blacktailslayer

Here is the newest article on the case. An injunction barring ALS/Scent Lok, Cabela's and Gander Mountain from "further deceptive practices" will be issued Loc: Atlanta A Federal District Judge has ruled that ALS, the manufacturer of Scent Lok clothing has failed a smell test as it were with claims that the company had 'odor-eliminating technology' or 'odor eliminating clothing'. The same ruling says that Cabela's and Gander Mountain - both of which sell Scent Lok and their own private-label clothing are also guilty of deceptive advertising. Scent Lok's advertising-at least in part- fails a Federal District Judge's smell test for odor elimination. The Court's ruling says the "Defendants have published countless advertisements" almost all of which "utilize the slogans 'odor-eliminating technology' or 'odor-eliminating clothing.'" The Court further found that the experts agreed that the Scent Lok clothing "cannot eliminate odor, even when new." The Court held that all advertisements that used the words "odor-eliminating technology," "odor-eliminating clothing," "eliminates all types of odor," "odor elimination," "remove all odor," "complete scent elimination," "scent-free," "works on 100% of your scent 100% of the time," "all human scent," "odor is eradicated," and graphics demonstrating that human odor cannot escape the carbon-embedded fabric are all false statements as a matter of law. In addition, the Court found claims that the Scent Lok clothing could be "reactivated" to "like new" or "pristine" condition to be false as a matter of law. An injunction barring ALS/Scent Lok, Cabela's and Gander Mountain from "further deceptive practices" will be issued. With that ruling, claims against the companies could move to trial. The case began in 2007 when Minnesota hunters Mike Buetow, Gary Steven Richardson, Jr, Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi and Dennis Deeb, filed suit against ALS, Cabela's, Cabela's Wholesale and Gander Mountain, claiming their odor controlling clothing failed to perform as advertised. Their complaint alleged that the clothing did not "eliminate" odor, and could not be "reactivated or regenerated in a household (clothes) dryer after the clothing has become saturated with odors". During the course of the lawsuit, scientists from both sides worked to prove-or disprove-the claims. As you can imagine, the results disagreed in all but one key area: both plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys and scientists agreed that carbon-embedded clothing cannot eliminate 100% of a hunter's odor. In this case "eliminate" was the key decision point- the court ruled that the word "eliminate" meant "a complete removal" the same way a claim to remove roaches from a home would mean "all roaches" not just some. Some of the ads, however, went on to use phrases such as "complete scent elimination" "scent free" "works on 100% of your scent (100% of the time)" and "odor is eradicated". In the court's eyes, those claims were false and misleading - beyond any test of reasonableness. Other ads, however, used enough language to qualify the claims they made. The Court tossed a claim for a declaratory judgement from the hunters on those advertisements. So, you might ask, do the findings in the case prove that clothing really can't mask human scent? Short answer, no. What it case has done is reiterate and reinforce the application of common sense to advertising messages - and consumer purchases.

I wish a tax on birkenstocks, bird seed, bird field guides, and other products would be taxed to help wildlife management like this article talks about. Could tax like this be passed in Oregon to help ODFW? What are everyone's thoughts? From The Wildlife Society: Should Hunters Foot the Bill? =45135247288&p[]=384475889481"]Share Today at 6:55am “To “preserve nature,” they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Yin-Yang pendants — but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax binoculars or birding field guides with cutesy photos of the red-cockaded woodpecker and spotted owl — but do tax the shotgun shells I blast at Mallards before arraying them on my grill as Duck-K-Bobs” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/next_earth_day_thank_a_hunter.html While the above statement from irate hunter, Humberto Fontova, may be extreme, the decision to tax hunters and not other wildlife enthusiasts such as bird watchers, kayakers and hikers is a controversial issue for some. The “hook and bullet” taxes go towards wildlife agencies to provide financial support for wildlife conservation and management. According to a study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, for every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, hunters and fishermen contribute nine. Besides the fact that it seems unfair for hunters and fisherman to foot the bulk of the bill, there is also the fact that entire target markets are being ignored; ones that are larger and more diverse than that of the hunter/fisher persuasion. The Wildlife Society’s Journal of Wildlife Management included an article on this argument stating that “The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.” Since money is usually the primary decision factor in whether research and conservation projects are approved or denied, not only should these small user-based groups be taxed but so should the general public. “Conservation needs to be funded in large part by all beneficiaries; that is, the general public via a nonvoluntary mechanism.” (JWM) Just because some people don’t see the benefit or decide not to go out and enjoy nature, doesn’t mean that each person should be able to decide whether or not to pitch in to support a healthy environment. As corny as it sounds, we really are just borrowing the Earth from our children so that decision is not ours to make.

2009 YNP summary http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolves.htm Wolves_Restoration_Fact http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/files/pdf/Wolves_Restoration_Fact.pdf Wolves Fact Sheet http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/files/pdf/Wolves_Fact.pdf YNP Wolf Projects http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/topics/biological/mammals/wolves/projects Wolf Management Applications http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/topics/biological/mammals/wolves/managementapps Wolf Researchers http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/topics/biological/mammals/wolves/researchers Wolf References and Links http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/topics/biological/mammals/wolves/refs

http://www.gadling.com/2010/04/08/is-the-u-s-forest-service-spying-on-visitors/?icid=main|main|dl4|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gadling.com%2F2010%2F04%2F08%2Fis-the-u-s-forest-service-spying-on-visitors%2F

Better watch out the next time you take a squat in the woods! http://www.gadling.com/2010/04/08/is...on-visitors%2F

Now we just need identical video's for hunting and the use of dogs to hunt lions and bears. Education is the key. Let's make sure we keep spreading the word on what guns, hunting, and how wildlife management should be to the young generations. http://la-gun.com/videos/torch/

Dr. L. David Mech Wolf Lecture

Party hunting= lifetime hunting ban in idaho From IFGD: Idaho Falls Man Loses Hunting Privileges for Life Shooting five elk in one day has cost an Idaho Falls man his privilege to hunt for the rest of his life – not only in Idaho, but each of the 33 member states of the Wildlife Violator Compact. On March 22, 2010 Jerry Ferguson, 54, pleaded guilty in Seventh District Court in Bonneville County to a felony charge of unlawfully killing five cow elk. In addition to the lifetime license revocation, Ferguson was ordered to pay $7,500 in civil restitution, plus court costs and serve 60 days in jail. A five-year formal probation was also imposed, with one to three years in prison for violation of the terms of probation. On the morning of December 5, 2008, Ferguson killed an elk and tagged it with Rebecca Keller’s tag. Later the same day he killed another elk, but he didn’t stop there. He continued to hunt and in one last barrage of bullets, killed three more elk. Ferguson fired twenty-seven shots that day, killing five elk. To make matters worse, Ferguson didn’t field dress any of the last four elk he killed and left them on the mountain overnight. Although two of the four elk he killed that evening were recovered the next day, they all spoiled because of a lack of proper care. “Jerry Ferguson’s actions that day showed a total disregard for wildlife laws and a complete disrespect for one of the big game animals that makes Idaho a place where sportsmen want to live,” Senior Conservation Officer Ryan Hilton said. Several family members were also implicated in the crime by recovering, tagging and transporting the unlawful elk. Rebecca Keller, 55, of Idaho Falls; Gerald Ferguson, 74, of Idaho Falls; Eric Ferguson, 26, of Rigby; and Tilliya Ferguson, 20, of Rigby were all charged in connection with their involvement in the incident. In Lemhi County Magistrate Court, Rebecca Keller pleaded guilty to transferring her elk tag and received a two-year revocation of hunting privileges and a $300 fine plus court costs. Gerald Ferguson pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony and received a three year revocation of his hunting, fishing and trapping privileges and a $750 fine plus court costs. Tilliya Ferguson pleaded guilty to transferring her tag and received a one-year revocation of her hunting, fishing, and trapping privileges and a $250 fine plus court costs. As part of the plea agreement with the others involved, charges against Eric Ferguson were dismissed. Perhaps the most significant consequence of all is that Keller, Jerry Ferguson, Gerald Ferguson, and Tilliya Ferguson, are prohibited from possessing a firearm in the field and excluded from camps during hunting season for the duration of their respective hunting license revocations. “I applaud both courts with their decision to keep those involved out of the field while revoked,” Hilton said. “Fines and penalties are one aspect of sentencing, but keeping individuals from hunting camps and carrying firearms in the field is a way of delivering a strong message to the public that this type of behavior from hunters will not be tolerated.

Well it is time to get the new petition for the ballot going to bring back the use of dogs to hunt cougars. Send me a PM with your email and I will send you an email explaining what you need to do to get signatures for the petition and who to turn them into. No staples! They will only be accepted now printed front and back. Here is a link to an article about what is kind of going on. A change coming for cougar hunting? http://theworldlink.com/articles/2010/04/10/outdoors/doc4bc0177fa21ab033927565.txt Here is a group trying to stop this from getting on the ballot. http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/alerts-20100410.html Here is the newest cougar attack article. http://outdoornewsdaily.com/index.php/archives/tag/mountain-lion-attack Jess Messner is in the process of getting the "cougar with dogs"and "bears & cougars with dogs" law on the next ballot. Well it is time to get the new petition for the ballot going to bring back the use of dogs to hunt cougar or cougar & bears. A change coming for cougar hunting? http://theworldlink.com/articles/201...b033927565.txt Here is a group trying to stop this from getting on the ballot. http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/alerts-20100410.html Here is the newest cougar attack article. http://outdoornewsdaily.com/index.ph...in-lion-attack Please read carefully. There are TWO (2) different petitions in the email. 1.) The first petition is to bring back the use of dogs to hunt BOTH cougar & bear. 2.) The second petition is to bring back the use of dogs to hunt Cougar only. This is TWO (2) different petitions to try and get TWO (2) different ballots. This is to try and help get both bears and cougars to be hunted by dogs again, but at least the use of dogs to hunt cougars. 1.) You will need Adobe/Acrobat Reader to open the petitions files in pdf. form and print them. 2.) Print both pages front and back of one piece of paper. One side will have signature page and the other side will have description of what the petition will do. This means you CAN NOT staple pages together. Do not use any staples on any petitions. 3.) DO NOT sign and/or date the bottom of the petition until you have had people fill out the form. Your signature has to be after the dates of ALL the signatures on the petition. 4.) Please try to mail in all your petition forms before May 15th. Any additional questions or concerns should be directed to the person with the information below in email.

California Firearm Bills Up for Hearings 4/9/10 Three bills in California that threaten the rights of sportsmen to own or use firearms are scheduled to have hearings in the state Assembly next Tuesday, April 13. Assembly Bill 1810, sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D- LA), would require the state to keep registration information for all firearm transfers, including from transfers of commonly used hunting rifles and shotguns. Current California law only requires the state to keep a database containing the information acquired from handgun transfers. The information kept by the state includes the owner’s name and address as well as a description and serial number of the handgun. AB 1810 will be heard on April 13 before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. “It’s bad enough that state keeps a handgun owners registry, a major infringement on second amendment rights as it is,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) associate director of state services. “There surely is no justification for expanding the state’s registry to include all firearms.” Assembly Bill 2186, sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon (D- LA), would prohibit a person convicted of a misdemeanor loaded firearms violation from owning or possessing a firearm for ten years. Misdemeanor convictions for carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, carrying a loaded firearm in public, or carrying a concealed firearm would all trigger the 10 year ban. In California, loaded firearms violations are some of the most common hunting-related citations issued and are often the result of an honest mistake. Regardless, this bill would still subject the violator to an overly-severe 10 year ban on the possession of firearms. “Something as simple as forgetting to completely unload your hunting rifle before crossing a country road could result in being banned from owning or using a firearm for ten years,” said Rine. ”Simply put, this is a glaring example of a punishment that does not fit the crime.” AB 2186 will be heard on April 13 before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. As reported previously, Assembly Bill 2223, introduced by Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D- Santa Barbara), would ban the use of traditional shot within California’s Wildlife Management Areas. These areas encompass more than one half million acres of state hunting and recreational shooting land. The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) already has the authority to place restrictions on ammunition on a case by case basis. AB 2223 will simply circumvent the science-based regulatory process of the FGC and let politicians decide on what is appropriate ammunition to use on state lands. AB 2223 will be heard on April 13 before the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. Take Action! California sportsmen should contact their state assembly members and urge them to oppose ABs 1810, 2186 and 2223. To find your state assembly member’s phone number and other contact information, use the USSA Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/lac.

April 8, 2010 Mike Leahy Director, Rocky Mountain Region Defenders of Wildlife 303 W Mendenhall Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 Kirk Robinson Executive Director Western Wildlife Conservancy 68 Main Street Suite 4 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Dear Mr. Leahy & Mr. Robinson: I am in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2010. I will address your points factually and straightforward. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss conservation issues and the destruction of specific herds of elk in North America. We believe; however, that your organizations and others are contributing greatly to perhaps one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th century. Until the lawsuit relative to re-listing the wolves is settled or until you withdraw your support for such, there really isn’t much need to meet as we continue to be at opposite ends of this issue. Once again, I will state that elk are not flourishing where wolves are present. Contrary to what you have suggested many times to claim otherwise is disingenuous and “cherry picking” data. Elk populations are being exploited at a high rate by predators, primarily wolves and somewhat by grizzly bears. However, since the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into Yellowstone this exploitation has become worse for elk numbers in the same areas. Yet, you would have the public believe otherwise. The numbers and facts do not lie and they are as follows: The Northern Yellowstone herd, trend count has dropped from nearly 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase. Nowhere can I find where a 60% reduction of this herd was a goal of the wolf introduction. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) The Moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a decrease to almost zero. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) 2 The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky has dropped from around 1,048 to 338 in 2008. (Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) The Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has dropped from 700 to 108 in 2008. (Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) The calf survival rate for those same elk herds mentioned above, where wolves (and bears) are present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly any wildlife professional will tell you this is an unacceptable recruitment or survival rate. Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is necessary for herd sustainability. Further, a recent MSU study shows those elk that remain in the Northern Yellowstone herd are in below standard health as they are not feeding where and how they normally do and the females are not getting pregnant as they should, due to hormonal imbalances. How and why did this behavior change? (See Montana State University Study by Professor Scott Creel in July 2009; funded by the National Science Foundation) Wolf numbers have far exceeded what sportsmen, ranchers, wildlife conservationists and the public at-large were told was a desirable goal. Specifically, 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves was the goal line when wolves were released in 1995. The minimum number of wolves is now over 1,700 according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and a number of animal rights groups such as yours believe those numbers should be 2,000 to 5,000. This is the most disingenuous and deceiving issue relative to the entire Canadian gray wolf introduction and your groups and others perpetuate this every chance you get. We call it, “keep moving the goal line” politics. It is doubtful even you believe that 2,000-5,000 wolves in this area is sustainable. However, this allows you to keep saying “We haven’t reached the goal line yet”. It is sad wildlife management has to come such political posturing. Wolf population goals established at the introduction in 1995 have been surpassed by some 300-500%. Yet groups like yours continue to move the goal line and yes, continue to cherry pick your facts to push an agenda. Studies show that each wolf kills up to 23 elk from November through April; that equates to up to 40,000 elk killed in six months. This number does not include those elk killed for food by wolves from May through October. While the number of elk killed per wolf from May through October is less than the number from November through April, it is still considerable; and that is just the elk killed for food. These numbers do not account for those elk simply killed by wolves (surplus killing) and yes, that does happen. Nowhere near the majority of these elk kills are simply the sick and the old. The habitat loss that you cite in your letter is yet another critical reason why wolves must be properly managed and managed now. As elk ranges shrink and are encroached upon, the elk have less chance for survival in areas where wolves are concentrated. Elk become trapped with less habitat available. Your organization talks about elk and wolves coexisting on the same terms as if it were the Old West again. It clearly is not and that is why man must manage wildlife as we have for over a century. 3 Canadian gray wolves introduced in Yellowstone in 1995, simply are not endangered, it is quite the opposite. There are thousands of these wolves in North America. Remember this reintroduction was classified as an experimental, non-essential re-introduction in the first place. Your groups would have today’s public believe that it is essential. These wolves are not endangered. You contradict yourself as you point out in your letter how there is a “legitimate federal role in ensuring states manage wildlife in the best interests of all Americans…”, yet you circumvent and disagree with the federal opinion (USFWS) that the wolves are recovered. Further, you disagree that these wolves should not be listed as endangered and be managed by the states at this time. You can’t have it both ways but you continue to try as long as you can get away with it. Do the federal authorities know what they are talking about or not? It is likely that your groups have reaped large donations from your campaign to keep wolves on the endangered species list. This is a common tactic for animal rights groups. It is apparent that if the entire wolf controversy went away it would represent a considerable revenue loss for you. I don’t see what your costs are relative to the wolf recovery program as it is likely you are getting federal funds to pay some or all of your legal fees under the Judgment Fund or EAJA funds. Could you confirm for us and the public at large if you are receiving such federal funds (taxpayer funds) to offset your legal fees? Frankly, I don’t believe most of the public know about or understand the Judgment Fund or EAJA but they should. It sheds light on potential motives and tactics. Idaho’s elk numbers in units where wolves exist are far worse, with two units showing over 80% decline since wolves were introduced. If wildlife conservation was your true agenda you would not stand for such losses of any species. The facts are there – the numbers do not lie! Our elk herds cannot be sustained if wolf numbers continue to expand without proper management. What is happening now is not sound management, it is simply an assault. Re-listing wolves will worsen the issue dramatically. Your letter states, “(Defenders) position is not one of opposition to sustainable hunting practices or to the important role that hunting plays in conservation. Responsible hunters are some of the most knowledgeable wildlife conservationists and we seek and find common ground with them regularly. It is unfortunate we have not been able to do so with RMEF recently but would like to work together in the future.” You have never sought common ground with us once that I recall. Let’s consider those words a moment. We do not believe that your organizations subscribe to hunting as aviable conservation tool; in fact we believe you and other animal rights groups have an overriding agenda to decrease hunting until there is none. If you truly want to “work together” as your letter suggests, then you will step forward and show a sincere willingness to manage wildlife as they should be managed and not continue to promote a hidden agenda or continue to move the goal line. In fact, I invite you to come to my office and let’s resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters you reference. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let’s resolve this now. Plain and simple, wolves are predators, nothing more and nothing less. They need to be managed like other predators by the folks who manage the rest of our wildlife, the state wildlife agencies. This wolf amnesty program is poor wildlife management. The American sportsmen deserve better respect for all they have contributed to wildlife while groups like yours play games with the system. Your letter states you have called for a scientific review of the wolf recovery program. Who are your scientists conducting the review? We have never heard of this scientific review? We can find no announcement of such nor can we confirm it. Why isn’t the wildlife science of three of the leading western states (Wyoming, Montana and Idaho) and the USFWS credible? Is it that you are not getting the answers you are looking for? If so, that is not subscribing to science that is manipulating it to get a desired answer. 4 We live within the rules and game management policies of all the state agencies and when we have differences of opinion we go to them and work it out like adults. The United States has the best system of wildlife management in the world, yet you reject the system of states managing their wildlife. Among your tactics are filing lawsuits to stall and extend the process and then point fingers at others like RMEF and say we are polarizing the conflict! Managing wildlife in court is a recipe for disaster. Again, you seem to contradict yourselves in your letter; on one hand you trumpet the success of the overall elk populations in these three states (which are managed by those states, I might add); and on the other hand you reject those same three states’ ability to manage wolves. That is a curious contradiction. Either these states know what they are doing or they don’t. No one is promoting an annihilation of wolves, so let’s stop pretending such exists. However, there is a great need for sensible balance and the current wolf numbers have long since crossed over the tipping point. If your organizations do not begin to subscribe to sound wildlife management soon, this disaster will lay squarely on your hands for history and the public to judge. Feel free to use the date enclosed in this letter when talking to media and legislatures in the future. As I said at the beginning, the numbers and the facts do not lie. Respectfully submitted, M. David Allen President & CEO Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

New Forest Planning Regulations Will Affect Hunting and Target Shooting http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5678

Here is our chance to shape what our national forests will look like into the future. This may be one very important meeting(s) for ALL sportsmen and women to attend. Here is a article with a couple of links down below to show where the meetings will take place and how you can prepare for them. Speak up for national forests Obama administration gives citizens chance to weigh in on how forests should be managed WASHINGTON (March 29, 2010) – As the Obama administration sets out to determine the future for the 193-million-acre National Forest System, a coalition of conservation organizations is calling on people to make their voices heard. They’ll get that chance from March 29 through May 12 when the U.S. Forest Service hosts a series of roundtable discussions with citizens across the country to determine how the forests are managed for generations. “This is a golden opportunity for people to play a direct role in shaping the future of our national forests, as well as a golden opportunity for the Obama administration to listen to the concerns of its citizens,” said Mike Anderson, a senior resource analyst with The Wilderness Society who has long been on the front lines of the forest management process. He notes that more than 200 million people a year visit the nation’s 155 national forests and grasslands. “It’s a chance for them to tell the Forest Service they want the strongest possible protection for water, trees and other natural resources needed by people and wildlife alike.” The key to getting the process off to a good start, according to the coalition, is for the Forest Service to ensure that it genuinely listens to the public input. It also wants the agency to develop conservation plans that are real and enforceable – not just vague promises on paper. “The previous administration invented the decisionless forest plan so they would never have to be accountable to anyone,” said Martin Hayden, the vice president for policy and legislation at Earthjustice. “The Obama administration needs to restore agency accountability to the public by making a rule that requires plans that make actual decisions and contain enforceable conservation standards.” The public process follows federal court decisions overturning two previous Bush administration planning rules that would have weakened environmental protections for national forests. And the new planning regulations would give the Obama administration the chance to determine the future of our nation’s forests. Another top priority for the Forest Service should be a commitment to applying sound science to the development of the new forest planning rule, according to the coalition. “National Forests are the lungs and water purification systems of our nation,” said Dominick DellaSala, president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. “They should be managed with sound science to ensure their legacy of clean water, old forests and roadless areas are protected as being integral to the nation's climate change insurance.” Beyond the principles of accountability and the application of science, the coalition is also urging people to tell the Forest Service it should: • Preserve clean supplies of drinking water: Guarantee safe drinking water by protecting headwater sources, streams and rivers, and by restoring damaged watersheds. • Save America’s outdoor legacy: Employ long-term and restorative management practices to ensure that our national forests offer recreation and related economic opportunities. • Protect fish and wildlife: Sustain fish and wildlife populations and their habitats by protecting them from the changing conditions brought on by global warming and population growth. • Protect America’s wilderness: Study and assess National Forest System wildlands and recommend to Congress all lands that should be preserved as Wilderness. • Address climate change: Protect and restore carbon-rich forests including those managed under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule that provide vital safe havens for fish and wildlife over the next century. “With nearly 200 million visitors each year, our nation’s forests are undeniably linked to our national character,” said Peter Nelson, federal lands program director for Defenders of Wildlife. “It’s time to restore sound science to the management of these lands, ensuring that future generations can have the same opportunities to breathe fresh air, to drink clean water, to see wondrous wildlife and to enjoy just being out in nature.” Those nature experiences make a major contribution to the economy, too. “Our forests don't just provide clean air, water and wildlife habitat,” said Athan Manuel, Director of Lands Protection for Sierra Club. “Responsible stewardship of our national forests under a new, strong planning rule would help support a recreational economy worth over $110 billion, safeguarding jobs for thousands of families across America.” Here is a list of where the meetings will take place. http://wilderness.org/files/Roundtable-Information.pdf Citizen’s Guide to Forums, Roundtables, and U.S. Forest Service Public Involvement. http://wilderness.org/files/Citizens...nvolvement.pdf

Here is a great new program from the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance that is FREE to join and help protect our fishing and hunting rights. Here is the news article. USSA Unveils Exciting New Program to Defend Sportsmen’s Rights (Columbus) – Today, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) officially unveiled a dynamic new initiative aimed at building an army of sportsmen from coast to coast to protect America’s outdoor heritage for future generations. The USSA’s Sentry Program is free to join and represents the most intense effort ever focused on attracting sportsmen to become active players in the fight to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping rights whenever they are threatened. By becoming a Sentry, sportsmen gain access to instant email communications about local and national threats to their outdoor rights as they happen. They will also be given specific instructions on which public officials to contact and when as these threats emerge. This communication network will enable sportsmen to mobilize quicker and more effectively than ever before. In addition to getting sportsmen engaged in advocacy, the Sentry Program offers additional benefits, giving sportsmen a “one stop” web site for key information including state hunting regulations, information on where one can find a shooting range and other hunting and fishing tips from recognized leaders in the outdoor community. “There are many anti-hunting organizations seeking to do away with what we love,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “By coming together under the Sentry Program, sportsmen will enhance our ranks and collectively stand tall against those groups.”

I understand we should all try and keep the wind in our face. That however is not always possible in every single situation. Anyone can kill/harvest an animal without these tips. I thought I would just share to help give a little edge to the hunter. I will not claim it will make anyone 100% SCENT FREE. Some of these things are very easy, don't cost very much money, and don't have a big company or hunting celebrity behind them. Can you handle taking a pill every day or right before you go out on a hunt? What about exfoliating before you use your scent free soap in the shower. A person does not have to do all of these steps but only pick out one or even a few of them. This is no gimmick, but it also does will not make a person 100% scent free. That is because nothing can.

I have seen a lot of information out for hunters on scent with clothing, deodorant, and some showering products. There is so much more to eliminated scent to help out our hunting odds against the game we pursue. Here is a list of other home remedies that can help the hunter further their scent-free tactics for the hunt. Body odor can be under control in 3 days by adding 5-10 drops of Rose Water to bath water and soak for at least 15 minutes. Serious body odor can be controlled by adding 3 cups of tomato juice to bath water and soak for at least 15 minutes. It is recommended to rinse and exfoliate after one of these or any bath/shower to rid dead cells off body and then use non-scented soap to finish showering. The following remedies below can also help total body odor. Bad Breath Causes: · Alcohol · Stress · Diet/Food · Dehydration · Milk intolerance · Poor Digestion · Imbalance of Good and Bad Bacteria in the Gut · Dental Problems · Smoking · Medications like decongestants and diuretics Changes to Make: Oral Hygiene · Brush teeth/tongue and floss · Get teeth cleaned and cavities filled at dentist · Use Hydrogen Peroxide as mouth wash · Brush gums and tongue with powdered cloves or myrrh · Brush tongue with antibacterial products like chlorhexidine Dietary · Eliminate or reduce high-fat and high-protein foods because they can be hard to digest and give off gas. · Eliminate acidic foods that create great places for bacterial growth. · Eliminate or reduce sugars because bacteria feed off the sugar. · Garlic, onions, and exotic spices (Ex. Curry) can have compounds exhaled for 24 hours in your breath. · Cut out cheeses (blue, camembert, and Roquefort) and canned tuna and anchovies. · Cut out acidic drinks like coffee and tea. · Eat more fruit like kiwi, papaya, and pineapple along with vegetables (green is better). Supplements · Vitamin B & C, along with Zinc can help bad breath. Digestive System · Yogurt, Acidophilus, or Bifidus can add beneficial bacteria and improve digestive system. · Decreasing hydrochloric acid comes with age and can be fixed with taking a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar before each meal or take betaine or pepsin tablets to help digestion. · Drink plenty of water. · Eat plenty of fiber. Cures · Apple cider vinegar before meals. · Brush teeth with baking soda or baking soda/hydrogen peroxide paste. · Take charcoal tablets. · Gargle hydrogen peroxide or salt water. · Take alfalfa tablets. · Chew anise (licorice flavored seed), cardamom, dill, or fennel seeds. · Take Chlorophyll and/or Spirulina in liquid or tablet form. · Drink Wheat Grass with water on an empty stomach. · Eating filberts (hazelnuts) absorbs bad breath. · Chewing mint, parsley, basil, rosemary, thyme, and wintergreen help bad breath. · Suck on a lemon with salt on it. · Dissolve Silicea tablets under tongue twice a day. Foot Odor Cures · Soak feet for 30 minutes in 1 teaspoon or Alum and 1 or 2 gallons of water. · Soak feet in Apple Cider Vinegar with warm water. · Pour Baking Soda in socks and boots. · Take Zinc tablets. Sweaty Hands Cures · Witch hazel or alcohol wipes wiped on hands will shrink pores and reduce sweating. · Drink Sage Tea. · Take Zinc tablets.

Worst state game management Poll http://www.eastmans.com/poll/

They have been causing some problems from CA up through WA.

I have thought about doing that. Has this ever caused you a problem while hunting? Does it take you a half second longer to figure out what pin to use? I might give that a try.

This might help explain a little on why and how the wolf introduction has happened here in the lower 48. I’m sure you can find other great information on the USFWS website. Here are a few paragraphs from a great book on wolves. Quote from book: Mech, D.L. and Boitani, Luigi. 2003. Wolves. Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. (Pages 222-224) “The biological species concept (BSC) maintains that the unifying characteristic of species is reproductive independence or isolation from other species (Mayr 1963; O’Brien and Mayr 1991). However, reproductive isolation is difficult to assess for populations living in different areas, and hybrid zones may form between populations thought to represent distinct species. These problems with the BSC have been the subject of a long discussion (reviewed by Hull 1997). Operationally, species are often defined as morphologically and behaviorally distinct entities (e.g., Nowak 1979); however, the level of morphological distinction separating various taxonomic units (species, subspecies, populations) may be somewhat arbitrary and dependent on the measurements taken by the researcher. Moreover, morphologically distinct populations may interbreed (reviewed by Barton and Hewitt 1985, Harrison 1990, and Arnold 1997). Consequently, purportedly more objective definitions have been developed, such as the phylogenetic species concept, which defines species according to “diagnosable” characteristics reflecting a common ancestry (e.g., McKitrick and Zink 1988; Vogler et al. 1993). Combining elements of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, Avise and Ball (1990) suggested the subspecies be defined as populations that are generally allopatric (live in different areas) and have a series of concordantly divergent traits, but may interbreed if barriers to dispersal are removed. In contrast, species are defined by a similar suite of concordantly divergent traits, but do not widely interbreed if barriers to dispersal are removed. Two problems are apparent when applying these definitions to wolflike canids. The first is that wolves disperse over great distances and across topographic barriers to find mates and territories (see Mech and Boitani, chap. 1 in this volume). As a result, rates of gene flow are high, so wolf populations are rarely isolated long enough to produce reciprocal monophyly in their mitochondrial sequences. Even rapidly evolving microsatellite loci may not show much differentiation between populations. Rather than populations being discrete, a limited pattern of genetic differentiation with distance may be apparent (Forbes and Boyd 1996; see below). For this reason, the division of wolves into discrete subspecies and other genetic units may be somewhat arbitrary and overly typological (conforming to a specific ideal type). In reality, wolves are better viewed as a series of intergrading populations having subtle or undetectable patterns of clinal genetic change (Lehman et at. 1991; Roy, Geffen et al. 1994; Forbes and Boyd 1997). Importantly, populations may differ in attributes important to fitness in spite of being connected by high rates of gene flow (e.g., T.B. Smith et al. 1997). Therefore, units for conservation should be based on fitness-related characters or their surrogates, rather than on largely neutral changes in mitochondrial or microsatellite loci (Candall et at. 2000). A second problem stemming from high rates of gene flow concerns the importance of hybridization. The width of a hybrid zone reflects dispersal distance and the degree of selection against hybrids (Barton and Hewitt 1985). Therefore, if selection against hybrids is weak and dispersal distances are large, interspecific hybridization can affect the genetic composition of a population over a wide geographic area. As discussed below, independent genetic studies suggest hybridization between coyotes and wolves and their hybrids over a wide area in southeastern Canada. As a consequence of hybridization, physically distinct populations may actually represent hybrids containing various proportions of genes from otherwise distinct species (see Figure 8.2 below on page 224). The presence of such introgressed populations greatly confounds taxonomic and conservation efforts (Jenks and Wayne 1992; Wayne and Brown 2001, 145-62).” I would highly recommend reading through chapter 9 “Wolf Evolution and Taxonomy”. Figure 9.2 has a great map of original geographic distribution of wolves in North America. Take a look at that map and put the few paragraphs with it from up above and that might help explain why and how the re-introduction of wolves has happened here in the lower 48.

I suggest going to "Google Scholar" and do all the searching. More information on there than a person can read in their lifetime. Google Scholar is WAY WAY Better source compared to Hunting Blogs, Hunting magazines, extremist groups, etc.... ECHINOCOCCOSIS IN NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS AND ESKIMOS* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00737-0030.pdf http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/20/3/795.full http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/67/3/296.pdf Here is an article on several parasites in other wildlife in N.A. http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/28/4/581.pdf http://www.jstor.org/pss/3796110 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...02934358900147 http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/Ci...merica.14.aspx http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/732

Well it looks like the parasite is found all over the world with the world not coming to an end. I guess we can’t always listen to someone posting articles on a HUNTING BLOG. Genus/species: Echinococcus granulosus Geographic location: North America, Europe, Asia Reference: DeVos and Allin 1949; Riley 1933; Cowan, 1947; Stiles and Baker 1934; Rausch and Williamson 1959; Freeman et al. 1961; Samuel, Ramalingam, and Carbyn 1978; Messier et al. 1989; Guberti et al. 1991; Zheleznov 1991. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC97883/ Updates on Cystic Echinococcosis (CE) http://eprints.uniss.it/2682/1/Garippa_G_Articolo_2006_Updates.pdf “E. granulosus is worldwide widespread and the Mediterranean region is considered an hyperendemie area. In the last 15 years biotechnologies have light up inside E. granulosus lO different strains and genetic variants, named G 1 (Sheep strain), G2 (Tasmanian sheep strain), G3 (Buffalo strain), G4 (Horse strain), G5 (Cattle strain), G6 (CarneI strain), G7/G9 (Pig strain), G8 (Cervid Strain), the lion strain and the recent1y discovered G1O or Fennoscandinavian Cervid Strain.

Hopefully one day everyone will know what groups like HSUS and PETA are all about. It is too bad USA Today did not take a stand and/or ask more questions. Hopefully it will go a little different next time. I think the word is slowly getting out there, but just not fast enough. We need more strong people to stand up to these groups like U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. Lets make sure we spread these news and others like it to as many people as possible to fight for what is right and not some extreme personal agenda. Let’s keep this thread clean and on top of the forum for all to see. Thanks HUSU Intimidate Journalists http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/its_getting_ridiculously_easy_to_intimidate_journalists/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

What size of pins do have on your hunting bow sights?

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/609/index.html