Feds Nearing Permit to Limit Accidental Trapping of Canada L

[FWS]

Feds Nearing Permit to Limit Accidental Trapping of Canada Lynx

By Jay Field
Maine Public Broadcasting
August 5, 2014


After years of planning, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to finally sign off on a permit in October that allows trapping in Maine to continue as the state also works to limit the accidental taking of federally protected Canada lynx.

Here's the basic problem: as trappers go after species like bobcat of fisher, it's not uncommon to also catch Canada lynx. But when a Canada lynx ends up in a trap, the owner of the trap is breaking the law, even when it's all just an accident. That's because Canada lynx are protected under the Endangered Species Act, which is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jim Connolly is with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. In 2006, Connolly says the state submitted its initial application for an incidental take permit.

"The hoped outcome from all of this is that they would issue a permit that would cover Maine trappers, if they incidentally caught a lynx," Connolly says.

An incidental take permit requires state wildlife officials to do everything within their power to limit the accidental trapping of an endangered species like the Canada lynx. If Maine's steps satisfy the federal government, trappers here will then be protected should they catch a Canada lynx, despite their best efforts to avoid such an outcome. Connolly says the state, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has now submitted a revised version of its incidental take permit application.

"What they need to do is this environmental assessment of the final application," Connolly says. "And that's what is being published tomorrow in the federal register. And then, after that, there are some other steps they have to do in preparation for issuing a permit."

U.S. Fish and Wildlife has already received extensive public feedback on its response to Maine's application. The agency used those comments, collected during 2011 and 2012, to come up with an updated environmental analysis of the plan. Starting tomorrow, the public will have a chance to raise questions, during what the agency hopes will be one final comment period.

"We're hoping that we can move through this comment period, address those as necessary, and then move on to making a final decision," says Meagan Racey, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Racey says U.S. Fish and Wildlife hopes to make that decision by October, when trapping season in Maine gets underway.

[Gerald Schmitt]

The article states that Maine submitted its initial application in 2006 for an incidental take permit. It is now 2014 and the US Fish & Wildlife Service "hope" to make a final decision by October.

Am I the only one who thinks something is very wrong with our government when it is 8 years later and a decision still has not been made?

[trappincoyotes39]

Gerald the govt red tape sure is something isn't it? . I do not think it took that long for SD to get an incidental take for wolves years back..........

If you really want to see crazy look up the info on the black tailed prairie dog and the years and money wasted on this issue, it was a Pure debacle from the get go and they weren't even listed it as all over the idea that they needed some type of listing, what a joke for sure. In the mean time they are arguing if they needed listed and the dog towns where growing annually leaps and bounds and by the time they decided not to list them many of those dog towns spread in size 300-400 percent.

Gotta love the powers that be on these issues for sure!


Then we get sent out and even hired private contractors to go out and knock them back down in densities all at the cost of the tax payer . I remember spending a lot of hrs on a 4 wheeler pre baiting and post baiting for a week solid hitting just the hot flame areas where the dogs come from federal grounds onto private property creating damage.

[FWS]

Always remember, it's just the trappers turn right now, the fishermen have had their turn, same with timber, grazing, agriculture, energy, water users, off roaders, and so on, and you don't get just one turn, you'll probably get a whole bunch of turns, like many have had ...................

Here's the USF&WS notice in the Federal Register,

Availability of a Revised Environmental Assessment and Incidental Take Plan for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's Trapping Program

Gotta love the powers that be on these issues for sure!

In these cases that's generally the courts, as with the listing of the Canada lynx under the ESA, which was mandated by the courts.

[trappincoyotes39]

The courts running off of the laws enacted, both need revamping too many liberal judges and too much BS in the ESA. Another great case is how the Missouri River is managed by army corps of engineers another federal enacted deal.

[trappnman]

yes, the govt shouldn't be involved in wildlife control

[FWS]

The courts running off of the laws enacted, both need revamping

We've been there and tried that to no avail. So you have to deal with the process, like it or not.

too many liberal judges and too much BS in the ESA.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to state that, but those types of comments have never been an effective strategy to change any of it. Quite the opposite really, they just serve to subsidize those who want to maintain the status quo.

Bob and others went on and on about that here in past years, and low and behold neither the law nor process has changed as a result, despite all of that ectoplasmic wishery.

[trappincoyotes39]

But in states it has made a difference FWS the mt lion issue in SD would and could have went a different way with a liberal mindset judge that is a fact.

Tman the fovt will always be involved in wildlife control just different levels. What shouldn't be involved is USFWS and let USDA be In charge of wildlife issues. remember tHe change was made for WS from USFWS back to USDA APHIS as the other had a far different outlook on many issues with wildlife, they are more protectionist than conservationist again factual.

[trappincoyotes39]

Another good one is when they had ferrets doing really well,in the conata basin and they should have went and thinned down the prairie dogs and have buffer strips between those dogs and not the massive coverage they had but the US forest service doesn't allow any hunting in there, so they had plague come through and wipe out a pile of dogs so the USFWS and IS forest service ask for our help in dusting dog burrows to help the ferrets

In the end the plague did what it does knocked the dog towns back in coverage and took out a number of ferrets in the process. The protection approach really never works on something of this nature.

[FWS]

But in states it has made a difference FWS

TC, these are Federal courts as it pertains to the ESA and other issues, and we've had rulings in our interests and against our interests by judges of all stripes. What state they're in doesn't really matter since they are Federal appointees.

And they have to rule based on the law, and the ESA is the law of the land in this.

and let USDA be In charge of wildlife issues

Ain't gonna happen and it would be disastrous anyways. The USFS is under the USDA and it ain't all roses there.

[trappincoyotes39]

N key word is based on laws, heck if everything was based on the law we wouldn't have some of therapy rulings we get on many issues............. The issue gets to be people (judges) injecting their thoughts into these issues at times.

I agree USFS is no bed of roses but would rather have USDA than USFWS under the interior.........

[FWS]

heck if everything was based on the law we wouldn't have some of therapy rulings we get on many issues.....

Sure you would, you just labor under the mistaken belief that if you disagree with a court ruling it must be wrong and not 'based on the law'.

When it's often that that the law was correctly interpreted according to to the actual law, rather than what you think the law is or should be.

That's the case with a lot of decisions on ESA issues, they are interpreting what the intent of Congress was when they passed the ESA and subsequent additions/revisions since 1973, and the legislative record supports that.

We can change that, but that needs to be done legislatively.

[trappincoyotes39]

You seem to think every judge that rules is only using the law which we know is not the case. In fact most cases allow lee way for judges to move about in court.

[Gerald Schmitt]

Can anyone answer this question? If it is a violation for a trapper to accidentally catch a lynx, regardless of intent, would it not also be a violation for someone to hit and kill a lynx while driving a motor vehicle, regardless of intent? Could the vehicle driver be prosecuted?

I don't see any difference in the two situations. I wonder if the feds could implement a 10 mph speed limit on all roadways to reduce the possibility of a lynx being hit and killed by a motor vehicle.

[trappnman]

TC- as FWS says, if it makes you sleep better at night, then blame liberal judges

You seem to think every judge that rules..........

and its obvious you think every case that you disagree with, is not based on law, but liberal judges

no wonder trappers spin their wheels

--------------------

good point Gerald, and I agree.

In Rochester, in Silver Lake Park, with 1000s of geese- you hit one with a car, and you get fined

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman serious question would you consider Rochester a Liberal city? conservative or neutral?

I know in South Dakota no where would one get a ticket for hitting a goose. No one gets a ticket for hitting mt lions either. Unless your committing an act to set out and chase and grass wildlife with a vehicle.

Gerald they wild have to prosecute the same I would think trap or a car if one is using the ESA as it is written and the protection offered.