A lawsuit that sought to clarify Colorado’s stream access laws and improve access for anglers there has been brought to a halt. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that 81-year-old angler Roger Hill does not have the legal standing to continue his lawsuit, State of Colorado v. Hill, in which he argued for the public’s right to wade in certain rivers that flow through or adjacent to private property.

In their June 5 decision, the justices wrote that Hill “does not have standing to pursue the declaratory judgment claim.” They found that because Hill’s case is based on a question of State property ownership and not his own “legally protected interest,” he did not have a legal right to carry the lawsuit forward.

Read Next: Armed Man Charged After Cussing Out Tournament Anglers on Public Lake

The court’s decision strikes a blow to the pro-public-access crowd and maintains the status quo allowing private landowners to exclude the public from certain streambeds in the state.

How the Stream Access Lawsuit Began

Hill’s legal saga started in the summer of 2012, when private landowner Linda Joseph accused him of trespassing and threw rocks at him while he wade fished a stretch of the Arkansas River adjacent to Joseph’s home. Then, in 2015, Joseph’s husband, Mark Warsewa, fired his handgun in the direction of one of Hill’s friends, who was wade fishing in the same spot on the Arkansas. (Warsewa served 30 days in jail for this stunt.)

Hill filed a lawsuit against Joseph and Warsewa in 2018. He argued that the two landowners did not have a right to exclude him from a portion of the Arkansas River near their home because that portion of the streambed should belong to the public.

Hill later added the state of Colorado to his suit. In doing so, he launched a campaign to clarify the state’s stream access laws and determine what right (if any) the public has to wade in certain rivers that flow over or adjacent to privately owned land.

Stream Access Laws in Colorado

At the root of Hill’s argument is the idea of “navigability.” This is a distinction that the federal government uses to determine whether a stretch of river has been used for commerce. The term became important when Western states received statehood, as the federal government considered the streambeds of “navigable waterways” to be owned by these states and therefore held in the public trust.

Colorado, however, did not declare any of its rivers to be navigable when statehood was established in 1876. And in 1912, the Colorado Supreme Court solidified this idea when it found that all rivers in the state were “nonnavigable within its territorial limits.” This has allowed private landowners in the state to claim ownership over streambeds that flow adjacent to or over private land.

Hill, meanwhile, has argued that the Arkansas was navigable at the time of statehood and remains navigable today, according to the federal government’s definition. He points to historical references of beaver trappers and railroad employees who used the Arkansas to transport pelts and railroad ties. (A Gold Medal trout stream and a mecca for whitewater paddlers, the Arkansas remains one of the most important commercial rivers in the state today.)

Furthermore, Hill has told reporters that the Arkansas is just one of many rivers in the state that should be subject to a navigability test. And he’s said that by avoiding any distinctions of navigability on the Arkansas and other rivers in Colorado, the “state has avoided its responsibilities for 150 years.”

Because Hill’s lawsuit could have opened the door to additional court cases based on the question of navigability, it had huge implications for stream access across the state. This led many pro-public-access organizations, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and American Whitewater, to join Hill’s side by filing amicus briefs. These groups argued that Hill’s case represented an important opportunity to address a murky and long-simmering public-access issue in Colorado.

Read Next: A Win for Anglers: U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms New Mexico’s Decision that All Streams in the State Are Public

“Mr. Hill’s case in front of the state Supreme Court provides an important opportunity to public river users to have a say in clarifying their rights to use the amazing rivers of our state,” American Whitewater stewardship director Hattie Johnson said in a press release earlier this month.

Now, with Hill’s case being tossed out by the state Supreme Court, it seems that sense of clarity will continue to elude anglers, boaters, and other stream-access advocates in Colorado.

The post Colorado Supreme Court Throws Out Stream Access Case in Blow to Public Fishing appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Offshore anglers, charter captains, and other members of the East Coast sport fishing industry are continuing to push back on the federal government’s proposed speed restrictions along the Atlantic Coast. The proposed speed limit would require all offshore boats longer than 35 feet operating in designated zones between Massachusetts and North Florida to restrict their speed to 10 knots (11.5 mph) or slower for several months out of the year. These designated slow zones would extend from dozens of miles to up to 90 miles offshore in certain areas.

The rule change being proposed by NOAA Fisheries is designed to further protect North Atlantic right whales, which are occasionally injured or killed in boat collisions.

“The latest preliminary estimates there are fewer than 350 [right whales] remaining, with less than 100 reproductively active females,” NOAA points out. “Vessel strikes, fishing gear entanglements, climate change and other threats all pose challenges to this imperiled species.”

But critics say the proposed speed restrictions would severely handicap the sportfishing industry while doing little to address the declines in right whale populations. In expectation of the rule’s implementation later this year, a coalition of industry groups and politicians are calling on NOAA Fisheries to pause its rule-making process and reconsider.

“While we obviously care about protecting whales,” American Sportfishing Association public affairs manager John Chambers tells Outdoor Life, “we are concerned that NOAA’s rule is misguided, does not take scientific information accurately into account, and was rushed without the input of the boating and fishing industries.”

What’s in the Proposed Rule?

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service first established mandatory speed restrictions for boats along the Atlantic Coast in 2008. These restrictions were established to protect North Atlantic right whales, which are “the world’s most critically endangered large whale species,” according to the federal agency.

The 2008 rule remains in effect today. It only applies to vessels that are 65 feet or longer, and it establishes “seasonal management areas” up and down the Atlantic seaboard. These areas include known feeding zones, migration routes, and nursery grounds stretching from Massachusetts to North Florida. Each area has a specific timeframe during which larger vessels are required to slow to speeds of 10 knots or less.

Last June, NOAA Fisheries proposed to extend these restrictions to vessels between 35 and 65 feet in length, citing the “significant risk” that boats of this size pose to right whales. As part of its proposal, the agency also seeks to broaden both the spatial boundaries and the timing of the SMA’s to up to 90 miles offshore and up to six or seven months of the year.

“Vessels less than 65 feet in length account for five of the 12 documented lethal strike events in U.S. waters since the first speed rule went into effect in 2008, demonstrating the need to extend the speed restrictions to include smaller vessels,” the National Marine Fisheries Service wrote in its proposal.

The public comment period for the Proposed Rule ended last October, and Chambers expects the rule to be finalized later this year.

What Industry Groups and Other Critics Are Saying  

Representatives of the sportfishing industry say the rule is too intrusive and would prevent charter captains from getting to their fishing grounds in a reasonable amount of time. Anglers targeting tuna, billfish, and other pelagic species regularly travel dozens (or even hundreds) of miles offshore during a single day’s outing, and many of them use boats that are between 35- and 65-feet long.

“Due to the large size of the speed zone created by NOAA, which extends as far as 90 miles out in some portions, boating and fishing trips won’t just take longer to occur, they simply won’t happen,” Chambers explains. “This would decimate the boating and fishing industry.”

Chambers adds that while the NMFS statistic about lethal strike events is accurate, it overlooks how rarely these incidents occur. As part of its own analysis, the ASA found that since 2008, approximately 5.1 million recreational fishing trips were taken in the region by vessels that were 35- to 65-feet in length. This means that the chances of a recreational vessel striking a right whale during an offshore fishing trip is “at most .000098 percent, or less than one-in-a-million.”   

Several outdoor recreation and conservation organizations have joined the ASA in speaking out against the proposed rule. A few members of Congress have recently voiced their opposition as well, including Reps. David Rouzer (R-North Carolina), Bill Posey (R-Florida), and Mike Collins (R-Georgia).

Read Next: Gulf Coast Charter Captains Appeal Court Decision That Would Allow Feds to Track Their Boats

And on May 4, the attorneys general of Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alaska sent a letter to NOAA expressing their concerns. They say that in addition to disrupting the regional sportfishing industry, the speed restrictions would threaten the safety of pilot boats and other commercial vessels, which regularly adjust their speed depending on weather and traffic conditions.

“While we generally share NOAA’s concerns regarding the protection of the North Atlantic right whale, we believe there are alternative ways to protect these whales without inflicting unnecessary economic damage to our States,” the attorneys general write. “We respectfully ask that you reconsider the Proposed Rule and allow for further time to study possible alternatives to this problem.”

The post 11 MPH Boating Speed Limit on East Coast Would Kill Offshore Fishing Trips appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

One of the most popular waterfowl hunts in the West, swan season on Utah’s Great Salt Lake, could be tweaked to allow both more and less swan hunting this fall.

According to a plan that will be considered by the state’s Wildlife Board next month, hunters who kill protected trumpeter swans could be ticketed and have their birds confiscated. The measure is intended to extend Utah’s season for tundra swans, which don’t have the same protections as trumpeters. Problem is: The two species of swans often travel together, and they can be hard to differentiate.

The change being recommended by the state’s wildlife agency is intended to reduce escalating trumpeter harvest while ensuring that federal waterfowl managers don’t impose more sweeping reforms that could end or curtail swan hunting in the Pacific Flyway.

But the proposal is getting a mixed reception from waterfowlers, who worry that well-intentioned hunters could be labeled as poachers if they accidentally kill a trumpeter. And they say that, by imposing a kill quota on trumpeters, the state is promoting an activity that it’s simultaneously trying to stop.

The Problem with Incidental Harvest

The roots of the issue go back decades to the recovery of swans, which are the largest migratory birds on the continent and considered by many to be the ultimate winged trophy. Utah is one of only nine states that allow hunting of tundra swans, which breed in the shallow lakes and wetlands of the subarctic and migrate south to their wintering grounds on the Gulf of Mexico.

Trumpeter swans—about twice the size of tundras and named for their distinctive booming call—were classified as endangered in the early 20th century due to intensive market hunting for their plumage and because of widespread habitat loss. The large swans, which have eight-foot wingspans and snow-white feathers, require cold, clear, pristine lakes and ponds to breed and brood their downy gray cygnets.

Endangered species protections for trumpet swans were removed in the 1960s as bird numbers rebounded. Meanwhile, populations of the smaller and more numerous tundra swans—which share colorations and flight behavior with trumpeters—have been increasing even more quickly, especially in the Pacific Flyway. Tundra swan seasons were established, first in Utah and then in neighboring states, in 1962, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Waterfowl managers noted that even in those early seasons “a small number of trumpeter swans were accidentally harvested by swan hunters who mistook them for tundra swans” in Montana, Utah, and Nevada. “A limited take of trumpeter swans was authorized by the Service in the three states beginning in 1995 to legalize this take and reconcile potentially conflicting management strategies” that intended to maximize hunting opportunities for the more numerous tundra swans.

This authorization allowed Utah hunters to unintentionally kill 10 trumpeter swans per season. Nevada hunters were allowed five incidental trumpeters. Montana never established a trumpeter kill quota, but discouraged waterfowlers from killing the larger, scarcer species. Meanwhile, Utah required hunters who successfully drew a tundra swan permit to take a bird-identification course to minimize incidental harvest of trumpeters.

Up until 2019, Utah’s complicated swan season worked pretty well. The hunt became so popular that waterfowlers could only draw one of the 1,550 swan tags about every third year. But in 2019, the state expanded the boundaries of the swan hunt, and increased the quota by 750 permits. Because waterfowl managers were worried that more tundra swan hunters were likely to encounter more trumpeter swans, they successfully lobbied the feds to increase the trumpeter kill quota from 10 to 20, says Heather Talley, upland game coordinator for Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources.

“Prior to 2019, Utah never hit its trumpeter swan quota, and Utah averaged only one trumpeter for every 800 tundra swans harvested,” she says. “In fact, there were only 40 recorded trumpeter swans harvested” in Utah’s modern waterfowling history.

That 2019 season expansion put more tundra swan hunters in proximity to more trumpeters, especially on the popular Public Shooting Grounds Wildlife Management Area north of the Great Salt Lake and the swan-rich Bear River National Wildlife Refuge. But another dynamic was starting to express itself.

Read Next: What Happens to Duck Hunting When the Great Salt Lake Dries Up?

“I’d say people started trophy hunting for trumpeters,” says Brooks Hansen, a longtime Great Salt Lake waterfowler. “There was a perception that if people were allowed to hunt trumpeters, and there was no penalty, then why not hunt what’s arguably the rarest waterfowl species in North America?”

Talley notes that since 2019, 85 trumpeter swans have been reported as harvested in Utah. Over a third of these were taken on or near the Public Shooting Grounds WMA. Because the state is required to close the tundra swan season when the 20-bird trumpeter allotment is reached, Utah’s tundra swan season has closed earlier and earlier over the past three years. Last year the season closed nearly four weeks short of its scheduled duration. Talley says that the long-term hunter success for tundra swans is around 40 percent; over the last couple years, that success has dropped to around 30 percent, mainly because the season ends weeks earlier due to the by-harvest of trumpeters.

“Those early closures are impeding the opportunity of our [tundra] swan hunters,” she notes, adding that the state has documented “more issues with [waterfowlers] targeting trumpeter swans the last couple of years.”

Criminalizing Swan Hunters

One remedy for this dynamic is making it illegal to harvest trumpeter swans. Accordingly, the state is recommending a full prohibition of the harvest of trumpeter swans in Utah, says Jason Jones, the DWR’s migratory bird program coordinator.

“Only tundra swan hunting permits would be issued to hunters, and it would be illegal to harvest a trumpeter swan,” says Jones. “Hunters would still be required to check in any harvested swans at a DWR office. Trumpeter swans would be seized.”

The rationale for the change is twofold. First, it would create a disincentive for harvesting trumpeter swans. Second, it would extend the tundra swan season into December, when birds are concentrated on the Great Salt Lake and available for public hunters. Hansen noted that last year the swan season closed around Nov. 12, a full month earlier than scheduled.

“I remember years when if you got a swan tag, you could count on hunting until the end of the season,” he says. “Now, if you don’t get out early, the trumpeters are going to be killed and the season is going to end early, with virtually no notice.

“We have seen a higher number of trumpeter swans harvested the last four years because there are more migrating through Utah than in previous years,” Jones continues. “We are hopeful that this change will prevent hunting opportunities from being taken away due to the early [tundra swan season] closures.”

But Chad Yamane sees things differently. A longtime Great Salt Lake waterfowl guide, now retired, Yamane worries that well-intentioned swan hunters may mistake a trumpeter for a tundra.

“I see a lot of birds, right, but even to this day, unless they’re flying with tundras or making noises, trumpeters can be really difficult for even me to distinguish,” says Yamane. “The first trumpeter I shot came in with a four-pack of swans, and we let them swing by at 20 yards for three or four times before I shot. Until I pulled the trigger and the rest of the birds made a sound, I had no idea they were trumpeters.”

Yamane worries that the state will come down hard on waterfowlers who unintentionally take trumpeters.

“I hate to see them make this illegal,” says Yamane, who thinks the state has actually incentivized the harvest of trumpeters by having an incidental-take quota. “The state has created some of the mess that they’re now trying to fix. I’ve asked them: Are you going to issue citations if someone brings in a trumpeter swan? Are you going to consider it a poaching case now that will result in their hunting license being taken away for three to five years? I think of the everyday person who draws a swan tag. How hesitant will they be to apply for a permit, or to go out hunting? And how hesitant will they be to harvest a swan? People make honest mistakes, but this would brand them as criminals.”

As an outfitter, Yamane specialized in guiding non-resident waterfowlers to their first tundra swan. But he says he’d be reluctant to guide a hunter under the new swan-hunting regulations.

Read Next: Manitoba Is About to Get Way Less Accessible for American Waterfowlers

“A flock of trumpeters comes in silent, or one comes in alone and you have nothing to judge it by, and your client shoots,” says Yamane. “There’s a mistake factor that could result in a fine or a citation and a confiscated bird. Now imagine a 12-year-old kid whose dad says shoot, and they shoot a trumpeter. What happens then? Did we just sour a kid on what should be an inspiring and memorable experience?”

Yamane agrees that the by-harvest of trumpeters is excessive, but he thinks it’s less than what’s seen and heard in social media posts and anecdotes. He also thinks it could be further reduced if the state reverted to its pre-2019 swan-hunting boundaries, which omitted the Public Shooting Grounds WMA, where much of the incidental harvest takes place.

“I just hate making a crime out of a common mistake,” he says.

Utah’s DWR is seeking public comments on the proposed swan rules through May 18. The proposals will also be vetted by regional advisory committees before the full Wildlife Board considers them at its June 8 meeting held, fittingly, at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center on Waterfowl Way in Farmington.

The post Some Hunters Target Trumpeter Swans. Utah Wants to Stop It Before All Swan Hunting Gets Shut Down appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In December, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources released its first updated wolf management plan since 2001. The revised plan serves as a guide for supporting the state’s thriving wolf population over the next ten years. It also reopens the door to wolf hunting in Minnesota by creating a framework for how the state will approach hunting and trapping seasons if the species is delisted at the federal level .

The updated Wolf Plan was developed with the help of an advisory committee that brought together wolf advocates, ranchers, biologists, hunters, and other stakeholders. The DNR also sought guidance from tribal groups and conducted public opinion surveys during the process.

“The plan reflects the breadth of input received through the process to update the plan,” the Minnesota DNR explained in a press release. “Information in the plan describes current knowledge of the wolf population, Minnesotans’ attitudes toward wolves, and guides the approach to the future conservation and management of wolves in Minnesota.

What’s Keeping Minnesota from Bringing Back Wolf Hunting?

Importantly, the DNR included the wolf hunting and trapping section as an appendix to the Wolf Plan itself. This is because, for the time being, any discussion around these activities in the state is purely conditional. Minnesota doesn’t have the power to manage its own gray wolf population because the species is still federally protected under the Endangered Species Act.

This management status is the most significant barrier to bringing back wolf hunting in Minnesota. The MDNR’s large carnivore specialist Dan Stark clarifies that the current framework for wolf hunting will only be considered if the federal government delists the species.

“There is a framework in our plan, describing how the DNR will decide whether to establish a season once federal protections are removed, and then how a season would be structured,” Stark tells Outdoor Life. “I think it’s a commitment that we will go through with once the wolf is delisted.”

What Does This Framework Look Like?

The first phase of implementation would be led by the state game commission. The commission would first consult with tribes in Minnesota and allow public comment to ensure that there is adequate support for hunting and/or trapping seasons. It would then consider biological factors such as prey density and the state’s overall wolf population.

According to the appendix section, the state would be able to vote on possible wolf hunts so long as the population stays above a threshold of 1,600 wolves. This is the minimum number needed to sustain the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery goal of 1,400 wolves, set in 1992.

Read Next: Great Lakes States Are Divided on Wolf Hunting Plans

As the population increases above 1,600 wolves, the framework dictates that larger hunting quotas could potentially be allowed as long as they fall in line with the “maximum harvest rate” set by the DNR’s Wolf Advisory Committee. If the population is between 1,600 and 2,000, this harvest rate would be around 5 percent. That rate goes up to 5-10 percent if the population surpasses 2,000, and it jumps to 10-20 percent with a population of 2,500-3,000 wolves. If the number of wolves in the state grows beyond 3,000, it could set the maximum harvest rate even higher.

These numbers are important to consider because Minnesota’s wolf population is currently around 2,700, according to DNR estimates. So, unless wolf numbers take a dive, the MDNR could potentially allow hunters to harvest roughly 270 to 540 wolves in a future hunting season.   

Thriving but Protected

By the federal government’s own definition, Minnesota’s wolf population is beyond recovered. It’s currently more than double the recovery goal that USFWS set 30 years ago, and Minnesota is home to more wolves than any other U.S. state outside of Alaska. In fact, Minnesota has more wolves than Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana combined. All of these wolves fall into the larger Northern Rocky Mountain population as established by USFWS.

Advocates for delisting in Minnesota continue to point to the NRM population. Montana and Idaho’s wolves were removed from the ESA in 2011 after they surpassed the recovery goals established by the feds. Wyoming followed suit in 2017. Wolves in the Northern Rockies remain under state management, and regulated wolf hunting is now allowed in all three of these states.  

So, what gives? Why delist the NRM population but not Minnesota’s?

The answer here may just come down to politics. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have state legislatures that generally support wolf hunting and have consistently pushed for delisting of the species. These three states have also long advocated for the hunting of other predator species.

The Minnesota legislature, by contrast, tends to waver on its stance toward wolf hunting. After the federal government delisted gray wolves in 2011, the MDNR allowed regulated hunting seasons from 2012 to 2014, when the species was relisted. Then, just before the USFWS delisted the species yet again in 2020, the state legislature moved to permanently ban wolf hunting—something that Gov. Tim Walz has publicly supported in the past.  

“A selective delisting of the wolf is something I supported in areas where the population had recovered to the point where it was warranted. The massive and the universal delisting I did not because it is not supported by good game management practices,” Walz told a reporter in 2019. “I don’t think that’s a place where sport hunting is appropriate.”

The state’s ban was never fully enacted, and wolves were placed back on the ESA in 2022 after a federal judge in San Francisco ruled the USFWS unlawfully delisted the species.

How do Minnesotans Feel About Wolf Hunting?

Whether you’re talking about black bears in New Jersey, coyotes in Illinois, or gray wolves in Colorado, predator management is always a divisive issue. Minnesota’s wolf debate is no different, which is why the MDNR conducted several public surveys to gauge how people in the state feel about wolf hunting.  

These surveys found that overall, Minnesotans think positively of wolves, and they want them to remain on the landscape. This includes two vocal groups whose livelihoods are directly affected by wolves—hunting outfitters and livestock producers. Then again, wolves have always thrived here. Wildlife managers aren’t reintroducing or relocating the species, which removes some of the controversy that is currently boiling over in Colorado and other Western states.

Read Next: How Many Wolves Should There Be in Colorado?

The more divisive question is related to how we manage these animals. In one of the state surveys, 88 percent of hunters and 87 percent of livestock producers responded in favor of establishing wolf hunting seasons. However, the same survey found that nearly 50 percent of Minnesota residents were against wolf hunting. Residents also indicated that the biggest management priority for the MDNR should be to educate livestock producers on how to prevent conflicts with wolves. 

Tribal agencies throughout the state have also played a significant role in managing wolves over the years, and they have traditionally opposed wolf hunting. One of the major tribes in Minnesota, the Ojibwe, views wolves as kin, and they see recreational harvest as an unjust reason for killing wolves.

Last April, the Ojibwe sent a letter to the members of the Wisconsin state legislature protesting a bill aimed at delisting the species. That letter brought up the state’s lack of consultation with tribes. The tribe also pointed to Wisconsin’s notorious 2021 wolf hunt, which led to major backlash from wolf advocates when hunters killed over 216 wolves in three days—nearly double the state-sanctioned quota.

The Future of Wolf Hunting in Minnesota Remains Uncertain

The federal management status of wolves is currently up in the air, with legal challenges being mounted on all sides. The USFWS initiated a review to evaluate the status of wolves in 2021 but has not released any conclusion, and the agency is currently evaluating how the 2022 decision affects this review. Several parties have also filed an appeal of the court’s relisting decision—including an appeal that was filed by the Biden Administration last April—but none have been successful so far.

Read Next: Bounties, Petitions, and Politics: Why the Wolf War Is Only Getting More Extreme

“It’s not necessarily a conservation issue. We know that wolves, from a population standpoint in Minnesota, have recovered,” says Stark. “And the state would be in a good position to manage wolves when that legal status changes.”

The post Minnesota Has the Most Wolves in the Lower 48 but Does Not Allow Wolf Hunting. Here’s Why appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In a monumental decision that was announced today, the Environmental Protection Agency issued safeguards for the Bristol Bay watershed under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. The federal agency’s long-awaited decision blocks the development of the Pebble Mine project, which aims to build the world’s largest open-pit mine atop the headwaters of one of the world’s last remaining strongholds for Pacific salmon.

“Today’s action marks the third time in 30 years, and only the 14th time in the history of the Clean Water Act, that EPA has used this authority,” the EPA said in a press release. “This highlights the value of the Bristol Bay watershed’s fishery resources.”

Hunters, anglers, tribes, and conservationists of all stripes are celebrating the move. They view it as an important milestone in the ongoing legal battle to protect the Bristol Bay watershed from the impacts of large-scale mining. In addition to hosting the largest sockeye runs on the planet, the undeveloped region provides important habitat for bears, moose, and a plethora of other wildlife. Pebble’s opponents argue that these resources shouldn’t be sacrificed for any price.

Read Next: The Pebble Mine Site Is a Moose Hunter’s Paradise

“Today’s decision is a hard-earned victory for Bristol Bay residents, the majority of Alaskans, and the four million Americans who have repeatedly requested conservation safeguards for this special place,” says Jen Leahy, Alaska program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “The hunt-fish community is thrilled to know that another layer of safeguards now exists for the headwaters of Bristol Bay.”

The EPA’s Jan. 31 decision effectively blocks the proposed copper-molybdenum-gold mine by prohibiting the discharge of any dredged or fill material within the footprint of the proposed Pebble Mine site. This includes the South and North Forks of the Koktuli River, along with Upper Talarik Creek, which are the final spawning destination for millions of the salmon that return to Bristol Bay every summer. It follows the agency’s Proposed Determination for the project, released in December 2022, which found that the proposed mine “could result in unacceptable adverse effects on salmon fishery areas within the Bristol Bay watershed.”

Read Next: This Year’s Record-Breaking Salmon Run in Alaska’s Bristol Bay Proves Why Pebble Mine Is Such a Terrible Idea

That same month, the Pebble Mine project received another punishing blow when an Alaskan Native corporation secured a conservation easement on over 44,000 acres of land along the northeastern end of Lake Iliamna. This acquisition hamstrings the Pebble project by preventing the construction of a vital road in the area. Without a way to move the minerals or a location in which to discharge mining waste, the project is essentially dead in the water…for now.

The federal government’s decision isn’t exactly the nail in the coffin that Pebble’s opponents have been waiting for. The Pebble Partnership has already signaled that it will challenge the EPA’s determination in court, according to the Seattle Times, and the decades-long battle for Bristol Bay’s natural resources will no doubt continue. But for today at least, wild salmon and their many supporters seem to have the upper hand.

Today’s news also falls in line with other recent moves by the Biden Administration to protect threatened habitats and conserve America’s public lands. Last week, the Department of the Interior halted the development of another controversial mining project near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters, and on Jan. 18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reinstated Roadless Rule Protections in Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. These actions support the DOI’s America the Beautiful Initiative and help bolster the Biden Administration’s conservation legacy.

The post Alaska’s Bristol Bay Receives Additional Protections from Pebble Mine in EPA Decision appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The Department of Interior announced yesterday that it has withdrawn approximately 225,504 acres of public lands in Minnesota’s Superior National Forest from federal mine leasing programs. This move by the Biden Administration effectively halts the proposed copper-nickel mine that Twin Metals has been trying to develop there, and it places a moratorium on all mining activity in the area for the next 20 years. Taken together, these moves represent the most significant protections to date for the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area and the surrounding watershed.

The BWCA is a rugged, 1-million-acre boreal forest wilderness intersected by rivers, lakes, and bogs. It’s the most visited wilderness area in America (approximately 250,000 people annually) with folks traveling from all over the world to canoe, fish, and camp within its boundaries each summer.

“With an eye toward protecting this special place for generations, I have made this decision using the best-available science and extensive public input,” Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said on Thursday. “The Department of the Interior takes seriously our obligations to steward public lands and waters on behalf of all Americans. Protecting a place like the Boundary Waters is key to supporting the health of the watershed and its surrounding wildlife, upholding our Tribal trust and treaty responsibilities, and boosting the local recreation economy.”

Haaland’s announcement is being celebrated by conservationists and outdoorsmen, who have long sought to protect America’s most visited wilderness from copper-nickel mining. They point to the tremendous risk that this type of mine would pose to the watershed and the 1-million-acre wilderness, which contains some of the wildest country left in the Upper Midwest.

“Not only is this announcement a milestone in the history of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, but it also affirms the immeasurable value of the Boundary Waters to Minnesota’s outdoor economy, its unparalleled recreational opportunities, and its contribution to the legacy of our nation’s public lands and waters,” says Lukas Leaf, the executive director of Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters. “Thank you to all who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us for years in defense of the Boundary Waters.”

Undermining a Wilderness Watershed

For more than a decade, the Minneapolis-based company, which is a subsidiary of Chilean mining giant Antofogasta, has had its eye on the vast copper reserves that lie beneath the northeastern part of the state. In order to access these, however, Twin Metals would have tunnel underneath the interconnected rivers, lakes, and wetlands that make the Boundary Waters such a renowned canoeing, fishing, and hunting destination.  

Read Next: What Sportsmen Need to Know About the Boundary Waters Mine

Proponents of the mine argue that America needs all that copper to feed the growing demand for electronics and renewable energy. The soft and highly conductive metal is standard in most electrical wiring, so it can be found in everything from smartphones and refrigerators to circuit boards and solar panels. They also point to the 1,500-plus jobs the mine would bring to the region, which has deep historic ties to taconite and iron mining (the region is known as the Iron Range).

Opponents to Twin Metals’ proposed copper-nickel mine say the two types of mining are incomparable. They argue that underground copper mines are more toxic and pose a much greater risk to the watershed than traditional iron and taconite mining.

“This type of mining cannot happen without acid-mine drainage leaking into nearby ground and surface water,” Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters explains on their website. “While more arid environments are better suited for these mines, the interconnected lakes, rivers, and streams in the BWCA make it no place for a sulfide-ore copper mine.”

Presidential Ping Pong

Uncertainty over the mine has spanned multiple presidential administrations. In 2016, the Obama Administration decided not to renew Twin Metals’ mining leases. This decision was then reversed by the Trump Administration, which reinstated those leases in 2018.

Last January, the Biden Administration withdrew Twin Metals’ leases yet again, and it announced that it would seek a 20-year moratorium on all mining activity in the 225,504 acres of federal land adjacent to the Boundary Waters. The U.S. Forest Service moved forward with an environmental impact statement in June, which was followed by a public comment period. The agency’s recommendation for a mineral withdrawal was passed onto the DOI, which brings us to the announcement that Sec. Haaland made on Jan. 26. This moratorium ensures that Twin Metals cannot apply for another mining lease in the area for the next 20 years.

Read Next: The Wilderness War: Ice Fishing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

What the moratorium doesn’t do, however, is grant permanent protection to the region. As we’ve seen over the past three administrations, a new President could easily put forth recommendations to overturn the 20-year moratorium, at which point those more than 225,000-acres would be subject to future mining proposals.

Real permanent protections for the Boundary Waters can only happen through an act of Congress. These legislative attempts have been unsuccessful in the past, but one Minnesota Congresswoman has already signaled that she’ll try this approach again.

What’s Next for the Boundary Waters?

In a statement applauding Sec. Haaland’s announcement, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) said she plans to reintroduce the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act in a continued effort to “protect this national treasure in perpetuity.”

Other legislators in the state had the exact opposite response. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), whose district includes the Boundary waters, called the decision “a direct attack on our way of life,” while a bipartisan coalition of state representatives sent a letter to the Biden Administration expressing a similar opinion.

“Simply put, this order is an all-out attack on the communities and region that we represent,” they write. “It is unacceptable that your administration is once again choosing to invest taxpayer dollars in the development of Chinese owned mines in nations that employ child-slave labor while blocking the development of taconite, copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum-group elements, and many more critical minerals here in America.”

As for the future of the Boundary Waters and Minnesota’s mining industry, Leaf clarifies that SFBW is not an anti-mining organization, and he points to an important distinction between the 20-year moratorium imposed by the Biden Administration and the legislation that McCollum has committed to reintroducing. He says that while the 20-year moratorium encapsulates all mining activity, the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act would allow for taconite and iron-ore mining to take place within the 225,504-acre area (while still prohibiting copper mining). Leaf believes this concession would allow for the Iron Range’s mining industry to continue while also safeguarding one of the nation’s most treasured freshwater wildernesses.

The post Biden Administration Bans Mining Near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Wilderness appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife put their miter saw to work in order to make an example of the lawless criminals who illegally kill wildlife. On Jan. 26, the Southeast Region office hacked apart an estimated $10,000 worth of rifles, shotguns, handguns, bows, and arrows. All were formerly used by poachers and confiscated. The agency filmed the destruction and posted it to Twitter with a message: poachers beware.

Poachers Beware!
As the agency responsible for perpetuating CO’s wildlife resources, @COParksWildlife will not tolerate poaching.
Poaching is not hunting. Poaching is unethical and illegal. It can get you a criminal conviction, a fine and banned from hunting.
And this: (1/3) pic.twitter.com/hAcpEpzru4

— CPW SE Region (@CPW_SE) January 26, 2023

“Poaching is not hunting. Poaching is unethical and illegal. It can get you a criminal conviction, a fine, and banned from hunting,” the tweet reads.

CPW technician Bret Mathers operates the saw in the video. Sparks fly as the blade chews through steel, composite, and wood. The next video shows the pile of carnage, some of which was stacked in a 5-gallon bucket.

Some followers didn’t approve of the agency destroying these weapons. They asked whether this “anti-gun rhetoric” was really necessary and why the agency didn’t auction the guns off or sell them to raise money. But CPW later clarified that those weren’t options under state law.

“By law, we have two options with confiscated firearms. If they match the needs of our agency or another law enforcement agency, we can recycle them. Otherwise, we must destroy them,” CPW SE Region writes. “It’s not often we confiscate the exact model, caliber, etc., firearm we can use.”

Law enforcement agencies in most states sell or auction off confiscated firearms for the revenue bump, the Associate Press reported in 2018. This is a bit of a controversial practice, but the pile of weapons in this video looks different than your average state police haul. Pieces of hunting rifles and two classic red recoil pads, one on an old Winchester and one on a Ruger, stick out in various directions. It makes you wonder how many of those guns were generational hand-me-downs.

CPW confirmed in the thread of tweets that weapons used by infamous Colorado poacher Iniki Vike Kapu were among those chopped up in the video. Kapu poached 12 deer, two turkeys, and a bighorn sheep across three counties in Colorado in 2019. He was sentenced to jail time and probation and was fined in February of 2021.

The post Watch: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Saws Poachers’ Guns in Half appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The largest poaching bust in Nebraska history has reached the end of the road. After 39 convictions and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, husband-and-wife celebrity bowhunting duo Josh and Sarah Bowmar received their final sentence on Jan. 12. This closes out the last prosecutions in a case that involved dozens of hunters, at least 97 illegally-taken game animals, and 100 more nongame birds.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson sentenced the Bowmars to three years of probation and 40 hours of community service each, according to the Lincoln Journal Star. He also ordered them to pay $75,000 in fines, a $44,000 money judgement, and $13,000 in restitution. They are restricted from hunting in Nebraska during their probationary period.

The Bowmars were involved in the Hidden Hills Outfitters bust. The two had hunted with the Nebraska-based outfitter multiple times between fall 2015 and fall 2017, and a criminal investigation into HHO found that the outfitter and its clients broke multiple laws during that period by hunting over bait, at night with lights, out of season, after hours, and from roads. HHO co-owner Jacob Hueftle was set for release from a minimum-security prison in Yankton, South Dakota, Tuesday after serving a 30-month sentence. Three other Hueftles—Jacob’s brother, father, and cousin—were sentenced to probation and fined, as well.

The Bowmars’ sentencing comes three months after they entered a plea agreement in the U.S. District Court of Nebraska. They pleaded guilty to misdemeanor conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act. In return, other charges including illegal transportation of wildlife, illegal baiting, and hunting without permits were dropped. Maximum sentencing for the misdemeanor conspiracy charge involves a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, but the Bowmars’ punishment fell far short of that.

In the background, the Bowmars and their lawyer, G. Preston Kline, have joined a rather disturbing effort to overturn the Lacey Act on the grounds that it violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What the Lacey Act Does

“This is a fight between ethical hunters, the Bowmars, and the federal government which is using the Lacey Act against them,” Kline told Deer and Deer Hunting. “The Lacey Act is an abusive piece of federal legislation that is used to excessively punish hunters for alleged minor infractions which are the equivalent of a speeding ticket under state law. The Lacey Act makes a traffic-like offense into a serious federal case. It is often abused by forcing honest, ethical hunters to plead guilty in order to avoid the risk of excessive fines and substantial jail time.”

Read Next: Every Hunter Should Know What the Lacey Act Is, How It Works, and Why It’s On the Books

The oldest federal wildlife law in the country protects wildlife, plants, and other natural resources from a variety of shady interstate dealings. In this instance, the Bowmars violated the Lacey Act when they transported illegally harvested wildlife across state lines. This transformed what would have been a state-level poaching case into a federal one.

The Lacey Act does the same thing for other illegal wildlife-related and hunting activities. Paying to hunt without necessary tags or permits, using someone else’s tag on an animal you shot, hunting with an unlicensed outfitter in a state that requires licenses, and flat-out poaching. Each of these becomes a federal crime as soon as the involved wildlife or wildlife products cross state lines or federal land boundaries.

The Bowmars’ penalty money will go toward the Lacey Act Reward Account, which was set up in 1981 to accept all fines, fees, forfeitures, and penalties from Lacey Act violations. The money can be used to pay rewards to people who provide information, and to cover care costs for any wildlife or plants being held as evidence during investigations.

The post Celebrity Bowhunting Couple Sentenced for Conspiring to Violate the Lacey Act appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Across the country, state legislatures are starting their 2023 sessions with more money to spend than usual. There are several reasons why most states are in budget surplus right now. But one common denominator is COVID-19 relief funding that attempted to bolster the economy in 2020 and 2021. Groups in Montana and New Mexico are lobbying their legislatures to put some of that extra cash into trust funds for wildlife habitat conservation.

Both states continue to battle with habitat and biodiversity loss, drought, and invasive species. The federal government has set aside a lot of money to address these problems in recent years through bills like the Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. However, in order to apply for that federal funding, state agencies usually have to make a sizable contribution of their own to whatever project they’re working on. “Matching” is the industry term for this pay-to-play framework. State agencies generally won’t get federal dollars if they can’t match what they’re applying for.

A conservation trust fund could solve that problem. Montana is currently in a budget surplus of around $2 billion. New Mexico’s surplus is even higher at an estimated $3.6 billion. Conservation groups say that now is the time to invest some of that money in wildlife habitat. But such an idea is often met with questions. Do these states really have the money to create an investment account for conservation? What about crumbling roads and bridges? Public schools? Tax cuts?

What Is a Conservation Trust Fund?

Some states have permanent conservation funds that they use for matching federal conservation dollars. But other states like Montana and New Mexico lack permanent and reliable sources of funding for such a purpose. When it comes time to start a habitat improvement project, these states have a harder time getting federal assistance.

The coalitions request $200 million and $350 million respectively. If they get it, they would invest that cash into trust funds that would then start developing returns in the stock market. Those annual returns, which would vary in value depending on the market’s health, would go toward conservation and stewardship projects addressing everything from irrigation efficiency on private lands to invasive species management and native fish habitat on public lands and waters.

The initial investment would remain untouched in the trust fund. Donations or payments during future surpluses could even grow the pot of money, also known as a “corpus.” This would grow the return the coalition receives and, in turn, grow the coalition’s budget for conservation work.

Government agencies, non-profits, and private entities use this model to fund programs of all kinds. Many of them get money through a variety of avenues, not just with one-time payments from the state’s general fund. Some rely on revenue from oil and gas royalties, state sales tax, taxes on cigarettes and lottery tickets, or real estate transfer taxes. As of 2005, 13 states had environmental trust funds, according to a brief from the Minnesota House of Representatives.

Where Did This Idea Come From?

Both Montana and New Mexico looked to a fellow western state as a leader on permanent conservation funding when designing their plans. The Wyoming legislature first established the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust in 2005. Over the last 17 years, the pot has grown to its current size of $190 million, thanks to both the initial $110-million investment and more recent one-time investments and donations. WWNRT is currently lobbying to grow the corpus to $200 million this year as a part of the Cowboy State’s 2023 budget. (Wyoming is in a $913-million surplus as of mid-November 2022.)

“It didn’t happen overnight. It was originally proposed in the 1980s, and that never stuck,” WWNRT executive director Bob Budd tells Outdoor Life of the origins of the fund. “When Governor Freudenthal came into office, he took another crack at it and said ‘we need to do this.’ He was successful in shepherding it through.”

Budd has advised members of the coalitions in both Montana and New Mexico on what has and has not worked since WWNRT’s inception.

“The fact that we have an independent, autonomous board was a big deal,” he says. “That gave people comfort that it wasn’t going to become political, it wasn’t going to be something that only one agency could tap into, that it was open to a wide variety of applicants.”

Wyoming politicians of all parties see the value of investing in the state’s natural resources. Using one big chunk of money that harnesses the power of the free market and grows capacity on its own rather than a smaller annual appropriation made sense for the fiscally conservative state.

“It started very slowly,” Budd says. “People were nervous about it, so we operated on a shoestring for quite a while until people got comfortable and saw what the board did. Then we had a few pretty good years where we were able to add more to the corpus. The legislature was very generous in helping keep the program up and running with general fund appropriations.”

What Else Could This Money Do?

Taxpayers have their own ideas on how state budget surpluses should be spent. Some want to see the leftover COVID-19 relief funding back in their wallets. Others want to see investments in affordable housing, healthcare, public schools, or overdue infrastructure improvements. Some advocate for tax reform.

The Montana Budget and Policy Center says that some of Montana’s surplus comes from the recent influx of high-income earners. The “Zoom Boom” hit a lot of western states whose outdoor recreation opportunities and wide open spaces appealed to people living in large cities who could now work remotely. But this mass migration also drove up the cost of living across the West. Pre-established residents in lower income brackets were priced out of their homes and towns. The Montana legislature made budget cuts during the 2017 session, which MBPC senior budget strategist Zuri Moreno said set the state up for a tough time when the pandemic hit.

“The impact of closed schools and businesses and the lack of available and affordable health and infrastructure services, paired with an influx of people moving to Montana as work-from-home became commonplace, all illuminated the deeply needed investments in our communities,” Moreno wrote in an MBPC report. “Montana faced significant gaps in affordable housing options, reliable internet for telehealth or online K-12 classrooms, options for paid leave for workers to stay home when sick or to care for kids, and affordable child care options.”

Meanwhile, New Mexico has the oil in their corner of the Permian Basin to thank for a large chunk of its surplus. State spending was up in recent years while Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham invested in the state police force, teachers, and tax rebates for state residents. But low-ranking public schools and high poverty rates leave room for more government investment amidst the surplus. After releasing her budget recommendation on Jan. 10, Gov. Lujan Grisham told the Associated Press that’s what she plans to do.

Her proposal “empowers the state…to take on new and innovative strategies that are disrupting the status quo, that help our children, our families, our schools, our small businesses and our entire economy,” she said in a statement. But the plan also leaves room for conservation by including a $75-million corpus for the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund.

The New Mexico Proposal

While $75 million isn’t quite the $350 million the coalition was hoping for, Western Resource Advocates senior policy analyst Jonathan Hayden says it’s the collaboration between a variety of stakeholders and the spectrum of programs and projects receiving funding that really matter.

“The proposal is really the result of more than five years of negotiations between a broad coalition,” Hayden tells Outdoor Life. “We’ve convened this coalition representing a pretty diverse constituency base, from agricultural and working lands advocates to traditional conservationists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, sportsmen and women, and members of the business community. We’ve all rallied behind this proposal. We would use some of the historic budget surplus right now to seed a fund that would provide returns in perpetuity, hopefully, that would sustain some of New Mexico’s conservation programs.”

As Hayden points out, available federal funding for conservation work is flush right now. If the still-percolating Recovering America’s Wildlife Act budges at some point, that would expand federal capacity even more.

“One of the real driving motivators for getting this done now is the abundance of federal funds available to states who can come up with match to leverage them,” Hayden says.

New Mexico’s conservation challenges “are complicated and fortified” by a diverse user group, Conservation Voters New Mexico political director Ben Shelton tells Outdoor Life. With over 20 sovereign tribes, nations and pueblos, a variety of Hispanic cultures, and some of the Southwest’s largest urban centers, New Mexicos’ population interacts with its public lands and waters in a variety of ways.

“This has been a gigantic gap for a while,” Shelton says. “Every analysis of public lands policy in New Mexico for the last five years has identified a recurring source of funding as a huge need. We need to get our acts together because we have such amazing assets in terms of huntable, fishable, and hikeable public lands. We think we’re on the same level as Colorado, but we just don’t get the same economic return that Colorado gets from it. Or even Montana, for that matter.”

The Montana Proposal

The Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition is a group of hunters who lobby for improved elk management across the state. They want to see $200 million put toward their brainchild, the Montana Legacy Trust. Montana Wildlife Federation board member and MCEMC member John Salazar cites Wyoming’s success as an inspiration for the proposal.

“Wyoming’s trust has supported over 750 projects. They’ve put nearly $100 million in the ground for restoration and stewardship treatments. That’s what we’re modeling ours after,” Salazar tells Outdoor Life. “We’re trying to get someone to carry a bill that would take $200 million from the overabundance at the state level and put it in the Legacy Trust. That should generate between $4 and $8 million a year off the interest to help us do some projects around the state.”

The pitch for the Montana Legacy Trust comes at a crucial time for conservation across the state. A 20-percent sales tax on marijuana was supposed to permanently fund a different state lands program, Habitat Montana. Founded in 1987, Habitat Montana purchases conservation easements and grows public land access. But Gov. Greg Gianforte proposes to redirect that tax revenue—about $30 million—to veteran services. Habitat Montana would instead receive a $12-million appropriation to keep the program on its feet until 2025.

Unlike New Mexico, where Governor Lujan Grisham is at least partially on board with the idea, the Montana proposal does not currently have an official supporter in the government. However, the Trust has received vocal support from Senator Jeff Welborn of Dillon, Montana. Dillon, the seat of Beaverhead County, is largely reliant on both private land agriculture and public land and water hunting, fishing, and recreation in the surrounding Beaverhead National Forest and Beaverhead River. This mix of conservation interests makes Dillon a prime example of a place where the trust fund could catalyze some real change for everyone-private land rancher and public land hunter alike.

“It’s an idea worthy of consideration, because it could help the land, and its stewards, in rural Montana, over the long haul,” Sen. Welborn says on the Montana Legacy Trust website.

The Legacy Trust idea could have legs in Montana because it would benefit both private landowners and public land users.

“It’s just a mathematical fact that 60 percent of the state is private land, so wildlife and fisheries and conservation in general is highly dependent on private landowners,” retired Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologist Mike Korn tells Outdoor Life. “You’ve probably heard the mantra that hunters and anglers pay for conservation and no one else does. A great deal of wildlife and fisheries restoration has been paid for by hunters and anglers, which is great. But this is a way that all of the population can pay for conservation and have a voice in how it’s done, and I think that’s a good thing. It’s not just hunters and anglers who have an interest in conservation.”

What Happens Next?

The New Mexico legislature adjourns on March 18, which is less than 10 weeks away. In Montana, the legislature doesn’t adjourn until May 10. This leaves a little more wiggle room for the coalition to find someone to carry the bill.

If you ask Bob Budd from Wyoming, both states should invest in their natural resources.

“We’re addressing potential endangered species [and] water issues. We’re addressing a myriad of issues all the time, in a proactive manner,” he says. “For every dollar we spend, we bring in another five or six dollars from external sources. That includes federal sources, private NGOs, landowner contributions, local advocacy, the whole picture…that’s where the magic really happens.”

The post States Consider Using Budget Surpluses to Fund Conservation appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On Dec. 28, 10 bowhunters in northeastern Louisiana were caught using pods while on a deer hunt in East Carroll Parish. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries confiscated the pods and all hunters were cited for alleged possession. They also confiscated one antlerless deer that a hunter had killed with a broadhead bearing a pod.

If you have no clue what a pod is, you’re in good company. Illegal in 49 states (Mississippi is the exception), they aren’t the most popular bowhunting accessory. “Pods” refer to rubber bands or balloon necks wrapped around broadheads that house extremely potent muscle relaxers. Upon contact with an animal, those muscle relaxers work into the bloodstream, causing near-immediate paralysis. The idea is that even if you made a marginal or non-fatal shot, you would be able to recover the animal.

In other words, they’re poisoned arrows that don’t taint the meat of an animal. They’ve caused a stir in the bowhunting world for a long time. According to an article in Peterson’s Bowhunting, bowhunters started using chemicals like succinylcholine chloride in the 1960s. But they didn’t have the chance to get popular before state wildlife agencies started banning them. That certainly hasn’t stopped poachers from using them, however. In 2013, four hunters from South Carolina were cited for using pods while chasing deer, elk, and bears in Colorado. During the bust, one of the four hunters told authorities he’d been using pods to hunt big game in Colorado for 20 years.

Was Fred Bear a Proponent of Pods?

Tracing the history of hunting with pods is difficult to do, because they’ve been illegal for so long. There’s no shortage of online forums that debate the practice and its origins. One name that frequents the history of poison-tipped arrows also happens to be one of the most famous names in modern bowhunting: Fred Bear.

In the book 45 Unforgettable Bowhunters by M.R. James, who founded Bowhunter Magazine, James confirms that Fred Bear actually held patents on pods. (This was the source of James’ “single personal and professional disappointment” with the legend.) He cites Adrian Benke’s book The Bowhunting Alternative, which touted the theory that using succinylcholine chloride in all bowhunting and shotgun hunting would make the practices more ethical. The book features quotes from a letter Bear sent to Pope & Young officers in 1964.

“It is the word poison. It’s a bad word and conjures up visions of skull and crossbones. Of elephants stuck in the belly by pygmies who follow the victim for days before he succumbs to the venom,” Bear wrote. “The type I am speaking of kills quickly and…is not fatal to humans.”

Even if that last statement is technically true, it might misrepresent the havoc the chemical compound can wreak. Succinylcholine chloride is a prescription muscle relaxer. Surgeons typically use it in conjunction with anesthesia. If it somehow ended up in a bowhunter’s system after an accident, the consequences could be severe.

A Question of Ethics

As far as its usefulness goes, some hunters thought the drug could make a good shot even deadlier. But others saw it as an excuse for poor shot placement. Bear experimented with what kind of shot placement would be deadly using succinylcholine chloride.

“In May of 1990 Glenn St. Charles told me of witnessing Fred shoot a mule deer with a ‘poison pod’ during a Canadian bowhunt they shared,” James recalls. (St. Charles was a founder of P&Y.) “Fred intentionally arrowed the animal in the rump, according to Glenn, just to see how effective the drug would be with such shot placement. ‘It was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen,’ Glenn said. ‘It took 20 lingering minutes for that deer to die. Fred later tried to get me to use the stuff, but I didn’t want any part of it.'”

If you’re a Fred Bear fan, this might come as a surprise. He was the “Papa Bear” of bowhunting, an innovative businessman, and a proponent for ethical practices. The first patch you received as a member of the Fred Bear Sports Club read “Hunters Respect Wildlife.” Considering these details, the poison pod might not seem to fit his ethos. On the other hand, all of Bear’s inventions and designs were meant to improve the lethality and efficiency of the traditional bow. The poison pod was seemingly just another Bear product that would help bow hunters be more effective, even if it didn’t age as well as the bow-mounted quiver or the shooting glove.

“… if we don’t do something to clean up our ranks the time will most surely come when we will be unmasked, the impotency of our weapons revealed, and we will stand there with bowed heads faintly mumbling, yes, you are right,” Bear wrote to the P&Y officers. “…no archer, no matter how good he is, except under certain circumstances, can be sure of hitting an animal where he wants to hit him at bow shot distances. What is wrong with Killing what you Hit?”

Let’s not forget that centuries of bowhunters and archers from around the world predated Bear in their use of poisoned arrows, whether it was to harvest game or defeat enemies in battle. In that sense, Bear simply carried an ancient strategy forward with his patents. As far as he was concerned, the future of bowhunting required improving the lethality of a traditional bow.

Pods in Bowhunting Today

Possession of pods in Louisiana is good for a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail. All 10 of the recently-busted hunters could face this punishment. Samuel Spurgeon, the one hunter who illegally shot a deer, could pay an additional civil restitution of $1,624 in replacement value. It is unclear when the hunters will be sentenced.

Organizations like the Pope & Young club denounce the practice today. They consider pods a departure from ethical tactics and principles, and have made their stance known in their Rules of Fair Chase.

“The Pope and Young Club at our very core is all about Ethics and Fair Chase Bowhunting,” P&Y executive director Jason Rounsaville tells Outdoor Life. “The use of tranquilizers or poisons is not allowed under the rules of fair chase. We do not condone or approve these methods and do not allow animals taken with these methods into our records program.”

Succinylcholine chloride isn’t the only product that was designed to make arrows more lethal. Explosive and barbed arrows have been developed and then commonly banned in various state hunting laws. The Bow-Mag by Rac-Em-Bac, which made some waves in 2013, is a head fixed with a .38 or .357 round. The bullet fires upon contact with the target, delivering the hefty blow of such a cartridge with a bow. Some touted the innovation as the ultimate projectile for hog hunting, but others pointed out two rather obvious problems. First, plenty of states had already made bowhunting with explosive tips illegal; Second, if hunters wanted to shoot bullets instead of broadheads, they’d simply shoot guns.

Thankfully, none of these products have gained much traction in the bowhunting world. But they serve as a reminder that not all bowhunting innovations are good ones.

The post Poisonous ‘Pods’ Are Still a Problem in Bowhunting appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.