Antarctic Ice: Is It Going To Take Over The Planet!? So Much For Global Warming

Investors Business Daily 02/22/2013

Environment: For every scary piece of data held up by alarmists as  proof of man-made global warming, it seems a bit of contrary evidence is  uncovered — and, of course, is ignored. Let’s see what Antarctica is telling  us.

The professional fearmongers are predicting that Arctic sea ice will soon be  gone during the warmer months of the year. This is supposed to worry us into  action that “fights” global warming.

But then there’s the fact, which we noted last week, that the Arctic’s sea  ice gain from the record low of summer 2012 is a record of its own.

We reported that we’re in only the third winter in history in which more than  10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic.

We also mentioned that the Antarctic is nearing 450 days of uninterrupted  above-normal ice.

That was last week. And this is this week: Antarctic sea ice is on an upward  slope. Real Science, a science website, says it “has been increasing at a rate  of half a million square kilometers per year.

“If this alarming trend continues, the planet will be completely covered with  Antarctic ice in 1,000 years,” said Real Science, using University of Illinois  data to map out the trend and reach its conclusion. “The Australian coral reefs  will freeze to death in less than 300 years.”

We don’t think Real Science expects Earth to be fully covered with Antarctic  ice in 1,000 years. But it is a fine, though maybe somewhat snarky, response to  Al Gore wildly claiming in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that sea levels  will rise 20 feet due to global warming.

The point is, a lot of data look extreme if their trend lines are projected  to go unbroken for decades and centuries, and no room is allowed for  reversals.

As Antarctica was re-icing itself, America’s new Secretary of State John  Kerry was making his first foreign policy speech in which he addressed — yes,  climate change. The silliness would be mildly amusing if the government weren’t  in the hands of such unserious people, effetes striving to be relevant by  fixating on trendy issues rather than substantive ones.

But that really epitomizes the entire global warming fright-fest and green  movement, doesn’t it?

Facts contradictory to the popular narrative don’t matter. Appearances  do.

It’s disturbing that our country has arrived at such a place.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022213-645488-arctic-ice-antarctic-ice-contradict-global-warming.htm

AGENDA 21 CLOSING MORE ACCESS POINTS EVERY YEAR ON ARIZONA RIVERS

TO ALL MY GREAT PADDLERS, A  BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT AND PATIENCE WHILE WE MOVED INTO OUR NEW  LOCATION IN EAST MESA.

WOW WHAT A RAIN WE HAD. THIS  IS GREAT NEWS FOR OUR RIVERS AND LAKES. THE UPPER AND LOWER SALT SHOULD BE  FLOWING GOOD AND THE VERDE SHOULD HAVE GREAT FLOWS TOO.

THIS IS GREAT  NEWS FOR OUR WHITEWATER PADDLERS THIS TIME OF YEAR. FEEL FREE TO CALL US ANYTIME FOR ALL  YOUR WHITEWATER NEEDS.

A LOT OF THINGS HAVE CHANGED  SINCE MY LAST EMAIL. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS THE CHAINS UP AT THE LOWER SALT  SAYING “CLOSED FOR THE SEASON”.

IN OVER 30 YEARS GOING TO THE  LOWER SALT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THE CHAINS HAVE BEEN UP FOR THE WHOLE  WINTER. MANY RENTERS ASKED ME WHY, AND THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION.  WHY?

I’LL LET MY PADDLERS ANSWER  THAT.

ONE THING IS FOR SURE. IT IS  UNDISPUTABLE AND ABSOLUTE. THAT IS THE FACT THAT EVERY YEAR WE LOSE ACCESS  POINTS WHETHER IT’S IN THE HIGH COUNTRY OR CLOSE TO TOWN. EVERY YEAR WE LOSE  ACCESS POINTS.

SO I TELL MY PADDLERS THE  GLASS IS STILL HALF FULL. ENJOY THE SITES WHILE YOU ARE ABLE TO. NOT JUST FOR  PADDLING BUT FOR BIKING, HIKING, CAMPING, FISHING, ETC. ETC. THE SITES YOU ARE  ENJOYING TODAY MAY HAVE A CHAIN AND LOCK ON THEM PREVENTING ACCESS TOMORROW. SO  GET IT WHILE THE GETTIN IS GOOD AND TAKE THE KIDS TOO.

THE RAINS SHOULD MAKE FOR  GREAT SUMMER FLOATS DOWN THE LOWER SALT AND ALL OUR DESERT LAKES TOO. THIS AS  ALL GREAT NEWS COURTESY OF MOTHER NATURE. FEEL FREE TO CALL US FOR ALL YOUR  CANOEING AND KAYAKING NEEDS NOW AND AS IT WARMS UP.

A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO ALL  LIBERTY WILDLIFE VOLUNTEERS. WE ARE REFIGURING THE EMAIL LISTS SO REPLY BACK TO  ME AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOUR FROM LIBERTY AND RECIEVED THIS  EMAIL.

ALSO WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF  OUR PADDLERS ON THE LIST HAVE MOVED OR RENTED WHILE ON VACATION IN ARIZONA AND  ARE NOW OUT OF STATE–SIMPLY REPLY BACK WITH “REMOVE” AND WE’LL TAKE YOU OFF THE  EMAILING LIST.

I WANT TO LET ALL MY  GREAT PADDLERS KNOW THAT THE CAPTAIN IS STILL KICKING AND FEEL FREE TO CALL  ANYTIME ON 480-345-SALT(7258) AS YOU ALL KNOW, I AM USUALLY LIFTING AND MOVING  BOATS ALL DAY OUT BACK, SO AS ALWAYS BEST REACHED BY PHONE ON  480-345-SALT(7258). IF YOU CAN WAIT A DAY OR TWO FOR A REPLY FEEL FREE TO EMAIL  US AT SALTRIVERFUN@COX.NET.

THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE AND  I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO A GREAT SEASON.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD  MOVING ALL MY HUNDREDS OF BOATS TO THE NEW LOCATION IT HAS BEEN A HUGE  UNDERTAKING. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING OUT AND PADDLING WITH YOU IN THE  NEAR FUTURE.

THANKS  AGAIN

SINCERELY, (local outfitter)

International Biosphere Reserves

What do natural areas as diverse as Big Bend National Park in Texas, Everglades National Park in Florida, and Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska all have in common? Apart from all being units of the National Park System, they are part of a select group of internationally recognized sites that have been designated International Biosphere Reserves. Biosphere Reserves are designed to meet one of the most difficult challenges the world is facing as it move towards the 21st century:How to maintain and conserve the diversity of plants, animals and micro-organisms which make up our living “biosphere” while at the same time meet the material needs of an increasing population. In other words, how to reconcile conservation of biological resources with their sustainable use.
In 1968, the UNESCO Conference on the Conservation and Rational Use of the Biosphere took a look at this issue, and it gave rise to the launching of theMan and the Biosphere (MAB) Programmewithin UNESCO. The Biosphere Reserve concept was a key element for achieving MAB’s objective to strike a balance between the apparently conflicting goals of conserving biodiversity, promoting economic and social development and maintaining associated cultural values.

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve courtesy of the National Park Service

Its Purpose

Each Biosphere Reserve is intended to fulfill three basic functions, including: 1) conservation of important biological resources; 2) development of environmentally sound economic growth; and 3) support for research, monitoring, education, and information exchange related to conservation issues. To carry out these activities, they are organized into three interrelated zones, known as the core area, the buffer zone and the transition area.

The core area is legally protected from activity which would adversely affect its natural features. This area could be used for such activities as hiking, diving, bird watching, educational field trips, scientific research and monitoring of plant and animal life. The buffer zone is an “adjacent managed use area” that might be used for lumbering, grazing, and fishing activities, settlements, recreational facilities etc., managed to benefit local residents and the local environment. The transition area is the larger region in which local residents, cultural groups, economic interests, scientists, or managing agencies work together to link conservation and economic development guided by the cultural values of the local community.

The Nomination Process

Biosphere Reserves are nominated by national governments and must meet a minimal set of criteria and adhere to a minimal set of conditions before being admitted into the World Network. The general process is as follows:

1. A federal, state, or local agency, organization, or individual completes the nomination form. Owners and managers of the protected lands and local government leaders write letters of support.
2. The completed nomination form and letters of support sent to the national agency for review and recommendation. In the United States, this agency is the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program (U.S. MAB).
3. The national agency sends the recommended nomination to the UNESCO office in Paris, where the MAB program office there makes the final approval and awards the biosphere reserve designation.

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park courtesy of the National Park Service

During its most recent meetings in 2000 and 2001, the MAB program examined new biosphere reserve nominations and approved 34 new biosphere reserves, including the first ever in India, Malawi, Paraguay, and Vietnam. Biosphere Reserves Today

Individual Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they are situated. Some countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish Biosphere Reserves, while in other countries they simultaneously include areas protected under other systems (such as national parks or nature reserves) and other internationally recognized sites (such as World Heritage sites). There are presently 393 biosphere reservesin 94 countries. Of these, 47 units are in the United States, of which 29 are managed by the National Park Service.

The 29 Biosphere Reserves that are units of the National Park Service include:

Big Bend National Park

Big Thicket National Preserve

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Channel Islands National Park

Congaree National Park

Cumberland Island National Seashore

Death Valley National Park

Denali National Park and Preserve

Everglades National Park (with Fort Jefferson NM)

Gates of the Arctic National Park

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Glacier National Park

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Haleakala National Park

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

Isle Royale National Park

Joshua Tree National Park

Kings Canyon National Park

Mammoth Cave National Park

Noatak National Preserve

Olympic National Park

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument

Point Reyes National Seashore

Redwood National Park

Rocky Mountain National Park

Sequoia National Park

Virgin Islands National Park

Yellowstone National Park

http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa032498.htm

The War against U.N. Agenda 21 Just Got Hotter in Virginia

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh – Saturday, January 5, 2013

The war against U.N. Agenda 21 just got hotter in Virginia. Thinking Americans understand now what U.N. Agenda 21 is and are not backing down from fighting the anti-American, anti-prosperity, wealth redistribution scheme of the United Nations against our way of life.

The U.N. has deemed commercial agriculture unsustainable and has used taxpayer dollars and local supervisors to re-zone, re-shape, and prohibit land use for local agriculture or building that is not approved by their bio-diversity plan of limiting human habitation – all in the name of saving the planet.
Our planet does not need saving, Mother Earth is doing fine. The problem lies with progressive humans in positions of power who want to control everything we do while they line their pockets with our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Unfair regulatory actions against Martha Boneta, a farmer in Fauquier County, Virginia, “violate fundamental rights and unfairly restrict her property rights.” Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge/31st district) plans to strengthen Virginia’s Right to Farm Act and to “protect farmers against future encroachments by local government.”

Delegate Lingamfelter, who represents four of the Fauquier County’s 20 voting precincts, is planning a press conference to discuss his proposed legislation on January 8, 2013 in Richmond, Virginia. Two prominent property rights advocates will be in attendance, Joel Salatin and Mark Fitzgibbons.

“Martha Boneta’s rights have been wrongly challenged. I am bringing legislation in the 2013 session of the General Assembly to improve the Right to Farm Act here in Virginia, so small farmers like Martha will enjoy fully their property rights. It’s not about demonizing anyone in this controversy. It’s about standing by property rights and our Founder’s vision.”

Local Governments for Sustainability, formerly known as ICLEI, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives has been quite successful since 1992, when U.N. Agenda 21 was adopted, in infiltrating and recruiting local governments to do their bidding. When Americans exposed their nefarious plans, they have changed their name. Their main goal is to control zoning and land use.

Martha Boneta’s plight and subsequent lawsuit stemmed from a planned birthday party for eight ten-year olds on her farm. County officials notified her that she should have obtained a prior permit for hosting this party and thus would be fined $5,000 for failing to abide by the local ordinance. She was charged with two additional violations of up to $5,000 each, one for advertising a pumpkin carving and another for operating a small shop on her property from which Martha sold her fresh produce and homemade crafts. The county made these allegations without ever setting foot on her farm. The Fauquier county board of zoning appeals upheld the zoning administrator’s decision that Boneta held “temporary and/or special events without the required county approvals.”

I have written about Martha’s plight in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” Martha purchased a ruined and abandoned farm under an agricultural conservation easement. Nothing in the bill of sale was mentioned that she could not farm. A lot of hard work, sweat, and tears went into breathing life into this property. She never dreamed that stumbling blocks would be placed in front of her along the way by the very Americans who are supposed to protect our freedoms.

She got a business license. She built an apiary, harvested hay, grew herbs, and rescued 165 animals, sold chicken, duck, turkey, emu eggs, candles made from beeswax, birdhouses, and fiber from llamas and alpacas.

First, she was told she could not cut grass on her property. Then she had to fence in 20 acres for two years because it was considered “hallowed ground,” although nobody died there during the Civil War, it was just an encampment area. By this rule, the whole state of Virginia should be cordoned off to any kind of use due to its many battlefields and movements of troops across the state. After two years, a “clerical error” was declared and Martha could use her land; no reimbursement for loss of property or revenue.

A trench was dug to prevent parking on her property because it might obscure the view shed. Then came the infamous pumpkin carving party that actually never took place, it was cancelled. Yet the harassment from the county and the moneyed environmentalists never stopped. These people prefer and define farming as penny-loafer farming, running a few horses on lush endless green grass fields, nothing to grow that people would need.

The battle did not stop with Martha. Thirteen vintners filed lawsuits against the same county for not being allowed to serve wine on their premises after 6 p.m., another Fauquier County restriction passed to please one vintner who chose to close early. Why leave things alone? Force everyone to do the same, control what everyone else does.

Americans are waking up when they run into legal battles at the state and local levels involving zoning issues driven by one ultimate goal, global governance. The U.N. Agenda 21 “soft law” document is not legally binding per se but morally obligatory. Unfortunately, so many of its 40 chapters of rules have already been written into law within other laws passed by Congress and they provide specific rules and regulations about local organizations and their practices, limiting everyone’s behavior and freedom, individuals and organizations alike. Add zoning ordinances passed by local and state governments and you have a recipe for disaster, total control of what you do with your own property.

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business (WAFS 1190), every Wednesday at 10:49 AM EST

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, ( Romanian Conservative) ( Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative, usactionnews.com), author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business WAFS 1190, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana@canadafreepress.com

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52188?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=42616ca221-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

The Agenda 21 Trials

by Battlefield America

“It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity. . . . That murder should be punished goes without the saying, but the full performance of our task requires more than the just sentencing of these defendants. Their crimes were the inevitable result of the sinister doctrines which they espoused…” “Wherever those doctrines may emerge and prevail, the same terrible consequences will follow. That is why a bold and lucid consummation of these proceedings is of vital importance to all nations. That is why the United States has constituted this Tribunal. I pass now to the facts of the case at hand.”

Indeed the events which brought about this speech were the end result of a horrible period of incalculable human suffering at the hands of utopianists with a clear vision for a New World Order brought about by an all powerful state. The defendants testified that they meant well and thought they were doing what was best for humanity.

We are now in the age of a new utopianism and a new quest for a New World Order, a different World Order, but one no less savage and indifferent to human suffering than the one spoken of in this speech.

On December 9, 1946, General Telford Taylor, an attorney representing the  United States War Department, stepped to the podium and began to speak. His audience  was a trio of military officers empanelled as judges, in Nuremberg, Germany. His text  was the opening argument for the prosecution in the case of United States v. Karl Brandt,  et al. After speaking in broad terms of the charges brought against the defendants, he made that speech to open the proceedings.

Someday in the future, perhaps in the not so distant future, will such a speech be given at the trial of those committing atrocities in the name of Agenda 21?

Abstract: Chapter 1 / Page 1
http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/6945/srader_doyle_w_200308_phd.pdf?sequence=1

AGENDA 21 Jobs Are The Most Promising For 2013

(NOTE: The jobs in bold are ones that are directly or indirectly related to AGENDA 21 or Obamacare)

Each year, the Occupational Information Network, or O*Net, an occupational information source developed for the US Department of Labor, recognizes “bright-outlook occupations.” Even though they may have been around for a while, several of these occupations are considered “emerging” because they now have a critical mass of workers and a clearer career road map, according to career expert Laurence Shatkin, co-author of The College Majors Handbook with Real Career Paths and Payoffs.

Based on the July 2012 O*Net update, here are eight emerging careers with bright outlooks in terms of immediate demand and pay. Even better, they’re all in high-growth industries.

Precision Agriculture Technician
Using GPS and GIS technology, these agricultural specialists help farmers determine how much water or pesticide to use or which crops are appropriate for the soil in various locations. The projected job growth for 2010-2020 is between 10 percent and 19 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The median annual salary is about $43,000. Similar job titles are crop specialist, nutrient management specialist, precision agronomist and precision farming coordinator.

Mechatronics Engineer

Using a variety of engineering disciplines, mechatronics engineers design systems to automate industrial tasks. Most jobs can be found in manufacturing and government. Pay is excellent — the median annual mechatronics engineer salary in 2011 was $90,580.

Energy Broker
Energy brokers facilitate the sale of energy commodities between their clients and other companies. This job is different from an energy trader, who buys commodities on spec and hopes to sell them at a favorable price. Brokers are usually employed by financial services companies, banks and trading houses. The BLS expects job growth of up to 19 percent through 2020. The median energy broker salary in 2011 was $50,630. Another job title for energy broker is energies commodities broker.

Logistics Analyst

A logistics analyst uses advanced RFID tagging technology to analyze product delivery or supply-chain processes. Based on their analysis, these experts may manage or recommend changes in route activity to maintain or improve efficiency. Similar job titles include global logistics analyst and supply-chain analyst. The BLS projects fast growth — up to 28 percent — through 2020. Median annual salary is just shy of $72,000.

Biostatistician

Biostatisticians look for patterns of disease emergence and persistence. In addition, they are increasingly studying how various healthcare policies and procedures can be made more efficient and affordable. “The Affordable Care Act of 2010 should boost this career because it includes provisions to study the efficacy of various healthcare procedures,” Shatkin says. The BLS projects job growth between 10 percent and 19 percent from 2010 to 2020. The median biostatistician salary in 2011 was about $74,000.

Cytogenetic Technologist

These technologists look for indicators of genetic abnormalities in fetuses and are increasingly studying genetic signatures of various cancers and indicators of genetic diseases. The BLS projects job growth of 10 percent to 19 percent from 2010 to 2020. The median annual salary in 2011 was $57,000.

Ergonomist

Ergonomists create products and procedures designed to lessen physical strain and injury. “The field is strong due to the aging of the population, which creates demand for products and workplaces that are less physically demanding, and from businesses’ demand for greater efficiency that can be built into work procedures,” Shatkin tells Monster.com. The median annual ergonomist salary was just over $77,000 in 2011, according to the BLS. These specialists are also called human factors engineers.

Environmental Economist

These professionals help protect the environment by determining the economic impact of policy decisions relating to air, water, land and renewable-energy resources. More than 90 percent of these experts have either a master’s degree or doctorate. Salaries are high: The 2011 median environmental economist salary was $90,550. Jobs can be found in the government and professional, scientific and technical services sectors.

http://career-services.monster.com/yahooarticle/emerging-careers-2013#WT.mc_n=yta_fpt_article_emerging_careers_2013

 

Agenda 21: “Rewilding” With Cougars And Depopulating Humans

 

If you haven’t heard the article this week about “Cougars make a comeback after
a century of decline” then I would suggest you do.  This along with the new
newsletter from the Cougar Rewildling Foundation brings the research of cougar
sightings to new light.  After a long time of speculation about cougar expansion
and even more denial about whether or not they were found outside of the known
western states, a new report confirms that cougars have been migrating to
“greener pastures.”

To summarize,  since the 1990’s mountain lions have
began to expand to other territories. This includes female cougars, not just the
typical “roadtripping” young males.  The well established populations act as the
Mainland population of a Mainland-Island Metapopulation.  The cougars move into
pockets of suitable habitat outside of the main population, and the main
population supplies more individuals to help a burgeoning new population.  With
the new evidence of cougars traveling incredible distances to new habitat (a
cougar from South Dakota ended up in Connecticut), its not impossible for
cougars to recolonize the lower 48.   Although there are a few major obstacles
in the cougar’s way.

The two most detrimental obstacles to the
reestablishment of cougars in the east coastal states are limited habitat and
public opinion. The coastal states have seen an increase in population (of
humans that is) in the 100 year absence of the cougar.  More development of
cities, and fewer large, intact, undisturbed tracts of forest for cougars to
call home.  That doesn’t mean there isn’t ANY, just that its not as abundant.
But I have to say that mountain lions seem to cohabitate well with close human
proximity in California.

Secondly, the public is not unanimously happy
with cougars in their backyard.  In states which currently have been mostly
cougar free for a century, the public is scared to allow large predatory felines
to live near them.  In fact, that was one reason why they were extirpated in the
first place. People also have an opinion that cougars will interfere with their
hunting of game species.  The public has tow opinions: there are too many deer,
or there are too few deer.  Some believe that cougars are greatly decreasing the
population of deer and that fewer cougars means more deer.  However incredibly
narrow-sighted that is, this has become a sticking point in the Black Hills
population.

Where it is good or bad in your opinion, cougars are making
a comeback, and I for one am incredibly excited with these prospects.  To read
the BBC article on information, you can find it HERE.

http://vacougarsighting.blogspot.com/

Agenda 21 Front Group: Cougar Rewilding Foundation

With Alinsky, “The issue is never the issue. The Issue is the revolution” (p. 10).

The ends always justified the means.

The Cougar Rewilding Foundation has one purpose: A Socialist Revolution where private proprty becomes and thing of the past.

Now their escuse? “Save the planet” “Restore biodiversity”

Cougar Rewilding Foundation http://easterncougar.org/

Politics Play a Key Role in Virginia Elk Reintroduction Plan

Clark DeHart

Johnny Wills from the VDGIF is head of the management program for
Virginia’s elk herd, spoke on behalf of the Virginia Elk Reintroduction project.
He explained that although Virginia is now void of the large ungulates, during
the 1900’s elk still ranged throughout the entirety of the Eastern United
States, only to be hunted to extirpation. A one sided discussion with a lengthy
background noted several attempts for past elk reintroduction in Virginia. Wills
explained the “Peaks of Otter region once saw a small congregation of elk in the
1960’s, but were soon culled to extirpation when farmers took matters into their
own hands.” Several of Virginia’s neighboring states have seen successful
transplants of western elk herds into their former region of the Appalachians.
The Cades Cove elk herd of Kentucky and Tennessee has flourished since their
introduction in 2001 to a healthy population of around 15,000
individuals.

The plan for Virginia’s new elk herd is already in
conception, but it seems to lack logic in the management of the species. After a
study on the feasibility of elk in Virginia’s environment, Julie A. McClafferty
and James A. Parkhurst discovered that the prime habitat to support the large
grazers would be Virginia’s Allegheny and Piedmont regions. “Biologically, the
facts are sound, but politically the areas are off limits.” Johnny Wills has
narrowed the search for elk habitat to the far western part of Virginia, in what
he deems the coal counties; Buchanan, Wise, Lee and Dickenson. These counties in
particular have a low population density, and large remaining tracts of forest.
The counties are eager to have the elk herd in their district, but there are
possible problems to face if reintroduction occurs.

While elk herds on
forest land and designated elk reservations is fine in the public eye, the
problem lies in the migratory behavior of the species. If the elk turn up in a
suburban town stead, the imposing animals can create danger for people and
browsing landscaped yards, becoming an immediate nuisance. In the western states
during the mating season for elk, males are known to walk through towns,
oblivious to cars and people alike. Farmers, however have a different reason to
protest the introduction of elk. In the coal counties, elk could outcompete
livestock, consuming the grass that the cattle have to eat. Being free ranging
animals, elk could wander into a farmer’s hay field, and consume the season’s
feed supply for the farmer’s livestock.

A more serious implication with
wild species introduction is the possibility of contagious disease transfer to
livestock. Two diseases are known in ungulates like elk and white tail deer, and
could have dangerous implications for wild and domestic animals alike. Chronic
wasting disease is a degenerative disease which afflicts white tail deer in
Virginia, and could be transmitted to elk. Bovine Tuberculosis is a more severe
threat to the cattle farmers around the commonwealth. If an elk with bovine TB
infects domestic cattle, our state could lose its TB free standing.

Elk
impact on humans will be more direct than through competition with cattle. Deer
already cost citizens $ 5 million a year due to deer related accidents,
introduction of elk would only increase these statistics. When the elk migrate
out of the forest and happen across a suburban backyard the conflict with humans
increase. The overabundance of white tail deer already costs the Virginia
homeowner a sum of $290 a year just because of deer. It’s already a consensus
that there needs to be a stronger management policy to deal with the deer
population, so why introduce a larger deer species?

Most biologists would
be more concerned with a second ungulate species’ impact on the health of our
local environment. With overabundant white tail deer wrecking havoc on sapling
growth, one could only imagine how a larger deer would affect the habitat. The
coal counties of Wise, Buchannan, and Dickenson have poor quality of food
resources for deer, and thus have a very small population of white tail deer.
When a habitat can barely support deer, why should elk be thrown into the
equation?

Johnny Wills explained that the driving force behind the elk
reintroduction project was politics. The idea that elk could increase tourism
and stimulate the economy is the main goal for the project, more than the
animals themselves. Groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation that are
supporting the project have sided that there is benefit to recreating the former
state of the fauna in the region. Hunters have already jumped at the idea of big
game hunting in Virginia. What is a main oversight is that these elk will not be
candidates for hunting for quite some time. When asked when the herd could be
hunted Mr. Wills answered that “in a decade there will be a lottery for limited
elk licenses, but even in 30 years the population probably would still be under
limited hunting restraints,” unlike the white tail deer in
Virginia.

“It’s really politics behind the project which is moving it
forwards” but at the same time politics are keeping the elk project from
utilizing more suitable habitat areas. Despite the objections on each side, the
project is planned to be implemented in late December 2011. With the increasing
animosity with white tail deer, Virginia seems torn over the reintroduction
project, and hoping for the best. “It’s not a question of where or when, we know
that. Now it’s a question of how many elk we are going to get.”

http://vacougarsighting.blogspot.com/2010/11/virginia-elk-reintroduction.html

Agenda 21: Elk Reintroduction In Virginia

Elk Management and Restoration

Documents: Executive Summary

Since the 1990’s, public interest to restore elk in Virginia has increased. In response to this public interest and neighboring states which have undertaken elk restoration programs, the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries directed the Executive Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to create an operational plan for elk restoration and management in Virginia. This plan addresses the potential for elk restoration and management in Virginia through consideration of biological, sociological, economic, and environmental issues.

Elk were historically found throughout eastern North America, including Virginia. However, factors such as habitat loss and unregulated hunting caused elk to become extirpated within eastern North America by the late 1800s. Attempts at elk restoration in eastern states during the early to mid-1900’s often failed due to a lack of suitable habitat and knowledge of elk ecology. Of the 10 eastern states attempting elk restoration during this time, only Pennsylvania and Michigan were able to maintain elk populations. In 1916, the newly-created Virginia Game Commission authorized the importation and release of elk in 11 counties in Virginia, but most releases quickly failed. By 1926, only 2 small elk herds remained: one in the mountains of Giles and Bland counties and one in Botetourt County near Buchanan. Elk hunting seasons were held irregularly from 1922 – 1960, but by 1970, elk once again were gone from Virginia. Factors such as disease, unsustainable harvest levels, removal of crop-depredating elk, and isolation of small, unsustainable herds on limited ranges contributed to the elk’s demise. Currently, an unknown number of elk occur in Virginia having moved in to the state following their release in Kentucky during the late 1990’s. Initial attempts to capture and return elk to Kentucky proved impractical so an elk hunting season was approved to keep elk from becoming established in Virginia.

Restoring and maintaining elk populations provides ecological, social, and economic benefits. Hunting and wildlife viewing annually generate millions of dollars to local and state economies. In Virginia, hunting and wildlife viewing activities were estimated to have had a $1.4 billion impact on Virginia’s economy during 2006. Further, elk may play a significant role in maintaining early successional habitat conditions which have been in decline over the past several decades. Elk generate some concerns due to the potential for damage, nuisance behavior, and disease transmission. Agricultural damage may be related to foraging and trampling of crops, destruction of fences, and competition for hay or pasturage. Other types of damage or nuisance activity include browsing or antler rubbing on timber resources, vehicle collisions, residential damage and habituation to humans. Important wildlife and livestock diseases may be carried and transmitted by elk including Chronic Wasting Disease, Brucellosis, and Bovine Tuberculosis, necessitating careful disease testing and monitoring during restoration efforts.

The area under consideration for possible elk restoration included Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise counties within the Cumberland Plateau (i.e., Coalfields) and Lee, Russell, Scott, and Tazewell counties in the Valley and Ridge province. While these two physiographic provinces are similar in some ways, differences in topography, geology and vegetative cover are significant. The Cumberland Plateau is rugged and the extraction of mineral resources has altered the landscape. The Valley and Ridge is characterized by long parallel ridges separated by corresponding river valleys. These wider valleys and floodplains are better suited for agriculture. According to the 2007 USDA agricultural census, the 3 Coalfield counties contain a combined 45,842 acres of farmland, much lower than the Virginia average of 82,693 acres per county. However, the counties of Lee, Russell, Scott, and Tazewell contain an average of 144,222 acres of farmland, nearly 10 times that of the coalfield counties. The prevailing agricultural land use of the Valley and Ridge counties precludes their management for elk due to potential damage to agricultural property. The Coalfield counties of Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise offer the best potential for elk restoration in Virginia as habitats associated with surface mining can provide suitable elk habitat while minimizing impacts to agricultural lands.

At its August 17, 2010 meeting, the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries approved a motion where VDGIF would establish a pilot program for the reintroduction of elk by stocking not more than 75 elk in Buchanan County only. The goal would be to have an elk herd not to exceed 400 animals. The elk management area would include Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise counties where elk hunting would be prohibited. Hunting of elk would begin in Buchanan County within 4 years of the last elk stocking. A reserve of 20% of elk hunting tags would be held back for hunters or applicants from Buchanan County. VDGIF would organize and coordinate activities of a damage response team made up of representatives from the management area, local chapter of RMEF and DGIF, with a goal to respond to damage calls within 24 hours.

<!–Five potential elk management options were considered for the Coalfield counties over an initial planning period of 12 years.

1. No Restoration

   This option would maintain the current management approach in Virginia. Elk hunting would continue with no structured restoration efforts. The elk population would not be allowed to grow, but education and outreach would continue as interest in elk is not likely to wane. This option would minimize the time and expense of managing elk in Virginia, but fail to enhance any recreational or economic benefits.

2. Passive Restoration

   This option would protect elk currently in the Coalfield counties. A population goal of 1,200 elk would be established. Elk would not be stocked, and habitat management efforts on public and private land would be used to encourage population growth. Enhanced staffing would be required to address growing elk population management needs. Passive restoration would minimize the effort required to achieve elk restoration, but would significantly delay the time frame needed to achieve recreational and economic benefits.

3. Active Restoration (single stocking of 75 elk)

   This option would require a suitable source of elk and acceptable release sites to be identified in the Coalfield counties. Released elk would require disease testing prior to release. The population goal would be 1,200 elk. Enhanced staffing would be needed to address growing elk population management needs, and research to investigate elk population dynamics and habitat relationships would be warranted to monitor the growing elk herd. A single stocking of 75 elk would facilitate better management of the stocking and monitoring efforts. An estimated 150 elk could be harvested over the initial 12 year period. However, the population goal likely will not be reached in the initial 12 years delaying the time frame to achieve full recreational and economic benefits.

4. Active Restoration (incremental stocking of 200 elk)

   This option would require a suitable source of elk and acceptable release sites to be identified in the Coalfield counties. Elk would require disease testing prior to release. The population goal would be 1,200 elk. Enhanced staffing would be required to address growing elk population management needs, and research to investigate elk population dynamics and habitat relationships would be warranted to monitor elk population growth. Incremental stocking of elk would facilitate easier management of stocking and monitoring efforts while enhancing population growth. An estimated 425 elk could be harvested over initial 12 year period, and the population goal can be reached in 12 years. This option provides for a faster time frame to achieve recreational and economic benefits, but also increases the likelihood of property damage and nuisance concerns.

5. Active Restoration (single stocking of 200 elk)

   This option would require a suitable source of elk and acceptable release sites to be identified in the Coalfield counties. Elk would require disease testing prior to release. The population goal would be 1,200 elk. Enhanced staffing would be required to address growing elk population management needs, and research to investigate elk population dynamics and habitat relationships would be warranted to monitor elk population growth. A single stocking of 200 elk would complicate management of stocking and monitoring efforts but would enhance population growth. An estimated 480 elk could be harvested over the initial 12 year period, and the population goal can be reached in 12 years. This option provides for a faster time frame to achieve recreational and economic benefits, but also increases the likelihood of property damage and nuisance concerns.

The Elk Committee recommends that VDGIF should pursue the Active Restoration Option to establish a population of 1,200 elk in the Potential Elk Restoration Area (Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise counties). The Elk Committee further recommends that the project should set a goal of releasing 200 elk over a 3-year period in one suitable Elk Release Site within the Potential Elk Restoration Area. The Committee does not recommend establishing multiple herds over a wide area with the 200 elk.

–>Active restoration options offer the best alternatives to achieve recreational and economic benefits associated with elk populations. However, public awareness and support of active elk restoration management efforts are vital to a successful elk restoration program. Elk management issues such as regulation of hunting and hunter access, provisions for suitable habitat, opportunities for elk viewing, and mitigation of damage/nuisance issues will require careful attention to public attitudes and interest. Emphasis should be placed on obtaining public input and educating citizens on elk ecology and management issues. These education and outreach efforts should be sustainable in order to continually address public interest as well as emerging elk management issues.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/elk/management-plan/