Search the Community

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=86d58958-23ff-41f0-8a0e-27bd650518a3&c=0ef02960-1f28-11e3-a3de-d4ae52754dbc&ch=0f2bd2d0-1f28-11e3-a438-d4ae52754dbc

Pennsylvania could lose $27 million over bills to amend endangered species laws GOP measures would cost two state agencies more than 20% of their budgets, the U.S. Interior Department warns. August 28, 2013 HARRISBURG — Republican-backed bills to give the Legislature more control over the protection of endangered and threatened wildlife could cost the state more than $27 million annually, according to the federal government. If the bills become law, Pennsylvania could lose eligibility in two of the nation's oldest grant programs geared toward preserving, restoring and protecting wildlife and waterways, according to an Aug. 9 letter the state Game Commission got from the U.S. Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service. "I have significant concerns with this bill and the risk it presents to the Game Commission relative to loss of federal funding," wrote John F. Organ, chief of the division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. But Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Armstrong, the prime sponsor of the House bill, said the legislation does not strip the Game or Fish and Boat commissions of their authority. Rather, he said, the bill, which was the subject of a public hearing Monday, is meant to check the commissions' authority. Pyle said they are the only state agencies that do not have their policy decisions vetted through the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which sets up public forums for new government regulations prior to final approval by lawmakers. The bill is needed, Pyle said, because the Game Commission made his local school district spend extra money to preserve Indiana bats, which are endangered, even though the bats were not on the land where a new school was being built. "Those guys are the judge, jury and executioner," he said. The threat of losing federal money is "hollow," Pyle added. House Republican Caucus lawyers, Pyle said, have assured him that the state would not lose federal money because other state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) also have jurisdiction over environmental protection. "We got a bunch of safety checks built into this thing," said Pyle. Drew Crompton, chief of staff to Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, who has sponsored a similar bill in that chamber, said the federal government's concerns can "be easily addressed" in the legislative process. But Rep. Steve McCarter, D-Montgomery, a critic of the bills, said the threat of lost federal revenue should be taken seriously. The bills are meant to appease industry at the expense of the environment, he said, because they would create a prolonged, 11-step process to having species listed or delisted as threatened and endangered through the Independent Regulatory Process. "The chance of any species getting through the process would be impossible," McCarter said. In addition to putting the commissions under the scrutiny of the regulatory review process, the bills call for the commissions, plus the state Agricultural Department and DCNR, to create a centralized database to replace the decades-old computerized system of endangered species and fauna. The commissions argue that the database would jeopardize wildlife because it would pinpoint their locations. The bills also would require the agencies to remove species from the endangered or threatened lists within two years if the agencies cannot produce "acceptable data" that the species' numbers remain weak. The agencies also could not define new endangered or threatened species if their numbers are acceptable outside of Pennsylvania, or if they are not already covered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Those changes could make the state ineligible for federal funds, says Organ's letter to Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe. According to the letter, Game Commission could lose $19 million — or 24 percent of its 2012-13 budget — because it may not be eligible for the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program. The program dates to 1937 and is used to "restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals" while making their habitats accessible for hunting, shooting and other recreation. The Fish and Boat Commission could lose $8.3 million — 29 percent of its 2012-13 budget — from the federal Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Program. That program, started in 1950 and modeled after Pittman-Robertson, seeks to make fishing and boating more accessible to the public. To be eligible for both grants, state have to have fish and wildlife agencies that have sole discretion over how revenue for fishing and hunting licenses are used. The agencies also have to have the authority to ensure "the conservation of fish and wildlife."

Are “they” delivering? Prior to 2013 NY Governor Cuomo proposed a sporting license fee reduction justified to increase non-resident hunting and simplify the existing program. NY already ranks 7th in non-resident hunters, likely due to bordering states with little hunting opportunity rather than abundance of game. The Governor’s proposal was backed by the NY State Conservation Council because they said that sportsmen are paying more and getting less from the DEC and therefore it is not necessary to maintain such a high balance in the conservation fund. In 2013 the proposal was signed into law and takes effect in February 2014. A number of years ago a lifetime sporting license was created along with a separate account within the conservation fund in which revenue from lifetime licenses was to be staged and then turned over to the state comptroller to be used in the short term investment pool. On the federal level during 2013 Congress and President Obama began to sequester five percent of federal conservation trust funds derived from the Pitman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. The trust funds are not the only programs affected this year. Despite federal conservation investment being less than one percent of the total budget; Congress and the administration opted to make deep cuts into conservation funding cutting 20 programs by either eliminating them or zeroing them out. Those same programs have already been cut by 25% the last few years. The federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp has not seen a price increase since the 1990s and is still only $15. This year a complicated scheme was launched to allow the fee to float with economic factors. New York phased out its state migratory bird stamp a number of years ago and is unwilling to take advantage of increased conservation funding which would be generated by instituting a mourning dove hunting season. Conservation funding is correlated to sporting license revenue. In 2012 license sales stabilized nationwide but the long term trend is a decline in license revenue every year as less and less people hunt. Four special youth seasons have been established in NY under the rationale of sustaining hunter numbers thereby conservation funding. While residents desire more access and opportunity non-residents, mostly from New Jersey and Connecticut flock to NY for better hunting and public land opportunities. At a very minimum it is very arguable that the state chose a bad time to increase the burn-rate of its conservation fund considering the simultaneous negative activity with federal conservation programs. 20 Programs and Agencies Zeroed Out in FY 2014 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill 1. Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition (-$22.3 million) 2. Fish and Wildlife Service Construction (-$19.1 million) 3. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition (-$54.6 million) 4. North American Wetlands Fund (-$35.4 million) 5. Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund (-$3.7 million) 6. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (-$61.3 million) 7. National Park Service Land Acquisition and State Assistance (-$101.8 million) 8. Forest Service Land Acquisition (-$52.5 million) 9. Forest Service Special Acquisitions (-$0.9 million) 10. Forest Service Land Exchange Acquisitions (-$0.2 million) 11. Forest Legacy Program (-$53.3 million) 12. Forest Service Planning (-$39.2 million) 13. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (-$7.7 million) 14. Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts (-$8.5 million) 15. Woodrow Wilson Center (-$10.9 million) 16. Eisenhower Memorial Commission (-$1 million) 17. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields (-$90 million) 18. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Native Villages Water Infrastructure (-$9.5 million) 19. Environmental Protection Agency US Mexico Border Water Infrastructure (-$4.7 million) 20. Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth (-$1.7 million

Is this the new face of conservation? Is this a sincere promotion of the federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp? Are they mocking hunters who 1) boast about paying for conservation / being conservationists? 2) take pictures of themselves posing with harvested game? This was in Western New York, by the way and is a movement not an isolated incident... The money and the volunteer hours they are donating is no small piddly amount either... On a related note the University of California and other colleges have acknowledged that most wildlife biology graduates have no experience with hunting which is different than in the past and quote: "People without any exposure to hunting will soon be managing hunters"

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The model illustrates how conservation evolved in the U.S. and Canada since its beginning during the Teddy Roosevelt era. Although The Model is considered to have seven basic tenants, its roots go back to the fundamental reasons that our European ancestors got on boats and came to the New World. That is, that fish and game should not belong to a king or nobleman, but should be held in public trust. (Probably not what were you taught in elementary school about why Europeans immigrated to the USA.) Video (43 minutes) Note: The video does not address the fact that the public majority, not just hunters, is heavily engaged in conservation these days. : http://youtu.be/xRx-HcVQDRQ North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the world’s most successful. No other continent has conserved as many species of native wildlife as North America. While other countries struggle to conserve the wildlife they have left, we enjoy great abundance and diversity of wildlife. This is due, in large part, to forward thinking by early conservationists who saw the need to conserve wildlife and their habitats. Their efforts were the source of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which strives to sustain wildlife species and habitats through sound science and active management. There are TWO basic principles to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. In addition to these two basic principles there are “Seven Sisters” that make up the framework of this model. THE SEVEN SISTERS Wildlife Is Held In The Public Trust: The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone. Through shared ownership and responsibility, opportunity to enjoy wildlife is provided to all. Commerce In Wildlife Is Regulated: Early laws banning commercial hunting and the sale of meat and hides ensured the sustainability of wildlife through the regulation of harvest and the sale of wildlife parts such as teeth, claws and antlers. Hunting And Angling Laws Are Created Through Public Process: Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations. Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. Hunting And Angling Opportunity For All: The opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base support for wildlife law enforcement, habitat conservation and research. Hunters And Anglers Fund Conservation: Hunting and fishing license sales and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for management of all wildlife, including wildlife species that are not hunted. Wildlife Is An International Resource: Proper stewardship of wildlife and habitats is both a source of national pride and an opportunity to cooperate with other nations with whom we share natural resources. Cooperative management of migrating waterfowl, songbirds and marine life is one example of successful international collaboration. Science Is The Basis For Wildlife Policy: The limited use of wildlife as a renewable natural resource is based on sound science. Wildlife agency professionals adapt management strategies based on population and habitat monitoring to achieve the sustainability of wildlife populations and their habitats. Source: Georgia Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE, Social Circle, GA 30025 A Primer on the Wildlife Trust Source: Jeremy Bruskotter The wildlife trust doctrine–a branch of the broader public trust doctrine that deals specifically with wildlife–was established in a series of court cases that provide the foundation for state-based conservation of wildlife that some refer to as the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation. Two Supreme Court cases (i.e., Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. 367 (1842) and Geer v. Connecticut 161 U.S. 519 (1896)), provide the basic foundation of this legal doctrine. In Martin v. Waddell, the court applied English common law to reject a landowner’s claim to an oyster fishery that was located under the public waters of the state of New Jersey. The court concluded that with the formation of the United States, the lands that had once belonged to England passed to the state of New Jersey; applying English common law, the court held that the “land under navigable waters…were to be held…in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown.” English policy, since the time of the Magna Carta, was to preserve such resources “for the benefit of the public”. Thus, the landowner could not lay claim to the oyster fishery because his actions deprived the citizens of New Jersey any access to this resource, which was held collectively by the citizens of that state. Although the dispute in Martin v. Waddell focused on the lands under the navigable waters and the oyster beds attached thereto, the Court in Geer v. Connecticut, using a similar rational, extended the trust obligation to terrestrial wildlife (woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail). In this case, again relying on English common law, the court held that wildlife (ferae naturae ) were public property – “the ownership of the sovereign authority . . . [to be held in] trust for all the people of the state” and that it was the” duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.” These cases set the stage for modern wildlife management by state agencies, in which states act as trustees, managing and conserving wildlife resources on behalf of their citizens. This doctrine underpins our system of wildlife conservation in the United States, and is recognized by the Wildlife Society as one of the seven “pillars” of the North American Model. An Obligation to Conserve? While the notion of sovereign ownership of wildlife is well established, there has been little discussion regarding states’ obligations under the wildlife trust doctrine. The Court in Geer made it clear that the trustee-beneficiary relationship establishes an obligation on the part of the state to “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust” (emphasis added). The court added that: “..the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good” (emphasis added). Yet, the nature of states’ obligations is ill-defined for, as Freyfogle and Goble (2009:33) noted, “there is no trust document that sets forth the precise terms of the trust.” Moreover, there has been little opportunity–or need–to establish the case law necessary to “flesh out” these obligations because the statutory protections provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the associated federal control have largely precluded the need for protecting species outside the ESA framework; that is, because the ESA provides federal protections for species that are imperiled, there has been no need for interested citizens to force states to protect species through litigation, thus establishing the case law necessary to formalize states’ obligations. (Note: We disagree with part of this; lawsuits against state wildlife agencies and the FWS of the nature described have actually been common for at least 15 years and are not always the subject of federally or state listed species, although true most are ESA issues.) Confusion at the crux: Science, policy and wildlife management The interplay between science and policy and how it affects the objectives of wolf management lies near the heart of the wolf issue. Scientifically-collected and analyzed data has traditionally played an essential role in wildlife management in the United States. Time-tested methods are used to assist wildlife managers in understanding population trends and the factors (e.g. immigration, mortality, birth rates) that can potentially impact wildlife populations. This tradition has been symbolically codified as one of seven “components” or principles of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (see also Organ & Mahoney 2007). It has also led to the wide-spread perception that wildlife management objectives should be determined by science rather than politics. Thus Malloney (2011:179) recently expressed frustration that “wolf management…tends to be guided by opinion and politics rather than science.” This perception misunderstands the role of science in wildlife policy; in fact, it misunderstands what types of questions science is capable of answering. Science can answering factual or “is” questions–bounded, of course, by some error. Science, cannot answer questions questions are fundamentally subjective or “normative” in nature. According to the Wildlife Society, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation demands that “science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy” (Batcheller et al. 2010 ). Here the use of the word “discharge”, which Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines as “to throw off or deliver a load, charge, or burden” further contributes to the confusion regarding the role of science. Science simply is not capable of “discharging” (or “delivering”) wildlife policy (or any other policy, for that matter); to set such high expectations for science is to set it, and scientists, up for failure. Rather, science merely informs policy decisions, which, as the term “policy” implies, are ultimately discharged via political processes. Some may think this distinction trivial, but it is a fundamental source of conflict where wolves are concerned. Until stakeholders–including wildlife professionals–recognize the limitations of science and the types of information it provides, the role of science will be a continued source of friction and conflict. (Note: the average person is a stakeholder and usually there are public comment opportunities, both by attending hearings and giving oral testimony or by submitting written comment. For science to inform a stakeholder, that person must distinguish between propaganda, pseudo-science, real science, and science journalism. Science Journalism is the most frequent form of information which is confused with scientific reports). Further Reading: 60 page PDF: http://www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org/documents/scientific/North%20American%20Model%20of%20Wildlife%20Conservation.pdf 43 page PDF: http://www.wafwa.org/html/pdfs/AZ_NAM%20Training%20and%20Resource%20Guide%20-%20july2009.pdf 7 page PDF: http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/HUNT/4%203%20Scandinavia%20plus%20cover.pdf 17 page , non PDF document: The History of Wildlife Conservation and Research in the United States – and Implications for the Future http://cnr.ncsu.edu/fer/directory/documents/Article-HistoryofWildlifeResearch.pdf

Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife? Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case.... News August 19, 2013 Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers? August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones. On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week. Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets. “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania. There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said. Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers. “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.” That is where drones could play a crucial role. “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said. “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.” Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania. “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added. However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1. Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem. “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said. An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy. A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.” “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.” Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching. The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn. “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya. The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said. The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said. Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements. Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said. Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa. In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia. The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong. “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said. Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation. The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation. “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said. However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns. Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done. “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said. Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July. Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking. “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said Appeals courts considers shark fin ban Obama's staff backs challenge to California law Bob Egelko Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013 With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy. The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins. But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources. Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown." But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination. "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked. The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks. By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught. The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey. The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future." "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court. If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.

Hillary Endorses Poaching Crack Down Hillary Clinton Joins Fight Against Elephant Poaching The news comes just a few weeks after President Obama pledged $10 million to slow illegal wildlife trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa By Amanda Taselaar July 18, 2013 Follow @timenewsfeed Despite international bans, demand for ivory from elephant tusks has grown so strong that it has devastated elephant populations in Africa. Now former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, wants to help. According to the Washington Post, Clinton has met with representatives from many environmental groups and National Geographic to formulate a plan. “She will use her political connections as America’s former secretary of state to enlist other world leaders in the effort to curtail the illegal ivory trade.” Because China buys about 40 percent of the ivory traded globally, she will focus her efforts there, according to the South China Morning Post. Clinton’s move comes just two weeks after President Obama announced new funding to curb elephant poaching: He has earmarked $10 million to combat wildlife trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa. The African elephant population has dropped from 1.2 million in 1980 to just 420,000 last year. According to the Post, about 30,000 elephants were killed illegally last year, with their tusks selling for as much as $1000 a pound. (The U.S. banned the import of ivory from African elephants in 1989, with the exception of antiques). While all elephants have been devastated, the African forest elephants are particularly at risk. These elephants are smaller than the renowned savannah African elephant and live in more open forest clearings that easily attract poachers. The Wildlife Conservation Society estimated that their population has fallen by about 76 percent in the last decade. Reuters A Kenyan wildlife ranger inscribes markings on the 775 elephant tusks, weighing around 1300 kg (2900 pounds), that was seized by the port police at the container terminal destined for Malaysia in the coastal town of Mombasa July 3, 2013. REUTERS/Joseph Okanga (KENYA – Tags: ANIMALS CRIME LAW) – RTX11B58 (MORE: Obama Moves to Fight Wildlife Trafficking in Africa. But the Real Work is in Asia) Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/18/hillary-clinton-joins-fight-against-elephant-poaching/#ixzz2Zsws9yV5

Federal Funds being held In August 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 aimed at cutting the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years by mandating automatic caps on federal government spending. That bill requires that 7.6% of the nation’s Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs and Boating Safety Trust Fund—collectively called the Trust Funds—be “sequestered” or withheld from distribution to the states. Sequestration would equate to a loss of $74 million to states in FY2013! The Trust Funds are the collection of excise taxes paid by industry to the federal government from the purchase of bows and arrows; guns and ammunition; fishing tackle and equipment; and motorboat fuel. They are the lifeblood of state fish and wildlife agencies’ day-to-day operating budgets. State agencies use their Trust Fund apportionments exclusively to restore and manage fisheries and wildlife and their habitats, open and maintain recreational access, and deliver hunter and boating safety education. Ask Congress (US Senators and US Representative – not the same as NY state senators and NY state assembly) to ‘Keep the Trust’ and exempt the Trust Funds from Sequestration! The Budget Control Act of 2011 requires that 7.6% of the nation's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs and Boating Safety Trust Fund-collectively called the Trust Funds-be "sequestered" or withheld from distribution to the states. Sequestration would equate to a loss of $74 million to states in FY2013. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds are not taxpayer dollars derived through federal income taxes. These funds are raised through excise taxes levied on bows and arrows; guns and ammunition; fishing tackle and equipment; and motorboat fuel that are paid upfront by manufacturers, producers and importers of taxable equipment, and in turn passed on as part of the retail price to sportsmen and women. The Trust Funds are the lifeblood of state fish and wildlife agencies' day-to-day operating budgets. State agencies use their Trust Fund apportionments exclusively to restore and manage fisheries and wildlife and their habitats, open and maintain recreational access, and deliver hunter and boating safety education. By withholding this money from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds, the Budget Control Act of 2011 will adversely affect states' ability to manage their fish and wildlife resources in the public interest and cut millions of dollars available for fish, wildlife and habitat conservation and hunting, angling, boating and recreational shooting activities in each state. Currently, there is no consistent substitute or replacement mechanism for the loss of these operating funds. In previous budget-balancing actions, money going into the Trust Funds appear to have been exempt from sequestration [balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985. P.L. 99-177, Section 255, 11, (g)]. The 1985 Act specifically listed the programs and activities that were exempt from sequestration and specifically provided that "payments to trust funds from excise taxes or other receipts properly creditable to such trust funds" were to be "exempt from reduction." However, payments from such trust funds do not appear to be exempt. Because of this, the Federal Aid trust funds for Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration are scheduled to withhold 7.6% or $31 million and $34 million, respectively, in 2013. Members of the wildlife, sport fish, hunting, fishing, boating and conservation community and industry agree that sequestering the spending authority of these inviolable Trust Funds to states is a breach of faith and violates the intent of the user-pay, public-benefit system of fish and wildlife conservation and access. Congress can exempt the Trust Funds from sequestration by amending the "Exemption" provision found in Section 255 of 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act so as to include appropriations from such trust funds in addition to payments to such funds.

Last week, President Obama completed his week-long Africa trip to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania, where he promoted an increased partnership amongst African nations and the U.S. He ended his trip in Tanzania where he focused on highlighting the country’s economic potential as well as combating illegal wildlife trade. Tens of thousands of African elephants (Loxodonta africana spp.) are slaughtered every year by poachers who seek their tusks for the illegal ivory trade. African rhinoceroses are targeted for their horns, and intense poaching has nearly decimated the black rhino (Diceros bicornis) population. Currently, the market value for rhino horns is $30,000 per pound, and $1,000 per pound for the ivory from elephant tusks (Greenwire). The total global market from illegal wildlife trade is $7 billion to $10 billion a year, and growing. President Obama has pledged to curb the illegal wildlife trade before the African elephant and black rhino go extinct. Obama’s plan to cut down on illegal trafficking of wildlife parts is an effort to stabilize African governments. He created a $10 million initiative that will train police officers and park rangers in Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya, and other African countries to fight organized gangs involved in poaching. The U.S. Department of State will provide the $10 million in regional and bilateral training, as well as technical assistance. A new executive order announced last week would set up a Presidential Task Force to create a strategy for stopping criminals from poaching and thus cut off the demand for ivory in other countries. In addition, the order would establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Tracking, consisting of eight non-government individuals to oversee the Task Force. Sources: Greenwire (July 3, 2013), Mongabay (July 3, 2013), The White House (July 1, 2013), National Geographic (October 2012).

During the last DEC Budget hearing one of the issues raised by those invited to testify was about geographic equity of land acquisitions in general and in particular access to the Hudson River. Not sure if this is what they had in mind, but here is what they got... For Release: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 Grants Awarded to Improve Access to Hudson River for Underserved Communities Kingston, Albany, Yonkers and New York City Will Use Grants to Develop Plans to Provide Greater Opportunities to Enjoy Recreational OpportunitiesThe New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Hudson River Estuary Program, in partnership with the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), has awarded four grants totaling $117,611 to provide access to the Hudson River and its tributaries for underserved communities, including people with disabilities and individuals living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens announced today. The purpose of these grants is to support the development of plans or projects that will improve public access to the river and estuary for fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, wildlife education, and river watching in environmental justice neighborhoods. "The Hudson River Estuary Program is helping communities enjoy, protect and revitalize the Hudson River and its Valley," said Commissioner Martens. "These grants support efforts in four communities to develop projects that will make it easier for residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods to enjoy recreational and educational opportunities along the river and its tributaries, while also helping to revitalize river cities. The awards are part of a plan to connect environmental projects to the economic vitality of the region, and these four projects align with Regional Economic Development Council (REDC) goals and strategies." Ron Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director, said, "Providing waterfront access for underserved communities is key to building support for the Hudson. NEIWPCC is pleased to offer support for this important initiative." The four grant-funded projects are located in environmental justice (EJ) neighborhoods in Albany, Kingston, New York City and Yonkers: The City of Albany will receive $30,000 to conduct a community engagement and visioning plan to increase educational and recreational opportunities along the Patroon Creek, a tributary of the Hudson River estuary located within the Tivoli Lake Preserve, The Preserve is an underutilized 80-acre urban nature preserve located adjacent to two high-density lower-income communities -- the Arbor Hill and West Hill neighborhoods - and is the second largest urban nature preserve in New York State (only Central Park in New York City is larger). A related project, previously funded by the Hudson River Estuary Program, involves opening up sections of the Patroon Creek to daylight, in areas where the creek flows underground through culverts. The site is ideal for restoration, and the city will actively engage local residents in developing a vision for its use as a community asset. The project aligns with the Capital District REDC goal of waterfront revitalization. The City of Kingston will receive $30,000 to install a floating fishing pier/dock on the Rondout Creek next to T.R. Gallo Park and neighborhood subsidized housing complexes-one of the poorest census tracts in the city. The dock will provide the first public access fishing dock along Kingston's waterfront at Rondout Creek and will provide opportunities to catch a variety of fish of the Hudson estuary, such as perch, largemouth bass and striped bass. The Federated Sportsmen's Clubs of Ulster County will provide fishing equipment and host fishing classes in the downtown area to teach local residents to fish. The city's goal is to be a regional leader in providing access to disenfranchised citizens who can't access the water because they do not own boats. In addition to providing fishing access for low-income residents, the project includes ramps accessible for wheelchair users. This project meets a Mid-Hudson REDC goal to use of the region's natural infrastructure of parks, preserves and waterways, including the Hudson estuary, to promote recreational and tourism uses of the waterfront. The city office of Community Development is providing $20,000 in matching funds for the project, which also supports the city's local waterfront revitalization plan. West Harlem Environmental Action Inc. (WE ACT for Environmental Justice) will receive $30,006 to develop plans for a new community center for ecological education and recreational activities on the Hudson River at 135th Street, site of the abandoned Marine Transfer Station. This site has the potential to offer access to the Hudson River for residents of Harlem, creating a much-needed green center for northern Manhattan, an area that has been excessively burdened with polluting facilities. WE ACT seeks to turn an area known for community blight to a publicly accessible, ecologically beneficial green center, cultivating environmental stewards for the Hudson. The project will reach out to and seek to involve local schools in the visioning process, including Philip Randolph High School, PS 161, and Mott Hall High School Yonkers, Groundwork Hudson Valley will receive $27,605 to work with residents to develop access plans to the adjacent Saw Mill River for fishing, birding, walking, and environmental education. The Saw Mill River is a tributary stream of the Hudson River Estuary that is being restored as a community asset and habitat for local fish and wildlife. This project will provide access to the stream for residents of Walsh Homes, a senior housing residence, and families at Schlobohm Houses. These public housing complexes have a combined total of approximately 1,000 units of housing. The project will replace rusting chain link fences and imposing blockades that currently impede access, and replace them with small pocket parks and bucolic settings for residents to enjoy vistas of the river. Residents and families will be asked to volunteer their time in the restoration project and create true community engagement. The project will include interpretive signage about the habitats, fish and birds of the area, and will also offer educational and recreational activities such as bird-watching and river cleanups. For more information on the grants awarded, contact Fran Dunwell, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program, at 845-256-3016. The Hudson River Estuary Program is a project of the NYS Environmental Protection Fund. Helping people enjoy, protect and revitalize the Hudson River and its Valley, For more information on the Hudson River Estuary Program visit the DEC website.

Government holding onto Conservation Funds in 2013 Note: Payments into Trust Funds such as the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds are exempt from sequestration, however, payments out of these Trust Funds are not. According to the latest figures released from the White House, this will result in withholdings of approximately $27 million from Wildlife Restoration, $19 million from Sport Fish Restoration, and $6 million from Boating Safety in 2013. That is not good, but I am not sure if any state will even feel it split 50 ways, as NYs appropriations alone is around $20 million. And, if NY doesn’t kiss & make up with the FWS, that $20 Mill might go right back into the hat! Also note: Thanks to the Outdoor Writers Association, most sportsmen are only aware of the federal conservation funds known as PR and DJ funds, which are actually wildlife restoration and sport fish and boating restoration funds. However, as listed below, there actually is a myriad of federal conservation funds. To add insult to injury, generally speaking, most of the non-shooting conservationists are better versed in these programs than sportsmen. If that includes you, thank your info sources… Although ‘sequestration’ in the conservation world usually means carbon sequestration, the latest impacts to wildlife may actually be from the federal government’s budget sequestration. The Budget Control Act language of 2011 was intended to be a last ditch effort to force compromise in a divided Congress, but when an agreed upon budget was not reached by March 1, 2013, the budget sequestration cuts outlined in the Act [Pub. L. 112-25] were automatically enacted. In an attempt to lower the federal deficit by $85 billion ($42.667 billion in non-defense spending) through 10 years of austerity, the bill starts with an average of 5 percent cuts in non-defense spending (5 percent discretionary, 5.1 percent mandatory) and defense spending cuts between 5 and 7.8 percent. However, since these cuts must be achieved by September 30 of this year, the effective reductions will actually be around 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9 percent for non-exempt non-defense programs, because the cuts are not spread evenly over all 12 months. Today the Continuing Resolution (CR) was passed to fund the rest of fiscal year 2013, locking in the current sequester cuts for the remainder of the year. Within the conservation realm, cuts to the National Park Service have been most widely publicized. On March 8, 2013, the National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis released a memo to his employees that “900 permanent positions will not be filled … [and] we will hire over 1,000 less seasonal employees this year.” The possible closure or reduced hours of national parks, as well as the impact to the small businesses surrounding the parks has been well covered by organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, and National Parks Conservation Association. Similarly, national wildlife refuges may be forced to limit public access and recreational opportunities by closing some refuges and visitor centers. The funds for refuges are included in resource management cuts totaling $64 million. Refuges will also be hit by cuts to “construction” ($5 million) that include habitat restoration and erosion control activities, road, building, and visitor services on refuges, and $1 million in cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. On March 2, the White House Office of Management and Budget released a report detailing how much will be cut from each agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $127 million$64 million from Resource Management $5 million from Construction $1 million from Multinational Species Conservation Fund $21 million from Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration $1 million from National Wildlife Refuge Fund $2 million from Migratory Bird Conservation Account $2 million from Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation $2 million from North American Wetlands Conservation Fund $3 million from State Wildlife Grants $23 million from Sport Fish Restoration U.S. Forest Service (USFS): $298 million Department of Defense: $526 Million $94 million from Department of Defense environmental restoration accounts $26 million from Environmental Restoration (formerly Used Defense Sites) $394 million from Defense Environmental Cleanup $12 million from Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Bureau of Land Management: $75 million Natural Resources Conservation Service: $223 million National Park Service: $153 million Environmental Protection Agency: $472 million $125 million from USFS Wildland Fire Management $38 million from the Department of the Interior’s Wildland Fire Management Fire Management: $163 million States will also be affected, as funds that come from the federal government are cut. View an interactive map for information on your state (click on the environmental protection tab). Sources: ABC News (March 13, 2013), American Institute of Biological Sciences (March 11, 2013), Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Federal Budget Sequestration Fact Sheet, CARE –Fiscal Cliff and Wildlife (2012), Environment News Service (March 1, 2013), Fairfax News (March 7, 2013), National Geographic News (Feb. 28, 2013), National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Impacts of the Fiscal Cliff, NorthJersey.com News (March 4, 2013), Sequester could hurt NJ’s environment, NPSretirees.org, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration For Fiscal Year 2013, USFWS 2013 Budget

March 13, 2013 How can it be credible that DEC is voluntarily handing out its own money and deliberately not performing its mandates, carrying out slated projects, or implementing existing conservation plans? After all, these are the DEC’s own ideas and working capital. The blame is sometimes put on “the state” and “politicians”. Although it is not hard to believe that tens of millions of dollars in the accounts comprising the conservation fund will perk up lawmakers; it is not believable that regulation proposals for fishing & hunting are dreamed up by the legislature or governor. These proposals are driven by either sportsmen or anti-hunters. Other times they are driven by non-shooting conservationists. However, the chain is longer than the special interest drivers. It is extended by advisory boards such as the open lands advisory board; conservation advisory board; and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. Additionally, the NY State Conservation Council is also empowered by state law to have a voice larger than individuals or small groups, unless those agree with the NYSCC, off course. The chain is longer and still does not end there. A proposal, in addition to passing both houses of the legislature and being signed by the governor; can be opened for public comment one or more times during the rule-making process. The public comment period is several weeks or months long and is advertised in newspapers, the DEC website, or in what is known as the state register or federal register for federal regulations. This comment period is used as a tool by special interests groups, when it is to their advantage; they blast announcements about it to their members and to the magazines (actually directly to the Outdoor Writers Association). When it does not work to their advantage, they keep it quiet. However, you are not their puppet, unless you choose to be. As an individual you can monitor the websites of the DEC, assembly, senate, and congress, and the state or federal registers, to keep apprised of public comment periods. This article is leading up to the politicization of conservation. Conservation began in the 1930s, but in 1957 NY passed the Fish and Wildlife Management Act which authorized the FWMB to make recommendations on management plans and work on private land cooperative agreements for hunting and fishing. Members of each regional board are politically appointed and/or from designated groups, such as agriculture, etc. During May, 2011, a bill passed the NY State Senate which extended the term limits of board members. The stated justification of this law was that by the time board members learned the ropes and became experienced, it was time for them to resign. Backtracking to 1982, NY passed another law which authorized the conservation advisory board which is self-explanatory. In 1992 still another law was passed which restructured the CFAB. This law put a handful of politicians and DEC staff on the board as “ex office” members. The stated reason for this law was to assist the regular board members in making decisions on time. A creed among sportsman is to remain united. That creed has helped keep anti-hunters and anti-firearm groups at bay. However, it also has created institutionalized thinking among sportsmen. This mentality has discouraged people from doing their own thinking and encouraged adopting whatever is said or proposed by large organizations that enjoy carte blanche access to the sporting media through the Outdoor Writers Association. One way the case is delivered by the sporting leadership is by criticizing “special interest legislation”. However, they only consider a bill S.I.L. when it is not one of their proposals. And as mentioned earlier, some proposals are announced widely when it helps, but others slide through the entire legislative process with stealth when advantageous. Conservation and sporting policy should be ecology-based, not politically- based. Indoctrination drives politics, not conservation. Sportsmen love to tout science-based decisions and label themselves conservationists after making a statement about the difference between a preservationist and a conservationist. However, like industry, it is only science when it is consistent with their agenda. Everybody seems to agree that conservation has become politicized. The disagreement lies in who is to blame for driving politics. If the sporting leadership is “pushing back” with recommendations during a hearing and with new legislation, why isn’t that playing politics? Despite the dysfunction of that approach, chatter within the sporting community indicates some degree of endorsement of this retaliation. Citizen participation is useful to help natural resource managers (the DEC) balance the social and biological aspects of conservation. It seems that has evolved into politically facilitated groups insistent on telling the DEC what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and what not to do. When the DEC is proposing something they like or adopting one of their own proposals, it is one story. In those scenarios these groups endorse the DEC’s ideas, science, and statistics. When the DEC has other priorities or conclusions, it is a different story and politics enter. Apparently, politics entered in 2013 with a proposal to lower sporting license revenue, unless you believe that is just what the DEC wanted…

NY has used a strategy for several years which purportedly will sustain conservation funding, however this locks up large amounts of money and does not seem to be necessary in the first place. Time is of the essence characterizes conservation. There is no time to play politics or investment banking with conservation funds. Investment in conservation pays, it does not cost... One example is open land returns a yield of five dollars on one dollar invested. Policy makers instead decided to invest a portion of sporting license revenues not in conservation, but in the state short term investment pool at a maximum return of 6% and delay the DEC access to that return for 12 months while tens of millions of principle is run through the state's STIP and not accessible to the DEC for an indefinite time. It is our goal to make the conservation community fully aware of this and make their own decisions on whether this strategy is wise. Those who are opposed to this strategy can boycott lifetime sporting licenses and buy annual licenses instead. In addition those opposed can contact the NY state assembly & senate, particularly those representing their voting district and the chairs of the assembly & senate environmental conservation committees. http://youtu.be/0aWP8ZzgetQ

http://youtu.be/CWWFrHn63eA

Highlights of sportsmen–related testimony during the 2013 NY DEC budget hearing DEC Commissioner Joe Martens Discusses FWS audit of budget causing problems with eligibility for federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds: CFAB, FWMB, and NYSCC License fees and Conservation Fund, among other things. Mark Grisanti, 60th Senate District, Chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee License fees, pheasant farm, conservation fund, federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds Sean Ryan 48th Senate District Pheasant farm, fish hatcheries Sweeney assembly Federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds Daniel Stec 114th District Assembly Opposes Land Acquisition with EP funds which were increased $19 million this year Otis, 91st District Assembly Wants the DEC to emphasis engineering solutions for flood mitigation over eco-based land solutions. In other word; construction instead of restoration of natural systems which buffer storms and floods with associated benefits to recreation and ecology. NY Audubon Society Testifies about federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds and sweeping of conservation fund. Hunters may be surprised that a NY bird watchers organization, has been watching the federal funds paid into by sportsmen via excise taxes on guns, ammo, archery gear, and some hunting and fishing equipment other than guns and ammo and outboard oil. Nature Conservancy Explains its role as a land trust, including its purchase of the Finch property to be sold to the DEC over a five year installment. William Cook, Citizens Campaign for the Environment Explains he was involved in from the beginning of the EPF and indicates the original intent had only the purpose of land acquisition. This fund now has several accounts for diverse uses, however it puts the strain on the DEC to administer the fund into those diverse uses, such as pumping water in Queens to alleviate basement flooding of residents. Grisanti - Asks DEC to look at an agriculture special interest “ASAP”

This was just posted by the NY Senate on youtube. I suggest watching the whole video, but in segments, since it is over 7 hours long. For example I watch one hour an evenening for 7 days. Do not skip over discussions which do not interest you because you can get a feel for each assembly and senate members attitude which is valuaeble intell. I would like to discuss this in segments as well. Particularily interesting is questions to DEC commissioner Martens from Mark Grisanti. Grisanti is the chairman of the senate environmental conservation committee. Grisanti refused to forward S-6968, the NY Dove Bill for two years allowing the bill to expire to the delight of the HSUS. The stated justification of the dove bill was to increase the states conservation fund. Grisanti did not discuss doves, but he did say that the conservation fund is so large that license fees should be reduced. No he didnt say use the money, he said lower fees so the fund depletes. The kicker is the next thing he asks about is the possible loss of federal conservation funds. If you know anything about these federal funds you know that these are grants which a state or organization applies for on a somewhat competitive basis. The state or organization's conservation funds are matched three to one. For example if the state applies one million dollars toward a project, the FWS chips in an additional 3 million. So Grisanti wants to drain the states conservation fund, but yet wants federal grants? This is just an "illusion of action" because the state cannot access its share of federal wildife funds unless it has an approved project proposal and its share of matching funds. Another point is concern with the hatcheries and the state pheasant farm. I hunt released pheasant and am glad that this program is in good shape, despite that NY got sued a few years ago by the HSUS to abolish released pheasant hunting - yeah I know nobody heard about that, but I will be reporting on that at a latter date.What is remarkable about the hatchery/farm concern is that state and federal conservation funds can create natural hatcheries/farms by habitat enhancements - a fundemental purpose of such funds. Our state has become so disconnected to that and the way this topic flowed it should have biologists shaking their heads. Please watch this entire video in segments and participate in productive discussion in the next several weeks.

Funds from Lifetime license sequestered from conservation Conservation fund has added a fund called the fish and game trust account. It is sometimes called the fish and game trust fund. The conservation fund has 8 different accounts Traditional account Marine resources/shellfish account State fish and game trust account* Migratory bird stamp account Guide’s license account Habitat account Venison donation account Outdoor recreation and trail maintenance account [*]State fish and game trust account Sequesters and separates funds from lifetime licenses from other license funds. Lifetime license fees are put into the fish and game trust account. All other (annual) sporting license funds are put into the traditional account. Funds in the fish and game trust account are not accessible or liquid. Funds are not used for conservation instead invested by the state comptroller in the Short Term Investment Pool (“STIP”). Traditional account is used for conservation practices only. Interest/yield/return from the state fish and game trust account might revert to the traditional fund account to be used for conservation. State keeps yield beyond price of an annual sporting license, therefore, the maximum amount that can revert back to the traditional account and thereby be used for conservation is the price of an annual license. The actual law follows: iii.Earned income from the sale of all lifetime licenses, except income earned on the proceeds of the sale of a lifetime license during the period from sale of such license until April first of the year following one full year of deposit of the proceeds of the sale of such lifetime license, shall be available for deposit within the conservation fund pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision in an amount equal to the cost of the appropriate annual license. The earned income which exceeds the current cost of each annual license comparable to the lifetime license shall be added to the trust account as principal. The earned income from lifetime licenses issued to persons who are under the legal age to implement such licenses shall be added to the trust account as principal until such person becomes of legal age to hunt, fish or trap. Very complicated stipulations are set forth for lifetime licenses bought for children before they are old enough to hunt, as written in the state finance law quoted above. The funds in the fish and game account can be used by the state to lend itself money creating a ‘shell game’ according to state comptroller, DiNapoli: (The states STIP, which holds unused funds from various agencies and was intended as a kind of credit line for ‘episodic shortfalls’ is ‘now used to cover built in and permanent structural deficits’. See below or click link: http://www.osc.state...pr10/040510.htm Abusing Temporary Loans •The state often borrows from the state’s Short Term Investment Pool (STIP) to meet short-term cash shortfalls. These loans, intended to cover episodic shortfalls, are now used to cover built-in and permanent structural deficits. For the last 10 years, the state has closed the fiscal year with an average of $1.4 billion in outstanding temporary loans, clearly illustrating the state’s failure to address chronic deficits deeply embedded within the budget. •The General Fund is increasingly relying on temporary loans from other funds. In December 2009, for the first time in recent history, the state closed the month with a General Fund cash deficit of $577 million prior to adjustments. In 2010-11, DOB is projecting the General Fund will have to borrow from other funds for four months in a row, starting in May. Federal conservation funds may be affected In 2012, language in the New York State budget did not comply with the conditions of receiving federal conservation funds. The NY DEC and FWS worked with the governor’s office to meet compliance and language in the budget was revised. However, the fish and wildlife service indicated that although they would accept this revision for 2012; that in the following year, 2013, more revisions were necessary. During the 2013 Environmental conservation budget hearing, there was discussion that the FWS again rejected the language in this year’s budget. The commissioner of the DEC had indicated that during this hearing that the issue is being resolved. This is not verified, but we believe part of the issue regarding New York’s eligibility for federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds is due to the sequestration of lifetime license funds 3. Investing the state Fish and game trust account may have incurred a large loss in 2010*** ***Supporting graphs attached to adobe file at the beginning of post, on page 3*** For other issues, follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook...365031743546569

The New head of the DOI President Obama on Wednesday will nominate Recreational Equipment (REI) chief executive Sally Jewell to head the Interior Department, according to a White House official who asked not to be identified because the public announcement has not yet been made. The choice of Jewell, who began her career as an engineer for Mobil Oil and worked as a commercial banker before heading a nearly $2 billion outdoors equipment company, represents an unconventional choice for a post usually reserved for career politicians from the West. But while she boasts less public policy experience than other candidates who had been under consideration, Jewell, who will have to be confirmed by the Senate, has earned national recognition for her management skills and support for outdoor recreation and habitat conservation. In 2011 Jewell introduced Obama at the White House conference on “America’s Great Outdoor Initiative,” noting that the $289 billion outdoor-recreation industry supports 6.5 million jobs. Jewell, who is being nominated to succeed Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, would take over at a time when many conservationists are pressing Obama to take bolder action on land conservation. Salazar devoted much of his tenure to both promoting renewable energy on public land and managing the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. On Tuesday former interior secretary Bruce Babbitt gave a speech at the National Press Club calling on the president to set aside one acre permanently for conservation for every acre he leases for oil and gas development. “It’s that simple: one to one,” Babbitt said. “So far, under President Obama, industry has been winning the race as it obtains more and more land for oil and gas. Over the past four years, the industry has leased more than 6 million acres, compared with only 2.6 million acres permanently protected. In the Obama era, land conservation is again falling behind.” Facing congressional opposition and budget constraints during Obama’s first term, Salazar emphasized the importance of enlisting private sector, state and local support to protect major landscapes through America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. Jewell emerged as a strong advocate of the policy, and is likely to continue such efforts. While public lands protection has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, this issue has become increasingly polarized, and the 112th Congress was the first one since 1966 to fail to designate a single piece of wilderness. Environmentalists such as Babbitt have urged Obama to use the Antiquities Act, which gives presidents the executive authority to set aside land as national monuments, to protect ecologically valuable areas in the West. Jewell has pushed for land conservation both in Washington state, where she lives, as well as nationally. She is a founding board member of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, which focuses on a stretch of land spanning from Puget Sound across the Cascades, and helped lay out a plan for the National Park Service as a commissioner on the “National Parks Second Century Commission.” Wyss Foundation president Molly McUsic, whose group focuses on land conservation, wrote in an e-mail that Jewell “understands the full economic potential of America’s resources.” “She knows the oil and gas business from having worked at Mobil and in the banking industry, but also understands the growing economic potential of America’s $646 billion outdoor recreation industry,” McUsic added. “She knows that to grow the economy, development of energy resources must be on equal ground with the protection of places that drive tourism, travel, and recreation.” While Jewell is more closely identified with the Democratic Party than the Republicans, she made a high-profile appearance with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) back in 2008 when he was running for president. McCain spoke with Jewell and others at an environmental policy roundtable outside of Seattle, during which the senator argued that he had stronger environmental credentials than either Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, who were both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time. Other contenders for the Cabinet position in recent weeks included former Washington governor Christine Gregoire (D), Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

On July 11, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published its 2012-2013 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The proposed rule affects hunting and fishing regulations at 19 wildlife refuges throughout the country. At 16 refuges, FWS would increase hunting opportunities by opening new species and areas to hunters. Hunting would be allowed for the first time at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, opened in 2001. Only two refuges would reduce open hunting activities: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Hawaii and Santee NWR in South Carolina. A press release from FWS details other proposed changes. Hunting is allowed on refuges in accordance with The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, provided it is compatible with refuge purpose and mission. The public comment period for this proposed rule will end on August 10. Comments can be submitted online, or by mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-NWRS-2012-0022; Division of Policy and Directives Management US Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM Arlington, VA 22203 Sources: NWRS (July 11, 2012), Federal Register (July 11, 2012)