A historic day for Missouri hunters, October 18, 2021, marked the opening of the first regulated black bear hunt in the state’s history. As in many areas, black bear populations suffered severe over-harvest from unregulated hunting more than a century ago. According to the Missouri Department of Conservation, there was no significant black bear population in the state until the 1950s, when bears began moving in after successful reintroduction efforts in Arkansas. MDC has carefully studied the ever-increasing black bear population and as part of its management plan, the agency has determined the population can support a limited hunt. There are an estimated 800 bears in the state, growing at a rate of 9 percent per year, according to MDC.

Rather than declare simply an “open-season,” the hunt is highly regulated and designed to be selective, with regulations and quotas tailored to each of three black bear management zones. Overall, hunters were able to apply for 400 permits, which are valid over a 10-day season. The hunt is quota driven, however, with mandatory same-day reporting. MDC set an overall quota of 40 bears total which, again, is divided between the three management zones, reflecting harvest goals for each zone. No bait or dogs are allowed for this season, and hunters are not allowed to take any bears accompanied by another bear—a stop gap to prevent killing sows with cubs. It’s also notable that hunters are being required to salvage the meat from the bears as well. It’s safe to say that Missouri has designed one of the more carefully regulated black bear hunts in the country.

However, rather than celebrating opening day as a successful restoration of bears to a self-sustaining, huntable population, media sources such as Newsweek and NPR are painting the state’s first bear hunt in a much more negative light. Instead of focusing on the detailed (and easily accessible) information that is available from MDC regarding Missouri’s bear populations, history, management, and details of this particular hunt, both outlets relied heavily on opinions from unabashed anti-hunting groups.

Newsweek relies on the opinion of Cody Atkinson, state director for the Humane Society of the United States, with only minimal input from MDC and their biologist Laura Conlee. In the roughly 1,000-word article, the term “trophy hunting” is used 10 times, even though this new black bear season has nothing to do with a trophy hunt. This is a clear indication of how the outlet wants the hunt to be viewed by the public. Although 87 percent of the 700 comments from residents at public meetings were in favor of the highly-regulated hunting season, and 89 percent found MDC’s management plans to be reasonable, the article quotes Atkinson referencing a poll stating that Missouri residents were 67 percent against a trophy hunt for black bears. They also give a soapbox to Atkinson, who attempts to twist the truth with this statement: “When a trophy hunter kills an adult breeding male, other males may come into that territory and kill his cubs.”

He ignores the fact that mature male bears will sometimes kill any cubs they come across so that the female will go into heat—not simply cubs fathered by another male—and hunting mature male bears is beneficial to the survival of cubs and the bear population in general.

Although the shorter NPR piece does give a slightly more balanced perspective, it still gives anti-hunting groups an unreasonable amount of space in the story. These sources, the Center for Biological Diversity and Bear Defenders, are given more room than the actual biologist and management agency in charge of the health and long-term success of this bear population.

The problem with coverage like is that it lends way too much credibility to blatantly anti-hunting organizations and allows them to define hunting and conservation, along with the motivations of the hunters. Neither story actually interviews a bear hunter about his or her motivations. NPR does quote biologist Laura Conlee responding to some of these concerns, “It is not a trophy season. There is an expectation that the meat is used. So we have rules within the code, or wildlife code, that require hunters to retrieve those commonly edible portions.”

Even so, both outlets aid in perpetuating the lie that it’s only “trophy hunting” these organizations have a problem with. Make no bones about it: groups like HSUS, CBD, and Bear Defenders (whoever the hell that is) have no place for hunting in their idea of “conservation.”

It should be noted here that several local media outlets (like the Missouri Independent and the Joplin Globe) are doing a better job covering the hunt and, you know, actually getting perspectives from hunters and wildlife managers.

This Missouri hunt should be celebrated as a successful step in the restoration of black bears. But plenty of valuable information that’s easily accessible on MDC’s website about their black bear management plan was omitted in favor of language and sources that are purely meant to drive an anti-hunting narrative.

Here’s the real story: This bear hunt represents the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation model at work. A game species was restored to habitat that’s funded in part by hunting dollars. The MDC, which is also funded in part by hunting dollars, carefully monitored the bear population. When the bear population was robust enough for a hunt, the MDC designed a tightly regulated hunt in which paying hunters will help manage the population.  For the most part, the public is in favor of the management strategy; some anti-hunting fringe groups are not. Let’s just hope the reading public is savvy enough to understand the real story.

The post Missouri Opens First Regulated Black Bear Hunt, and National Media Coverage Is Brutal appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Much like the rest of the world, the U.S. is losing open spaces at an alarming rate, with some estimates showing we lose a football field-sized chunk of natural land every 30 seconds. Our nation is also rapidly losing native animals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Sept. 29 that 23 species—primarily mussels, birds, and fish—are officially extinct. But this dismal trajectory is not a foregone conclusion. More than 50 hunting and fishing organizations recently sent recommendations to President Joe Biden on how to turn it around, a response to Biden’s call to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s land and water by 2030 as part of his recent America the Beautiful initiative.

The remarkable part about these recommendations isn’t just that 55 sporting groups representing everything from bass anglers and marine retailers to quail and mule deer hunters agreed on a 23-page report, though that’s also worth noting. But more remarkably, reaching the ambitious 30 percent goal in the next decade might not actually be as radical—or as difficult—as it sounds.

“I think it’s broad and comprehensive enough, it’s incredibly doable,” says Christy Plumer, chief conservation officer for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

So what do these groups think the current administration must do to achieve a lofty goal with a catchy title that has the chance to benefit every sportsman and woman in this country?

“We need to double down on what is already working and really increase the pace and scale of efforts we’re already engaged in,” says John Gale, the conservation director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

The U.S. already has dozens of programs established to help conserve its lands and waters, ranging from voluntary incentives like the Conservation Reserve and Conservation Stewardship programs to mandatory closures of fisheries to protect spawning. It also has tens of millions of hunters and anglers willing to fund conservation efforts.

The Difference Between Conservation and Preservation

It might seem basic to define a term like conservation. Most of us likely buy a state conservation stamp of some kind to hunt or fish, we may donate to conservation organizations, or we take pride in knowing sales taxes on guns, ammo, and fishing gear money go back to fish and wildlife habitat. But before the Biden Administration marches too far down a path of conservation, more than 50 of the nation’s hunting and fishing groups want the administration to let people know how it defines the word. “Conservation” may not mean the same thing to birders, as it does to, say, duck hunters.

“So far, there’s this idea or fear by some that this effort means we will lock things up and eliminate access and it will limit private landowners, and that’s not true at all,” Gale says.

That’s why it’s important for the administration to first create a clear definition of conservation as “active management and sustainable use of our nation’s public trust fish and wildlife resources,” write the recommendations.

Basically, conservation means we use a resource in a sustainable way. Preservation means those resources are off limits.

Defining conservation becomes important in public policy because it can make the difference between a chunk of land that’s roped off from human impact, or one that allows hunting or fishing. It’s also important because “conservation” often crosses political lines. “Preservation” rarely does.

And for something like the 30 by 30 plan to work, it has to cross political lines, says Gale and others.

The seemingly arbitrary goal of protecting 30 percent of the nation’s land and water by 2030 isn’t a new initiative created by this administration. Former secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and retired New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall brought the idea to national attention years ago. Udall even introduced a bill in the Senate in 2019 to try to accomplish as much.

It stems from scientists’ belief that conserving 30 percent of the world’s land and water will protect about 75 percent of the Earth’s species. That’s particularly notable as climate change only exacerbates the problem.

So Biden proposed the idea early in his presidency as part of an executive order. Dozens of sportsmen’s and women’s groups responded to the concept with a plan called Hunt Fish 30×30. They told the administration that this kind of ambitious goal couldn’t work without hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts at the table.

So far, says Chris Horton, a senior director at the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the administration appears to be listening.

In June, the White House released its America the Beautiful plan, which renews calls for 30 by 30 and includes many pieces from the Hunt Fish 30×30 concept including to work with local governments and agencies, Tribal leaders, sportsmen’s and women’s groups, and private landowners.

Groups like the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation are encouraged, Horton says, and remain “cautiously optimistic” that the effort will lead to the kind of conservation hunters and anglers have been pushing for well over a century.

Mapping (Literally) the 30 x 30 Plan

Part of the administration’s plan includes the creation of a conservation map, formally called the American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas. In short, it’s a comprehensive way to show what land is and isn’t conserved, and where possibilities for new conservation efforts exist.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates about 12 percent of land in the U.S. is currently “protected,” but the hunting and fishing groups say that definition is too narrow. It’s likely more than 12 percent is conserved. Knowing what is and isn’t conserved is critical for knowing how to tackle new locations.

Plus, the report states, large stretches of conserved landscapes in the country need “active, science-based management or restoration.”

Hunting and fishing groups want the federal government to create a map that includes land enrolled in programs like the Conservation Reserve and the Environmental Quality Incentives, that work with private land owners to restore and maintain habitat for wild creatures.

“People may be surprised what is already in conservation status and some kind of reparation status, and what we have plans for already that might be shovel-ready projects,” says Gale. “This gives us something that everyone agrees on, so everyone is operating from the same place.”

According to Palmer, administration officials say they could have the initial atlas concept out in the next few months.

Don’t Reinvent the Conservation Wheel

All of this leads to the coalition’s main point: Don’t reinvent the wheel. They want the Biden administration to work with local sportsmen and women, tribes, local governments, and state game agencies to identify conservation needs and how to address them. Then look at ways to do this by boosting existing programs.

Focus on voluntary incentives like the Wetlands Reserve Easement, which pays landowners and tribes to “restore, protect, and enhance wetlands.” More than 11,000 landowners enrolled 2.3 million acres in the program in its first 20 years. Healthier wetlands mean better fish and wildlife habitat. And clearly, sportsmen’s groups argue, there’s a need for that.

Or look at grassroots efforts underneath the National Fish Habitat Partnerships program. The program oversees 20 partnerships across the country, including the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, which has, in the last decade, opened 240 river miles to migratory fish and provided access to more than 5,500 acres of spawning habitat. The program also oversees Fishers & Farmers, which adds value to farms while “protecting, restoring, and enhancing the 30,700 miles of rivers and streams of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.”

But right now, all 20 partnerships are vying for only $7.2 million in federal funding despite proof the partnerships help conserve natural space and keep landowners whole, Horton says.

The 30 by 30 plan should focus on helping states with game management areas, conservation areas and wildlife management areas. These are all local places already designed to conserve land for wildlife. Plumer wants the feds to think a little more creatively. Look to agencies like FEMA, she says, which have large pots of money designed to help rebuild local communities.

Read Next: The Western Megadrought Is Killing Mule Deer

“Can we be doing that community work in a longer-term way that integrates nature-based solutions?” she says. “If you’re rebuilding a levy to protect a local community, think about working with the community to set the levy back, restore the floodplain, and utilize the natural protection of a floodplain to survive the next flood cycle.”

It’s not only a win for increasingly-flood prone communities, she says, but also for fish and wildlife.

This coalition of sporting and conservation groups is realistic. They know the administration is still in the planning phases.

“Our greatest interest was helping shape the direction,” Gale says of the 30 by 30 initiative. “So we can make sure what they’re doing is consistent with hunting and fishing, and fish and wildlife habitat.”

The post Conservation Groups Urge Biden to Boost Existing Programs for 30 by 30 Initiative appeared first on Outdoor Life.

A new study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the government organization in charge of banding and tracking migratory birds, revealed that Pacific Flyway waterfowl flew around the smoke produced by wildfires in the fall of 2020.

In September 2020, four GPS-marked tule geese, which are a subspecies of white-fronted geese avoided the wildfires, according to GPS data. The same birds had been tracked the previous year when there were no fires, and their routes where much different.

“Everything coincided such that we could watch this unfold in almost real time,” said Cory Overton, a wildlife biologist and lead author on the USGS study. “It’s virtually impossible to see this type of event without preparedness and good fortune – you can’t design a study to look at an unprecedented fire season. And then to have all four individuals survive long enough to get the data to us? It’s pretty incredible.” 

The geese responded to the smoke in a variety of ways. Some halted their migration for a few days until the smoke cleared, others rapidly changed direction and altitude, or a mix of both. When flying into the smoke, the geese gained altitude quickly. The GPS data also showed that the birds had different stopover points than the previous fall, presumably because their traditional roosts were engulfed in fire. The geese eventually reached their destination—Summer Lake, Oregon—but it took them nine days as opposed to four in 2019. They also flew an additional 470 miles.

Read Next: Two Historic Public Waterfowl Meccas See Water Management Changes This Fall

Like many species of waterfowl, tule geese take the same migration routes and rest on the same waters each fall. They also fly in a “V” pattern to reduce wind resistance and save energy. The wildfires disrupted their natural migration, making it more difficult to reach Summer Lake. With a small population of just 10,000 birds, biologists are concerned about the adverse effects this wildfire-induced migration change may have on tule geese and other early migrants like white-fronts (specklebelly geese).

With a significant proportion of the species migrating together, the population level risk from these types of events has the potential to be extremely impactful,” says Michael Casazza, USGS research wildlife biologist and co-author on the study. 

The post Smoke From Western Wildfires Likely Disrupts Waterfowl Migration in Pacific Flyway appeared first on Outdoor Life.