To: Interested Parties
From: Western Legacy Alliance
Date: May 26, 2010
Re: Endangered Species Act
________________________________________________________________________
The Western Legacy Alliance thought you would be interested in some information attorney Karen Budd-Falen put together related to the costs of the Endangered Species Act to the American public. Is this really the way that the federal government should be spending our tax dollars?

MEMORANDUM
TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: KAREN BUDD FALEN
BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
DATE: MAY 26, 2010
RE: IT’S NOT ABOUT SAVING SPECIES – IT’S ABOUT SPENDING
TAXPAYER MONEY AND MAKING SOME GROUPS WEALTHY

Below please find some disappointing data regarding Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and its cost to the American public. ESA process and litigation are NOT about saving species, it is about spending American taxpayer money. In an economic time where American jobs are scarce, private property rights are being taken and the federal deficit is trillions of dollars, certainly the federal government can find a better way to spend American taxpayer dollars than lining the pockets of radical environmental groups and their “pro bono” (i.e. allegedly free) attorneys and spending money on a program that by the federal government’s data is a complete failure.

The ESA was signed into law in 1978 with the best of intentions. However, over the years it has become the battle cry to eliminate private property rights and property use, shut down agriculture and other industries and fund radical environmental groups and their attorneys. There is not a single state within the United States that does not have listed, threatened or endangered species. It would not be so bad if the original intent of the ESA was followed and species were listed, then recovered, then removed from the list—but that is not what is happening.

As of May 17, 2010, there are a total of 1,374 species listed as threatened or endangered. This list includes everything, even bugs, worms, plants, snakes, spiders, bogs, moss, mice, rats and other species. According to a 2009 report by Greenwire citing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the average cost of listing a single species is $85,000 and the average cost of designating critical habitat is $515,000 per species. Thus, the approximate cost to the American taxpayer of listing the 1,374 species is $116,790,000 and the approximate cost of designating critical habitat for those species is $707,610,000.

If it weren’t bad enough that America’s taxpayers are spending millions simply listing species, that is not the end of the story. The ESA sets very specific time frames for species listing and critical habitat designation; time frames which the federal government cannot seem to meet. Species are listed by a petition process, which means that anyone can send a letter to the federal government asking that a species, either plant or animal, be put on the ESA list. The federal government has 90 days to respond to that petition, no matter how frivolous. If the federal government fails to respond in 90 days, the petitioner–in the vast majority of cases, radical environmental groups–can file litigation against the federal government and get its attorneys fees paid. The simple act of filing litigation does not mean the species will get listed or that it is warranted to be protected; this litigation is only over whether the federal government failed to respond to the petition in 90 days.

Between 2000 and 2009, in just 12 states and the District of Columbia, 14 environmental groups filed 180 federal court complaints to get species listed under the ESA and were paid $11,743,287 in attorneys fees and costs. Again, there are listed ESA species in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories. Consider how much in attorneys fees have been paid if all litigation in all states is considered. And it doesn’t end there; the federal agencies have placed 341 more species on the candidate species list, meaning that they are under consideration for listing on the ESA threatened or endangered species list. That is 341 species times the average cost of listing of $85,000 per species and $515,000 for each critical habitat designation for a total of $204,600,000–all from America’s pocketbooks.

And it still doesn’t end there; certain radical environmental groups have petitioned for additional listings of even more species and critical habitat designations. In the last 8 months, the Center for Biological Diversity, the WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project have threatened the federal government with litigation if the government fails to list 238 more species. If the federal government does not respond to those listing petitions or Notices of Intent to Sue, federal court complaints will be filed and according to recent history, attorneys fees will be paid. And with all this money–$116,790,000 for species listing; $707,610,000 for critical habitat designation; $11,743,287 in attorneys fees paid to some radical environmental groups because the federal government simply missed deadlines–only 47 species have been taken off the ESA list and of that 47 only 21 because they were recovered. That is a 1.5% success rate! The other 26 species were taken off the list because they either went extinct (9 species) or should never have been put on the list in the first place (17 species).

There is something wrong with this picture. And while you are thinking about the ESA and its cost versus failure rate, consider the additional individual costs to American taxpayers and small businesses. The California red and yellow-legged frogs have cost the taxpayers $445,924 just in litigation attorneys fees. Part of the reason that California farmers in the Central Valley have no water for their crops is because of Natural Resources Defense Council litigation over the delta smelt, a 2 to 3 inch long minnow. Wolf litigation has cost American taxpayers $436,762 in attorney fees, all paid to environmental groups who sue the federal government. Litigation over the desert tortoise, (a total of 11 cases) – a species that only spends 5% of its life above ground – has cost the American taxpayers $702,519 just in payment of attorneys fees. In fact, in the last 10 years, the federal government has spent more than $93 million in taxpayer money on the desert tortoise. And that is not counting the costs to American business, even “green business.” In California, Brightsource Energy will have to spend $20 million dollars to relocate 20 tortoises plus create a permanent tortoise trust fund so it can build its solar power plant. That is 1 million dollars plus per tortoise. Other businesses that have been impacted or stopped by the desert tortoise include a wind farm that would supply electricity to Las Vegas. Private landowners who wish to develop their own property are required to pay “mitigation fees” of between $370 and $550 per acre to develop private lands designated as desert tortoise critical habitat. Once the money is paid, it does not matter how many desert tortoises are killed. Hyundai car company had to buy 3000 acres of additional land for $5 million so that it could use its own private property for a car safety test track. In addition to the $5 million, the company also agreed to pay $1.5 million into an endowment fund for the desert tortoise. The National Military Training Center at Ft. Irwin has also been negatively impacted, agreeing to pay $6.9 million to relocate desert tortoises on the base so it can conduct its military training. None of this counts the over 30 family ranches that were eliminated because they used to graze their cattle on desert tortoise critical habitat.

It is clear that the American taxpayers have a tremendous problem. This wouldn’t be so hard to take if the ESA was successful or if the radical environmental groups that are getting taxpayer money to litigate over the ESA were spending money on species or their habitats. However, there is no evidence that one single dime of the money the federal government pays to environmental groups to litigate over ESA species is spent on habitat or species research or mitigation projects—the money is just spent to get more taxpayer money and put more small businesses out of business or stop private landowners from using their properties. Even those businesses that supply “green jobs” and “green technology” suffer. This is a maddening state of affairs for America – somewhere the madness must stop!

Wolves need to be managed
Yes this means hunts, quotas and population control

There is a lot of controversy, court room drama, and money being spent on this hot topic. However, you can’t dispute that the wolves are causing major problems in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana and something needs to be done. Please let us at least manage the wolf like everything else we do when it comes to wildlife.

Currently Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks are considering increasing the number of wolf tags and the Bozeman Daily Chronicle is doing a poll looking for your feedback. There is a also a “healthy” discussion on the comments.

The question this poll asks is “Do you agree with the decision by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to at least double the number of wolves that hunters can kill next year?”

CLICK HERE TO VOTE

Now, I know some of you are saying…”Oh No! We can’t kill a wolf! Let’s just go back to how it was in 1900 when everything was just fine and the wolf and other animals were wild and free and plenty to go around.”

No, this will not work and let me explain. It is called sound management and we as sportsmen have been doing it for a long time.

So you want to go back to the early 1900s when man didn’t mess with wildlife conservation and the wolf determined the natural flow of nature and “circle of life”. There are now millions of more people and a lot less habitat to go around.

Here are some numbers to ponder:

Whitetail Deer: Then 500,000 – Now 30,000,000
In 1900, less than half a million whitetail deer remained in the nation. Today conservation programs have returned the whitetal population to some 30 million.
Source: Whitetails Unlimited, 2006

Ducks: Then A Few – Now 31,000,000
In 1901, only a few ducks remained. Today, there are over 31 million ducks populating the United States and Canada.
Source: Ducks Unlimited, 2006

Rocky Mountain Elk: Then 41,000 – Now 1,000,000
In 1907, only about 41,000 elk could be counted in the U.S. Today, populations in 10 Western states total approximately 1 million (and more are expanding eastward).
Source: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 2006

Wild Turkeys: Then 100,000 – Now 7,000,000
By early 1900’s, encroaching civilization and habitat loss may have reduced the wild turkey population to under 100,000. Today, conservation programs have restored the population to over 7 million birds.
Source: National Wild Turkey Federation, 2006

Pronghorn Antelope: Then 12,000 – Now 1,100,000
About 50 years ago, the total U.S. population of pronghorn was only about 12,000. Today, conservation programs have helped increase the population to more than one million.
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2006

So, without great Sportsmen and women who have spent millions upon millions of their own dollars to help manage and bring our wild game populations back from obscurity, where would we be?

You could have re-introduced the wolf back, but all they would have to eat would be a lone chipmunk and a plastic water bottle left by a hiker.

Get the emotion and agendas out of the equation. We already know that the original agreement about the wolves re-introduction has not been honored. Let us manage wolves like we have done other species, put our own money into it because we care, and make this right.

I will leave it for another time to comment on the mess that California is in with their mountain lion problems due to their hunting ban years ago. Authorities are shooting lions out of back yards and in trees behind school play grounds. There are pet dogs missing, hikers getting stalked… Moreover, New Jersey is also sitting on similar problems with their black bears after they banned hunting. Predators still need to be managed and the states need control of their game.

If you want to throw out the “wolves were here first” argument…and “we have too many people on this earth.” I suggest you move to another country and enjoy the great freedoms over there (Have you read about the history of wolves in Russia?). Wolves are not more important than people.

Sportsmen love animals. That is why we manage them. And that is why we always foot the bill – money that actually goes to help wildlife and habitat. Not scare tactics, advertising agendas and money wasting lawyers buying their way into political unrest.

Are the wolves going away and will hunters shoot every single one of them? That’s what’s going to happen if they increase wolf tags! Not even close. That is not what this is about and that’s not what will happen. Simply, the wolf population is too high, numbers are being downplayed on the true population and the devastation that these wolves are doing is remarkable. Here are some more numbers to ponder:

* The Northern Yellowstone elk herd trend count has dropped from some 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time the wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase.

* Yellowstone’s Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has fallen from 700 to 108.

* The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky, Mont., has declined from 1,048 to 338.

* Wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have far exceeded the original goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves. Population estimates now exceed 1,700 wolves. And yet and others want to push the total up to 2,000 to 5,000 wolves.

* Studies show that wolves kill up to 23 elk per wolf from November through April alone or up to 40,000 elk in just six months. A smaller but still significant number are killed from May through October; with total annual elk kills by wolves just for food potentially greater than 50,000 at the present level of wolf population. This accounts for only the elk needed for food, not surplus killing, which are elk killed by wolves and not eaten, which also occurs. The majority of all these kills are not elk that are sick or old.

* Elk calf survival rates where wolves (and bears) are present are extremely low in specific herds, resulting in a survival rate of 10 percent or less—too low to sustain the herd over the long-term. RMEF points out this is a major issue as elk numbers going into the future, where wolves are concentrated, will suffer even greater losses and replacement becomes out of balance.

And how are the moose doing in Wyoming? Here are some counts from the Wyoming Fish and Game Dept.:

1995 – 1,200 moose
2007 – 403 moose
2009 – 117 moose

Anti-hunters and wolf-lovers have an agenda that if we introduce wolves, then hunting can and hopefully will go away. No elk, no hunting. How misguided is this thinking. You take hunters out of the equation, the most important conservation group in this great country of ours, and you take away jobs, huge economic impact, and wildlife populations that will simple not be managed or taken care of (no money). The numbers posted above prove that fact. Then all you will have are wolves and barren wildlife and habitat like we had in the early 1900’s. I guess they really will get what they want…

I will conclude with a quote from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation President and CEO David Ellen:

“Managing wildlife in the courts, as opposed to science and the proven expertise of state conservation agencies, is a recipe for continued disaster,” stated Allen “These groups do not want states to manage the wolves as they manage other wildlife including predators. Why? It is curious that Defenders of Wildlife and others now boast about the statewide elk management numbers, which are managed by the states; but they do not trust those same states to manage wolves. Again, one should ask why?”

WHERE
Herriman Shopping Center in Herriman, Utah
5600 West 13400 South (Just East of the Smith’s – same parking lot)
Building #5512
Herriman, UT
MAP IT

WHEN
May 12-22
Wednesday 12th – Saturday 22nd 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. (ends 6 p.m. Saturday the 22th)
(Sunday times: 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.)

WHAT
Scratch & Dent/Returns and Discontinued Products – These are products that are on sale, have limited sizes and quantities, and will be sold out when inventory is gone. The sale of these products will make room for new products coming up.

ALL SALES ARE FINAL

A couple of clarifications on some questions we have been getting:
No, our office location is not moving (just our warehouse)
The sale is at a temporary location just for this sale (we are not going to be there after the 22nd of May)

Here are some pics taken today as this sale kicked off

Setting up

Looking Good

Ready to go

Let the Sale Begin!

Hey, King’s Camo and King’s Outdoor World is on Facebook. Help us spread the word and most importantly we want you to post your success photos on our page. To help, we decided we better give away some stuff. Over the next week, we will be giving away two King’s Core Hunter Packs in Desert Shadow to TWO fans who post their photos in King’s Camo and tell us what you think of our camo and gear.

Top 10 Products for January

Rank	Image Link	Product
1.		2010 King's Bull Elk Calendar
2.		2010 King's Mule Deer Calendar
3.		2010 King's Whitetail Calendar
4.		2010 King's Bucks & Bulls Calendar
5.		Fleece Hunter Shirt
6.		Royal Tee Long Sleeve Shirt
7.		Outlander Pants
8.		TX Hot Grip Fleece Glove
9.		Pro Hunter Shirt
10.		Climatex Ultra Rainwear Pant in Snow Shadow

I am interested in knowing what caliber of rifle you are shooting. A very interesting press release recently came out of the Boone & Crockett camp about the rifles being used over the last three years on big game animals being entered into their record book program. Below are some very interesting results and numbers for the popular .300 Magnum. I personally have a .300 Win Mag along with my trusty 30.06. Give me some feedback on what you are shooting and for what.

MISSOULA, Montana – Although the venerable .30-06 and .270 remain among the favorites, Boone and Crockett Club big-game records show that hunters with a .300 Magnum are taking more North American trophies than any other caliber.

Surprisingly, the second-most-popular trophy-taker isn’t a firearm – it’s a bow.

Boone and Crockett compiled the data from its records book entries from 2007 through 2009. This three-year period of big-game trophies, fair-chase hunting and success in conservation and game management will be celebrated at the Club’s 27th triennial Big Game Awards, June 24-26, 2010, at the Grand Sierra Resort in Reno, Nev. Free attractions include a public exhibition of top-ranking North American big-game trophies in 36 categories taken since 2007, plus a variety of seminars and exhibits.

“Trophy entries have increased 400 percent over the past 30 years, which not only means wild, free-ranging, trophy-class specimens are more plentiful now than ever before, it also means we’re getting larger samples and better snapshots of today’s culture of hunter-conservationists,” said Tony Schoonen, chief of staff for the Boone and Crockett Club.

Here are the most commonly used calibers (Note: Records do not distinguish specific variations, i.e. .300 Win. Mag, .300 WSM, .300 Wby. Mag., .300 Ultra Mag, etc.) across all Boone and Crockett categories over the past three years, along with percentages of trophy entries credited to each:

.300 Magnum – 18 percent
Bow/crossbow – 16 percent
.270 – 12 percent
.30-06 – 11 percent
7mm Magnum – 11 percent
Muzzleloader/shotgun – 10 percent
6mm – 3 percent
.338 Magnum – 3 percent
.257 – 2 percent
.30-30 – 2 percent
.308 – 2 percent
.375 Magnum – 2 percent
Other – 8 percent

The .300 Magnum appears among the top three calibers in 11 of the following 15 species recognized in Boone and Crockett trophy records. A bow/crossbow appears in 7 of these 15. Species are arranged by frequency of records book entries 2007-09.

Most popular calibers by species include:

Whitetail deer – 1.) Bow/crossbow, 2.) Muzzleloader/shotgun, 3.) .270
Black bear – 1.) bow/crossbow, 2.) .300 Magnum, 3.) .30-06
Pronghorn – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2.) .270, 3.) 7mm Magnum
Sheep (bighorn, Dall’s, desert, Stone’s) – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2.) 7mm Magnum, 3.) .270
Mule deer – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2.) 7mm Magnum, 3.).270
Elk (American, Roosevelt’s, Tule) – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2.) bow/crossbow, 3.) tie: .30-06, 7mm Magnum
Moose (Alaska-Yukon, Canada, Shiras) – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2. ) tie: 7mm Magnum, .338 Magnum
Caribou (barren ground, central Canada barren ground, mountain, Quebec-Labrador, woodland) – 1.) .300 Magnum, 2.) .270, 3.) .30-06
Blacktail deer (Columbia, Sitka) – 1.) .30-06, 2.) tie: 7mm Magnum,.300 Magnum
Coues – whitetail deer – 1.) 7mm Magnum, 2.) .270, 3.) .300 Magnum
Cougar – 1.) bow/crossbow, 2.) .30-30, 3.) 6mm
Rocky Mountain goat – 1.) tie: .270, .300 Magnum, 3.) tie: 7mm Magnum, .30-06, bow/crossbow, muzzleloader/shotgun
Brown bear/grizzly – 1.) .375 Magnum, 2.) .338 Magnum, 3.) .300 Magnum
Muskox – 1.) Bow/crossbow, 2.) .300 Magnum, 3.) tie: 6mm, .375 Magnum
Bison – 1.) .338 Magnum, 2.) tie: 7mm Magnum, bow/crossbow

The Boone and Crockett Club system of scoring big-game trophies originated in 1906 as means of recording details on species thought to be disappearing due to rampant habitat loss and unregulated hunting. Science-based conservation efforts, led and funded by license-buying hunters, brought those species from vanishing to flourishing.

Boone and Crockett records remain a classic gauge of habitat and management programs.

In addition to its prestigious history and tradition, Boone and Crockett scoring is strongly associated with the highest tenets of fair chase and hunting ethics.

For more about the Club’s 27th Big Game Awards, visit www.biggameawards.com.

Some groups are claiming that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition containing lead components poses an unreasonable risk to human health. The truth is that eating wild game poses no such risk. And that’s not me saying it, that’s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Watch the video for more information on lead ammo and the controversy surrounding it.