less than 800 (<2 species per year). The estimated total loss based on scientific calculations of indicator species is estimated at only 2-5 species per year out of several million.

Listing Restricts Human Activity

Yet the IUCN and its ardent followers continue to perpetuate the unsubstantiated claim that thousands of native species are in danger of being exterminated. For example, Germany listed 34% of its insect species as threatened in spite of the fact that many of those listed are abundant and widely distributed.

Each time a new species is classified as “endangered”, “threatened” or “a species of concern” by a state it opens the door for more restrictions on human activity, including hunting and trapping. While there is little doubt that humans are responsible for some of the native biodiversity loss there is no doubt that the benefits to humans from much of this activity far outweigh any alleged benefit from preserving some “native” species.

For example, Florida listed 634 species in these three categories, including the endangered malaria mosquito Anopheles albimanus, in 1994 and reaffirmed the listings in 2004 and 2006. The philosophy that protects the animal and insect carriers of multiple deadly diseases and such organisms as the smallpox virus, would appear to violate American citizens’ rights and human decency, and fly in the face of reason.

Team Members Suggest Resource Foot the Bill

Instead of making the biodiversity advocates pay the cost of and accept responsibility for their activities, the Idaho F&G Commission and the Funding Committee are exploring new ways to make the resource foot the bill. Commissioner Wright suggested that sportsmen be surveyed for their input but Rep. Wood correctly stated that the same special groups always respond to the F&G surveys with the same answers.

The Funding Committee is fortunate to have Rep. Wood as a member, with his years of experience as a F&G Commissioner who learned firsthand how public opinion is manipulated by the agency to suit its private agenda. There is little hope for realistic solutions to the funding problem until the Committee looks beyond the rhetoric and addresses that agenda.

Rep. Stevens and Sen. Cameron both suggested the Committee explore selling special (trophy) hunts, which can generate up to one hundred thousand dollars or more. Tracey Trent responded that in his 24 years with the Department sportsmen have never approved that practice and he said they never will.

Idaho Trophy Units Don’t Produce Trophies

Rep. Wood reminded them that it takes eight years to grow a trophy and you can’t kill all of the male animals before that age (as is being done now) and still sell a high-priced hunt. Outdoorsman Bulletin 23 documented the overcrowding of hunters and poor harvest success in other units that result from managing even one unit for “trophy” hunting.

And although certain Idaho units are called “trophy” units because there is a higher percent of 4-point bucks or 6-point bulls, the odds of killing an animal that meets the Boone & Crockett minimum score for entry are extremely poor. Wealthy sportsmen will not pay the higher prices unless they know there are bona fide trophies to be had (as in the Unit 11 sheep hunt where IDFG carefully monitors the rams and allows only two sheep hunters).

One obvious solution to increase funding by sportsmen is to eliminate extended-season special draw hunts and hunting in the rut for mule deer and elk. This, plus temporarily halting antleress mule deer harvest, is the quickest way to insure a significant increase in mature bucks and bulls that are available for every hunter (which always results in increased purchases of licenses and tags).

Duplication of Effort is Part of the Problem

However this will not solve the dilemma of how to fund IDFG constructing and maintaining wildlife/nature watching facilities, campgrounds, hiking, biking and horseback riding trails, or improving wildlife habitat and wildflowers. These are functions of Parks and Recreation and the federal and state land management agencies and should be returned to them rather than perpetuate the expensive duplication of effort.

UN Definition of “Wildlife” Inconsistent

When the Idaho Legislature approved IDFG replacing the dictionary definition of wildlife in I.C. Section 36-202(g) with the UN definition (see “What’s in a Name?” On page 4) it used the definition of “animal” that refers to the “animal kingdom” consisting of all living things that are animated (mammals, birds, fishes, insects, crustacians, etc.). But throughout the rest of the F&G Code, “animal” means only “mammal” (a class of higher vertebrates, comprising man and other animals that nourish their young with milk and with skin that is more or less covered with hair).

Since it first began selling hunting licenses 104 years ago, IDFG has managed the “mammals birds and fishes hunted by man” and the major predators that must be controlled at times in order to perpetuate those mammals, birds and fishes. Other species that were protected by federal or state law were not managed, but laws prohibiting their harvest were enforced.

When IAFWA and FWS first created “nongame” funding, IDFG convinced the Legislature to let it raise matching money to obtain the federal handouts. When its fund raising efforts failed to meet increasing demands for matching funds it began to misappropriate license dollars.

Both the Nongame Staff and the CWCS staff use the UN “wildlife” definition in 36-201(g) to justify their existence and funding. Yet they admit there are too many nongame species for them to manage any of them.

The UN definition of wildlife (“any form of animal life”) includes insects that sting or bite, mosquitoes that transmit West Nile Virus, ticks that transmit Lyme disease and two forms of tick fever, and countless other insects rodents, etc. Many of these species destroy our trees, our animals, our crops and plants, and even us.

The logical way to correct this inconsistency is to re-define wildlife in I.C. Sec. 36-202(g) as “mammals, birds and fishes traditionally harvested or protected.” This would again reduce the number of managed species to a reasonable number while still protecting (but not managing) the countless birds and other species that have been or may later be protected by state or federal law.

I.C. Sec. 36-201 could also be amended to remove the Commission’s authority to classify or re-classify one or dozens of species by temporary rule without public input as occurred in March 2004. This secretive scattergun approach, allegedly implemented in order to possibly help prevent one or more species from being listed under the ESA, violates the principles of open government and creates more problems than it solves.

Is CWCS Really Preventing Species Extinction?

Even if Nongame/CWCS efforts to restore a few token pre-Columbian plant communities are eventually successful, there is no evidence that alone will prevent any species from becoming extinct. The Funding Committee will have to examine the evidence and determine whether this is a UN agenda, a federal agenda, an IAFWA-DOW-TNC agenda, or just an incredible coincidence.

Regardless of whose agenda it has become the Committee needs to know exactly how much it is costing and where every dollar of the money comes from as Sen. Cameron suggested. Based on past performance it is doubtful that IDFG will include all of the costs such as prorated overhead, administrative and logistical costs, and the nongame/CWCS portion of amortization and/or depreciation of capital expenditures.

The Committee will also need to evaluate the impact that replacing productive land with native plant communities will have on Idaho’s economy, customs and culture to see if they really want a state agency to continue to pursue the radical preservationist agenda.

TNC Says It Can’t Be Done

The Nature Conservancy, which founded the Natural Heritage Program (Conservation Data Center) and the NatureServe network (that tells IDFG the status of all Idaho species) has used the CDC for its “Conservation By Design” program for more than 10 years. The goal of the program is to “ensure the effective conservation of places that represent at least 10 percent of every major habitat type on Earth.”

The TNC website provides comments by its Chief Scientist Peter Kareiva explaining its conservation agenda:

“No conservation organization can honestly claim it is halting extinction. We have to stop defining conservation success exclusively in terms of species loss. We have to start defining it in terms of functioning ecosystems, and functional variety and intact native animals and plants.

“That we can find grizzly bears and wolves and higher predators in the wild landscapes of the Yellowstone to the Yukon is every bit as special as any long list of species.”

TNC explains: “The Nature Conservancy’s strategy along the Rocky Mountain Front is to secure habitats used most heavily by grizzly bears. An ever-widening network of partners – including local landowners, government agencies and Native Americans – are working together to protect this magnificent habitat” (see Y2Y map below).

Conservation Easements Protect Grizzly Range

In the U.S. portion of the Y2Y, the three major “core ecosystems” are the Greater Yellowstone of northwest Wyoming, southwest Montana, and eastern Idaho; the Salmon-Selway of central Idaho; and the Northern Continental Divide of northwest Montana. In several locations at its website TNC cites its acquisition of conservation easements on two Montana ranches in 2005 to insure an extension of grizzly bear habitat forever.

According to its website, TNC owns 232,325 acres of conservation easements on private land in 4 Montana, with 1.4 million additional acres of easements owned by other local land trusts or government agencies. In Idaho TNC says it owns only 25,370 acres of private land conservation easements, with another 25,798 acres of easements owned by local and regional land trusts.

About 10,000 of the 25,370 conservation easement acres owned by TNC were obtained from landowners along Silver Creek, the world famous fly-fishing trout stream 15 miles southeast of Bellevue in Blaine County. TNC also owns and operates the 883-acre Silver Creek Preserve, which reports populations of rainbow and brown trout* at ~5,000 per mile of stream.

(* Both are classified as Idaho “invasive species,” which would appear to conflict with TNC’s emphasis on eradicating invasive species elsewhere)

TNC’s Bill “To Protect the Family Ranch”

Although TNC sells or otherwise transfers most of the private land and/or conservation easements it acquires it still owns 3.2 million acres of private land conservation easements just in the United States. Idaho easements make up less than one percent but that is about to change if TNC is successful in convincing the Idaho Legislature to pass its “Ranch, Farm and Forest Protection Act” in 2008.

In the 2007 Session, Idaho TNC Executive Committee member and Conservation Committee Chairman Laird Noh introduced its bill (House Bill 262) to familiarize Legislators with the bill and its supporters. Touted as “a measure to save the family farm and ranch from developers,” the TNC proposal would provide up to $500,000 each in tax relief to selected landowners who donate (sell) a conservation easement to groups like TNC.

For example, when TNC or another qualified NGO or government agency selects a parcel of private land it wants to preserve, it will offer to pay the landowner up to half the appraised value of the parcel in return for granting a conservation easement which prohibits improvement or development forever. However the landowner must continue to pay property and income taxes which will quickly erase much of the benefit of the cash received.

TNC has already convinced lawmakers in some states to waive tax payments over a period of years so the landowner gets to spend most of the money. But there are serious downsides to this proposal.

Taxpayers Would Subsidize Easements

Idaho taxpayers are being asked to pay up to three million additional dollars each year to subsidize a few selected landowners who agree to limit certain uses of their land and not allow it to be developed. But as with Idaho’s original 1% sales tax, once the bill passes, justifying future increases will be relatively easy.

In many cases taxpayers are already subsidizing TNC with federal and matching state grant money that it often uses to purchase those easements. And, to add insult to injury, federal money is sometimes used to buy these easements from TNC at a profit later on.

Practical Solution – or Added Liability?

Receiving a substantial sum of operating money without parting with the land may sound like the answer to a cash-strapped ranching family’s prayer. But it can turn into their worst nightmare when they find they can’t build new fences, roads or buildings or even remodel their home to accommodate their growing family.

Some states, including Montana, have been forced to attempt to amend similar existing laws to prevent widespread abuses from over-restrictive easements that even prohibit necessary home repairs or modification of farming methods. Sometimes TNC simply acts as a broker, quickly selling the easement for a profit to the federal government or other powerful entity.

Then by declaring the landowners in default on some minor technical aspect of the easement they can be forced to defend themselves in expensive legal actions. When the powerful easement owner or grantee prevails, the landowners are forced to also pay its legal costs which can easily result in loss of the property in a negotiated settlement.

Easements Destroy Property Value

Once a perpetual conservation easement becomes part of a property deed the resale value takes a nosedive. Despite recently enacted federal income and estate tax benefits for granting conservation easements, major agricultural financial institutions have discontinued the practice of making loans on any property that has been encumbered by a conservation easement.

Even if the small farm, ranch or timber family is allowed to retain enough unencumbered acres to meet zoning requirements for their children to build houses and access roads, the easement lands generally represent a financial liability for their heirs and will probably end up in government ownership within a generation.

TNC uses sophisticated global satellite imagery and helicopter surveys to predetermine the lands it intends to protect as part of core areas, buffer zones or wildlife corridors. Unless private land meets its special criteria (e.g. part of a high biodiversity ecosystem, special grizzly habitat, a chance to turn a quick profit, etc.) it may show no interest in purchasing an easement.

Millions of Rural People Displaced

It is difficult for the average person to imagine how rich and powerful The Nature Conservancy and a handful of other international conservation (preservation) NGOs have become. With board members or close allies in high places they manipulate governments and international banking systems to agree to forgive nations’ debts in return for their establishing a vast network of parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and corridors.

In the past four decades the number of these protected areas has increased more than a hundred fold, with more then 12% of the earth’s total land mass protected as wild lands by the end of 2005. Instead of benefiting the indigenous people of these lands as TNC and the other preservationist groups claimed it would, millions of native people have been driven from lands they occupied for centuries and forced to survive in crowded refugee camps.

Estimates of the number of rural people displaced by NGO efforts to preserve biodiversity in Africa alone range as high as 14.4 million! Yet the UN Study on Biodiversity reported that 90% of the current biodiversity in Africa is found outside of the protected areas – mostly in places occupied by humans.

UN Claims Undocumented Species Losses

Despite admitting the reality that human activity is also responsible for increased biodiversity in many rural areas, IUCN, TNC and other NGOs continue to provide the UN Commission on Biodiversity with material to support its claim that “the sky is falling.” In its 92-page “Global Biodiversity Outlook 2” report issued in a March 2006 meeting in Curitiba, Brazil, the UN charged that humans are responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth – the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago.

The report estimates the current rate of extinctions is 1,000 times greater than historical rates, yet cites only the IUCN Red List of 844 animal and plant species that are believed to have gone extinct in the wild during the last 500 years. That figure includes every living organism that was ever reported on land or sea from 1500-2004, except protozoa, bacteria and viruses, and which has not been documented recently.

For example it includes “Bennet’s Seaweed” reported at two isolated locations near islands in Australia in the 1800s and not seen since. It is defined as having different characteristics than plants, animals and fungi and is the sole example of a separate species that has never been seen by a human that is still alive.

The 844 includes 60 animal or plant species such as the Hawaiian Crow that have not been documented in the wild recently, but which exist in captive breeding programs. The last time said crow was reported seen in the wild was in 2002 and captive crows that were released have either disappeared or been recaptured.

TNC Scare Tactics Raise $1.4 Billion

South African Richard Leakey’s unsupported claim that the rate of species decline is 1,000 times greater than historical rates is just as absurd as the predictions only 10-20 years ago that millions of species would go extinct by the year 2000. Yet Leakey’s irresponsible claim is repeated by the UN and TNC in pleas for funding and by the media that thrives on sensationalism, without offering even a single fact to support it.

In 2000 when TNC announced its campaign to raise one billion dollars for its U.S. Campaign for Conservation “to ensure lasting protection of our natural heritage” it used the same scare tactics to raise the money. Using its own staff, now called NatureServe, and “green” publisher, the Association for Biodiversity Information, it published “Precious Heritage” claiming that 1/3 of the plant and animal species found in the U.S. are in peril.

TNC’s scare campaign was so successful that it raised $1.4 billion by 2003, and by 2005 questionable investments and property transactions which had been under IRS, GAO and Congressional investigation for several years, increased TNC’s net worth to $4 billion. Wealth begets power and in June 2006 President Bush appointed, and the Senate unanimously confirmed, TNC Board Chairman Henry Paulson as the new Secretary of the Treasury.

IUCN Suggests Much Lower Extinction Rate

The IUCN Red List published in 2004 mentions the claimed 1,000 times historical rate of increase in extinctions, but suggests it is probably nearer 2-4 times as great as the fossil records of known species indicate. It correctly points out that the evolution of new species and the extinction of others is a natural ongoing process but also says “the high number of recent extinctions suggests that the world might now be facing a rapid net loss of biodiversity.” (emphasis added)

Because the IUCN Red List is the accepted worldwide list of known species as well as those that are reported to have become extinct, logic dictates we use its data to see what we really know.

Extinction Rate Declining

According to ICUN, the fossil records indicate a rate of extinction equal to one species per year out of every one million species that existed. Thus if there are five million species, the average annual total of extinction dating back to the periods we can identify is five species per year.

The 1,413,247 animal and plant species known to exist in 2004 can reasonably be compared to the 784 animal and plant species listed as having become extinct by 2004. If there were no new species added to the existing 1,413,247 plus the 784 known extinctions over the 504 year period, the annual known extinction rate per million would be only 1.04 (almost exactly the average extinction rate from the fossil records).

Now let’s examine “Extinctions in Recent Time” documented by thousands of botanists, entomologists, etc. in every state and country during the 20-year period from 1984-2004, and discussed thoroughly in the ICUN Red List. Of the 10 animal species listed, there were six tropical frogs or toads, one newt from China and three tropical birds. The remaining five species listed were four tropical plants and one Asian plant.

Despite all the efforts to confirm additional extinctions, there were no mammals, fishes, turtles, lizards, snakes, bivalves, gastropods, branchiopods, crustaceans, arachnids or insects found to be extinct anywhere in the world during the two decades! In fact the rate of extinction declined to only 3/4ths of one species per year per million species – 25% less than the average from both the fossil records and the previous 504 years!

But because IUCN also depends on large sums of money to exist, it suggests that the extinction rate of yet-to-be-documented species may be much greater than the rate for the known species. In reality, a smaller percent of insect species have been documented and insects make up the majority of all species, yet they are also less likely to be driven into extinction.

IUCN admits that most species that have become extinct existed in small, isolated tropical environments and evolved into a separate subspecies, often with significant color differences from similar species found in abundance elsewhere in slightly different habitat. The fact that these species will appear and disappear over time as they always have is used as an excuse to lock up vast areas of the earth to humans who were stewards of the land for centuries.

But the harsh reality that forcing these rural humans off of the land is destroying – not preserving – biodiversity was driven home to so-called conservationists at Bangkok in 2004. Maasai leader Martin Saning’o from Tanzania, patiently explained to 6,000 wildlife biologists that his people were the original conservationists yet their lives and cultures have been destroyed by people who call themselves “conservationists.”

Implementing “Wildlands” is TNC Goal

All of the major conservation NGOs quickly admitted that the Maasai and countless farmers and ranchers around the world make a valuable contribution to conservation of wildlife species. Yet they continue to aggressively pursue their agenda of transferring private rural land to government ownership and protection.

Calling itself “Nature’s Real Estate Agent,” TNC could better be described as “the government’s real estate agent.” Buying or receiving gifts of millions of acres of land in the guise of “species conservation,” it has reportedly sold over 10 million acres of private land to the federal government for huge profits.

With the admission by TNC Chief Biologist and former Board member Peter Kareiva, “No conservation organization can honestly claim it is halting extinction,” (see page 13) it appears that pretending to prevent species extinction is just a gimmick to facilitate removing ownership or control of private land from rural dwellers. Other remarks by Kareiva and TNC make it clear that TNC’s goal is implementing the Wildlands agenda described in the UN Biodiversity Assessment.

TNC and Global Warming

Using “NatureServe” it tells the IDFG CDC and its other CDC groups what species to consider as threatened to support its increased land acquisition as well as its strong opposition to crop irrigation projects. Operating in their usual crisis mode, TNC, IUCN and Al Gore claim human-caused carbon emissions and greenhouse gases are largely responsible for global warming which (they say) is a primary cause of current species extinctions.

However, nearly 20,000 scientists have signed a statement that cooling and warming of the earth’s crust are natural cyclic conditions created by factors in the universe beyond human control. According to them, there is no convincing evidence that human activity is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Depending on interpretation of theory, we are either in the warm-up stage of the most recent “ice age” or else that age ended 10,000 years ago following extinction of the mastodons in the Midwestern U.S. and emigration of U.S. camels to Asia 13,000 years ago.

“Pests and Weeds Will Dominate”

A group of Cornell University ecologists and evolutionary biologists say it would be more realistic to attempt to re-introduce Indian elephants, African cheetahs and Asian Bactrian camels to the U.S. and allow them to “re-evolve” as they were 16,000 years ago, than continue to attempt to emulate conditions in 1492 A.D.

They claim the end result of the current biodiversity plan will be a return to a landscape dominated by “pests and weeds” (rats and dandelions). They insist there will be even fewer species than existed 10,000 years ago when species were just beginning to recover from the last ice age.

Neither side offers proof that reintroducing their choice of protected mega-fauna in a man-made wilderness (where humans have lived since the ice receded) will provide so-called “healthy” ecosystems or increased biodiversity. Yet TNC continues to use questionable tactics to expand artificial wilderness while increasing its assets.

TNC’s Woodpecker Hunt

Another of TNC’s “unique” acquisitions of private land in the U.S. began in March 2004 when it hired a university photographer/computer specialist to photograph an Ivory-billed Woodpecker reportedly seen in Arkansas’ so-called “Big Swamp.” On April 24, 2004 the photographer produced a 4-second videotape of what he claimed was a female Ivory-bill, a species that was last reported seen in Arkansas in 1910.

TNC kept the information and the existence of the videotape a secret from the general public for a full year while it arranged for ~$20 million in federal funding to expand the search and to acquire conservation easements from local farmers. When the Cornell University Ornithology staff released the information and blurred 4-second videotape on April 28, 2005, it was initially heralded as a great conservation achievement by scientists.

But once experts on Ivory-billed Woodpecker identification examined the video and audio tapes offered as proof, they concluded the bird was simply a common Pileated Woodpecker. Even when he was forced to admit that the object “confirmed” as an Ivory-bill in one frame was actually only a tree branch stub, the head of the Cornell Lab Team insisted the blurred videotape confirmed the woodpecker still exists in the wild.

FWS Creates Woodpecker Recovery Plan

Apparently unwilling to admit that it has already spent millions of dollars trying to locate a live bird and acquire land and conservation easements based on what may be a hoax, FWS recently prepared a 183-page “Draft Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker” dated August 2007. The plan lists recovery costs (including money already spent) totaling $27,785,000 for the 5-year period from 2006-2010 – with delisting scheduled to be initiated in 2075 if recovery criteria are met.

A Feb, 20, 2007 article at the TNC website entitled, “Save of the Week,” explains how TNC teamed with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to secure an additional $7.1 million from the USDA CREP Program “to acquire* (another) 6,250 acres along the Cache River where the ivory-billed woodpecker was re-discovered in 2004.” (*the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program leases the farm croplands for 10 or 15 years and TNC acquires perpetual conservation easements on the farms.)

The farms are retired from producing crops and the Arkansas G&F monitors them to see that they don’t violate the restrictive easements. Meanwhile, TNC adds another 6,250 acres of conservation easements to the more than three million acres of easements it already owns, thereby increasing its net worth without paying income or property taxes on any transactions

Governor Praises Elimination of Farms

The TNC website quotes Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe; “For farm producers in the project area, it will provide significant financial incentives and rental payments to retire their low-yielding, hard-to-farm croplands. Equally important, it will serve to restore premium wetland and wildlife habitat within the Cache River and Bayou DeView watershed. It’s a win-win-win partnership.”

Rather than save the small farmer as TNC claims it will do with its tax relief bill in Idaho, it did just the opposite in Arkansas. Now the Arkansas Governor is telling even more farmers that they shouldn’t be farming or managing their own land but should give those rights up to TNC or a government agency in return for receiving 10 years of subsidy payments courtesy of the American taxpayer and licensed sportsmen.

In Idaho, “the restoration of premium wetland and wildlife habitat” praised by Governor Beebe, usually results in massive infestations of noxious weeds such as yellow starthistle and spotted knapweed that quickly become too costly to control – much less eradicate.

Is TNC Really Helping Farmers & Ranchers?

Most Idahoans are not surprised to learn that a group of former “Earth First!” activists were largely responsible for adoption of the Wildlands agenda by the UN in 1992. But the fact that TNC, with help from our natural resource managers, is the primary force facilitating the re-wilding of North America is difficult for many people to accept.

After all, TNC has acquired and preserved many of our natural scenic attractions for citizens to enjoy, while allowing limited sport hunting and fishing to continue on selected preserves. Yet there is little evidence that TNC is trying to encourage small farmers or ranchers to remain on the land and provide forage for wild game that hunters hunt.

Its website describes how it identifies target properties that will become Wildland Core Areas or Buffer Zones and, using cash and the lure of conservation tax savings, convinces a farmer, and then his neighbors to sell their lands to TNC below its appraised value. Then it advertises the lands for sale, to a selected list of “Conservation Buyers” and real estate brokers, at a substantially reduced price once the value of the conservation easement granted to TNC is deducted.

The federal tax savings are huge and, if the Idaho Legislature passes former Sen. Noh’s tax proposal, up to half a million dollars in state tax savings may be allowed for such purchases in Idaho. Unlike many of the easements negotiated with ranchers or farmers, the conservation buyers are normally allowed to exclude property from easements which can be utilized to provide a new home site and other developments.

Yet the land covered by the easement still qualifies as “agricultural land” for the tax savings if the new owner receives a minimum of only $1,000 per year in gross income from a small grazing lease – or temporarily idles fallow land (see I.C. Sec. 63-604[b][ii]). The tax perks plus the ability to enjoy a private game preserve or even a fishing or hunting lodge make this an attractive investment.

Representative Wood described to his fellow funding committee members how the purchase and lockup of large Idaho acreages by wealthy nonresidents has created a major loss of hunting access. But that is not the only way TNC and other non-hunting NGOs are adversely affecting hunter harvest of wild game in Idaho.

IDFG Preaches, Follows TNC Agenda

From IDFG Director Groen down through the biologists and C.O.s in the field, a repeated reference to “restoring native vegetation” as a substitute for active species management parrots the TNC agenda. As students, IDFG biologists were taught that passive hands-off wildlife management is practiced only in national parks which have become “nature’s classrooms.”

Yet wild game management elsewhere has now been replaced with people manipulation – the eco-religion of every game department employee in every state and province who wants to keep his or her job and advance in their chosen profession. That philosophy allows IDFG biologists to manage so-called “invasive species” such as yellow perch in Cascade Reservoir and pen-reared pheasants in WMAs, but does not allow management of native species like mule deer and grouse.

“Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act”

Few Idahoans seem aware that TNC’s efforts to restore 15th Century flora and fauna are also destroying rural America’s customs, culture and economy. Fewer still are aware of HR 1975 the “Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act” introduced in Congress on April 20, 2007 and supported by 187 Congressmen (only 31 short of the majority needed to pass).

This bill complements the Wildland acquisitions by TNC in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and would create 25 million acres of new wilderness in these three states, including 5 million acres in Wildlife Corridors connecting larger wilderness areas and 4 million acres of developed land that would be allowed to return to a “natural” state. This would nearly triple the amount of wilderness in the three states and would include the Greater Salmon-Selway and Hells Canyon Ecosytems in Idaho (plus some lands in Washington and Oregon).

The bill also adds 2,056 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers and creeks in the three states and would halt timber harvest and road building on every piece of roadless USFS land in the five states totaling 1,000 acres or more for potential wilderness consideration by the founders of the Wildlands Project.

Finally, this bill, which creates the “National Wildland Restoration and Recovery System,” and a “Wildland Recovery Corps,” has been introduced in similar form in the past eight sessions. Thanks to well-funded lobbying, it gains new Congressional supporters every month.

Undue Influence

A recent off-the-record boast by an IDFG official that the Commissioners take no action that is not approve by the Department reflects the agency’s attitude that they are running the show and the Commissioners are just a figurehead to provide the appearance of complying with Idaho law. When a new Commissioner is appointed by the Governor, Department employees conduct a training session telling him what his responsibilities are and how he must do his job.

From that point forward biologists and other employees feed him limited information, often in the form of a power point presentation which appears to support their recommendation, rather than provide the facts and the time necessary to make an informed decision. Commissioners don’t know enough about wildlife ecology to demand a forage inventory when declining populations are blamed on lack of habitat.

In fact the Commission spends far more time debating which special interest group gets the biggest slice of the pie or whether side-locks or in-lines are more effective, than demanding proof that creating wildlands benefits Idaho wildlife.

Hopefully, this lengthy discussion of biodiversity, species extinction and wildlands agendas will allow the wildlife diversity funding committee to take a closer look at what you are being asked to fund. New Jersey agreed to use general fund money to match the million or so dollars provided each year in federal SWG funds but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

If the CWCS program is not going to save any species from the massive extinction that isn’t really happening, does it make sense to continue subsidizing it? And if we do, should it remain under the Fish and Game roof? Senator Cameron asked some valid questions that deserve answers before we decide to pour more $millions into what appears to be a bottomless pit.

Posted by Tom Remington

Keith Sutton
15601 Mountain Dr.
Alexander, AR 72002
501-847-9643
catfishdude@sbcglobal.net

On a sunny February morning, a 12-year-old kid in blue jeans walks out the back door, grabs a single-shot 410 as he goes and heads for the back forty—a field of briar patches, broomsedge and brushy edges across the pasture from his home.

The boy doesn’t notice his feet scuffing through the weeds, but he can taste the dust he stirs. The smells of earth and grass and leaves fill his nose. He hears crows cawing in the distance. A cool breeze brushes his cheek.

In the grass up ahead, he glimpses a movement. Suddenly, his chest feels wrapped in rubber bands. His heart slams in his ears. He puts a shell in his shotgun and inches forward.

There they go! A thousand of ‘em in all directions! Everything’s a flurry of sound and dust and motion, but the lad finds his mark and then … it’s over.

He picks up the bobwhite he has killed, smoothes its feathers, then places the bird in the pocket of his hunting vest. He smiles, knowing his mother and grandmother will be proud. They’ll have quail for tomorrow’s breakfast.

The boy hunts the old field every chance he gets. It is a world full of bobwhites and cottontails and youthful adventure—the perfect place for a country kid growing up. And while he is there, hunting and exploring, the boy grows up.

The field looks smaller now. I stopped there with a friend last week and looked out across it. Nothing has changed much in thirty-five years. Nothing but its size.

That seemed strange at first. How could a place that once seemed so enormous, a landscape I could explore for weeks without discovering all its secrets, now seem so small?

I pondered the question that night while reminiscing about those boyhood days, and decided the answer must be this: A place seems bigger when you are there alone.

Looking back, I realized that when I hunted the old field, I always hunted there alone.

The reasons I hunted alone came back to me as well. I had plenty of friends who enjoyed chasing rabbits and quail as much as me, and all would have loved to accompany me on my hunts in the field. My mother, however, would not allow it.

She bought my first shotgun when I was twelve—a little single-shot 410 from Sears—and when she placed it in my hands on my birthday, she looked in my eyes and told me I could hunt with it near home, but unless I was with an adult, I must hunt with it alone.

I was young, but I understood. My nineteen-year-old cousin had been killed in a hunting accident the year before, an accident where a hunting companion had shot at a sound in the brush. It was a senseless tragedy that had a profound effect on our extended family, and on my mother in particular. Try as she might, she couldn’t forget that horrible mishap.

Mom knew, however, I was destined to be a hunter. Her father had been a hunter and his father and his father before him. My uncles were hunters, and my cousins and my friends. I, too, would be a hunter. But if Mom had to cope with that reality, she would do so in her own way. She would worry less if I hunted by myself where accidents were less likely to happen.

And so, at her behest, I hunted the field alone.

More than three decades have passed, but I remember every detail.

The field was covered with golden broom sedge and scattered patches of blackberries and sumac. To reach it, I walked through the pasture and climbed through a barbed-wire fence behind my uncle’s barn.

There was a little opening in the fencerow cover where fleeing cottontails would appear for just an instant. Occasionally, in that instant, one fell to my gun.

Quail liked to feed in a patch of beggarweed on the field’s far side, so I approached this spot cautiously on every visit …. and still got spooked out of my wits every time a covey flushed.

On a little rise on the east side, I often sat beneath an ancient oak and watched beavers and ducks in a small pond.

In the pecan orchard on one edge, I hunted squirrels that Mom stewed with dumplings or fried for breakfast.

That first year, the year I was twelve, I hunted the field almost daily—always alone. Age thirteen was a turning point. Mom still worried about my safety, but she agreed I could hunt with friends she trusted.

Even so, when I hunted the field, I hunted there alone. It had become by then a special realm where outsiders weren’t welcome. It had become my field full of my cottontails and my quail. Hunts with friends occurred elsewhere.

I don’t know for sure when I quit hunting the field. I do know that when I did, I still often hunted alone. Going solo became a way to escape and recharge my batteries. Still is.

And when I’m out there alone, the place I’m visiting still seems bigger … because I’m alone.

That is one reason, perhaps, I still treasure the occasional moments I’m able to spend in the field, or in the woods, or on the water, with no other person in sight. Every day, our world seems increasingly smaller and more crowded with people. But when I’m by myself, it doesn’t seem that way any more. I can imagine I’m the only human for miles around.

And though I know it’s only an illusion, it’s an illusion that keeps me sane.

I was at a friend’s house recently when his twelve-year-old son came in and asked his mom if he could go hunting by himself in the field behind his family’s home. “I’d rather you didn’t go alone,” his mother said. “What if something happened? Why don’t you call Bobby and see if he can go with you?”

Times change. Perspectives change. People change.

I’ve changed. If Mom were still alive, I’d tell her that I changed for the better because of a decision she made when I was just twelve.

She sent me out alone because she feared for my safety. In doing so, she allowed me to mature in ways she’d never imagined.

Out there, alone, I witnessed life and death. I saw beauty and blood. I felt exhilaration and sadness. I learned that success tastes sweet and defeat need not taste bitter.
In a field alone, I became a hunter.

Get Keith’s new book:

Out There Fishing