Does industrial wind and wildlife really mix well? I would suggest no. There has been much research into the affects of industrial wind turbines and its deadly affect on bats and birds, but little to none on mammals.

The effects on both livestock and wildlife are starting to be realized by land owners, and by hunters and trappers. The effects of wind turbines on domestic animals are thankfully starting to be recorded, such as 100 goats dying in Taiwan because they could not feed. The turbines noise kept them “instinctively on alert” for predators to the point they could not eat. The livestock of an Ontario cattle rancher having many still born and what few calves were born were attacked by their mothers who kicked and bit them, others refused to nurse their young as a result of the affects of newly installed industrial size wind turbines. These are but two recorded and reported examples. Domesticated animals cannot escape the noise and shadow flicker of wind turbines because of their restricted (fenced in) range resulting in these types of incidents.

The higher forms of wildlife such as deer, bear, moose, and many furbearers take the option of leaving the immediate area of industrial wind complexes. But by this action, they are forced into habitat that is already occupied resulting in conflicts such as over browsing and an increased rate of predation. These activities have been recorded in various locations where industrial turbine complexes have become operational. The loss of habitat due to road, transmission line, and turbine site construction also results in the loss of thousands of acres of habitat. The affects of the turbines on the lower forms of wildlife such as rodents, snakes, and even insects is an unknown to date. They all have their place in the chain of life and any single loss will affect other wildlife and also the overall environment.

The hydrology of the mountains may also be impacted by the deep bed rock blasting that is required to make the foundations for the 400+ foot tall wind turbines. This may affect our drinking water supplies and the surface waters that hold various species of life including our beloved cold water brook trout and landlocked salmon fisheries.

Fragile and rare high alpine vegetation will be destroyed by mountain top wind development. In places such as Maine, moose will be driven off the high mountains sides where many go to have the cold temperatures of winter freeze off their tick infestations that can if bad enough weaken them to the point that they may parish. The pine martin, one of the most valuable of our fur bearers thrives on mountains with heavy spruce growth. Our depleted northern deer herds will be further stressed and damaged due to the fact that the low frequency noise and construction will force them from current habitat. The use of herbicides to prevent re-vegetation may cause long term harm to wildlife, aqueduct species, and maybe our own drinking water. The possibility of forest fires will be greatly increased due to lighting strikes to the turbines and overheated gearbox lubricants igniting. This is in areas mostly far removed from any firefighting equipment and men.

The affects of industrial wind on wildlife (other than bats and birds) is not being actively researched by various federal and state fish and game departments due to several reasons, such as a lack of funding and most commonly due to political pressure where state administrations do not want anything negative being brought to light. This is because they support wind power development along with its tax incentives, stimulus monies, political gains, and of course their own long term pocket wealth over that of the welfare of wildlife. The loss of revenues generated by wildlife such as licensing fees and employment related to hunting, fishing and trapping industries which generates millions annually for the states affected by industrial wind is not in their greedy equations.

It must be noted that the scientific and medical communities are realizing the effects of low frequency noise and the strobe affect of the blades in sun light that cause mental and medical problems in humans. Even this is being contested and down played by the big wind companies with their multitude of lawyers and our greedy politicians who gain to lose face and wealth by opposing big wind. They are doing all they can to discredit those who oppose big wind. Along with that, they come into communities where they want to place commercial wind turbine complexes and buy off the local governments and tax payers with bribes of reduced electrical fees, offers to pay for lawyers to represent the local communities during negotiations, and cash settlements with private individuals who have to sign agreements not to publicly oppose them for the duration. Here in Maine we are staged to lose over 350 miles of mountain tops along with many thousands of acres of habitat. Most of the land is privately owned and the land owners cannot be blamed because of upfront monies, reduced tax burdens, and long term leases. This is all done with stimulus funding which are our federal tax monies or that borrowed by our current federal administration from foreign countries which will hurt generations of Americans for many decades. The sad part is that wind power generation is not even cost effective, nor does it reduce carbon emissions because more coal and oil fired generation plants must be built to back up wind power generation which is a variable dependent on wind. These are the basic reasons I feel that commercial wind generation is not beneficial to wild life, along with consideration of its impact to the human race.

I ask that you form your own opinion on this matter, but please educate yourself on the pro’s and con’s of this subject before forming that opinion. There are many websites that will educate one. All you need to do is search or Google industrial wind or wind turbines.

Dave Miller, Lexington TWP, ME

Dave Miller is a Maine resident, an outdoor writer and a member of the Carrabassett Valley Trappers Association.

Les wanted to know if I was interested in building on an addition to one of his ski lodges. We walked around the building and peered under a deck where the addition would go, both of us raising several questions about the existing structure. Soon, with Les in his work clothes (dress slacks and dress shirt) and I in mine (grubs), we were both crawling on our bellies through the dust, gravel, weeds, debris and just about everything else one might have the pleasure of finding under a heavily traveled ski lodge deck. I did make a couple of comments about our adventure but I’ll refrain from posting them here.

I’ve told that story more than one time but as I was thinking more about it this morning after getting off the phone with Les, that action actually is a pretty good characterization of him. Here’s a man who could have sat in the comfort of his clean office but instead did not hesitate to roll up his sleeves and get dirty.

I’ve known Les for perhaps 30-plus years and during that time he has given unselfishly to his community. Time and space will not permit the endless list of how he has impacted the people in his home town and surrounding area.

Les Otten is a businessman who understands many things, among them tourism, promotion, marketing, investment, providing a viable product and operating within a budget. Whoever resides in the Blaine House will face daunting tasks and challenges. I believe he is up for the challenge and can put together the right people to make it all happen.

One huge undertaking will be the financial shortfall of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, a depleted whitetail deer herd, an overgrown population of coyotes and other predators, and environmental groups eager to make a living serving up lawsuits to stop hunting, trapping and fishing. The hunting, fishing, trapping and general outdoor recreation brings millions of dollars into Maine each year. The next governor has got to find a way to tidy up fish and game and make sure that those running it are in sync with the mission.

True to character, Otten will “roll up his sleeves and get dirty” on this issue.

All of the United States is at a crossroad. Things are changing and many of us don’t care for the direction it is going. If there’s one weapon we have as free Americans it is the right to vote. That’s where we can begin to push back.

Outdoor sportsmen can be independent people. We love to be outside, in the forests, on the water, enjoying the peace and quiet and the beauty God gave us. But to protect that, we have to give a bit more than we take sometimes. I’m asking every sportsman in Maine to make it a point to vote on June 8, 2010. Vote for the candidate(s) that you believe best represent your ideals. Finding the right people is extremely important at every level of government. Don’t wait to see who comes out on top. Be the one who puts your candidate at the top.

Tom Remington

According to WMTW-TV website, SAM obtained the emails to send out information about coyotes. SAM has become very active of late in working to get all hunters involved in doing what they can to stop the further decline of the whitetail deer herd in Maine, which is suffering greatly due to many factors; poor management, severe winters, loss of habitat, overblown populations of predators, among other things. One aspect is to encourage and promote the hunting of coyotes.

One would have to recognize and appreciate SAM being all agog to fire up the licensed hunters and get them involved but I have to seriously question the decision to mount an email campaign using emails obtained, 1). through FOIA request, and; 2). using emails from fellow hunters without their approval. These are the guys you want help from. It’s an odd way to go about it.

We all hate SPAM and some are obsessed with it. It think it safe to say that most hunters are not very thrilled with the prospects of what can come from this move by SAM. First, it immediately creates bad public relations. Second, it forms distrust. Many hunters are asking whether SAM will resell the list to other agencies. This all comes at a time when hunters need to unite in an effort. I think SAM is attempting to do this but they failed to grasp what would happen. Third, if SAM, which had to go through the Maine Attorney Generals Office, can obtain this list, anyone else can. That fact in and of itself, has angered a lot of people.

In my opinion, here is what SAM needs to do. Immediately issue a public apology. Promise the list will not be used and that they will work with the Attorney General and MDIFW in order to get the law changed to protect those emails. I don’t believe this was the intent of FOIA. This only makes sense. MDIFW has promoted their MOSES online license purchasing program for quite some time. It is time and money saving for MDIFW. If perspective license buyers can’t be confident their email information and perhaps other personal information, cannot be safeguarded, it will seriously detract from the program. This has to be done immediately.

Once SAM has done what it can to minimize the damage they have caused, then they can choose other routes to get their message out. SAM has a website that needs updating to become more user friendly and interactive. They can wage an opt in/opt out email campaign for sending out newsletters, etc. and seeking new members. They can provide needed updates on their website along with providing RSS feeds so other websites, including blogs and forums, can post SAM’s feed so their readers have easy access.

Press releases can also be generated from the website and sent to all media outlets across the state. If SAM is wondering how well this might work, then just take a lot at how quickly and widespread the news traveled about them confiscating emails. I rest my case.

We live in an electronic age. With the rapid growth of the Internet, lack of knowledge can set businesses and organizations back in their progress as was the case for SAM. On the same token, knowledge can advance their cause. They now need to mend some fences and get with the times. The days of “stealing” email addresses to send unsolicited information is not only outdated but is extremely bad business. SAM needs to become cutting edge in this regard.

Tom Remington

The proposal for the license claimed that the license was a way to collect and track data from fishermen who use the resource. Sen. Trahan has come up with an alternative proposal to a license and he needs your help.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has teamed up with Senator Trahan to promote this alternative. The New England Outdoor Voice has provided a site where you can read a letter that is being sent to the Joint Committee on Marine Resources asking them to consider Trahan’s proposal and why.

If you would like to read the letter and sign you name to send, click this link.

Tom Remington

Now Gov. Baldacci is seeking a license fee increase and he seems determined to either get the increase or merge the fish and wildlife into one huge natural resources entity, of which nobody wants to see. An article by Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News says that Baldacci is threatening sportsmen to either accept the fee increase or he’ll merge the departments.

Baldacci spokesman David Farmer stressed that the consolidation proposal is being put forward as an alternative to higher user fees. If the sporting community can live with the fee increases, then the consolidation proposal goes nowhere,

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

Generally speaking sportsmen are content to pay reasonable fee increases when they can see value for their dollar. What’s getting really old is paying extra for the license in order to pay for things that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing and trapping. Maine has to find a way to make up the shortfall by collecting fees from those who use and don’t pay, admittedly a difficult task.

I can assure you though that consolidating departments and morphing Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into a huge natural resources kind of department would be the biggest mistake Maine could make. Just look around at the states who have. First and foremost, it saves no money but more importantly two things happen.

One, fish and game doesn’t get the attention it needs. Monies are moved around and license fees continue to escalate in order to pay for more non-game activities and services. This results in the second problem. Time and again when talking with other sportsmen in other states and even looking at surveys taken, one of the biggest complaints by sportsmen who have stopped buying a license is that they feel they have no say anymore with fish and game.

Where once sportsmen organized into clubs in order to have input into the management of game no longer exists to the same degree. Ask any sportsman and they’ll not give a real positive impression of their own fish and game departments. On top of that bury the fish and wildlife into a huge, bureaucratic nightmare of a “superagency” and what little confidence left gets further eroded to efforts of futility, devaluing the experience and rendering a license purchase a waste of time and money.

Maine Senator David Trahan, (R) Waldoboro, who sits on the Fish and Wildlife Committee says he wants people to know “Over my dead body”.

“I’m not interested in having this discussion about consolidating these agencies into one,” said Sen. Dave Trahan, R-Waldoboro, a member of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee. “I just want people to know that. My position is ‘Over my dead body.’”

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says he opposes both of the governor’s proposals.

SAM’s executive director, George Smith, has promised to fight both proposals to increase fees or merge the agencies. Smith and other several other speakers said the state needs to find a way to get kayakers, hikers and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts to help pay for the services that game wardens and DIF&W biologists provide.

The chairman of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, Bruce Bryant (D) Oxford, also thinks Maine has to find ways to get those utilizing services to pay to play.

Sportsmen complain about the fee increases. Others don’t because they enjoy the benefits bought and paid for by the sportsmen and yet these same free loaders are making much of the demand for bigger and better services.

There is one thing that is certain. We can get mad at the governor. We can berate the fish and game department but if we don’t stop placing demands for more and bigger, how can we expect to keep fees down? Granted our departments have to hold the line on spending but at the same time we need to stop demanding.

Tom Remington

Maine Senator David Trahan needs your help!!!!

On Thursday January 22nd, 1:30 p.m., in Legislative Council Chambers, 3rd floor of the State House, Sen. Trahan (R-Waldoboro) will testify on his Resolution to Congress expressing the Legislatures opposition to the adoption of a saltwater fishing license. The Resolution will reinforce state sovereignty rights, express support for responsible collection of information, but clearly state Maine’s total opposition to any salt water fishing license requirement.

The Resolution is the first step that Sen. Trahan will take in his effort to block any attempt by Congress to require the new license. Immediately after the Maine resolution, Trahan will launch a nationwide campaign, reaching out to every state in the nation with a saltwater fishery asking them to adopt a Resolution and enlist the support of their Congressional delegation to defeat this new federal mandate.

Senator Trahan will also work with Maine’s Congressional Delegation requesting their support in stopping this unwarranted intrusion on State Sovereign Rights.

Senator Trahan will need your help. In order for the Legislature to debate the Resolution in Maine, the Legislative Council must approve it for introduction. Legislative Council is made up of Republican and Democrat leadership. Republicans have already indicated initial support so Democrat votes are essential to achieving enough votes for approval. Please call or e-mail Legislative Council members and encourage them to allow a debate on this effort and join in the effort to fight for Maine people and their Sovereign Rights.

Please call or e-mail:

Sen. Elizabeth H. Mitchell, President of the Senate, Vice-chair of the Legislative Council
Phone: 622-2629 e-mail:
SenLibby.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov

Rep. Hannah Pingree, Speaker of the House, Chair of the Legislative Council
Phone: 867-0966 E-mail:
hannah@pingree.com

Sen. Philip Bartlett, Senate Majority Leader
Phone: 839-7827 e-mail:
phil@philbartlett.com

Sen. Lisa Marrache, Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Phone: 861-0154 e-mail:
drlisa@elmcitymed.com

Sen. Kevin Raye, Senate Republican Leader
Phone: 853-9406 e-mail:
SenatorRaye@wwsisp.com

Sen. Jonathan Courtney, Senate Assistant Republican Leader
Phone: 324-5467 e-mail:
SenJon.Courtney@legislature.maine.gov

Rep. John Piotti, House Majority Leader
Phone: 437-2493 e-mail:
piotti@uninets.net

Rep. Seth Berry, House Assistant Majority Leader
Phone: 522-1609 e-mail:
seth.berry@verizon.net

Rep. Joshua A. Tardy, House Republican Leader
Phone: 368-5858 e-mail:
tardylaw@adelphia.net

Rep. Philip Curtis, House Assistant Republican Leader
Phone: 696-3052 e-mail:
pdcurtis2@hotmail.com

Sportsmen for McCain describe the Arizona Senator as knowing the right end of a fishing rod.

“John McCain is the only choice for Sportsmen. John McCain is an angler; he knows the difference between spinning gear and a fly rod.”

Doesn’t it make sense to support someone who is a fisherman when it comes to protecting our fishing heritage and conserving our wildlife?

We are presently facing numerous issues that will have an effect on how and where we can fish in this country in the near future. Our fishing access to water is threatened and radical groups want to stop us from enjoying an afternoon on the lake, wading our favorite trout stream or spending time with our family on a fishing expedition. This makes no sense.

John McCain has been there. He calls himself a fisherman and doesn’t need to pose for photo opts in hopes of convincing some of us that he is. He fully understands the importance of every aspect of fishing for sport and industry.

As we all know by now, John McCain has teamed up with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. He’s asked her to be his running mate and fill the position of the Vice Presidency. In all seriousness, could we have asked for a better person to be on McCain’s ticket?

Sarah Palin has a rich background and a diverse one in fishing. Not only has she made a living as a commercial fisherman but has enjoyed countless times the thrill of wetting a line in some of Alaska’s great fishing rivers and streams. She is a true conservationist and with that understands the very importance of proper wildlife management that will protect our fisheries and take us into the future.

Sarah Palin has been scorned and scoffed because she is different than the usual Washington insider. While it is disturbing that our self-proclaimed progressive society shows itself as judgmental and intolerant, the team of John McCain and Sarah Palin sees beyond such nonsense and looks to protect our future.

Please help support the McCain/Palin ticket because I believe they understand my heritage as a free American and are the best people to keep that heritage alive.

More information on Sportsmen for McCain can be found on their website.

Tom Remington

by David A. Ridenour

With his signature on May 8 to S. 2739, the ‘Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008,’ George Bush has now signed on to the establishment of de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Charlottesville, Virginia. It’s one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this massive, pork-laden bill that included a provision creating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area. Debate was limited to just 40 minutes.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local elitists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict property rights and move property ownership beyond the means of the less well-to-do.

Environmentalists and preservationists love heritage areas, because they can be used to curtail development.

Local elitists like them because they can help keep people they consider to be undesirable out of their communities. Minorities are harmed disproportionately when land-use restrictions cause home prices to soar. (It is perhaps no coincidence that lily-white Waterford, Virginia was at the epicenter of the effort to create the JTHG Heritage Area. Waterford has a rich black history — and history is apparently where the village would like to keep it.)

Politically well-connected developers like heritage areas because they can be used to establish near monopolies on real estate development opportunities. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt discovered, that’s precisely what the JTHG Heritage Area would do.

And federal bureaucrats love heritage areas because they allow them to get around little inconveniences to their central planning — inconveniences such as local elected officials.

House passage of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area was hailed by its chief sponsor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation, the chief lobby organization behind the effort. Both noted the overwhelming vote in the House, 291-117.

The bill received support across party lines. In the House, supporters included Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Don Young (R-AK), William Jefferson (D-LA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and John Doolittle (R-CA). (Now all these gentlemen can say they have a second thing in common.)

But it is unlikely that support for the land grab was as great as the tally might suggest, as it was buried in an omnibus bill of over 60 other proposals — some enjoying wide support.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) noted during the limited debate, “Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny… this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line.”

Approval of the JTHG Heritage Area is a case study in what is wrong with American politics.

The JTHG Heritage Area wasn’t approved by Congress due to overwhelming public demand for it. Borrowing from the Beatles, perhaps it got by with a little help from Wolf’s friends — a lot of Ben Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Abe Lincolns and George Washingtons.

You see, Congressman Wolf slipped a $1 million dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill — buried among 6,372 other earmarks — for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Foundation. This is the very group that has led the lobbying effort for Wolf’s bill. More unusual still is that at the time of the earmark, the foundation had yet to even be incorporated and was operating out of the personal post office box of its executive director, Cate Magennis Wyatt.

It appears as though Congressman Wolf used taxpayer money to fund the lobbying campaign for his own bill. (Read more about his here)

Then there’s the unseemly Wolf-”K Street” lobbyist connection. Wolf’s land grab bill was written by Don Pongrace, who runs the Indian practice (yes, a lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a large law firm with offices in D.C., London, New York and Moscow.

Not only that, but Pongrace apparently was authorized to speak for Congressman Wolf in meetings about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area.

It turns out that Pongrace serves on the board of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation — the group receiving Wolf’s earmark largesse — and Pongrace’s wife has served the group as vice president.

Apparently, the concept of a conflict of interest is lost on the mega law firm of Akin Gump.

Interestingly, at the very time Frank Wolf was collaborating with Akin Gump on his bill, he criticized the firm for working for the Chinese government in its bid to acquire Unocal.

Wolf wrote to Akin Gump, “I question the appropriateness of an American firm… being on the payroll of the Chinese government… I immediately thought, ‘Is there no bright line to separate who lobbyists in Washington will and will not represent?’”

Is there no bright line, indeed.

Congressman Wolf introduces a bill written by a “K Street” lobbyist, arranges a $1 million earmark for the group lobbying for that bill — and employing the lobbyist’s wife — and he asks about bright lines?

Congressman Wolf also received help pushing his bill from National Park Service employees, who acted contrary to the Service’s official position, which calls for the creation of no additional heritage areas until a formal NPS program is created through legislation. Nonetheless, the NPS’s Brenda Barrett and Alma Ripps were dispatched to defend creation of the JTHG Heritage Area.

The full extent of the National Park Service’s assistance with the legislative effort is still unknown, as the Service has so far failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. In violation of the FOIA law, it provided only incomplete records and documents that obviously had been altered (helpful hint for NPS employees: if you plan to alter documents, you might want to avoid using ruled paper).

Ethical questions surround the process through which this national heritage area was approved. A presidential veto was warranted.

-David A. Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

If you follow the link category to the right under “Endangered Species“, you’ll find plenty of articles and links to the ongoing debate about whether the polar bear is in danger, whether the world is in danger and if it’s all caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from carbon dioxide.

I laughed out loud a few days ago, when Al Gore, during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes said that those of us who won’t jump on his flim-flam bandwagon, were like the Flat Earth Society people and that we believe the lunar landing was staged on a lot in Hollywood. What was hilarious about it was that the Flat Earth Society was made up of people like Al Gore, who refused to listen to any kind of reasoning whether logical or scientific, that showed the earth wasn’t flat. I know of hundreds of people personally that are not sold on Al Gore’s theory of man-made global warming but are open to listening to debate on both sides of the issue. So who’s a Flat Earther?

Without debate, media, politicians and American citizens are blindly plowing ahead, often times willy-nilly, to save the planet – in this case the polar bear. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle provided readers with an editorial about the plight of the polar bear. 100% of the piece (and yes I realize it’s an editorial) was presented as fact that ice is melting everywhere in the arctic, that this is caused by man and that the polar bear is dying off. They even repeated projections from recently discovered to be faulty models that said the bears would be extinct by the year 2050. There is just as much scientific evidence, particularly the newest data, to refute everything the Chronicle repeats as climate change facts.

But what I find as the most disturbing part of the editorial is their position on what they deem to be more important to the American people; affordable energy and a healthy economy or swallowing a politician’s theory on global warming.

It’s unlikely that in its final year in office, the administration will reverse its policy of protecting business interests instead of the environment and endangered species. The courts should not have to tell the administration to enforce environmental statutes rather than undermine or ignore them.

Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act isn’t a simple matter of adding it to a list and then we hope it gets better. There has to be intelligent discourse among sane people in order to realistically determine the all-encompassing affects of making such a move.

I have worked some in my past articles that I hoped would, if nothing else, get readers to ask questions and think more about this issue other than how it is going to affect next Christmas’ Coke commercials. Huge Hewitt of Townhall has also covered more in depth as to what actually can happen to our economy, through the federal permitting process for growth and development. He offers more thoughts on that today.

The short version: If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort –even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases– those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Hewitt practiced Endangered Species Act law for two decades and should have a pretty good understanding on how administering the Act works. In several of his articles about the polar bear listing, he refers to Section 7 of the ESA(pdf – scroll down to find Section 7) often. The first part of Section 7 I believe spells out quite clearly, even to those of us without a law degree.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementationof such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

The two biggest remaining questions which may never get answered are; Is the polar bear really threatened and to what degree should we as a society carry out the protection of an animal species while putting our own well being at risk?

I know of nobody who wants to see the polar bear disappear. Many scientists don’t believe it will nor that it is threatened. What the Houston Chronicle failed to reveal, as has many other media sources, is that only two areas of polar bear populations are decreasing somewhat in size. The remainder are holding steady or growing. It is my opinion that we have as yet to scientifically determine whether the bear is in danger.

Remember that should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list the bear, it will be because they think man-made climate change will destroy the bear down the road somewhere. This has never been done before. Hewitt, from a perspective of having been there and done that, clearly points out that we don’t know what we are in for. The courts can only make rulings that are based on the content of the Endangered Species Act.

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington

Dear Colleague,

Is this Speaker Pelosi’s “commonsense plan” for reducing Americans’ energy costs?

NO! to ANWR’s 30 year, 1 million barrel per day supply of American oil

NO! to 2 Trillion Barrels of American oil shale

NO! to more clean burning natural gas

NO! to Clean Coal.

NO! to more energy exploration in the 85% of OCS off-limits to energy development

NO! to more energy exploration in the Intermountain West

NO! to more Nuclear Power

NO! to more Hydropower Energy

NO! to expediting alternative energy development

NO! to any form of energy that will provide meaningful relief from record high energy prices

NO! to 90% of the energy that fuels America’s economy

NO!! IS NOT AN ENERGY PLAN

Tom Remington