Family and friends, including all of us here at Skinny Moose Media, Maine Hunting Today, Maine Fishing Today and U.S. Hunting Today, are mourning the passing of a great husband, father and friend. Sayward passed away on Thursday, May 29, 2008.

An unbelievably talented man, Sayward accomplished many things in his life but none compare to the impact he left on anyone and everyone who met him. His addictive joy for life and everything around him was what made him the great man he was.

Born in Rangeley, Maine, Sayward moved to West Paris at a very young age and grew up in that community attending local schools. He hunted and fished for over sixty-five years and celebrated that occasion last year by compiling his many stories in a book called, “Deer Tails and Other Tales”.

After retirement, Sayward and his wife Cynthia of 60 years, spent their summers at their cottage on North Pond in Woodstock, Maine and wintering at their home in Plant City, Florida, where he and life-long friend, Milt Inman, would go chasing alligators and generally getting into mischief.

Some of his God-given talents included tying his own flies for fishing, constructing calls for his love of turkey hunting, woodworking, building furniture, crafting wooden boats, my favorite being his cedar strip canoes and paddles. Sayward took up the fine art of carving later in life, creating some finely detailed fish and birds. He won several awards both in Maine and Florida carving shows.

Aside from his genuine warmth and love, I will always miss Sayward’s stories. I have laughed so many times as I sat and listened to story after story and marveled how one man could experience so many things in the ways that he did.

Sayward loved his community and all the people who were part of it. He gave so much for others to enjoy.

You will be missed my dear friend!

Tom Remington and all the staff at Skinny Moose Media

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that many of the same groups that sued the state of Maine last year over inadvertent trapping of Canada lynx, are once again threatening a lawsuit if the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife doesn’t immediately take actions to stop the trapping of the lynx.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute will join together to force the state to take action.

“Lynx are still being taken illegally in traps set for other animals, in traps smaller [than] those covered by the consent decree, and in areas not covered by the consent decree,” wrote Judith Brawer, an attorney for the two organizations.

“If DIFW refuses to take immediate action to protect lynx from traps, more lynx will be illegally taken, further violating the ESA, and thus we will be forced to pursue legal action before the start of the upcoming trapping season.”

Last year the Animal Protection Institute, which is thought to have released deadly cobra snakes in North Carolina to scare the public, sued the state to protect the lynx and won. After that ruling by the court last October, in a previous article I said this:

We know that these groups’ long range intentions are to rid the U.S. of hunting, fishing and trapping. Any weakness in the armor of state’s fish and game provides opportunity for lawsuits. MDIFW should have been more vigilant to protect the interests of the trappers in this case. They should never have taken the risk and assumed anything. Let’s hope they take a lesson from this act.

Were we ignorant enough to think these groups would stop at that one court’s decision? Some day sportsmen and staff of MDIFW will realize there is never an end, especially when weakness on the part of the state and the sportsmen are shown.

Tom Remington

Oh, my! For as long as man has taken to the woods, he has searched and searched for that magic “formula” that will keep biting insects away. For as long as man has searched for the secret there have been too-numerous-to-count “wives tales” formulas that “really do work”.

Take for example the blog I posted back in March about the use of Listerine mouth wash as an insect repellent. There have been over 30 comments from people who swear by it and those who will laugh in your face should you mention it.

The things that man has tried to beat off the swarming mosquitoes, black flies, chiggers, etc. could leave the most knowledgeable research scientist scratching his head. Some of those concocted formulas could kill or repel bigger things than tiny insects I’m sure but our quest remains undaunted. The search must go on.

One of the best known killers of insects, DDT – Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane – is banned from use here in the U.S. Growing up in rural Maine in the 50s and 60s, my small home town budgeted money each year in order to hire a spray plane to criss-cross the village air space spraying DDT to kill unwanted bugs. I can honestly say it worked. It was a rare occasion to be playing baseball on the town’s Little League field and find a biting insect. Of course there were no songbirds and the like either but we didn’t get bitten.

Some of my growing up buddies and I laugh even today as we relive the days when the spray plane arrived so we could run outside, look up toward the clouds and wait to feel the mist of DDT fall gently on our faces. All that and there’s nothing wrong with me….wrong with me……wrong with me……wrong with me……wrong with me……

Sorry, I don’t know what happened.

Later came the development of DEET – N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide. DEET has been used for several years now as a repellent, whereas DDT was a kill-em-dead-on-contact pesticide. DEET has been relatively effective but isn’t recommended to be used on your skin, especially on kids.

DEET seemed to work best on mosquitoes to repel them but scientists really didn’t know why until recently a study seemed to indicate that it makes human scent “invisible” to those biting, vicious and hungry insects. With that to work on, could it be that someday someone will discover a different “chemical” that will even be more effective than DEET with no residual side affects – unlike what has happened to me?

Black Bear Blog reader “jes” sent me an email yesterday with a link to a National Public Radio story about just such a thing. You can read or listen to it for yourself but here’s an interesting tidbit from the story.

“And we’re finding lots of interesting things that look nothing like DEET that are much more potent, at least in the lab,”

Is it really that simple? Could it be that once someone seemingly discovers how DEET works, researchers have been able to “model” other things that will work as good or better? If so, why has it taken so long?

Kelli Miller Staci for WebMD has a bit more information on the work done by researchers at the University of Florida on insect repellents. The article goes a bit further than that of NPR in actually telling us what these “magic” chemicals are that work better than DEET.

Alan Katritzky of the University of Florida and colleagues used artificial neural networking software to predict how certain compounds called N-acylpiperidines would keep mosquitoes from feeding on human flesh. N-acylpiperidines are related to the active ingredient in pepper. The researchers identified 23 strong candidates, which they expected to be as effective as DEET.

So, there you have it. The newest information on how to repel insects. Simply douse yourself in pepper and head outdoors. Maybe not so fast. I think there might be more to this.

What I do find interesting though is that “under laboratory conditions” DEET is said to be able to repel mosquitoes for an average of 17.5 days and these new pepper-based ingredients will last up to 73 days. I can tell you from experience that DEET products in the “deep woods” will not repel mosquitoes for 17.5 days. Perhaps 17.5 minutes before the next dose needs administering.

And do we really want to repel those dastardly bugs anyway? Don’t those biting, unrelenting insects work as a repellent of their own? I had a short exchange of emails with the same reader, “jes” and he brought up an interesting question or two.

But I wonder if “the bugs” (especially in FL) don’t determine two important aspects: one how long or if we spend any time at all in the woods, hunting, etc. and how comfortable we are there. And two, how many woods will be left for wildlife if the bugs are gone…(it seems to slow development), in FL, at least!

Never fear “jes”! There just might be protection for those biting insects and their natural human repellent might just be able to do the trick. Many of you might recall last October I told you about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issuing the “Draft Mosquito Management Plan“.

I didn’t read anything in that plan that would call for the control of insect repellents, only pesticides but you can be sure that in this day of animal rights extremists and their undaunting affection with the courts, they will find a way to stop us humans from repelling biting insects.

The good news in all this seems to be that there may be hope on the horizon that we can get relief from biting insects with something that may not be as harmful as DEET. I would suppose that for those with allergies to pepper, you’ll need to hope for something else.

AAHHH CHEEEEEEWWWW!

Tom Remington

Clinton, McCain and Obama at Odds With 90%+ of Americans

Washington, D.C. – Just as the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on the Lieberman-Warner America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), a new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose.

The poll, conducted by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points — or 35% — in just over two months. The National Center conducted a similar survey in late February.

An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would push prices even higher.

The survey also found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.

A study commissioned jointly by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers estimated that the Lieberman-Warner proposal would increase electricity prices by between 13% and 14% by 2014. Other econometric studies indicate that Lieberman-Warner would push electricity costs even higher.

When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of Americans reject Lieberman-Warner plan’s costs — even the low-range of the projected costs.

“As incredible as it sounds that 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan’s costs, the actual number who reject it may be even higher. Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this proposal,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americans would lose their jobs. You can’t merely accept energy price increases and opt out of all the other costs.”

“As amazing as it is that 90% of the public agrees on anything,” added Ridenour, “is the fact that all three of the major prudential candidates — Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama — favor a proposal the public appears to be almost unanimously against.”

The America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), which could be voted on in the U.S. Senate as early as June 2, would place strict caps on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that power plants, fuel refiners and producers, chemical producers and other manufacturers may release into the atmosphere. The proposal — frequently referred to as a “cap-and-trade” plan — would also establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act’s sponsors estimate that the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050.

Respondents to The National Center’s survey were provided with a brief description of what America’s Climate Security Act would do and then asked how much more they would be willing to pay for gasoline and electricity to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

They were given the choice between “nothing more,” percentage increases correlating to estimates from three different econometric studies of Lieberman-Warner, and a percentage increase just below the most optimistic of these projections.

The poll used studies from Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and from the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers.

The National Center used all three studies because the findings of the studies varied widely.

“There’s been a robust debate over which economic analysis is accurate. Proponents believe that lower-range cost estimates strengthen their case for approval of the plan, while opponents believe higher-range cost estimates strengthen the case against it. That debate turns out to be irrelevant,” said Ridenour. “Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman no matter which study is closer to the mark. Just 6% would be willing to accept the gasoline and electricity price increase ranges forecast by any of the three studies.”

Opposition to higher gas prices was particularly pronounced among minorities, with 72% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics opposed to paying any more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This compares with 64% of whites opposing paying more.

Hispanics led the way in opposition to higher electricity prices, with 77% opposed to spending any more for electricity, compared to 71% of whites and 69% of blacks saying they were not willing to spend more.

The poll was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% Independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.

The National Center is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. It is a truly independent foundation, with approximately 99% of its funding coming from some 72,000 active individual donors.

Posted by Tom Remington

Here’s one story you seldom hear about. Maine hunter and outdoor writer, Blaine Cardilli – a contributing writer for U.S. Hunting Today – was recently attacked by a coyote while turkey hunting with a friend.

Cardilli was turkey hunting with friend Orrin Parker. The two were fully camouflaged and set up for turkey hunting. Cardilli was using a slate call to call in gobblers for his friend when he was hit hard from the backside and toward his left by a full grown adult coyote. Cardilli thinks the coyote had been stalking his slate calls and picked up on his movements while calling.

The coyote hit hard and quick. Cardilli described it to me this way.

The coyote launched itself with enough force to knock me over, the impact of which even knocked out a filling! The coyote bit through 3 layers of my shirts and left puncture wounds and a few teeth scratchings on my arm but it got away.

Parker whirled around in response to the attack in time to witness the coyote making rapid retreat into the dense forest.

Cardilli says he learned a valuable lesson when calling turkeys and plans to keep a closer eye out for stalking coyotes.

There is one other tragedy with this story. I talked further with Blaine and discovered that he is undergoing rabies treatment, the cost of which is around $1,600-$2,000. He has no insurance and can’t afford to continue the treatments which could be a big risk. If anyone is so inclined to help Blaine out, please email me tom@ushuntingtoday.com and I will put you in touch with Blaine.

Tom Remington

Placing land in a conservation easement seems to be growing in popularity, especially with a troubled economy and rising property taxes. Sometimes these easements can give a landowner tax relief. What else can it give you? The following comes to us from the National Center for Public Policy Research. If you or someone you knows is considering doing this, they should make sure they completely understand all the ramifications that will affect them in the near and the long term.

LANDOWNERS BEWARE -
THE GOVERNMENT’S FOUND A NEW WAY TO CONTROL YOUR LAND

Conservation Easements Not What They Used to Be, Says New Report

Washington, D.C. – Under the guise of making more land accessible for the public’s use and providing tax relief for land-rich but cash-poor landowners, the government has found a convenient way to restrict the use of private land – often without the original landowner’s knowledge. Enter The Nature Conservancy and other large land trust conglomerates that approach farmers or large landowners with what seems like a “win-win” for all involved. In return for donating their land for conservation purposes, the landowners are provided with federal and state tax breaks and agree never to convert, develop or use the land for any purpose other than farming or ranching.

A total of 37 million acres of land throughout the United States are currently under the control of land trusts.

However, according to a new report by the National Center for Public Policy Research titled, “Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” all-too-often that acquired land, placed under “conservation easements,” goes from the land trust right into the governing hands of the largest landowner in the United States, the federal government. Dana Joel Gattuso, author of the report and senior fellow of the National Center, explains these “prearranged flips” provide a back door approach to acquiring land control that is good for the government and the original land trust, but bad for the unsuspecting landowner, who has been kept out of the loop.

How profitable is it for conglomerates like The Nature Conservancy to participate in flips? Gattuso cites their annual report, which states about a fifth of the land trust’s annual support and revenues come from the sales of easements to the government. “In one example, The Nature Conservancy bought an easement for $1.26 million, then directly sold it to the federal Bureau of Land Management for $1.4 million,” she says. The Nature Conservancy certainly isn’t alone, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, one of that state’s largest land trusts, has sold more than 700 of its 850 easements to the state and federal government.

Besides being able to take control over more and more land, “Government agencies like the arrangements because they are able to restrict activity on private property absent public approval, unlike land purchases, zoning laws and other land conservation regulations, which can draw heated opposition – and great angst,” Gattuso says. According to a Department of Agriculture report on easements, “conservation easements provide opportunities for public agencies to influence resource use without incurring the political costs of regulation or the full financial costs of outright land acquisition.” It is troubling that “easements, absent reforms, could evolve into the prevailing method for government to shift lands unobtrusively from private to public control under a pretense of private stewardship,” she states.

This trend toward more government involvement in land trusts troubles Gattuso. While conservation easements “have become the rage in land conservation – rising in number from 740 in 1995 to 6,500 today – so has the role of government and government’s influence over land trusts.” Initially, the benefits of land trust involvement with easements created the possibility of an effective land stewardship program. “Yet land trusts, particularly the larger organizations, are changing their focus from independent and private approaches, to working in tandem with government agencies in an effort to assist government in controlling private lands,” she cautions.

Gattuso says the biggest reason landowners enter into a conservation agreement is to obtain relief from burdensome taxes – especially death taxes, which break up well-managed lands. Tax benefits are extended to everyone, from wealthy landowners who own hundreds of thousands of acres to struggling farmers who have inherited a hundred-acre farm. These easements, however, extend into perpetuity and can become a big concern when future generations inherit the affected land, the report says. Environmentalists presently view this as beneficial, but what is ecologically-beneficial one day, may not be the next. Legal and policy experts agree these binding agreements that extend into perpetuity “ultimately become antiquated and, therefore, useless or even harmful. The rule fails to recognize that conservation needs – as well as definitions of scenic, aesthetic and cultural – change over time, and that the easement may eventually lose any ecological benefit or even become a detriment. Modern views in ecology hold that the environment is in a constant change rather than in search of a stable end-state,” Gattuso reports.

Robert J. Smith, also a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research and a foremost authority on property rights, shares Gattuso’s concerns. “Short-term conservation easements were once considered a method to protect lands short of fee simple acquisition. But over time they have morphed into perpetual lock up of lands in a single use. This is not only disastrous from an environmental viewpoint, because nature is forever changing – but it is also the antithesis of a free market because they preclude all future choice,” he says.

Additional problems with tragic consequences arise when there are different interpretations of what a conservation easement allows. There is no shortage of landowners who offer their own disastrous story of their involvement with conservation easements. As an example, the Property Rights Foundation of America cites the case of a farmer who bought a 42-acre property in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Wanting to build a farmhouse to house three generations of his family, he didn’t expect to run into any problem with a conservation easement that had been placed on the land. The easement noted the land could be used only for farming or nature conservation, and for small buildings related to those uses. However, the French and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust sued to stop the construction, claiming the farmhouse did not fall within the parameters of what was allowed to be built on the land. A judge with the Chester County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the farmer and noted the construction of the farmhouse “does not offend the easement definition of a ‘small building’ incidental to farming use.” Construction on the farmhouse continued and so did the legal stranglehold the Trust held against the family. The Trust appealed the judge’s decision all the way to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Ultimately, the tragedy of how these conservation easements can be misunderstood is evidenced by the bulldozing of the family’s farmhouse, which destroyed the dreams of three generations of family farmers and 15 years of savings.

The paper, “Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” by Dana Joel Gattuso is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html .

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill.

Tom Remington

This holiday weekend is a time to reflect back and remember all those who sacrificed that we might be free in the greatest land God gave to us.

Tom Remington

Biologists for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have pretty much determined that this past winter’s severity took a huge toll on the state’s whitetail deer herd, particularly in the Northern and Downeast portions of the state. The MDIFW Advisory Council approved the recommendations and as a result, no “Any-Deer” permits will be issued in Wildlife Management Districts 1 – 14, 18, 19, 27 and 28 (See map to the left. Gray-shaded WMDs will be “bucks only”).

This is a reduction of more than 14,000 “doe permits” from the number of 66,000 issued last year.

The only exception to the rule of hunting for bucks only in these WMDs is Youth Day. Youth participating in that special day will still be able to take a doe. According to Kevin Miller, Bangor Daily News, the feedback officials at MDIFW got from the public about the possibilities of reducing or eliminating “Any-Deer” permits, was all in favor of no doe hunting but were outspoken about retaining the practice for the Youth Day.

But the council, acting with the support of DIF&W leadership, decided to let young hunters continue targeting doe deer on Youth Deer Day throughout the state. The annual event is intended to cultivate future generations of sportsmen and women.

DIF&W Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin said none of the small number of speakers at two public hearings or those who submitted written comments disagreed with the department’s decision to reduce the number of any-deer permits.

But pretty much everyone who voiced an opinion opposed the plan to restrict Youth Deer Day participants who are hunting in a bucks-only district, Martin said.

“As a result, youth will be allowed to continue to hunt as usual,” Martin said.

It sounds like officials at MDIFW listened to the public and responded accordingly.

Wildlife officials are already speculating that the deer hunt in 2009 will continue to see reductions of “Any-Deer” permits as well. Biologists believe that in the hardest hit areas nearly all the fawns and yearlings did not survive.

Tom Remington

On May 15th, students from Telstar Regional High School and the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance teamed up for a river clean-up between Gilead and Bethel, divided into two groups each covering half of that stretch of river. The effort was part of the National River Clean Up.

Wende Gray, representative of the UAAA, sent me the following photos and this comment.

Tom-Here are a selection of photos from the River Clean-Up We were able to get about 1+ tons of trash including a bed spring, car bumper, lots of scrap metal, tires, a 400 pound boiler, old outboard motor and I found a pair of men’s underwear at Davis Park! Thanks to Mike Madore of Pleasant River Campground who put on a great barbecue for us after the event.

Posted by Tom Remington

Consider this if you will. Fred owns a small farm. In the middle of his property he discovered he had a good source of water, water that he could use for his home and to water and care for what few animals he had on his farm.

A city dweller bought a lot of land next door to Fred and decided to build a home. The city dweller considered digging his own well but didn’t think it would look good and might be detrimental to the environment, so he worked out an agreement to buy his water from Fred.

On the other side of Fred, another buyer purchased a lot of land and built a house. This new buyer, being an acquaintance of the city dweller, also opted not to dig or drill his own well. Instead, he too bought his water from Fred.

Fred is not an idiot and soon he realized that he could sell quite a few people water and right now he still had all the water he needed for his own use. Fred continued to sell water. More people moved to the area and bought Fred’s water until one day he realized he had to stop selling water to more people because he was running out.

People demanded his water for their needs. They had lawns to water and cars to wash, as well as swimming pools to fill. As demand rose, Fred decided he had to charge more for his water. He brought in water experts who told him that he really couldn’t get anymore water by digging more wells. Fred continued to raise the price of water all the while more people moved into the area, all refusing to dig their own wells but seemingly unaffected by the rising cost of his water.

Eventually, Fred was now making $5.00 for every gallon of water he sold and his buyers were getting mad. The neighbors got together and appointed a spokesperson to go talk to Fred and demand that he dig more wells and lower his price of water. Fred said he couldn’t do that and suggested that they needed to start digging wells on their own land so that they would have water at a cheaper price and not have to be dependent on Fred for his water.

They refused claiming that they would not spoil the pristine beauty of their land and refused to have to be subjected to looking out their back window and seeing a well. Certainly this would decrease their property values and cause environmental damage that could destroy our planet.

Fred suggested that if they were not willing to dig for their own water, they would have to reduce the amount of water they used but the neighbors would have nothing to do with that. Altering their lifestyles was not an option. Most people could well afford Fred’s water. They just didn’t think it was right that Fred was making money by selling a commodity that people depended on.

Fred once again raised the price of his water. When neighbors complained again, he told them he had other neighborhoods who had discovered that they needed more water and were willing to pay a higher price. This angered Fred’s neighbors who now claimed they were entitled to Fred’s water, once again demanding he lower his price and increase production. Fred refused.

The neighborhood coalition met the following week, hired an attorney and decided they were going to sue Fred because he refused to dig more wells.

Tom Remington

Terence Jeffrey, Townhall.com, tries to piece together a puzzle on how polar bear populations are calculated. Perhaps calculated is the use of a word that too accurately describes what takes place.

Most of you who visit the Black Bear Blog often, know that I am, generally speaking, a defender of wildlife biologists. Their work is not easy to begin with and that work is often handcuffed by lack of funds, politics and a general disagreement from the general population of humans.

Jeffrey’s article takes a look at some of the history of making polar bear population estimates dating back as far as the 1950s. What he presents doesn’t give us a lot of hope that anyone really knows just how many polar bears there are or were.

“There was considerable debate and disagreement about the use of point estimates for subpopulations that we really do not know much about,” said the proceedings.

“There was further discussion and some agreement that there should be separate columns for estimates based on science and estimates based on something else,” it said.

We often hear the term “best available science”, which I think is pretty much self-explanatory. We can only assume that when rendering decisions such as the most resent one by the Department of the Interior to list the polar bear as “threatened”, they used “best available science”. My question is this. Is best available science good enough?

I am an advocate for change concerning the Endangered Species Act. The time has come when the Act, as is being administered and interpreted by the courts, is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States and in many cases the animals it is intended to protect.

The time has come for change. Do we need a complete re-write, total abolishment or some tweaking here and there? One thing we may be learning in the near future is just how devastating this recent decision may be on our economy. I have even thought of the possibility that this decision, whether we like it or not or want to believe it, is aimed at driving environmental policies and can have just the opposite affect. If we examine populations of humans worldwide, we see a general trend that the poorer countries contribute more pollution per capita than wealthy countries like the U.S. Would a devastated U.S. economy, driven at least in part by the listing of a polar bear, actually tend toward increases in environmental pollution here?

Getting back to the polar bear population estimations. Again, we assume the best available science is used to determine bear numbers. Is that good enough? I don’t know of anyone who will argue the fact that we just don’t know how many polar bears there are in the world.

Judging from the information given us in Jeffrey’s article, is there reason for us to feel confident that the present world polar population is between 20,000 and 25,000? If we’re that so unsure, should we be making a decision that could potentially cripple our economy based on the best available guesses?

Experts who are fully familiar with working within the Endangered Species Act repeatedly state that the Act lends itself to be manipulated and abused by environmentalists and animal rights groups, often leaving the courts not a lot of leeway in rendering decisions. This is one reason for the continued onslaught of lawsuits. This has to change.

One suggestion would be to change the ESA so that it would require an accurate count of a species before any listing be done that can have the potential to cripple our economy. It’s a tough enough pill to have to swallow when I sit and begin thinking about what real affects this listing will have but knowing that this decision was reached using a glorified guessing game is unsatisfactory to me.

Yes, getting an accurate count on polar bears or other species will be very expensive but when you consider the future costs of the decision to be made, it just might be money well spent.

I think Jeffrey sums it up nicely at the end of his article when he says this:

Almost 50 years ago, polar bear scientists first estimated there might be as many as 19,000 polar bears. Three years ago, they estimated there might be as few as 20,000.

Who knows? By the time the government decrees polar bears not merely threatened, but endangered, there may be as few as 30,000 roaming the Arctic wastes.

Tom Remington

I received a copy of a letter sent to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection written by Greg Ziolkowski Sr. The letter is in regards to the management of black bears in New Jersey and efforts to restore the black bear hunting season as part of a scientific and viable means of management. Here is that letter.

DEP Black Bear Management Comments 2007 Page 1 of 2

Metuchen N.J. 08840-4616

Posted by Tom Remington