I am in the process of the big move to Bighorn country. No posts for a while untill things get set up there.
Archive for August, 2008
Friends, Coloradans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears, for an (almost) unknown (outside EMS circles) man among men is running for President of these United States of America!
A man of immense integrity and strength, he tells Flight Nurses where to go! As well as the occasional Paramedic, Police Officer, Sheriff, and Fire Chiefs! Most often because they are lost, but that is a subject for another day!🙂
My friends, this is the man that you want when things get tough! Such as when he was doing a ride along with me, and a rather large drunk at the old Jeffco Detox decided that I would look much better if my nose was sticking out of the back of my head. I simply looked at Chris, and said “Sick’Em!.” A single glance at Chris, and things with the drunk suddenly became easier.
I also know the mans family, and his Father ( May he rest in peace for all eternity, and Mother have always been proud of this country’s heritage. Heck! I mean, his Father used Browning shotguns to hunt with!
Yes, this is posted in jest. But in all seriousness folks? I can think of a lot worse people being President of these not so United States of America. I could start with Barak Obama, and John McCain.
My name is Patrick Sperry
Once upon a time I was a passing fair Paramedic from Saint Anthony’s Paramedic Program, Cycle 32… God bless you Gerry, where ever you are!
For some reason, I can’t find a link about the Father of Pre-Hospital Emergency Medicine right now. I suppose that it is the tears in my eyes. In any case? Vote for Chris Smith for President of the United States of America! Hell, Tom Tancredo doesn’t even answer emails any more…
David Kopel, writing for the Rocky Mountain News serves up this evaluation with his usual completeness.
KOPEL: Al-Jazeera analysis of Biden severely flawed
By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Monday, August 25, 2008
The first time that many Arabs heard of Joe Biden was from Al-Jazeera television on Saturday. Too bad. On the Al-Jazeera English Web site, the analysis of Biden presented by Marwan Bishara, “Al-Jazeera’s senior political analyst,” was seriously flawed factually and poorly researched.
Along with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Sen. Biden has been the leading proponent of federalism for Iraq, devolving much of the central government’s power to local regional governments. Last fall, the U.S. Senate voted 75-23 for the Biden-Brownback amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. In an Oct. 2, 2007, article for The Huffington Post, Biden explained:
“First, the Biden-Brownback amendment does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its Constitution. Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq’s borders and oil distribution. It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we’re seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines. Rather, it calls for helping Iraqis implement their own Constitution, which provides for any of Iraq’s 18 provinces to form regions and sets out the extensive powers of those regions and the limited powers of the central government. The result could be three regions, or four or five or more. It will be up to the Iraqi people.”
Bishara presents an earlier iteration of Biden’s idea: “In a controversial article he co-authored with Lesley Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, he supported the idea of dividing Iraq into three autonomous areas.” (The Biden-Gelb proposal was presented in an op-ed in the May 1, 2006, New York Times.)
Then Bishara claims that the Iraqi people are almost unanimously opposed to Biden’s plan: “Alas, 98 percent of Iraqis reckon dividing their country along sectarian lines would be bad for Iraq, according to a recent poll.”
Bishara did not cite any source for the poll, but I found it on-line. It turns out that Bishara’s 98 percent figure comes from the answer to an entirely different question, not a question about the Biden plan.
The poll of Iraqis, conducted on behalf of ABC News, the BBC, and NHK (Japan), was released on Sept. 10, 2007. One question in the poll asked about the problem of religiously integrated neighborhoods becoming segregated:
“There are areas of Iraq where in the past Sunnis and Shiites lived together in the same mahallah [hamlet]. In some of these areas people are now separating — Sunnis moving to live among Sunnis only, Shiites moving to live among Shiites only. Has this separating of people been happening in this mahallah, or not?”
Then the pollster asked, “Do you think the separation of people on sectarian lines is a good thing or a bad thing for Iraq?” That was the question to which 98 percent of Iraqis answered “no.” They weren’t being asked about federalism and regional self-governance; they were being asked about the elimination of religious diversity in villages and neighborhoods.
So Bishara’s claim that 98 percent of Iraqis oppose the Biden plan is plainly false. The 98 percent figure comes from a poll which never even asked about the Biden plan.
The Iraqi people were asked about the Biden plan in a poll conducted in February/March 2007, on behalf of the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. One question in the poll asked, “Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?”
Support for the Bush administration plan, “One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad,” was 58 percent.
Support for the Biden plan, “A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad,” was 28 percent.
Support for “A country divided into separate independent states” was 14 percent.
So while the readers of Bishara’s column would think that hardly anyone in Iraq supports the Biden plan, the Biden plan (or something close to it) actually has the support of about one in four people.
Al-Jazeera’s “senior political analyst” also tries to explain the influence of vice presidents. He makes the reasonable observation that Biden would probably influence Obama’s foreign policy. Fair enough, but Bishara supports the point with historical examples:
“Experienced vice-presidents like Richard Nixon, Bush Senior and Dick Cheney have had great (at times, horrific!) influence on inexperienced presidents when it comes to world affairs.”
The point about Vice President Dick Cheney having great influence is reasonable, the point about Vice President George W. Bush has a grain of truth, and the point about Vice President Richard Nixon is preposterous.
When Richard Nixon was nominated as the Republican candidate for Vice President in 1952, he was very far from “experienced.” Nixon had served only four years in the U.S. House, and two years in the U.S. Senate; he was so inexperienced that he had only two more years in Congress than does Barack Obama.
And who picked Nixon? Just the opposite of an “inexperienced” president. During World War II, Dwight David Eisenhower served as supreme allied commander in Europe. After the war, he served as chief of staff of the U.S. Army, and then as supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
President Eisenhower certainly did not need to take foreign policy advice from Nixon. Nor did he. Eisenhower raised Nixon’s profile by sending him on a variety of important foreign trips. But Nixon was ever the subordinate, and the notion that Nixon had “great” influence (or any significant influence) in shaping Eisenhower’s foreign policy is absurd.
Bishara distinguishes Biden from neoconservatives:
“A ‘realist,’ Biden reckons a war against Iran would be a disaster and doesn’t believe in promoting democracy in the world when it conflicts with US national interests.
This sets him apart from the neocons in Washington who are hostile to his ideas.”
Bishara is right on the broader point—that Biden isn’t a neocon. But he greatly mischaracterizes the neocon position. The theory of neoconservatives is that promoting democracy will help U.S. interests; they believe that a more democratic world will be a more pro-U.S. world, in the long run. You may agree or disagree with their factual assessment, but it is quite inaccurate to claim that the neocons favor global democracy even when, in their view, democracy “conflicts with US national interests.”
Then we get to Israel. Bishara writes that Biden is “reported to be a self-proclaimed Zionist who advocates strong relations with Israel as the cornerstone of US policy in the region. In other words, expect more of the same imbalanced Washington policies towards the so-called Middle East ‘peace process.’”
The passive voice is odd. Who “reported” that Biden is “a self-proclaimed Zionist”? Why not cite the reporting source?
The source, which I found in less than a minute of Internet searching, is Shalom TV, an American cable TV station. In a March 2007 interview on Shalom TV, Biden stated, “I am a Zionist.”
Whatever you think about Biden and Zionism, it would be better for the article to quote Biden directly, and cite the source of the quote, rather than using a vague passive voice formulation.
Bishara’s columns about the United States run under the heading “Focus Imperium” (Focus on the Empire). He appears to be quite popular with Al-Jazeera English readers. According to the station’s Web site, the most e-mailed article from the website is Bishara’s penultimate article, “Evil in U.S elections,” which covered the recent McCain and Obama interviews with Rick Warren. Bishara referred to “so-called democracies” and complained that “Obama and McCain could see evil in Darfur but would not admit that the invasion and occupation of Iraq on false premises or for oil is no less an evil act.”
Bishara’s columns come with the disclaimer, “The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of Al-Jazeera.” When I watched Al-Jazeera English live (via the Web) on Saturday night, the station’s short news segments pieces on Joe Biden were straightforward, fair, and accurate. (Bishara did not appear therein.) The short segments on Biden were indistinguishable from most American newcasts, except for the slight British accent of the presenters.
In Saturday’s special Convention section of the News, Tina Griego did a good job of examining the Democratic party’s historical roots in Denver. But the article had some important historical errors.
Griego wrote: “It’s a mess, the late 19th century political scene in Denver…You’ve got…the rise of the Populist Party….Nationally, Republicans are blasting Democrats as ‘the party of rum, Romanism and rebellion.”
The Populist Party was formed in 1889. Populist Party presidential candidate James B. Weaver carried Colorado in 1892 (along with three other states).
The Populist Party’s rise did not take place at the time when “Nationally, Republicans [were] blasting Democrats as ‘the party of rum, Romanism and rebellion.’” In fact, the Republicans never ever used “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” line against Democrats “nationally.”
The line came from the 1884 election (five years before the Populist Party was created). Republican party nominee James G. Blaine was attending a meeting in which some New York preachers were criticizing weak Republicans who were supporting the Democratic nominee, Grover Cleveland. (The pro-Cleveland Republicans were called “Mugwumps”, because they had their mug on one side of a fence, and their wump on the other side.) Rev. Dr. Samuel Burchard denounced the Mugwumps: “We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”
Republican presidential nominee Blaine never endorsed Burchard’s bigoted words. But he was sharing a platform with Burchard, and he did not denounce Burchard’s “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” line.
That was enough for the Democrats. They found out about the meeting, and it was the Democrats (not the Republicans) who worked relentlessly to make sure that as many national voters as possible heard the slur “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”
The backlash against Burchard’s intolerant words (and Blaine’s failure to immediately repudiate those words) cost the Republicans the 1884 Presidential election. Burchard’s language alienated Catholics (“Romanism”), people who liked to drink alcohol (“rum”), and people who thought that, two decades after the Civil War, American Southerners (“rebellion”) should no longer be treated like pariahs. Blaine lost New York State by a mere 1,149 notes; because Blaine lost New York, he lost the election.
In short, “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” was the most disastrous Republican gaffe in the history of American politics; it was uttered by a man who was not even an elected or appointed political official. National Republicans definitely did not use the line as an attack theme against Democrats.
Griego also wrote that in the late 19th century, the Democratic party “was influenced by Southern whites, Dixiecrats. It was the Democrats who clamored loudest for an end to Chinese immigration in the 1880s. It was Democrats who were blamed for a fiery rampage through Denver’s small Chinese neighborhood and the lynching of a Chinese man.”
First of all, “Dixiecrats” were not Democrats, and did not exist in the 19th century. The “Dixiecrats” were the informal name of southern racist ex-Democrats (led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond) who walked out of the 1948 national Democratic Convention, and created a pro-segregation third party.
Griego is right that regular Democrats were the leaders in restricting Chinese immigration, as in their support of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. But Chinese exclusion was not a passionate cause for most southern whites. The prime support for Chinese exclusion came from organized labor, including the nation’s leading union, the Knights of Labor. Most labor organizations favored restrictions on Chinese immigration because they recognized, accurately, that imported Chinese labor was being used to undercut the wages of white working men. The issue was particularly important in California, where the greatest number of Chinese workers lived.
The Republicans, as the party of big business, tended to like the idea of imported foreign workers being used to drive down wages for American workers.
The Democrats supported Chinese exclusion because they were a pro-labor party, not because they were a pro-Southern party; Chinese immigration into the South was close to nil, and organized labor was very weak in the South.
Does the history have any relevance today? Today, as in the 1880s, it’s important to recognize that some opponents of high levels of immigration may be motivated more by protecting wages than by racism—although both Senator Obama nor Senator McCain often seem unwilling to acknowledge the good faith of opponents of their immigration policies.
Likewise, the “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” brouhaha reminds us that 2008 is not the first year that a presidential candidate has caused himself trouble by remaining silent while he listens to the rantings of a bigot.
Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.
So? Obama preaches change, but drafts one of the most embedded Senators in Washington as his Vice President…
“[Barack] Obama represents the merger of two of the worst aspects of Democratic politics—’60s radicalism and corrupt Chicago machine politics. With the addition of Slow Joe Biden to the ticket, Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount of Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware’s love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile… I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he’d actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. [Jim] Webb would have been hell on the stump. [Tim] Kaine or [Evan] Bayh would have put different states into play. [Kathleen] Sebelius was a wild card. But Biden?… Put Biden’s obvious flaws aside and ask yourself how in the world Obama decided to go with Biden, and you’ll quickly realize that the Democratic nominee must have been impressed with Biden on the long campaign trail of 2007 and 2008—even though voters weren’t and even though Biden has no accomplishments of note after 36 years in the Senate. Biden talked a great game and dropped some very interesting place names—and this impressed Obama. Talking the talk has been the key to Obama’s success, and in Slow Joe he found an older, far better traveled but equally prolix gas bag… For Obama, it is all about politics and words, elections and poses. Slow Joe is the perfect running mate on a perfect ticket for a party betting on wind to solve the energy crisis.” —Hugh Hewitt
“There are two other issues with which Mr. Obama must grapple, and far from helping with any of these, Mr. Biden actually makes Mr. Obama’s path more difficult. The first is that Mr. Obama’s other big challenge is convincing moderate Americans he shares their values. He is already seen by many as a liberal, big-city politician who says people cling to guns and religion out of bitterness, associates with radicals, and attended a church with a radical theology. Mr. Biden is a fierce foe of gun rights, ardently opposes restrictions on abortion that have widespread support and promotes gay rights. He supports higher taxes, bigger government and socialized healthcare. That doesn’t exactly help Mr. Obama with blue-collar voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The second is Mr. Biden’s lack of executive experience. Not only has he never been a governor or a cabinet secretary, he has never been a mayor, an agency head, or served in any other executive role, not even prosecutor or military officer. Given that Mr. Obama also lacks that experience, having two career legislators heading the executive branch of our government might create doubts. … More broadly, it cuts against Mr. Obama’s central campaign theme of change. His message is Washington is broken, and the old establishment needs to be swept away in favor of new blood and a new vision. How does picking someone who has been in Washington a decade longer than Mr. McCain jive with Mr. Obama’s contention that Mr. McCain has been in Washington too long to change it?” —Ken Blackwell
“Alas, the abandonment of babies to suffer and die on the modern equivalent of a Spartan cliff did not require confronting evil when Obama saw it. Indeed, Obama turned a blind eye, leading the battle to defeat Illinois’ version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have treated babies living, albeit briefly, outside the womb as, well, babies. He opposed the bill in 2003 (as he had a similar one in 2001), saying it would undermine Roe v. Wade. But even after Roe-neutral language was included—wording good enough that it won support for the federal version of the bill from abortion-rights stalwart Sen. Barbara Boxer—Obama remained unmoved. Until this week, Obama denied that he ever took such a position. His campaign now admits that he was, in effect, lying when he said pro-lifers were lying about his record. But simultaneously, Obama defends a position that comes dismayingly close to the layman’s understanding of infanticide while claiming any other position would require him to play God.” —Jonah Goldberg
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is once again trying to confuse hunters into believing two bold lies: that the NRA does not support hunting, and that AHSA and the Sierra Club do.
In a report released on August 21, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument that NRA is anti-hunting because NRA does not support the same candidates that Sierra Club and other environmental groups support. The problem is, these groups rate candidates on their radical environmental record, not on their support for hunting or for gun owners’ rights. In fact, the politicians endorsed by the Sierra Club are a “Who’s Who” of the most anti-gun politicians in American history. Gun-ban advocates like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Jack Reed, and Teddy Kennedy have all been endorsed by the Sierra Club. Since Teddy Kennedy wants to ban almost all ammunition used by hunters in America, it is impossible to see how the Sierra Club is supporting hunters by endorsing him.
Groups like the Sierra Club rate lawmakers on many issues that have nothing to do with hunters or hunting, and do not rate on some issues that do. While the Sierra Club supports massive set-asides of land under wilderness designations, they fail to consider hunter access to these lands. Wilderness designations often create problems for hunters because they do not provide for methods of access needed to actually use the land for hunting, since all improvements–including roads, trails and other changes–are prohibited. Such designations also prohibit programs to provide food and water to wildlife during times of drought. These policies are hardly good for hunters. Neither is Sierra Club support for anti-gun politicians who would end gun shows, ban guns and ammo, and support gun registration and gun licensing.
NRA knows that without our Second Amendment rights, Americans will lose our firearms to radical politicians like Obama. And without the right to own firearms, our hunting tradition will not survive. With this report, AHSA has made one thing perfectly clear: it is willing to sacrifice Second Amendment rights–and in the end, hunting in America–on the altar of its radical anti-gun agenda.
On the other hand, the NRA Political Victory Fund grades candidates first and foremost on their position on the protection of the Second Amendment, but also on their positions in support of issues relating to hunters. These issues include access to hunting lands, proper scientific management of game species, and expanding opportunities for hunters and hunting. NRA is also one of the most effective advocates for issues that truly impact hunters. Over the decades, NRA has worked hard at the federal and state level to protect and enhance our hunting heritage. NRA worked to reform federal law on migratory birdhunting. We have fought to keep federal lands open to hunting, to open more federal lands for hunters, and to protect conservation reserve programs that provide vital habitat for game species. In the states, NRA has worked for passage of youth hunting programs, for no-net-loss bills that ensure the amount of public land available to hunters is not diminished, and for increased hunter access plans like Open Fields and walk-in programs. AHSA has done none of this.
AHSA claims it is promoting “conservation,” but in truth, the groups it is endorsing are radical environmental groups. For these groups, hunting is either not a factor at all, or, at best, something to be endured but not promoted. In fact, these groups oppose hunting if it interferes with their radical agenda, as it did when it came to listing polar bears as endangered and banning the importation of polar bear trophies.
AHSA knows its report is phony, which is why it never lists any of the anti-gun politicians it is attacking NRA for not supporting. But for AHSA to mislead gun owners and hunters is nothing new. AHSA claims to be pro-gun, but in reality, they are not.
AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. In 2000, AHSA president Ray Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. Former AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, and has recently unveiled a new anti-gun billboard in Massachusetts attacking gun shows with misleading and untrue claims. And one of the leading organizers, and current Executive Director, of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.)
AHSA is a front group for left-wing zealots who want to fool sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidates by lying to them about the issues. That is why AHSA has endorsed Barack Obama and his extreme anti-gun views. That is why AHSA is now attacking NRA for failing to endorse men and women who would end most gun ownership in America, including the guns used by hunters. NRA members, and everyone who really cares about our hunting tradition, should be reassured that NRA does not, and will not ever, endorse the vast majority of radical anti-gun zealots regularly supported by the Sierra Club and AHSA.
WILDLIFE PROJECTS FUNDED BY SPECIAL LICENSES
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) and eight non-profit wildlife conservation organizations have selected more than $480,000 in wildlife projects that will be funded this year with proceeds from the sale of special auction and raffle hunting licenses in Colorado.
Each year several special hunting licenses are auctioned or raffled by non-profit wildlife conservation organizations to raise funds for wildlife projects. These special hunting licenses provide hunters with the opportunity to hunt in many areas around the state. Because these tags offer incredible hunting opportunities, the auctions and raffles generate considerable interest and income for wildlife projects.
Raffles are held annually by Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Colorado Bowhunters Association, and the Colorado Wildlife Federation. Licenses are auctioned annually by Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, Mule Deer Foundation, Colorado Mule Deer Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Bowhunters Association.
Some of the auction and raffle projects funded this year include:
Rampart Range Bighorn Sheep Lungworm Treatment Study
The Rampart Range Bighorn Sheep Lungworm Treatment Study received $15,818 this year. This is the second year of funding for a long-term study on the effectiveness of two types of treatment for lungworm infection, a respiratory disease in bighorn sheep. Radio-collared ewes are split into three groups. One group gets an oral treatment. The second group gets injections. The third group, the control group, receives no treatment. Stool samples are collected from ewes to look for the presence of lungworm larvae to determine which (if any) treatment is most effective at reducing larval lungworm concentrations. Ewes are then monitored after they give birth to determine whether treating ewes during pregnancy improves lamb survival.
Pikes Peak Bighorn Sheep Population Estimation and Demographics
The Pikes Peak Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate and Demographics project received $46,468 in funding. This is the second year of funding for a study aimed at estimating population size and monitoring movements and survival of rocky mountain bighorn on Pikes Peak. In 2007, biologists estimated that the bighorn sheep population on Pikes Peak and surrounding areas was about 180 animals. Preliminary results indicate that individuals within the Pikes Peak sheep herd follow the same seasonal dispersal and regrouping patterns year after year. Members split into groups on a somewhat predictable schedule with the same individuals forming sub-herds each year.
Black Ridge Desert Bighorn Sheep Population Assessment
The Black Ridge Desert Bighorn Sheep Population Assessment and Monitoring project is a multi-year project intended to learn about the Black Ridge desert bighorn sheep herd near the Colorado National Monument. The assessment received $30,000 in funding. The project looks at factors including survival, lamb production and recruitment, causes of mortality, range and interaction with other herds. Funding will be used for capture of animals for radio-collaring, data analysis, and a technician to perform field work. The project has additional funding from the DOW, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep.
Poudre River Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate & Lamb Recruitment Study
The Poudre River Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate and Recruitment Study received $17,000. The project is in the fourth year of evaluating lamb recruitment, lamb survival and herd population size and performance. Beginning in January 2005, DOW biologists radio-collared a sample of ewes in the upper and lower Poudre Canyon. Data from these radio collared animals allow wildlife managers to estimate annual adult ewe survival, document seasonal movements, locate lambing grounds and monitor the presence and survival of lambs. Data gathered to date suggest a declining population canyon-wide, with pneumonia implicated in all recovered lamb mortalities from the lower canyon. In 2008, a nutritional, mineral and antibiotic treatment was applied to a small group of ewes in the lower canyon in hopes of improving lamb recruitment.
Georgetown Bighorn Sheep Range, Population and Survival Estimation
In 2006, DOW initiated a study utilizing radio collars to estimate population and survival for adult ewes and rams in the Georgetown bighorn sheep herd. These population parameters have been used, along with data from annual coordinated counts, to produce a population model similar to those used to guide the management of deer and elk in Colorado. This population model has proven useful in the management of the Georgetown herd and allows DOW to continue to estimate the size of the bighorn population beyond this study. The Georgetown study has also provided information on sheep movement, range, distribution, habitat use, and lamb dynamics. The focus of the study will shift in 2009 towards collecting more detailed and precise spatial information which is needed to mitigate the effects of human development and recreation in the area. The Georgetown Bighorn Sheep project received $46,630 in auction and raffle funding.
Flattops Moose Transplant Project
The goal of the Flattops Moose Transplant Project is to establish a self-sustaining, breeding moose population on the Flattops east of Meeker. Plans are being made to transplant moose from northern Utah to the Flattops. The initial project goals will include documenting seasonal movements, seasonal use areas and survival rates of translocated animals and documenting production and recruitment rates of female moose translocated to the Flattops. The project received $105,000 in auction and raffle funding and will result in an additional moose population in western Colorado.
Radium Habitat Improvement Project
The Radium Habitat Improvement Project received $10,000 this year. The primary objective of the project is to improve winter range for a variety of species along the Colorado River corridor in the Radium basin. Work includes reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment, increasing of plant species diversity and vigor, increasing carrying capacity of habitat for deer and elk and work to recharge old water springs in the area.
The Radium Habitat Project partners have been working on habitat improvements in the area since 2001, conducting more than $100,000 in habitat improvements so far. This year’s auction and raffle funds will be used in conjunction with funds from the Colorado Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, and labor from the Colorado Youth Corp and Mule Deer Foundation. A prescribed fire and habitat manipulation plan is in place through 2017 in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, DOW, Colorado State Forest Service and area land owners.
Basalt Lucksinger Fields Project
The Lucksinger Fields Project on the Basalt State Wildlife Area is designed to improve winter range habitat for deer and elk in the Roaring Fork Valley. These former hay meadows are being replanted and rehabilitated to provide beneficial habitat for big game and other species. The Roaring Fork Valley has rapidly developed over the past two decades and enhancing these fields will provided needed winter range. The project was provided $41,060 from auction and raffle funds.
HD Mountains Mule Deer Responses to Energy Development
Energy development in Southwest Colorado is increasing on mule deer winter range. A long-term research project in the HD Mountains has two primary objectives: to monitor mule deer behavioral and population responses to energy development; and to design and evaluate best management practices and mitigations in response to natural gas development. The HD project received $27,916 in auction and raffle funding and is a cooperative effort between the DOW, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Approximately 140 mule deer have been captured and fitted with radio telemetry collars since 2004. VHF and GPS radio-telemetry collars allow biologists to evaluate deer movement and survival in areas prior to, during, and after energy development. Body condition of captured animals is measured in development and control areas.
Age Distribution of Hunter-Harvested Mule Deer Bucks
Because mule deer management strategies vary throughout Colorado, a study is examining management strategies and how they affect the age distribution of harvested bucks in three specific areas: the Gunnison Basin, the Uncompahgre Plateau, and the southern San Luis Valley. The study started in 2007 with a sampling of hunters in Game Management Units 54, 61, 62, 80 and 81. Hunters received letters requesting that they send in a tooth from harvested bucks. The teeth were examined at a laboratory in Montana to determine exact animal ages. The study will continue through the 2009 hunting seasons. The Age Distribution study received $13,000 in auction and raffle funding. Biologists are interested in evaluating whether there is an optimum buck-to-doe ratio which can maximize both hunt quality and hunter opportunity.
Light Hill Habitat Improvement Project
The Light Hill project will treat 537 acres of over-mature mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper on Light Hill in the Aspen area. The project, which received $25,000 in auction and raffle funding this year, is occurring on public land managed by the BLM. The thick and aged plants are difficult for wildlife to utilize and provide less forage for wintering big game animals.
With increasing development in the Roaring Fork Valley, big game winter range is extremely limited. Increasing the production and carrying capacity of existing winter range is the best alternative to provide for dwindling big game winter range. Providing quality winter range for deer and elk not only feeds the animals but helps keep them off nearby roads and private lands where they can cause crop and fence damage.
Organizations that auction or raffle licenses help rank and select projects funded. The organizations provide a majority of the auction or raffle proceeds to fund the wildlife projects. Some funds may be used by the wildlife conservation organizations to pay auction and raffle administrative costs and also to fund wildlife projects of the non-profit organization’s choosing.
For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.
I have a bit of a different way of looking at this event apparently than most people that are bloging about it. Or at least it appears that way.
They see all the different parties, and I see all the imported hookers. They talk about “change.” I talk about all the new crack dealers on Colfax Avenue.
Then there will be the street closures. Getting home from work is going to be something else all this week. My detour will result in about a ten mile addition just to get home. Then there are all the delays that will interfere with my work throughout the day.I don’t mind all the added security. After all, these people that are in town are High Value Targets for so many diverse radical groups that to not have the security net tightened would be irresponsible.
Most everybody that I know will be going about their usual business. The only real difference will be that they will be armed all the time. I have to wonder if this convention is the main reason for so many people taking the concealed carry class recently, and getting the permit too.
One thing is for sure though, this week in Denver will be historic.
Most folks that read this blog know that I am a firm believer in gun control. Hit your intended target, and use both hands if possible. Always use a gun that has a caliber that starts at 40.
Shikar Safari Club International has selected Tom Martin of Leadville, as the “Wildlife Officer of the Year” for Colorado. The organization annually presents recognition to one Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) officer who has consistently excelled.
Martin was presented the award at the August meeting of the Colorado Wildlife Commission. Martin is the District Wildlife Manager in the Leadville Area. He was nominated for the award by his supervisor, Jim Aragon of Salida.
“Throughout his 35 year career with the DOW, Tom has exemplified the multi-purpose wildlife manager. It is not just about writing tickets. Tom’s work exemplifies how sound management helps preserve and protect the state’s wildlife. This has been especially true as noted by his many accomplishments during the past several years,” said Aragon.
“Tom’s dedication to preserving open space for wildlife and creating more public outdoor recreation opportunities in Lake County have resulted in increased public access to hunt and fish in the Leadville area,” he said.
Aragon credits Martin with working with local land managers to remove old fences on critical deer and elk winter range. Identifying the possible threat to wintering deer and elk by the presence of old barbed wire fencing, he spearheaded efforts to remove the hazards.
Martin is also credited with coordinating exhaustive ground counts of the bighorn sheep and mountain goats on Mt. Elbert and Mt. Massive. As a result of his efforts, the DOW determined there were more sheep and goats on the mountains than previous estimates indicated. After revaluating the numbers, a new mountain goat hunting unit was established and the number of hunting permits for bighorn sheep was increased.
“Tom put a lot of work and effort into coordinating a long-term, systematic census of the herds on two of the Colorado’s biggest mountains. And as a result, more people have an opportunity to hunt,” said Aragon.
Shikar Safari Club International presents annual awards to wildlife law enforcement officers in all 50 states and 10 Canadian provinces and territories. The club originally formed in 1952 to provide members an opportunity to get together and talk about their hunting experiences.
In 1966, the Shikar-Safari International Foundation was formed to support wildlife conservation projects. The organization places particular emphasis on endangered and threatened species through the enforcement of conservation laws and regulations. Note to News Editors:
Photos can be downloaded at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/apps/ImageDB/ImageDownload.aspx?ImageId=23796&ImageSize=Print&ImageType=jpg
For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.
One BIG thumbs up!
Proudly stolen from TEXAS FRED!
The RIGHT choice to WRITE IN
I am a serious advocate of a *Write In* campaign being launched. I make no apologies to anyone for my feelings concerning John McCain and Barack Obama. I feel that either of those men will be totally disastrous as president of this nation. It’s time that the American people took control of their nation, their government, their lives and their destiny, and accepting the party line, when all that line offers us is a Dem/Libber and a pathetic RINO is totally unacceptable. It’s time to reshape this nation and her path, it’s voter apathy that has allowed our nation to fall to where it is, that and the willingness to accept the lesser of the evils. I too am guilty of it, I voted for Bush twice. But NEVER again will I compromise MY integrity by accepting the LESSER of anything.
If you’re too afraid to challenge the status quo, if you’re afraid to make waves and rock the boat, then you are NOT the Conservative and Patriot that you think you are, and for that, I truly am sorry. None of us knows how long we have left on this earth, but in the time I have remaining I DO intend to change the course of this nation in ANY way I can, and that starts with being true to myself and MY beliefs, the founding fathers would have it NO OTHER WAY!
If I vote as a *write in*, Obama may very well become the POTUS, but it won’t be because I sat back and did nothing as I accepted the lesser of the evils and went along with the status quo. If enough people in this nation, Conservatives of ALL feather, vote for the correct *write in* candidate, we may STILL lose, but the message WILL be there, and when the next election rolls around, we WILL be even stronger and we WILL gain even MORE attention.
That is how a political party is born. And it damn sure won’t happen by accepting IT WON’T WORK as a motto.
I don’t know what YOUR feelings are, but as for me, I feel that Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo present the Conservative values and beliefs that this nation needs to set her on the path to greatness once again! If there are enough folks other than myself that feel the same way, them maybe we CAN make some inroads on the RNC and the DNC.
If you have a better set of candidates, ones that you believe can and will represent this nation better, place their names in comments. Nothing is written in stone, but the fact remains, we must take this nation back, we must let the Dems, and Dem Lite, the RNC, we must let them know that we, the people are fed up with their way of doing business. No more STATUS QUO!
Forget the PARTY LINE, vote with your heart and your head, not with what some hack at RNC or DNC headquarters tell you to vote. This nation can get the job done, we’ve proven that to the entire world on many occasions, and we CAN do it again!