On June 29, 2018, in Hanover, Md., the U.S. Department of the Interior will issue the $25 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation stamp for the 2018-2019 waterfowl hunting season (RW85). The stamp is valid through June 30, 2019. The stamp features mallards by Robert Hautman of Delano, Minn. This is the third Federal stamp featuring Mr. Hautman’s winning artwork, (his other federal stamps are RW64 and RW68).

The First Day of Issue will take place at the Bass Pro Shop in Hanover. The event is free and open to the public. Check fws.gov for starting time and additional event information.

The 2018 stamp will be issued in three different formats: a pane of 20, an 85th Anniversary souvenir sheet of four and a self-adhesive single. This year will also see a BIG change for the stamp program. Read more

By Glen Wunderlich

Recent news from Washington indicates the economy is growing at a rapid pace and that the country is deemed to be at full employment.  The Trump administration has eliminated encumbrances to progress, and in so doing, has ruffled the feathers of a gaggle of environmental groups that seek protection for migratory birds.  Recently filed litigation challenges the current Administration’s move to eliminate longstanding protections for waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) enacted over 100 years ago. 

At issue in the suit by the National Audubon Society v. Department of the Interior, is the claim that the Act’s prohibition on the killing or “taking” of migratory birds has long been understood to extend to incidental take from industrial activities — meaning unintentional but predictable and avoidable killing. Under the Administration’s revised interpretation, the MBTA’s protections will apply only to activities that purposefully kill birds. Any “incidental” take — no matter how inevitable or devastating the impact on birds — is now immune from enforcement under the law based on a memo issued by the U.S. Department of Interior of December 2017.

The government’s memorandum in question analyzes whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 (“MBTA”), prohibits the accidental or “incidental” taking or killing of migratory birds. Unless permitted by regulation, the MBTA prohibits the “taking” and “killing” of migratory birds. “Incidental take” is take that results from an activity, but is not the purpose of that activity.

Interpreting the MBTA to apply to incidental or accidental actions hangs the sword of Damocles over a host of otherwise lawful and productive actions, threatening up to six months in jail and a $15,000 penalty for each and every bird injured or killed says the Interior Department.

Neither the plain language of the statute nor its legislative history support the notion that Congress intended to criminalize, with fines and potential jail time, otherwise lawful conduct that might incidentally result in the taking of one or more birds.  

The government’s position on the Act’s intention relates to the early 1900s, when commercial killing for feathers to adorn ladies’ fancy hats had had taken its toll on many bird species.  As a result of commercial hunting, several species, such as the Labrador Ducks, Great Auks, Passenger Pigeons, Carolina Parakeets, and Heath Hens were extinct or nearly so by the end of the 19th century.

The government’s assertion is that neither the plain language of the statute nor its legislative history, support the notion that Congress intended to criminalize, with fines and potential jail time, otherwise lawful conduct that might incidentally result in the taking of one or more birds.

Said Mike Parr, President of American Bird Conservancy, “The new policy makes it much harder to protect birds from major bird traps — threats like oil pits, wind turbines, and communication towers in bird migration hotspots.”

Should we then give up driving cars in an effort to protect birds or four-legged animals – let alone humans – from inevitable, yet incidental, deaths?  No doubt, progress has its cost and the question of where to draw the line is now on the table.

June 1 through July 23, the Wildlife Habitat Grant Program will be accepting applications, with projects enhancing game species habitat enhancement given a priority.

“This is an exciting opportunity to partner with others in the state to increase the habitat available for game species in Michigan and to enhance the existing habitat for the benefit of hunters, trappers, and wildlife viewers,” said Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason.

Funding is available for local, state, federal and tribal governments, profit and nonprofit groups, and individuals through an open competitive process. Minimum grant amounts will be set at $15,000 with the maximum being the amount of funds available for that grant cycle.  The 2018 overall available grant amount is approximately $1 million. Read more

The Mesa County Commission has urged the federal government in a resolution to follow the recommendations of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, which opposed reintroduction of the gray wolf to Colorado.  Seems they like their population of moose more than any “need” to add predators, which of course, would affect livestock numbers, as well.  More here…

The battle against beech bark disease came full circle in fall 2017 at Ludington State Park, as volunteers planted more than 200 disease-resistant trees where the disease was discovered in 2000.

That planting effort is one of the success stories in Michigan’s Forest Health Highlights report, released annually by the DNR. The report summarizes the health of nearly 20 million acres of forest in the state, including about 4 million acres of state-managed forest land.

“Invasive species like the beetle that spreads beech bark disease present challenges,” said Deb Begalle, chief of the DNR’s Forest Resources Division. “We also are coordinating efforts to cope with other invasive species such as the hemlock woolly adelgid.” That tiny insect attaches itself to hemlock trees and eventually kills them. So far, it is known to be in four west Michigan counties. Read more

By Glen Wunderlich

The use of the word “interesting” seems to be injected more into conversations recently as a substitute for more descriptive and more meaningful language.  In most instances, I think we can do better than that, but when we are discussing how observations can hold one’s attention or curiosity, the term interesting can be quite appropriate. So, what follows may be just such tidbits derived from studies and personal observations of whitetail deer behavior – many of which stem from the June/July publication of Quality Deer Management Associations’ (QDMA) “Quality Whitetails” magazine. 

Most turkey hunters will agree that the use of decoys will divert the attention of turkeys from hunters and directly toward the synthetic accomplice.  While decoying is used almost exclusively as a successful strategy to bag gobblers, the same turkey decoys can be used to captivate the attention of whitetails’ innate propensity to be inquisitive. 

Michigan Springtime Buck

One observation over the years is how whitetails will focus on ground blinds that have been erected shortly before a hunting season.  Unlike turkeys, deer have a tendency to focus on blinds and subsequently will detect the slightest movement from within.  However, that same blind will become relatively inconsequential, once a turkey decoy is placed only 25 to 30 yards directly in front of it. 

On a recent hunt, I observed two whitetail bucks tune into a lone hen decoy to the point that they cautiously closed the distance to within inches of the decoy.  With necks stretched as far as possible in an effort to detect scent, they became oblivious to my presence making for one interesting, uninterrupted video clip before scampering off into cover.  Experienced hunters know the technique of “confidence decoys” and their use may be worth considering during deer hunting season.

No doubt, deer behavior can be fascinating to outdoors people and Kip Adams of QDMA points out some interesting (there I go again) aspects of the birth of fawns.  Insofar as spring is when fawns are born, some understanding of how and why birthing activity takes place is provided for edification. 

He writes, “After birth, fawns nurse and then hide alone.  The doe sends them off to select their own bedding site.  In do so, she ensures a predator can’t follow her scent to the fawn(s).  The mother generally visits three to four times per day to feed and nurse them.  She goes to the general area where she left them and calls.  Fawns respond by standing and running to their mother.  After approximately one month, fawns start spending much more of the day with their mothers.”

This behavior explains why in early spring, we don’t see fawns with their mothers.  It also explains why their mothers are not at their sides and why humans often mistakenly assume fawns have been abandoned, when inadvertently discovered afield.  It is also the reason why we are implored to leave them alone; it’s nature’s way!

Kip further explains that during the first few weeks after birth that fawns are unable to urinate or defecate on their own.  Thus, while fawns are nursing, their mothers lick their genitals, causing fawns to do their “business.”  Interestingly, the mother then consumes these excretions in an effort to minimize scent from predators’ noses.  Simply wild!