>The initiative that is being proposed in Wash.
> to stop unfair hunting pratices like Bear baiting, is ironic because
>I would like anyone to tell me how Bear baiting (w/ a platform above
>the baiting area) is different then Setting up habitat and Duck
>Decoys to entice Ducks to a nearby duck blind.

One reason why I find bear-baiting particularly vile is that on
one hand we work hard to clean up campgrounds, to encourage folks
who live in bear habitat to keep garbage in bearproofs, etc etc.
All of this in order to prevent bears from associating people
with food, from being acclimated, and from becoming "problem
bears". Not only in National Parks, but in National Forests
particularly in places like SE Arizona.

Then we go out and bear-bait.

It isn't just a matter of hunting. The bill which passed in
Oregon prohibits bear baiting by wildlife photographers (that would
be me) as well - and, yes, I voted for it.

>Second, Don yes the Hunters did buy the refuges originally.

How many times do you think they were bought?

>But seriously do you think they bought the refuges for the preservation
>of even ducks.

Yes, that is EXACTLY why the excise tax was proposed, and then passed.
This is EXACTLY why the funds raised by this tax are earmarked for
habitat acquisition and (I believe?) habitat improvement.

>Yes admittedly they do work towards some conservation
>because they want to preserve the populations of ducks (especially
>dabbling ducks). Furthermore refuges do not just support only ducks.
>A refuge such as Fern Ridge, Nisqually or Turnbull should be as
>concerned as the land species (Savanna Sparrows) as the waterfowl, i.
>e. if your going to protect and create duck habitat then keep
>grasslands and shrub for passerines and other species.

Well, once again: support "Teaming with Wildlife". When he help pay
the bills, we will have a lot more to say about such things.

Overall, though, USF&W does a pretty good job of providing habitat
for non-game birds in some places. There are entire refuges devoted
to non-game species - not bought by excise revenues on guns and ammo
but general budget appropriations. And even on refuges bought and
managed for game, managers are getting more agressive about working
to end certain practices, like grazing where innappropiate (please
notice that caveat, Jon!) which negatively impact non-waterfowl.
Hart Mtn. Nat'l Wildlife Refuge is being returned to native
grassland after being overgrazed for many years, with pronghorn and
sage grouse (still a game species in Oregon) being the major reason but
with many, many benefits for non-game as well.

>One example was that I was visiting Turnbull NWR about 3 weks ago and
>I found it astounding that with all of the suitable riparian habitat Red Eyed
>Vireo, Veery, and CAtbird had not been recorded on the refuge this
>year to the knowledge of the Wildlife Bologist that we talked to.

What do you expect them to do beyond provide proper habitat? The
birds have a certain responsibility here, as well :) Red-eyed
vireo aren't being seen in normal numbers on Sauvie Island's
Virginia Lake this year, either - and this area is NOT hunted.

>Natinal Wildlfe Refuges should mean just that - Refuges for Wildlife.

Pay your way, then. Again, support Teaming with Wildlife.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza