Chris Avena 's Entries

• 25 Apr 2011
  Colorado Lawmakers Consider Flexible Bear Hunt

  Bears beware — Colorado lawmakers worried about the animals' growing population are talking about giving wildlife officials more say over when bears can be hunted. DENVER (AP) — Bears beware — Colorado lawmakers worried about the animals' growing population are talking about giving wildlife officials more say over when bears can be hunted. A proposal set for its first hearing Monday would repeal a 1992 voter-approved initiative that prohibits hunting bears from March 1 to Sept. 1 and give the state Division of Wildlife authority to expand hunting dates. Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative amid concern that female bears were being hunted in the spring, when they are taking care of their cubs. The initiative also banned hunting bears with dogs and baiting bears with food to kill them. The bill sponsored by Rep. J. Paul Brown would not eliminate those provisions. Brown, a lawmaker from southwestern Colorado, said he's concerned that the animals are becoming less afraid of people. "If at all possible, I just don't want to have a tragedy with some little kid getting killed by a bear if there's a bad bear around," he said. But a wildlife rights group argues the bear population is still vulnerable and its numbers could dwindle fast if more hunting is allowed. "Sure, if you wipe out the whole population there's going to be no conflicts" with people, said Wendy Keefover, director of carnivore protection for WildEarth Guardians. Brown insists he's not advocating a spring bear hunt and that it's unlikely that hunters will be allowed to take the animals during spring. He's also not offering an opinion as to when more hunting should happen. "The Division of Wildlife, I think, are the experts and they're the ones that need to make those decisions," he said. "It's just that right now, as it is in statute, they just don't have that flexibility." Randy Hampton, a DOW spokesman, said the agency is not taking a position on the bill. But he said having additional season-setting flexibility would permit the department to allow bear hunting during the late summer "in areas where bear densities are determined to be too high." "Just because we are given authority to hunt year-round doesn't mean the spring hunt would come back. We're not discussing the spring hunt as an option," Hampton said. Hampton said that wildlife officials estimated the bear population at close to 8,000 in the early 1990s. Additional research is under way and wildlife officials "have conservatively estimated the black bear population in Colorado at approximately 12,000 bears," Hampton said. Bear encounters with people have increased as more Coloradans move into rugged areas and people explore more of the state's backcountry, Hampton said. Urban development, persistent droughts and late frosts also have brought bears and humans closer as the animals search for food. In 2009, wildlife officers and landowners killed 211 bears because of their interaction with people or property, and another 219 in 2010. In 2008, 107 problem bears were killed, according to DOW. Last week, a man in suburban Colorado Springs told police he had to take refuge on top of his truck after he was chased by a mother bear and her two cubs. Last summer, wildlife agents killed a bear that bit a man in Durango who was sleeping in his backyard. The man wasn't seriously hurt. Keefover, with WildEarth Guardians, said bear-versus-human conflicts are a matter of people taking personal responsibility and being smart about not attracting bears by leaving food or trash where it's easily accessible. She said that despite Brown's reassurance that a spring bear hunt won't happen, she's still worried that bears will be targeted when cubs are most dependent on their mothers. "The idea that we need to hunt when cubs are vulnerable is just completely unethical and wrong," she said.

  1219 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Colorado Lawmakers Consider Flexible Bear Hunt

  Bears beware — Colorado lawmakers worried about the animals' growing population are talking about giving wildlife officials more say over when bears can be hunted. DENVER (AP) — Bears beware — Colorado lawmakers worried about the animals' growing population are talking about giving wildlife officials more say over when bears can be hunted. A proposal set for its first hearing Monday would repeal a 1992 voter-approved initiative that prohibits hunting bears from March 1 to Sept. 1 and give the state Division of Wildlife authority to expand hunting dates. Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative amid concern that female bears were being hunted in the spring, when they are taking care of their cubs. The initiative also banned hunting bears with dogs and baiting bears with food to kill them. The bill sponsored by Rep. J. Paul Brown would not eliminate those provisions. Brown, a lawmaker from southwestern Colorado, said he's concerned that the animals are becoming less afraid of people. "If at all possible, I just don't want to have a tragedy with some little kid getting killed by a bear if there's a bad bear around," he said. But a wildlife rights group argues the bear population is still vulnerable and its numbers could dwindle fast if more hunting is allowed. "Sure, if you wipe out the whole population there's going to be no conflicts" with people, said Wendy Keefover, director of carnivore protection for WildEarth Guardians. Brown insists he's not advocating a spring bear hunt and that it's unlikely that hunters will be allowed to take the animals during spring. He's also not offering an opinion as to when more hunting should happen. "The Division of Wildlife, I think, are the experts and they're the ones that need to make those decisions," he said. "It's just that right now, as it is in statute, they just don't have that flexibility." Randy Hampton, a DOW spokesman, said the agency is not taking a position on the bill. But he said having additional season-setting flexibility would permit the department to allow bear hunting during the late summer "in areas where bear densities are determined to be too high." "Just because we are given authority to hunt year-round doesn't mean the spring hunt would come back. We're not discussing the spring hunt as an option," Hampton said. Hampton said that wildlife officials estimated the bear population at close to 8,000 in the early 1990s. Additional research is under way and wildlife officials "have conservatively estimated the black bear population in Colorado at approximately 12,000 bears," Hampton said. Bear encounters with people have increased as more Coloradans move into rugged areas and people explore more of the state's backcountry, Hampton said. Urban development, persistent droughts and late frosts also have brought bears and humans closer as the animals search for food. In 2009, wildlife officers and landowners killed 211 bears because of their interaction with people or property, and another 219 in 2010. In 2008, 107 problem bears were killed, according to DOW. Last week, a man in suburban Colorado Springs told police he had to take refuge on top of his truck after he was chased by a mother bear and her two cubs. Last summer, wildlife agents killed a bear that bit a man in Durango who was sleeping in his backyard. The man wasn't seriously hurt. Keefover, with WildEarth Guardians, said bear-versus-human conflicts are a matter of people taking personal responsibility and being smart about not attracting bears by leaving food or trash where it's easily accessible. She said that despite Brown's reassurance that a spring bear hunt won't happen, she's still worried that bears will be targeted when cubs are most dependent on their mothers. "The idea that we need to hunt when cubs are vulnerable is just completely unethical and wrong," she said.

  Apr 25, 2011 1219
• 25 Apr 2011
  Wolf Protections in Northern Rockies Expected to be Lifted

  An attachment to a federal budget bill needed to avert a government shutdown would take gray wolves off the endangered species list across most of the Northern Rockies. BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — An attachment to a federal budget bill needed to avert a government shutdown would take gray wolves off the endangered species list across most of the Northern Rockies. Wildlife advocates conceded Tuesday the wolf provision was all but certain to remain in the spending bill after efforts to remove it failed. Congress faces a tight deadline on a budget plan already months overdue, and the rider has bipartisan support. It orders the Obama administration to lift protections for wolves within 60 days in five Western states. Protections would remain intact in Wyoming, at least for now. But wolf hunting would resume this fall in Idaho and Montana, where an estimated 1,250 of the animals have been blamed in hundreds of livestock attacks and for declines seen in some big game herds. Wolves also would be returned to state management in Washington, Oregon and Utah. Lawmakers said they inserted the rider to circumvent a federal judge who repeatedly blocked proposals to hunt the predators. The legislation would block further court intervention. "We needed to figure out a way to manage these critters just like we manage other wildlife, and this is the way to do it," Sen. Jon Tester said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you take a look at impacts wolves have had on domestic livestock, on our big game, it is not deniable that it has been extensive." Wolves were wiped out across most of the United States last century under a government bounty program established to benefit the agriculture industry. They were reintroduced to Wyoming and Idaho in the mid-1990s, and at least 1,651 now roam parts of five states. Only a few dozen of the animals so far have colonized Washington and Oregon and no packs are known to exist in Utah. Idaho and Montana officials were forced to cancel wolf hunts planned last year when U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy restored protections for the species. Those plans are expected to be updated to allow hunting this fall for potentially hundreds of wolves. Wildlife advocates had sought to stop the legislation through a settlement on the issue with the Obama administration announced last month. But that settlement was scuttled in court by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, who cited dissension among some environmentalists who characterized the deal as politically-motivated sellout. Mike Leahy, with Defenders of Wildlife, said the time to head off congressional action "has come and gone." He said his group was turning its attention to the states, in hopes of averting overhunting that could drive wolves again to the brink of extinction. "The real threat here is the states grinding down wolf populations in response to anti-wolf rhetoric over time," Leahy said. "They can chip away at the population and manage them down to 100, 150 wolves if they want." Wyoming lawmakers inserted language into the bill to uphold a ruling on wolves by another judge last year that was favorable to their state. However, the ruling said only that the government must reconsider Wyoming's wolf management proposal — not necessarily accept it. Wyoming Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis said she hoped the rider would "clear away obstacles so that meaningful negotiations can continue" between the state and federal officials. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said Wyoming law is too hostile to the predators, because it would allow them to be shot on sight across most of the state.

  1117 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Wolf Protections in Northern Rockies Expected to be Lifted

  An attachment to a federal budget bill needed to avert a government shutdown would take gray wolves off the endangered species list across most of the Northern Rockies. BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — An attachment to a federal budget bill needed to avert a government shutdown would take gray wolves off the endangered species list across most of the Northern Rockies. Wildlife advocates conceded Tuesday the wolf provision was all but certain to remain in the spending bill after efforts to remove it failed. Congress faces a tight deadline on a budget plan already months overdue, and the rider has bipartisan support. It orders the Obama administration to lift protections for wolves within 60 days in five Western states. Protections would remain intact in Wyoming, at least for now. But wolf hunting would resume this fall in Idaho and Montana, where an estimated 1,250 of the animals have been blamed in hundreds of livestock attacks and for declines seen in some big game herds. Wolves also would be returned to state management in Washington, Oregon and Utah. Lawmakers said they inserted the rider to circumvent a federal judge who repeatedly blocked proposals to hunt the predators. The legislation would block further court intervention. "We needed to figure out a way to manage these critters just like we manage other wildlife, and this is the way to do it," Sen. Jon Tester said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you take a look at impacts wolves have had on domestic livestock, on our big game, it is not deniable that it has been extensive." Wolves were wiped out across most of the United States last century under a government bounty program established to benefit the agriculture industry. They were reintroduced to Wyoming and Idaho in the mid-1990s, and at least 1,651 now roam parts of five states. Only a few dozen of the animals so far have colonized Washington and Oregon and no packs are known to exist in Utah. Idaho and Montana officials were forced to cancel wolf hunts planned last year when U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy restored protections for the species. Those plans are expected to be updated to allow hunting this fall for potentially hundreds of wolves. Wildlife advocates had sought to stop the legislation through a settlement on the issue with the Obama administration announced last month. But that settlement was scuttled in court by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, who cited dissension among some environmentalists who characterized the deal as politically-motivated sellout. Mike Leahy, with Defenders of Wildlife, said the time to head off congressional action "has come and gone." He said his group was turning its attention to the states, in hopes of averting overhunting that could drive wolves again to the brink of extinction. "The real threat here is the states grinding down wolf populations in response to anti-wolf rhetoric over time," Leahy said. "They can chip away at the population and manage them down to 100, 150 wolves if they want." Wyoming lawmakers inserted language into the bill to uphold a ruling on wolves by another judge last year that was favorable to their state. However, the ruling said only that the government must reconsider Wyoming's wolf management proposal — not necessarily accept it. Wyoming Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis said she hoped the rider would "clear away obstacles so that meaningful negotiations can continue" between the state and federal officials. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said Wyoming law is too hostile to the predators, because it would allow them to be shot on sight across most of the state.

  Apr 25, 2011 1117
• 23 Apr 2011
  How Much is A Deer Worth?

  How much is a deer worth? The answer to that question may have nothing to do with dollars and cents. by Keith Sutton What is the value of a deer? Thought about that when I ran across a news story about Texas deer breeders who paid $450,000 for a deer named Dream Buck. That’s correct: $450,000; almost half a million smackaroos for a deer. What made this white-tailed deer so dreamy were his antlers, which scored an astounding 301 3/8 points when this buck was four years old. Dream Buck was purchased for selective breeding to produce other big-racked deer. His owners had no problem recouping their investment by selling the deer’s semen to other breeders. Of course, deer like Dream Buck are as rare as 20-pound bass. The price paid for this animal was a record and in no way reflects the value of an ordinary deer pursued by an average hunter like you or me. Which leaves me still begging the question: What is the value of a deer? In centuries past, when deer hides and venison were common items of trade, those doing the trading knew quite well the value of a deer or part thereof. In 1718, for example, every frontiersman knew one tanned deerskin could be traded for one pound of black powder, 40 bullets or 20 flints. A rifle could be obtained for 25 deerskins, a pistol for 12, an ax for four, a coat for 12 and a blanket for six. Using the word “buck” as a synonym for “dollar” originated from these trading practices. Each skin originally was referred to as a buckskin, which later was shortened to just buck as in “A pound of black powder will cost you one buck.” Rarely was a buckskin worth a dollar, however. During the nineteenth century, U.S. prices ranged from 20 cents per pound to 75 cents per hide. Deer hides were made into clothing, rugs, wall covers, upholstery, bellows, harnessing, saddles, handbags, bookbinding and more. Venison also served as an important exchange medium. Prices ranged from a halfpenny per pound in 1831 to a high of about 30 cents per pound in the late 1870s. By the turn of the century, however, as citizens became less dependent on wild animal foods, venison prices had fallen to 8 to 15 cents per pound. Today, you’d get some funny looks if you threw 25 tanned deer hides up on the counter at the gun shop and asked for a rifle in return. And if you try selling wild venison, you’ll be a law violator. Nevertheless, we still find reasons to ask now and then, “What is the dollar value of a deer?” Fortunately for us, people have figured out exactly what that value is. For example, when studying economic losses resulting from deer/vehicle crashes, economists can’t compute bottom-line losses without first knowing the estimated value of each deer thus killed. So, someone in this group did all kinds of arithmetic and came up with the figure of $1,250. That is, one deer is worth, economically speaking, approximately $1,250. Other researchers disagree. They say the dollar value of a deer is twice this amount, even if the total is based on hunting expenditures alone. Therefore, depending on who you want to believe, one deer — the regular type and not big-antlered breeding stock like Dream Buck — has a dollar value somewhere between $1,250 and $2,500. That’s a big spread, so last season, I figured I’d do some economic research myself in hopes of pinpointing a more exact figure. I did this while deer hunting with sons Matt and Zach. My first computations were based on reasonable expenses incurred by the three of us while pursuing whitetails on a two-day hunt. Those expenses were: • Three refuge hunting permits: $60 • Motel room for two nights: $100 • Meals for two days: $115.70 • Travel expenses: $93.15 • Ammunition: $1.30 (for the one and only one round fired this trip) This totals $370.15. Our hunting trip produced one doe deer killed by Matt. This deer weighed 91 pounds on the hoof. It therefore cost us $4.06 a pound. Had Zach and I killed a deer, too (neither of us saw one that was legal), the cost per pound would have been considerably lower. Had the three of us traveled to Alberta, Canada, to hunt, the cost per pound would have risen exponentially. Can these cost-per-pound figures help you calculate the value of a deer? Of course not. I present them here just to show you how foolish it really is to try and come up with an accurate figure that shows the true economic value of a deer. In the end, however, a deer’s economic value is pretty meaningless to most of us anyway. Dollars and cents have nothing to do with the reasons we value deer and other wildlife so highly. I’ve decided to think of it like that old MasterCard commercial: All expenses-paid trip to your favorite deer hunting area: $370.15 Getting to spend some time in the deer woods with family and friends: Priceless! There are some things your bucks just can’t buy.               

  1448 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  How Much is A Deer Worth?

  How much is a deer worth? The answer to that question may have nothing to do with dollars and cents. by Keith Sutton What is the value of a deer? Thought about that when I ran across a news story about Texas deer breeders who paid $450,000 for a deer named Dream Buck. That’s correct: $450,000; almost half a million smackaroos for a deer. What made this white-tailed deer so dreamy were his antlers, which scored an astounding 301 3/8 points when this buck was four years old. Dream Buck was purchased for selective breeding to produce other big-racked deer. His owners had no problem recouping their investment by selling the deer’s semen to other breeders. Of course, deer like Dream Buck are as rare as 20-pound bass. The price paid for this animal was a record and in no way reflects the value of an ordinary deer pursued by an average hunter like you or me. Which leaves me still begging the question: What is the value of a deer? In centuries past, when deer hides and venison were common items of trade, those doing the trading knew quite well the value of a deer or part thereof. In 1718, for example, every frontiersman knew one tanned deerskin could be traded for one pound of black powder, 40 bullets or 20 flints. A rifle could be obtained for 25 deerskins, a pistol for 12, an ax for four, a coat for 12 and a blanket for six. Using the word “buck” as a synonym for “dollar” originated from these trading practices. Each skin originally was referred to as a buckskin, which later was shortened to just buck as in “A pound of black powder will cost you one buck.” Rarely was a buckskin worth a dollar, however. During the nineteenth century, U.S. prices ranged from 20 cents per pound to 75 cents per hide. Deer hides were made into clothing, rugs, wall covers, upholstery, bellows, harnessing, saddles, handbags, bookbinding and more. Venison also served as an important exchange medium. Prices ranged from a halfpenny per pound in 1831 to a high of about 30 cents per pound in the late 1870s. By the turn of the century, however, as citizens became less dependent on wild animal foods, venison prices had fallen to 8 to 15 cents per pound. Today, you’d get some funny looks if you threw 25 tanned deer hides up on the counter at the gun shop and asked for a rifle in return. And if you try selling wild venison, you’ll be a law violator. Nevertheless, we still find reasons to ask now and then, “What is the dollar value of a deer?” Fortunately for us, people have figured out exactly what that value is. For example, when studying economic losses resulting from deer/vehicle crashes, economists can’t compute bottom-line losses without first knowing the estimated value of each deer thus killed. So, someone in this group did all kinds of arithmetic and came up with the figure of $1,250. That is, one deer is worth, economically speaking, approximately $1,250. Other researchers disagree. They say the dollar value of a deer is twice this amount, even if the total is based on hunting expenditures alone. Therefore, depending on who you want to believe, one deer — the regular type and not big-antlered breeding stock like Dream Buck — has a dollar value somewhere between $1,250 and $2,500. That’s a big spread, so last season, I figured I’d do some economic research myself in hopes of pinpointing a more exact figure. I did this while deer hunting with sons Matt and Zach. My first computations were based on reasonable expenses incurred by the three of us while pursuing whitetails on a two-day hunt. Those expenses were: • Three refuge hunting permits: $60 • Motel room for two nights: $100 • Meals for two days: $115.70 • Travel expenses: $93.15 • Ammunition: $1.30 (for the one and only one round fired this trip) This totals $370.15. Our hunting trip produced one doe deer killed by Matt. This deer weighed 91 pounds on the hoof. It therefore cost us $4.06 a pound. Had Zach and I killed a deer, too (neither of us saw one that was legal), the cost per pound would have been considerably lower. Had the three of us traveled to Alberta, Canada, to hunt, the cost per pound would have risen exponentially. Can these cost-per-pound figures help you calculate the value of a deer? Of course not. I present them here just to show you how foolish it really is to try and come up with an accurate figure that shows the true economic value of a deer. In the end, however, a deer’s economic value is pretty meaningless to most of us anyway. Dollars and cents have nothing to do with the reasons we value deer and other wildlife so highly. I’ve decided to think of it like that old MasterCard commercial: All expenses-paid trip to your favorite deer hunting area: $370.15 Getting to spend some time in the deer woods with family and friends: Priceless! There are some things your bucks just can’t buy.               

  Apr 23, 2011 1448
• 20 Apr 2011
  Kansas Planning Event to Kick Off Pheasant Season

  Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is planning a new event in November to open the state's pheasant season and promote hunting.   TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is planning a new event in November to open the state's pheasant season and promote hunting. The Ringneck Classic will bring business and community leaders from across the state to the northwestern town of Oakley for a dinner and a weekend of hunting. It's scheduled for Nov. 18-20. Brownback says he wants to market Kansas as the Midwest's premier destination for pheasant hunting. Wildlife and Parks Secretary Robin Jennison says the Ringneck Classic — named for a type of pheasant — will give the state a chance to show off tourism opportunities in northwest Kansas

  1168 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Kansas Planning Event to Kick Off Pheasant Season

  Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is planning a new event in November to open the state's pheasant season and promote hunting.   TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is planning a new event in November to open the state's pheasant season and promote hunting. The Ringneck Classic will bring business and community leaders from across the state to the northwestern town of Oakley for a dinner and a weekend of hunting. It's scheduled for Nov. 18-20. Brownback says he wants to market Kansas as the Midwest's premier destination for pheasant hunting. Wildlife and Parks Secretary Robin Jennison says the Ringneck Classic — named for a type of pheasant — will give the state a chance to show off tourism opportunities in northwest Kansas

  Apr 20, 2011 1168
• 14 Apr 2011
  Planning Your Food Plot for Killer Results

  Simply throwing some seed down does not make a food plot. If you want action, you must take action and do it right. by Steve Bartylla It was amazing. I could glass the property line squatter’s stand. He was a mere 105 yards away from mine. Sitting along the edge on the hayfield, he was trying to intercept the deer coming off of my small lease. What I found amazing wasn’t that he’d put his stand in a tree that the property fence ran through or that it was situated to shoot into my lease. Unfortunately, such acts happen far too frequently. What was amazing was how effective my food plot strategy had been in foiling his attempts. During each sit on my half-acre food plot, I saw many deer, with the majority offering shot opportunities. Heck, from that stand I eventually arrowed the biggest buck in the area. However, a mere 105 yards away, the squatter saw next to nothing. That’s precisely how powerful food plots can be. Unfortunately, the majority aren’t effective. They are often slapped into the easiest locations, with little thought invested into how they can maximize hunting opportunities. To get killer results from food plots, one must do more than the minimum. Feed Plots, Kill Plots, And Size That starts with planning. Of course, sunlight, soil types, soils conditions, accessibility, and a host of factors need to be considered. For now, let’s focus on size, shape, and location assuming that the conditions are also suitable for planting. Before we can begin, we must first differentiate between feed or kill plots. As the names imply, they serve distinctly different purposes. Feed plots are designed to both help keep deer on the property and address their nutritional needs. Kill plots are for hunting.       Because they are designed to be a primary food source, feed plots must be larger in size to sustain prolonged feeding. Furthermore, one must account for the competition factor. Most prime 40-acre-plus properties have more than one doe family group spending some time on the land. Each family group can consist of multiple generations of does and young that can be traced back to the matriarch doe. These family groups struggle for dominance much like bucks do during the rut. If the feed plot is too small, family groups and individual bucks are often driven off by the dominant family group and buck in the area. To feed and hold the maximum number of resident deer on the property, one can approach feed plots in two ways. The least cost-effective method is to make feed plots large enough for the deer to share nicely. That size varies based on other available food choices and deer density, but requires comparatively more acreage. The other option is breaking the feed plot into several plots, with each containing the same plantings. For example, three completely separate feed plots, each containing 1 acre of alfalfa and 4 acres of double-planted grain can support a minimum of three mature bucks and up to six family groups. One 15-acre plot will most likely lose one or more family groups and, once the bachelor groups break up, risks trimming the mature bucks to 1. The younger, subordinate bucks will also compete and disperse less with the illusion of reduced competition that the multiple-plot option provides. Conversely, kill plots should be small. After all, as the name implies, their purpose is for killing deer. Since bow range is limited, smaller, horseshoe, and “L” plots maximize shot opportunities. Along with that, within reason, the smaller the food plot, the safer the deer feel. All else being equal, a narrow half-acre food plot, completely surrounded by cover, will receive more daylight feeding activity than a square 5-acre plot. Furthermore, orienting the plot so the outside apex of the horseshoe or L works with the prevailing fall wind direction is important in providing the maximum opportunities. With that, one can place stands on the outside and inside edge of the apex.     Because of the shape, size, and placement of the kill plot, the author realized great daylight buck activity, whereas just 105 yards away the line squatter saw nearly nothing.   Additionally, the shape naturally funnels deer to your stand. From the apex, deer can see the entire food plot. Because of that, they gravitate to that area. Finally, the kill plot should be no more than 30 yards wide. That further increases the odds of any deer entering the plot being within bow range. Though the shape and orientation isn’t important for feed plots, you can see why addressing both is extremely beneficial on kill plots. Minimizing near misses should be a priority, and these two factors do just that. Food Plot Location At first thought, the location of the feed plots may not seem overly important. After all, since hunting them isn’t a primary concern, who cares if the feeding occurs after dark? In fact, it works to our advantage if we can keep deer in the woods until after dark. Still, location means everything for both the feed and kill plot. Ideally, they work in concert with each other. We want the bucks to stage in our small kill plots before venturing out to the feed plots after dark. Maximizing location begins by determining where the bedding activity occurs. Next, one can plot the feed plot locations. Inside corners of existing fields and remote areas of open grass lands are both great choices. Deer tend to feel safe in these locations, but the relative openness still promotes twilight and nighttime activity. With the bedding and feed plot locations identified, determine the most likely path deer will take between the two. Backing off around 100 to 200 yards from the feed plot is where our kill plot should be located. Determining the precise location is a balance between conditions suitable to grow the planting and the ability to keep disturbances to a minimum when hunting, accessing, and departing the plot. Luckily, two of best planting choices for the kill plots are clovers and brassicas. Both are relatively easy to grow and don’t require ideal conditions.   Pairing grains and greens helps feed plots provide nutrition throughout the entire year.   Of course, this type of placement will require some clearing work. A decent dozer operator can typically knock out three to five of these kill plots in a day, as well as complement each with a small waterhole. They can even pile the debris to form a barrier in front of the stand sites so the deer enter where you want them to. The costs generally fall under $500 for a day’s work. For those on a tighter budget, all one really needs is a chainsaw and an ATV equipped with a sturdy disc. Remember, we’re not cash cropping here. So, if the plots contain some stumps, it’s not an issue. Either way, carefully planning the location of the feed and kill plots can make the difference between arrowing the buck of your dreams and seeing virtually nothing. By then shaping and orienting the kill plot correctly, one stacks the odds for producing killer results. Devil In The Details The details often separate a thriving food plot from crop failure. Here are a few items that many overlook, but can prove to be real difference-makers. Match the planting to soil types and conditions: For example, because of a relatively shallow fibrous root system, clovers will do very well in comparatively moist areas and heavy soil types. However, they do poorly in sandy, comparatively dry areas. Because of a deeper tap root system, alfalfas are better suited for lighter soils and can tolerate significantly lower moisture content. Match the planting to amount of sunlight: Chicory, clovers, and even many brassicas can do well in as little as three hours of direct sunlight a day. Most grain crops, such as corn and soybeans, do much better with six or more hours. For the best possible food plot, matching the planting to the specifics of the location is critical. Test soil pH and nutrient levels: Soils tests are cheap and easy. Simply collect tablespoon-size scoops of topsoil from evenly dispersed areas of your food plot until you have filled about half a sandwich baggie. Most seed dealers or the county agricultural office can send it away for testing. A few weeks later, you will get a report that details the exact fertilizer and lime requirements for your particular planting.   Firm seedbeds are critical for broadcast seeds to realize high germination rates.   Use lime wisely: Speaking of lime, not all limes are created equal. Limes range from fine to coarse grain. Pelletized lime is an extremely fine lime that has been bonded to form pellets. It breaks down in the soils very fast. The effects can begin within weeks. Barn lime is the opposite extreme. It’s so course that as much as 50 percent may never break down into usable form and can take many months to make a significant difference. Frankly, it shouldn’t be used for food plots. The field lime that is sold most often to farmers strikes a balance between the two extremes. In either case, one should realize that lime is not a permanent fix. The finer the grain, the quicker the impact, but also the faster it leeches from the soil. With pelletized lime, one often must reapply every year. Most field limes are commonly good for two or more years. Prepare a proper seed bed: This is well worth the effort. Even the “no tills” that are available will do significantly better in properly prepared soils. After disking, the soil should be cultipacked to create an even and firm bed. This is mission critical for small seeds not meant to be drilled. If the bed isn’t firm, a high percentage of seed is often covered too deep to ever break the surface. For seeds that are drilled, all that is left is praying for rain, but broadcasted seeds should be cultipacked one last time. Doing so sinks the seeds into the soil and promotes a higher germination rate. Maintain your planting: Weed competition is often the greatest challenge. Most all seed blends these days can be sprayed with herbicides. The trick is selecting the right one for the specific planting. The seed dealers can point you in the right direction. Also, many greens can be mowed to knock back the weeds. Some plantings, such as clovers and alfalfas, need to be mowed to keep them in a highly digestible and nutritious state. When they reach 6 to 12 inches in height, knocking them down to approximately 4 inches does the trick. One can never control rainfall. However, following the steps above will help give your food plot its best chance to thrive

  1795 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Planning Your Food Plot for Killer Results

  Simply throwing some seed down does not make a food plot. If you want action, you must take action and do it right. by Steve Bartylla It was amazing. I could glass the property line squatter’s stand. He was a mere 105 yards away from mine. Sitting along the edge on the hayfield, he was trying to intercept the deer coming off of my small lease. What I found amazing wasn’t that he’d put his stand in a tree that the property fence ran through or that it was situated to shoot into my lease. Unfortunately, such acts happen far too frequently. What was amazing was how effective my food plot strategy had been in foiling his attempts. During each sit on my half-acre food plot, I saw many deer, with the majority offering shot opportunities. Heck, from that stand I eventually arrowed the biggest buck in the area. However, a mere 105 yards away, the squatter saw next to nothing. That’s precisely how powerful food plots can be. Unfortunately, the majority aren’t effective. They are often slapped into the easiest locations, with little thought invested into how they can maximize hunting opportunities. To get killer results from food plots, one must do more than the minimum. Feed Plots, Kill Plots, And Size That starts with planning. Of course, sunlight, soil types, soils conditions, accessibility, and a host of factors need to be considered. For now, let’s focus on size, shape, and location assuming that the conditions are also suitable for planting. Before we can begin, we must first differentiate between feed or kill plots. As the names imply, they serve distinctly different purposes. Feed plots are designed to both help keep deer on the property and address their nutritional needs. Kill plots are for hunting.       Because they are designed to be a primary food source, feed plots must be larger in size to sustain prolonged feeding. Furthermore, one must account for the competition factor. Most prime 40-acre-plus properties have more than one doe family group spending some time on the land. Each family group can consist of multiple generations of does and young that can be traced back to the matriarch doe. These family groups struggle for dominance much like bucks do during the rut. If the feed plot is too small, family groups and individual bucks are often driven off by the dominant family group and buck in the area. To feed and hold the maximum number of resident deer on the property, one can approach feed plots in two ways. The least cost-effective method is to make feed plots large enough for the deer to share nicely. That size varies based on other available food choices and deer density, but requires comparatively more acreage. The other option is breaking the feed plot into several plots, with each containing the same plantings. For example, three completely separate feed plots, each containing 1 acre of alfalfa and 4 acres of double-planted grain can support a minimum of three mature bucks and up to six family groups. One 15-acre plot will most likely lose one or more family groups and, once the bachelor groups break up, risks trimming the mature bucks to 1. The younger, subordinate bucks will also compete and disperse less with the illusion of reduced competition that the multiple-plot option provides. Conversely, kill plots should be small. After all, as the name implies, their purpose is for killing deer. Since bow range is limited, smaller, horseshoe, and “L” plots maximize shot opportunities. Along with that, within reason, the smaller the food plot, the safer the deer feel. All else being equal, a narrow half-acre food plot, completely surrounded by cover, will receive more daylight feeding activity than a square 5-acre plot. Furthermore, orienting the plot so the outside apex of the horseshoe or L works with the prevailing fall wind direction is important in providing the maximum opportunities. With that, one can place stands on the outside and inside edge of the apex.     Because of the shape, size, and placement of the kill plot, the author realized great daylight buck activity, whereas just 105 yards away the line squatter saw nearly nothing.   Additionally, the shape naturally funnels deer to your stand. From the apex, deer can see the entire food plot. Because of that, they gravitate to that area. Finally, the kill plot should be no more than 30 yards wide. That further increases the odds of any deer entering the plot being within bow range. Though the shape and orientation isn’t important for feed plots, you can see why addressing both is extremely beneficial on kill plots. Minimizing near misses should be a priority, and these two factors do just that. Food Plot Location At first thought, the location of the feed plots may not seem overly important. After all, since hunting them isn’t a primary concern, who cares if the feeding occurs after dark? In fact, it works to our advantage if we can keep deer in the woods until after dark. Still, location means everything for both the feed and kill plot. Ideally, they work in concert with each other. We want the bucks to stage in our small kill plots before venturing out to the feed plots after dark. Maximizing location begins by determining where the bedding activity occurs. Next, one can plot the feed plot locations. Inside corners of existing fields and remote areas of open grass lands are both great choices. Deer tend to feel safe in these locations, but the relative openness still promotes twilight and nighttime activity. With the bedding and feed plot locations identified, determine the most likely path deer will take between the two. Backing off around 100 to 200 yards from the feed plot is where our kill plot should be located. Determining the precise location is a balance between conditions suitable to grow the planting and the ability to keep disturbances to a minimum when hunting, accessing, and departing the plot. Luckily, two of best planting choices for the kill plots are clovers and brassicas. Both are relatively easy to grow and don’t require ideal conditions.   Pairing grains and greens helps feed plots provide nutrition throughout the entire year.   Of course, this type of placement will require some clearing work. A decent dozer operator can typically knock out three to five of these kill plots in a day, as well as complement each with a small waterhole. They can even pile the debris to form a barrier in front of the stand sites so the deer enter where you want them to. The costs generally fall under $500 for a day’s work. For those on a tighter budget, all one really needs is a chainsaw and an ATV equipped with a sturdy disc. Remember, we’re not cash cropping here. So, if the plots contain some stumps, it’s not an issue. Either way, carefully planning the location of the feed and kill plots can make the difference between arrowing the buck of your dreams and seeing virtually nothing. By then shaping and orienting the kill plot correctly, one stacks the odds for producing killer results. Devil In The Details The details often separate a thriving food plot from crop failure. Here are a few items that many overlook, but can prove to be real difference-makers. Match the planting to soil types and conditions: For example, because of a relatively shallow fibrous root system, clovers will do very well in comparatively moist areas and heavy soil types. However, they do poorly in sandy, comparatively dry areas. Because of a deeper tap root system, alfalfas are better suited for lighter soils and can tolerate significantly lower moisture content. Match the planting to amount of sunlight: Chicory, clovers, and even many brassicas can do well in as little as three hours of direct sunlight a day. Most grain crops, such as corn and soybeans, do much better with six or more hours. For the best possible food plot, matching the planting to the specifics of the location is critical. Test soil pH and nutrient levels: Soils tests are cheap and easy. Simply collect tablespoon-size scoops of topsoil from evenly dispersed areas of your food plot until you have filled about half a sandwich baggie. Most seed dealers or the county agricultural office can send it away for testing. A few weeks later, you will get a report that details the exact fertilizer and lime requirements for your particular planting.   Firm seedbeds are critical for broadcast seeds to realize high germination rates.   Use lime wisely: Speaking of lime, not all limes are created equal. Limes range from fine to coarse grain. Pelletized lime is an extremely fine lime that has been bonded to form pellets. It breaks down in the soils very fast. The effects can begin within weeks. Barn lime is the opposite extreme. It’s so course that as much as 50 percent may never break down into usable form and can take many months to make a significant difference. Frankly, it shouldn’t be used for food plots. The field lime that is sold most often to farmers strikes a balance between the two extremes. In either case, one should realize that lime is not a permanent fix. The finer the grain, the quicker the impact, but also the faster it leeches from the soil. With pelletized lime, one often must reapply every year. Most field limes are commonly good for two or more years. Prepare a proper seed bed: This is well worth the effort. Even the “no tills” that are available will do significantly better in properly prepared soils. After disking, the soil should be cultipacked to create an even and firm bed. This is mission critical for small seeds not meant to be drilled. If the bed isn’t firm, a high percentage of seed is often covered too deep to ever break the surface. For seeds that are drilled, all that is left is praying for rain, but broadcasted seeds should be cultipacked one last time. Doing so sinks the seeds into the soil and promotes a higher germination rate. Maintain your planting: Weed competition is often the greatest challenge. Most all seed blends these days can be sprayed with herbicides. The trick is selecting the right one for the specific planting. The seed dealers can point you in the right direction. Also, many greens can be mowed to knock back the weeds. Some plantings, such as clovers and alfalfas, need to be mowed to keep them in a highly digestible and nutritious state. When they reach 6 to 12 inches in height, knocking them down to approximately 4 inches does the trick. One can never control rainfall. However, following the steps above will help give your food plot its best chance to thrive

  Apr 14, 2011 1795
• 13 Apr 2011
  Idaho House Continues With Wolf Disaster Declaration

  Republican Rep. Judy Boyle did her part Tuesday, successfully sponsoring a disaster emergency declaration that cleared the Idaho House on a 64-5 vote.   BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Tiffani Bowen waits tables and cooks at the Country Coffee Cabin in Midvale, a little western Idaho ranching community along U.S. Highway 95 near millions of acres of National Forest land. The mother of a 2-year-old has never seen one of the wolves that roam the mountains here, but when local talk turns to the big predators, residents are unified, she said. "Everyone wants to have them all gone," Bowen said. The local Republican Rep. Judy Boyle did her part Tuesday, successfully sponsoring a disaster emergency declaration that cleared the Idaho House on a 64-5 vote. It would allow Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter to enlist local law enforcement agents to help kill wolves if he decides they are a risk to humans, livestock, outfitting businesses or wildlife. It's similar to a measure in which Idaho County in 2010 unsuccessfully sought authority from Otter to allow wolves to be shot on sight. Wolves haven't attacked humans since their reintroduction to Idaho in 1995, but there's an almost archetypal fear in some of Idaho's rural communities that they are under siege from the big canine carnivores. Ranchers complain they're losing their livestock, hunters say wolves have made big game scarce. And Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, says she won't let her grandchildren play outdoors because wolves have been spotted on nearby Blue Mountain. "They're killers, they do it for sport, and then they leave their victim still alive for a lingering death," Barrett said. After Tuesday's vote, the measure moves to the Senate. The estimated 1,650 wolves now in the Northern Rockies — about half the population is in Idaho — are descended primarily from 66 wolves trapped in Canada and released into remote areas of Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Endangered Species Act protections have been lifted twice, once in 2008 and again in 2009 when there were legal public hunts in Idaho and Montana. But the protections were reinstated last August by a federal judge after a lawsuit filed by environmental groups. Just last month, ten conservation groups that had sued reached an agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protections from wolves. There's also an effort in Congress by lawmakers from the northern Rocky Mountains to act. Still, Idaho lawmakers like Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, are frustrated at the slow progress and hope to keep the pressure on with legislation like the disaster emergency declaration. Hagedorn, an avid hunter, complained it's been months since the Idaho Department of Fish and Game sought the go-ahead from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill dozens of wolves blamed for killing elk in northcentral Idaho. "That population of elk in that one zone is no longer sustainable," Hagedorn said. The five Democratic dissenters weren't convinced. Wolves have been spotted on golf courses near Sun Valley, said Rep. Wendy Jaquet, who represents the central Idaho vacation region. Still, she's more frightened of even bolder mountain lions that have also been sighted around town. Idaho already has the tools at its disposal to manage wolves appropriately without resorting to Boyle's bill, Jaquet said, including the likelihood of delisting, money to compensate livestock owners for losses and federal agents who can be called in to kill problem packs. "We do have lethal measures that take place right now," she said. "We should let the process go forward."

  1178 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Idaho House Continues With Wolf Disaster Declaration

  Republican Rep. Judy Boyle did her part Tuesday, successfully sponsoring a disaster emergency declaration that cleared the Idaho House on a 64-5 vote.   BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Tiffani Bowen waits tables and cooks at the Country Coffee Cabin in Midvale, a little western Idaho ranching community along U.S. Highway 95 near millions of acres of National Forest land. The mother of a 2-year-old has never seen one of the wolves that roam the mountains here, but when local talk turns to the big predators, residents are unified, she said. "Everyone wants to have them all gone," Bowen said. The local Republican Rep. Judy Boyle did her part Tuesday, successfully sponsoring a disaster emergency declaration that cleared the Idaho House on a 64-5 vote. It would allow Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter to enlist local law enforcement agents to help kill wolves if he decides they are a risk to humans, livestock, outfitting businesses or wildlife. It's similar to a measure in which Idaho County in 2010 unsuccessfully sought authority from Otter to allow wolves to be shot on sight. Wolves haven't attacked humans since their reintroduction to Idaho in 1995, but there's an almost archetypal fear in some of Idaho's rural communities that they are under siege from the big canine carnivores. Ranchers complain they're losing their livestock, hunters say wolves have made big game scarce. And Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, says she won't let her grandchildren play outdoors because wolves have been spotted on nearby Blue Mountain. "They're killers, they do it for sport, and then they leave their victim still alive for a lingering death," Barrett said. After Tuesday's vote, the measure moves to the Senate. The estimated 1,650 wolves now in the Northern Rockies — about half the population is in Idaho — are descended primarily from 66 wolves trapped in Canada and released into remote areas of Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Endangered Species Act protections have been lifted twice, once in 2008 and again in 2009 when there were legal public hunts in Idaho and Montana. But the protections were reinstated last August by a federal judge after a lawsuit filed by environmental groups. Just last month, ten conservation groups that had sued reached an agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protections from wolves. There's also an effort in Congress by lawmakers from the northern Rocky Mountains to act. Still, Idaho lawmakers like Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, are frustrated at the slow progress and hope to keep the pressure on with legislation like the disaster emergency declaration. Hagedorn, an avid hunter, complained it's been months since the Idaho Department of Fish and Game sought the go-ahead from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill dozens of wolves blamed for killing elk in northcentral Idaho. "That population of elk in that one zone is no longer sustainable," Hagedorn said. The five Democratic dissenters weren't convinced. Wolves have been spotted on golf courses near Sun Valley, said Rep. Wendy Jaquet, who represents the central Idaho vacation region. Still, she's more frightened of even bolder mountain lions that have also been sighted around town. Idaho already has the tools at its disposal to manage wolves appropriately without resorting to Boyle's bill, Jaquet said, including the likelihood of delisting, money to compensate livestock owners for losses and federal agents who can be called in to kill problem packs. "We do have lethal measures that take place right now," she said. "We should let the process go forward."

  Apr 13, 2011 1178
• 08 Apr 2011
  Oregon Ranchers Want Compensation from Wolf Damage

  A hearing in Salem on proposed wolf management bills showed agreement from just about everybody involved on one issue — Oregon ranchers should be compensated for livestock losses.   SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A hearing in Salem on proposed wolf management bills showed agreement from just about everybody involved on one issue — Oregon ranchers should be compensated for livestock losses. But other issues may not be as easy to resolve. About 35 people showed up for the two-hour hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on five bills backed by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. In addition to a pair of bills proposing a compensation plan, two other bills would authorize killing wolves — one when they attack livestock and another, without cause. A fifth bill would cut the state's population goal for wolf recovery in half, to four breeding pairs. Ranchers said they need the proposed changes to deal with livestock losses and threats to safety. But conservation groups said the proposals amount to a political end run around the current Oregon wolf management plan. "I am extremely disappointed to have to be here again today to discuss efforts to undermine Oregon's wolf plan and fragile wolf recovery that were proposed, discussed, debated, and soundly rejected in last year's extensive public process,'' Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild told the House committee. Opponents of the proposed management changes said the state should stick to the requirements for both wolf numbers and constraints on killing the animals outlined in the state wolf management plan updated last year. "The vast majority of Oregonians are proud of this compromise plan and the process that was used to create it, and it is important that state legislators defend it,'' said Randy Comeleo, of Corvallis. Suzanne Stone, with Defenders of Wildlife, said coyotes alone kill 10 times more livestock than wolves, while cougars, bears, bad weather, disease and birthing complications also take a toll. But ranchers told lawmakers that wolves are costing them money and peace of mind. Karl Patton, a rancher from Joseph in northeastern Oregon, said he was awakened last March by six wolves in the dark "coming full speed.'' He started shooting until they ran off. Wolves have killed his livestock twice, including two pregnant cows, one of which was carrying twins, he said. "When they were coming at me and the dogs, they were not coming to shake hands,'' Patton said. Ramona Phillips, also of Joseph, said wolves are changing the behavior of livestock and the members of her family. "Now we live the stress of wolf attacks 24/7,'' she said. Wildlife experts already are authorized to kill problem wolves, which can be killed if they are an immediate threat. But conservationists say easing protection for wolves as proposed by the bills could lead to poaching. "It would essentially take us back to the good old days where killing a wolf on sight was OK," Klavins said. "There's no way to prove after the fact that that wolf was, in fact, threatening your cattle or was within 500 feet of a house." Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the animal populations in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon have grown to nearly 1,500. The first wolf crossed into Oregon in 1999. Wildlife managers confirm 39 domestic animals have since been killed by wolves, whose population now totals at least 23. Another hearing by the committee is scheduled for 5 p.m. Tuesday.

  1098 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Oregon Ranchers Want Compensation from Wolf Damage

  A hearing in Salem on proposed wolf management bills showed agreement from just about everybody involved on one issue — Oregon ranchers should be compensated for livestock losses.   SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A hearing in Salem on proposed wolf management bills showed agreement from just about everybody involved on one issue — Oregon ranchers should be compensated for livestock losses. But other issues may not be as easy to resolve. About 35 people showed up for the two-hour hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on five bills backed by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. In addition to a pair of bills proposing a compensation plan, two other bills would authorize killing wolves — one when they attack livestock and another, without cause. A fifth bill would cut the state's population goal for wolf recovery in half, to four breeding pairs. Ranchers said they need the proposed changes to deal with livestock losses and threats to safety. But conservation groups said the proposals amount to a political end run around the current Oregon wolf management plan. "I am extremely disappointed to have to be here again today to discuss efforts to undermine Oregon's wolf plan and fragile wolf recovery that were proposed, discussed, debated, and soundly rejected in last year's extensive public process,'' Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild told the House committee. Opponents of the proposed management changes said the state should stick to the requirements for both wolf numbers and constraints on killing the animals outlined in the state wolf management plan updated last year. "The vast majority of Oregonians are proud of this compromise plan and the process that was used to create it, and it is important that state legislators defend it,'' said Randy Comeleo, of Corvallis. Suzanne Stone, with Defenders of Wildlife, said coyotes alone kill 10 times more livestock than wolves, while cougars, bears, bad weather, disease and birthing complications also take a toll. But ranchers told lawmakers that wolves are costing them money and peace of mind. Karl Patton, a rancher from Joseph in northeastern Oregon, said he was awakened last March by six wolves in the dark "coming full speed.'' He started shooting until they ran off. Wolves have killed his livestock twice, including two pregnant cows, one of which was carrying twins, he said. "When they were coming at me and the dogs, they were not coming to shake hands,'' Patton said. Ramona Phillips, also of Joseph, said wolves are changing the behavior of livestock and the members of her family. "Now we live the stress of wolf attacks 24/7,'' she said. Wildlife experts already are authorized to kill problem wolves, which can be killed if they are an immediate threat. But conservationists say easing protection for wolves as proposed by the bills could lead to poaching. "It would essentially take us back to the good old days where killing a wolf on sight was OK," Klavins said. "There's no way to prove after the fact that that wolf was, in fact, threatening your cattle or was within 500 feet of a house." Since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the animal populations in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon have grown to nearly 1,500. The first wolf crossed into Oregon in 1999. Wildlife managers confirm 39 domestic animals have since been killed by wolves, whose population now totals at least 23. Another hearing by the committee is scheduled for 5 p.m. Tuesday.

  Apr 08, 2011 1098
• 08 Apr 2011
  Teen says baggy pants saved him from seven-foot alligator

  By: Don Germaise ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A St. Petersburg boy narrowly escaped an alligator attack because the gator bit his baggy pants instead of his leg, police said. Seventeen-year-old Kendrick Williams was walking home from work Monday night and taking a shortcut near a pond at the Reserve Apartments in south St. Petersburg. "I heard the hiss and then I looked down and I seen the alligator on the ground," said Williams. "I ran. I didn't look back." Williams said the alligator appeared to be six to seven feet long. However, one witness told St. Petersburg police the gator was 10 feet long, said police spokesman Mike Puetz. The gator took a bite out of Williams' baggy pants, tearing large holes in the fabric. Williams' mom thinks the pants might have saved her son's life. "That was the advantage of wearing baggy pants that day," said Tanita Murray. "It's dangerous. If a toddler had been standing there, it (the alligator) would have bit his neck or head." Wildlife officers told St. Petersburg police there are so many gators in the pond at the Reserve Apartments, they couldn't determine which one tried to bite Williams. The apartment complex would not let a reporter on the property to ask managers about the problem.

  1087 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Teen says baggy pants saved him from seven-foot alligator

  By: Don Germaise ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A St. Petersburg boy narrowly escaped an alligator attack because the gator bit his baggy pants instead of his leg, police said. Seventeen-year-old Kendrick Williams was walking home from work Monday night and taking a shortcut near a pond at the Reserve Apartments in south St. Petersburg. "I heard the hiss and then I looked down and I seen the alligator on the ground," said Williams. "I ran. I didn't look back." Williams said the alligator appeared to be six to seven feet long. However, one witness told St. Petersburg police the gator was 10 feet long, said police spokesman Mike Puetz. The gator took a bite out of Williams' baggy pants, tearing large holes in the fabric. Williams' mom thinks the pants might have saved her son's life. "That was the advantage of wearing baggy pants that day," said Tanita Murray. "It's dangerous. If a toddler had been standing there, it (the alligator) would have bit his neck or head." Wildlife officers told St. Petersburg police there are so many gators in the pond at the Reserve Apartments, they couldn't determine which one tried to bite Williams. The apartment complex would not let a reporter on the property to ask managers about the problem.

  Apr 08, 2011 1087
• 08 Apr 2011
  Mountain Lion Shot in California Neighborhood

  Authorities have shot a mountain lion that was wandering around a residential Redwood City neighborhood.   REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — Authorities have shot a mountain lion that was wandering around a residential Redwood City neighborhood. State Department of Fish and Game Lt. Todd Ajari says a warden with the agency hit the animal with two rifle shots around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday in the backyard of a home. Authorities concluded that trying to tranquilize the animal was too risky. Ajari said it could have become angry and escaped into the community. The animal was first spotted about three hours earlier on a busy street near Sequoia Hospital. The sighting prompted authorities to ask the residents of about 600 homes to evacuate or stay inside. A house-by-house search led them to the animal. Officials say the mountain lion weighed between 100 and 150 pounds. It's not clear how it got into the neighborhood, which is not near any open space.

  1114 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Mountain Lion Shot in California Neighborhood

  Authorities have shot a mountain lion that was wandering around a residential Redwood City neighborhood.   REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — Authorities have shot a mountain lion that was wandering around a residential Redwood City neighborhood. State Department of Fish and Game Lt. Todd Ajari says a warden with the agency hit the animal with two rifle shots around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday in the backyard of a home. Authorities concluded that trying to tranquilize the animal was too risky. Ajari said it could have become angry and escaped into the community. The animal was first spotted about three hours earlier on a busy street near Sequoia Hospital. The sighting prompted authorities to ask the residents of about 600 homes to evacuate or stay inside. A house-by-house search led them to the animal. Officials say the mountain lion weighed between 100 and 150 pounds. It's not clear how it got into the neighborhood, which is not near any open space.

  Apr 08, 2011 1114
• 07 Apr 2011
  Missouri Confirms Sixth Mountain Lion Sighting Since November

  Missouri conservation officials have confirmed that a tuft of hair found on a fence in southwest Missouri came from a mountain lion.   WEST PLAINS, Mo. (AP) — Missouri conservation officials have confirmed that a tuft of hair found on a fence in southwest Missouri came from a mountain lion. Conservation resource scientist Jeff Beringer says DNA from the hair showed it belonged to a mountain lion. The hair was found March 9 on a fence near the Oregon County town of Rover. The Missouri Conservation Department says a resident said he saw a mountain lion get its hind leg caught in the fence before escaping. The Carthage Press reported Tuesday that the hair will be sent to a genetics lab in Montana to try and determine the cat's origin. This is the sixth verified mountain lion sighting in Missouri since late November. Beringer says the conservation has no evidence that a breeding population is living in Missouri.

  968 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Missouri Confirms Sixth Mountain Lion Sighting Since November

  Missouri conservation officials have confirmed that a tuft of hair found on a fence in southwest Missouri came from a mountain lion.   WEST PLAINS, Mo. (AP) — Missouri conservation officials have confirmed that a tuft of hair found on a fence in southwest Missouri came from a mountain lion. Conservation resource scientist Jeff Beringer says DNA from the hair showed it belonged to a mountain lion. The hair was found March 9 on a fence near the Oregon County town of Rover. The Missouri Conservation Department says a resident said he saw a mountain lion get its hind leg caught in the fence before escaping. The Carthage Press reported Tuesday that the hair will be sent to a genetics lab in Montana to try and determine the cat's origin. This is the sixth verified mountain lion sighting in Missouri since late November. Beringer says the conservation has no evidence that a breeding population is living in Missouri.

  Apr 07, 2011 968