blacktailslayer

Here are a few reasons why I think the Elknut video's are some of the best out on the market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ute21vX44TM

This thread is about the NEW interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and how it may change the future of hunting; with the current wolf issue as an example. I have learned something new today from a guy that has worked his whole life in Fish and Wildlife law and policies. He has worked 4 years for the Department of the Interior and several years in the Senate. The Bush and Obama administration are the only administrations to let certain states de-list a species off the ESA, while keeping a species still listed in another state. An example is the wolves being de-listed in ID and MT, while still being listed in WY. As I said in my first post; a species has to go through the exact same process (mirror image) getting listed and also de-listed. The Bush and Obama administrations have interpreted the ESA as they like. There is no law that states if a species can be listed and de-listed one state at a time or if a species across the country has to be listed and de-listed all at once. The problem is that the wolves were listed under the ESA across the country as a whole. Now they are being de-listed one state at a time. This is what an organization is going to use in court about the wolves. Not only have the wolves been listed and de-listed in two different ways (from a legal stand point). There could be good and bad from listing and de-listing by small individual regions. The good is what we have seen with the wolves. The bad can be endless. Here are some quick examples: 1. There could be no limit to boundaries. We could see species listed in single states, counties, mountains, single ridge, or even a 1 acre field. 2. If a small region in a state had poor calve elk or fawn deer recruitment; we may see them get listed under the ESA! 3. Predators impacting game herds too much? We may see game herds affected by predators get listed under the ESA! Everyone that knows me can understand my passion for hunting and wildlife. I do kind of understand why the wolf issue should be back in the courts. Not necessarily because of the wolves themselves, but because of the way the administration wants to de-list the wolves and the possible negative outcome it could have on everyone including hunters in the future. If WY would get their act together with their wolf management plan; then all the states with wolves could have gotten de-listed at the same time. That would have kept this mess of the wolves being back in the courts here in the near future from even happening. The Bush and Obama administration is also to blame. They may however have the power to keep their own interpretation of the ESA. Time will tell. We may have to fear that if this interpretation stays; we may see unit by unit with poor game herd counts be put on the ESA. That could spell the end of hunting as we know it! Does anyone out there think we as hunters need to make a stand and push for the Obama administration to go back to the old way of listing and de-listing species? This may be exactly what the animal rights groups are looking for. I’m kind of at the middle here and would like to hear everyone’s thoughts. Please keep this thread clean and open. It could decide the future of hunting as we know it.

some info from there web site: Since its founding in 1993, the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust has worked with private landowners to create more than 100 permanent wildlife sanctuaries in 37 states and seven foreign countries. On these sanctuaries recreational and commercial hunting and trapping will always be prohibited. The Wildlife Land Trust, alone or in collaboration with a variety of partners, has been involved in the protection of millions of acres of wildlife habitat. As a proud affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, the WLT joins in campaigns to protect wildlife from cruel and indefensible practices such as poaching, steel-jawed leghold traps, Internet hunting and canned shoots.

Just thought that I would let everyone know that the wolf issue will be back in court; guaranteed when it is allowed. I talked with a guy (very informative and a long history in wildlife politics) and he said his organization is planning on taking the wolf issue back to court. They are either going to want each state to change something in their management plan or the mechanism in which the process has happened getting the wolves de-listed be reviewed. The guy is not going to be a part of the court case at all, but the organization he works for is. Something like this is going to have to show some type of science on why a certain states management plan is not good for the wolf or prove the delisting mechanism used to de-list the wolves was different than what was used to put the wolves on the ESA. Species have to be put on and taken off the ESA using the same process and such. He told me that the wolves will be in the courts for the next few years, but it is up to the courts to decide if the wolves should stay listed or de-listed while the case is going on. Even if the wolves are de-listed; the federal government will watch each state for 5 years and see how their management of the wolves goes. That is how part of the ESA works. After those five years; a state can decide to do whatever they want. A state can even decide to wipe out all the wolves; if they choose. There is no law preventing this from happening. The only problem is public’s opinion, animal rights groups, and the possibility of the federal government taking control back. It is however possible, that wolves could be wiped out all together. Not that it will ever happen or if that is even the ethical thing to do. I have read that ranchers in eastern Oregon want to amend the Oregon wolf management plan to allow them to shoot or hunt down wolves that have killed their livestock. This may be a bad idea, since it will give groups fuel in cases to put the wolves back on the ESA list. It may show that the states are not capable of managing the wolves for recovery and that the federal government should keep the control under the ESA. We need to do everything we can to work with the states and even the federal government to help keep the wolves de-listed. Everything that we say and do will only fuel the fire in the courts and show that the states and people are not ready to manage the wolves. We should ask ourselves if we really want the wolves de-listed. It is very easy to get the wolf issue tied up in court for years and very hard to keep them de-listed and start a hunting season. ID, WY, MT may have to deal with some major problems because of court cases through the future. I hope Oregon and Washington can learn from this and get through all the court cases before our wolf population gets out of hand. We don’t have many wolves right now and should be thankful. We may see the Oregon wolf management plan increase in the number of wolf packs go up in the future. Don’t blame this on Oregon or the ODFW. The ESA is what keep Oregon from having a say if the wolves should be allowed or not in this state. The federal government and the ESA always have a say over the states, such as Oregon. Organizations are using the wording in the ESA; to keep this issue wrapped up in the courts. I’m sure they will find the 88-100 wolves that Oregon will allow in this state not enough and want the management plan to change and allow more. Oregon may see the plan go from 100 wolves in the state go up to 1,000 wolves. Time will only tell. I’m not sure on what we can do, but will try to get more information.

I found this on another website. 'One of the ads running lately on ESPN radio is for the “Wildlife Land Trust.” The WLT is an offshoot of the US Humane Society. Has anyone else heard this ad? I am curious if it is running in different areas, or just in my local area? I want to know if I need to complain to ESPN corporate or my local affiliate. I would imagine that a lot of ESPN listeners are sportsmen who feel like myself and would like this ad removed. I intend to make my feelings known, will you make yours heard too? "

Interesting thought... http://accurateshooter.wordpress.co...dimpled-bullet/ (link above has full illustrations) At the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, a team of ballistics technicians, supported by some of the U.S. Army’s top sniper instructors, has been quietly developing a radical new “dimpled” bullet. The exterior of the bullet resembles the dimpled surface of a golf ball. The function of the special dimpled skin is to reduce projectile drag, providing a flatter long-range trajectory, and greater retained energy at the target. .338 Projectile with MIM Exo-Jacket (3D-CAD Artist’s Rendering) In their pursuit of a lower-drag bullet, the Army tried a variety of designs, including bullets with circumferential drive bands, dual-radius ogives, and rebated boat-tails. The dimpled “golf-ball” design was considered a “long shot” according to the design team, but it has performed beyond all expectations. The nominal drag coefficient (Cd) has improved by about +.040, while cartridge muzzle velocity has increased by nearly 80+ fps because the bullet’s dimpled skin reduces in-barrel friction. What’s more — the terminal performance of the dimpled bullet has been “spectacular”. The Aberdeen team set out to produce a slightly more slippery bullet for U.S. Army snipers. What they ended up with is a bullet with dramatically enhanced long-range ballistics and superior killing power on “soft targets”. Lt. Col. Ben Eldrick, Long-Range Projectile Project (LRPP) team leader, told AccurateShooter.com how the radical bullet was conceived: “During our initial design work, we wanted the benefits of a high-BC, pointed bullet, but in a design that could be mass-produced and could work as a tracer. We consulted some of the top civilian bullet experts, including ballistician Bryan Litz of Berger Bullets. Mr. Litz really got the ball rolling. He suggested that the ‘next big step’ in bullet design would involve the turbulent boundary layer over the body of the bullet. Litz told us that ‘pointing bullet tips will take you only so far… think about optimizing the airflow over the entire bullet’. That made a lot of sense to us. When you design a race car to be aerodynamic, you sculpt the whole body, not just the front bumper.” Lt. Col. Eldrick continued: “It turns out Litz was right on the money. By employing a golf-ball type dimpled surface, we were able to optimize the turbulent boundary layer on the bullet body. This reduced the low-pressure wake zone behind the bullet significantly, resulting in reduced base drag. As a result the bullet experiences much less overall drag, effectively raising the BC.” The Army team had discovered that what works for golf balls also works for bullets. After testing a series of prototypes, the Aberdeen bullet design team settled on a copper-jacketed bullet with dimples about 0.5 mm in diameter. The first-generation bullets were formed in special binary impact swages that press-form the dimples after the bullets were pointed up in conventional dies. Future production bullets will be made with an advanced metal-injection-molding (MIM) process that forms the dimples directly into the surface of the bullets. Rather than simply wrap the core material (which is classified), the MIM is molecularly bonded to the core. The Aberdeen LRPP team calls this “Exo-Jacket” construction, as in “Exo-Skeleton”. Higher Velocities Achieved There was a surprise benefit of the dimpled bullet design — higher muzzle velocities. Given the same powder charge, dimpled bullets exit the muzzle faster because they produce less in-barrel friction than do conventional bullets. This is because the recessed dimples effectively reduce the metal-on-metal bearing surface. Lt. Col. Eldrick revealed: “the added velocity was an unexpected bonus. With equal-pressure loads, dimpled .308 bullets will fly about 80 fps faster than normal .308 bullets. With the large .338-caliber projectiles, the difference is even greater… we can pick up nearly 150 fps.” Given the observed velocity gains achieved with dimpled bullets, Aberdeen designers are now working on dimpled shell casings for larger artillery projectiles. Dimpled Jacket Delivers ‘Explosive’ Fragmentation While the internal design and core materials of the new dimpled bullet remain classified, the design team revealed that the terminal performance of the new bullet has been “spectacular”. The bullet penetrates like a FMJ but then explosively fragments, resulting in a devastating energy release in the target. According to Capt. Jack Sarazen, an Aberdeen engineer, “the enhanced terminal performance of the dimpled bullet was unanticipated. This was a serendipitous effect of the slight thinning of the jacket material where the dimples are pressed.” Sarazen explained: “Most FMJ bullets break along the cannelure and then fragment into two or three large pieces. With the dimpled bullets, you have multiple fragmentation points so the bullet literally blows up like a grenade in the target.” __________________

4/1/2009 I just heard that hunters in Indiana and Florida have filed Class Action Lawsuits against Scent Lok. The Florida suit names not only Scent Lok, Cabelas' Inc, Browning, Gander Mountain Bass Pros Shops - but also includes Cabelas's Wholesale Inc. and Robinson Outdoors (Scent Shield). Since the notice and subpoenas have not been served yet, Scent Lok may not even now this is coming - I guess I should notify them. I'll do it now. That makes a total of five states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Florida. 3/27/2009 I just heard that, on www.Justia.com, one of the people who filed a law suit against Scent Lok, stated in their deposition, that they filed suit because they had been to this (my Scent Lok / Activated Carbon Science, www.TRMichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.html) web page, and realized that they'd been ripped of - by Scent Lok. To find lawsuits against Scent Lok - type in the letters ALS. Anyone with a lick of sense, who actually reads what is on this page- and on page 2 - knows that activated carbon cannot work the way the manufacturers of hunting clothing say it can. Scent Lok Corporate Head's Deposition - Sealed At the same time I heard that ALS's corporate heads have also been deposed, but that their testimony has been sealed. What's with that … I thought we had a little legal precedent here in the USA called the "Freedom of Information Act". Why is it that the depositions of those suing Scent Lok are made public, but Scent Lok's lawyers have the depositions of the Scent Lok corporate heads sealed? Is that fair - to the hunting public?

I have seen posts that have talked about some great deer educational books, but I was wondering what people thought about the elk educational books and video's out there. So far I have found the elknut book and video's to be the best. There is no hunting in the video's, but it is like sitting in a college elk hunting course. A couple of hunting video's that I picked up some good tips were "Full of Bull 3" and "Hot Bulls 3". Anyone have any other suggestions about books or video's that they found very useful in the way they hunt elk?

Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources News Release Game Trails LLC, McTavish fined $50,000 for illegal deer kills April 3, 2009 Contact: Mark Marraccini FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1-800-858-1549, ext. 4425 Frankfort, Ky. – A Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources deer biologist who noticed discrepancies while analyzing 2006 hunter deer harvest data triggered an 18-month long state and federal law enforcement investigation that produced one of the largest wildlife penalties in state history last month in United States District Court, Owensboro. Game Trails, a more than 12,000-acre Limited Liability Corporation commercial hunting preserve in Union and Crittenden counties, controlled by sole proprietor owner and then Thompson/Center Arms President and CEO Gregg Ritz, and its site manager, William Dirk McTavish, Jr., 43, of Paducah, paid $50,000 in fines after pleading guilty to numerous misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act of taking wildlife unlawfully, and for making false statements to Kentucky officers about the takings and interstate transporting of wildlife. United States Magistrate Judge E. Robert Goebel ordered that Game Trails LLC, pay a $35,000 fine and McTavish pay a $15,000 fine. Robert Christopher Helms, 40, of Boonville , Indiana , and a former Game Trails guide, faces up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty to a felony count of threatening a federal witness. His sentencing is scheduled for June 11. Department wildlife and deer biologist David Yancy, in August 2007, noticed numerous inconsistencies while comparing and analyzing 2006 Telecheck deer harvest data with data that Game Trails LLC supplied to Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) in Georgia . Yancy and department Private Lands Wildlife Biologist Phillip Sharp raised these irregularities with Union County conservation officer Lt. Greg Noel. Noel, already familiar with Game Trails and the property, enlisted the help of Crittenden County officer Randy Conway. They began the lengthy process of reconciling the Telechecked deer harvest reports of Game Trails clients with information from QDMA. Their investigation turned up numerous instances of Game Trails employees, their friends and family chronically taking over-limits of deer, outside hunting season parameters, supplying false information to Kentucky Fish and Wildlife and using social security numbers of Game Trails clients without their permission to Telecheck their deer harvests. Noel and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Agent John Barham then discovered hundreds of deer jawbones and documentation tying them to Game Trails when they traveled to Atlanta, and served a federal search warrant at QDMA’s headquarters. By sending the jawbones to another state, Game Trails was guilty of transporting illegally taken deer out of state and triggered the Lacey Act violations. Noel said that the property, bordered by about 4½ miles of Ohio River, was owned by Kimball International and leased to Ritz and sharecroppers. He said that the previous owner had used local draw hunting to manage the deer herd, but that Game Trails eliminated that practice because it interfered with its filming and big buck hunting routines. As a result, the herd grew quickly and Game Trails contacted QDMA to evaluate and make recommendations about improving the deer herd. Game Trails then supplied QDMA with completed data sheets and jawbones of harvested deer. It was this data, discovered during Noel’s and Barham’s investigation, which conflicted with Telecheck data. Noel says Game Trails has recently vacated the property and is moving its operations to Ohio.

***OHA EMAIL LEGISLATIVE ALERT*** To: All Interested Parties From: OHA (Oregon Hunters Association) Re: Cougar Management Plan What is this Email Alert Addressing? The ODFW Cougar Management Plan has come under scrutiny by the Legislature. We want to get the word out to the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources (the committee that analyzes the ODFW budget) that the plan must continue as a tool for ODFW to use in it’s efforts to keep a balance between predators and Oregon’s wildlife population. What Can You Do? We would like you to do two things: Send an email to the Legislators listed below. As part of your email message use the some of the points we have listed. MAKE YOUR OWN MESSAGE! DO NOT SEND THIS ENTIRE ALERT! YOU WILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAT WAY! Points You May Want to Use in Your Email The 2005 Oregon Cougar Management Plan was designed in accordance with the authorizations and mandates outlined by statute. The plan contains sound science based data, arguments and conclusions that detail the health of Oregon’s cougar population and its impacts on other game mammal species. The current cougar population is estimated at 5700 animals, more than double the number from just 15 years ago. Cougar management, including both hunting and administrative control conducted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife is science based wildlife management as directed in the Oregon Wildlife Policy. There is no desire to eradicate cougars from Oregon through “indiscriminant” killing, as some would have you believe. In fact, ODFW cougar management activities under the cougar management plan have been limited to three target areas where fewer than 200 cougars total have been removed over the last three years. By conducting these activities, our wildlife management professionals are acting in compliance with the mandates of their positions as outlined in the Oregon Revised Statutes. The desired end result is to maintain a viable and sustainable cougar population, while complying with the directives of the seven coequal goals outlined in the Oregon Wildlife Policy. OHA’s position is that Oregon’s Wildlife management decisions should be left to the appointees of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and the professionals in the ODFW. They and they alone have the authority and means to develop management strategies based on science and facts. Conversely, ballot initiatives and legislative proposals that affect wildlife management do not rely on the science based data that has served our state for so long. The negative effects of such misguided laws are well documented in Oregon and abroad. Who Do I Send My Email To? Send your email to: Ways and Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources Senator Vicki Walker (D-Eugene) Co- Chair [email protected] Representative Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton) Co-Chair [email protected] Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland) [email protected] Senator David Nelson (R-Pendleton) [email protected] Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) [email protected] Rep. Ben Cannon (D-Portland) [email protected] Rep. Brian Clem (D-Salem) [email protected] Rep. Chris Edwards (D-West Eugene) [email protected] Rep. Jim Thompson (R-Dallas) [email protected]

The call only took me 30 seconds. Please make the call. This is hunters helping hunters. It should not matter if wolves are in your state or not. We need to help each other out.

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!!! This has been brought up on several hunting sites- but if you haven't made the call, please do so. When I called in just now, it took about 2 minutes total and they were very happy to hear from me. The below info is copied from the Idaho forum on another hunting website: "Apparently Interior secretary Salazar and the Obama administration is taking a little heat for the delisting of the wolf. Also heard that the DOW has established a call in campaign to let them know about their stance against this. True or not we can still call to let them (USFWS)know we support the decision. One can call 1-800-344-9453 from 8A-8P Mon-Fri. Select option #3 for endangered species and then 0 (zero) for the operator and leave a simple message. Hello my name is *** and I am calling from *** to express my thanks and appreciation for Secretary Salazars decision to implement the plan to eliminate Endangered species protection for the Grey Wolf. Now is the time to allow the affected states to manage their wolf population as they do other species. I strongly urge Secretary Salazar to continue the implementation of this important decision. Thank You. Something like this may or may not help but its better let yourself be known than sit on the sidelines. "

Here are three links that all lead to the same article. I have not read the article yet, but thought it sounded interesting. http://my.oregonstate.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboa rd%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_12 3058_1%26url%3d http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2193/0022-541X%282006%2970%5B1070%3ASONYEB%5D2.0.CO%3B2?cook ieSet=1 http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/0022-541X%282006%2970%5B1070%3ASONYEB%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Lead Shot Ducks Example Sorry my copy and paste did not work. Here is a link to where I posted the example. http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=239927

Here is a very very simple example as why lead shot from shotguns is getting banned. There is a lot more information that goes into these models, but it can get very complicated. These are numbers that we used in a wildlife dynamics/statistics class at Oregon State University. This is just an example and does not represent any area. Maximum adult ducks supported by reserve (food limitation): 40,000 Maximum territories (nest sites on reserve): 1,000 Maximum ducklings produced per pair with territory: 16 (These are just the maximums and does not mean the numbers will be reached) Density dependent relationship- duckling production(Ricker scramble) Male Annual Survival Rate Duckling: 25% 1 Year-old: 60% 2 Year-old: 60% 3 Year-old: 70% Adult: 80% Female Annual Survival Rate Duckling: 25% 1 Year-old: 60% 2 Year-old: 60% 3 Year-old: 70% Adult: 85% Suppose the maximum number of ducks allowed to be shot without over-harvesting would be 550 male 1 year-olds and 650 female 1 year-old ducks. That would be a total harvest of 1,200 ducks with a biomass of 900kg. If lead shot from shotgun shells has reduced the fertility of your ducks, cutting their annual duckling production in half. With cutting the annual duckling production in half from 25% to 13%; our harvest goes down. The maximum harvest goes down to 110 male 1year-olds and 210 female 1 year-olds. The total harvest is now only 320 ducks with a biomass of 240kg. I choose both male and female 1 year-olds to gain the maximum harvest and maximum biomass without making the population go extinct. I know that it would be impossible to only take 1 year-olds, but this is only an example. This would only happen if lead shot was bad enough to decrease duckling production 50% in this bird reserve that allowed duck hunting. Hunting that want to hunt for years to come and let generations after them enjoy the same benefits would understand why some places are banning lead shot. Remember this is only an example that does not say every place lead shot is used is going to decrease duckling production down 50% This is just a very simple example for the hunters that don’t understand how much lead shot in the environment can really affect wildlife. We all know that it is bad, but this may show you how bad it really can be.

I posted a bad link last time. Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27jb7ICvC_8

wolf-eat-wolf article http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/19/canid-carnage/

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today affirmed the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wolves will remain a protected species in Wyoming. “The recovery of the gray wolf throughout significant portions of its historic range is one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act,” Salazar said. “When it was listed as endangered in 1974, the wolf had almost disappeared from the continental United States. Today, we have more than 5,500 wolves, including more than 1,600 in the Rockies.” “The successful recovery of this species is a stunning example of how the Act can work to keep imperiled animals from sliding into extinction,” he said. “The recovery of the wolf has not been the work of the federal government alone. It has been a long and active partnership including states, tribes, landowners, academic researchers, sportsmen and other conservation groups, the Canadian government and many other partners.” The Fish and Wildlife Service originally announced the decision to delist the wolf in January, but the new administration decided to review the decision as part of an overall regulatory review when it came into office. The Service will now send the delisting regulation to the Federal Register for publication. The Service decided to delist the wolf in Idaho and Montana because they have approved state wolf management plans in place that will ensure the conservation of the species in the future. At the same time, the Service determined wolves in Wyoming would still be listed under the Act because Wyoming’s current state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve its portion of northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota where they were listed as threatened. The Service oversees three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf; each has its own recovery plan and recovery goals based on the unique characteristics of wolf populations in each geographic area. Wolves in other parts of the 48 states, including the Southwest wolf population, remain endangered and are not affected by the actions taken today.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today affirmed the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wolves will remain a protected species in Wyoming. “The recovery of the gray wolf throughout significant portions of its historic range is one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act,” Salazar said. “When it was listed as endangered in 1974, the wolf had almost disappeared from the continental United States. Today, we have more than 5,500 wolves, including more than 1,600 in the Rockies.” “The successful recovery of this species is a stunning example of how the Act can work to keep imperiled animals from sliding into extinction,” he said. “The recovery of the wolf has not been the work of the federal government alone. It has been a long and active partnership including states, tribes, landowners, academic researchers, sportsmen and other conservation groups, the Canadian government and many other partners.” The Fish and Wildlife Service originally announced the decision to delist the wolf in January, but the new administration decided to review the decision as part of an overall regulatory review when it came into office. The Service will now send the delisting regulation to the Federal Register for publication. The Service decided to delist the wolf in Idaho and Montana because they have approved state wolf management plans in place that will ensure the conservation of the species in the future. At the same time, the Service determined wolves in Wyoming would still be listed under the Act because Wyoming’s current state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve its portion of northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota where they were listed as threatened. The Service oversees three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf; each has its own recovery plan and recovery goals based on the unique characteristics of wolf populations in each geographic area. Wolves in other parts of the 48 states, including the Southwest wolf population, remain endangered and are not affected by the actions taken today.

http://wildlifeconservation.gov/doc...OBOOKwebdmp.pdf Strengthening America’s Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities A product of the Sporting Conservation Council Bob Model, Chair Jeff Crane, Vice Chair John Baughman Peter J. Dart Dan Dessecker Rob Keck Steve Mealey Susan Recce Merle Shepard Christine L. Thomas John Tomke Steve Williams Edited and produced by (Virginia private firm) Responsive Management 129 pages total Joanne Nobile and Mark Damian Duda

I thought it might just help in determining potential spots. This in no way would be a 100% guarantee big buck hunting area method. Hard on the ground scouting and time will tell a person that. I would like to see what peoples ratings are with cation, organic matter, and such ratings in their big buck areas and small buck areas. No one would have to give locations, but just soil data and if big body/antler bucks are found or small body/antler bucks. It would be pretty interesting to see what everyone gets.

While doing steps 1-4 you are on the tab that says "Area of Interest AOI" up above. Step 5: Click on the tab "Soil Map" and then the soil types should pop up. I am currently trying to talk with some soil scientist that deal with forests, vegetation, and such. I will let everyone know what information I find later on. This all may lead to easy scouting from home. If a person is interested in finding a new area to hunt or would like to know where the best piece of private property to hunt or lease; this may be the way to go. High nutrient rich food for deer should allow them to reach their genetic potential, while area of poor soil, nutrients, vegetation quality will have deer that don't reach their genetic potential.

http://www.state.tn.us/twra/pdfs/deerantlers.pdf Here is a link that talks about how soils are just as important as age and genetics for antler size. I will try and do more research to find the best quality soils; other than the couple that they listed in the article.

Thought I would post a great website for those that are interested in seeing the types of soils they hunt on or would like to hunt in the future. This may be new for blacktail and mule deer hunters, but the whitetail hunters have made up maps correlating soil types and antlers grow/size. I'm not sure what would be the best types of soil for antler growth/size here in Oregon. I would like to do some research on that. Maybe someone on here might know. 1. Click on website. 2. Zoom in close to area you wish to know soil type. 3. Click on box that has a red square and will say "AOI". 4. Drag square to cover area you wish to know soil type. That is it. Good luck and have fun. They constantly do updates on the website; so you may not be able to get on all the time. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Game Cart (It's Back) The Carryall Buddy is back. This is the best game cart you will ever use. PM me for the info.