Louisiana hunting seasons extended in many areas because of last week’s snow; see where

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Louisiana hunting seasons extended in many areas because of last week’s snow; see where

After accident, Edinburg man navigates life in darkness

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

After accident, Edinburg man navigates life in darkness

Drought endangers Desert Bighorn Sheep, Nevada’s state animal

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Drought endangers Desert Bighorn Sheep, Nevada’s state animal

Pauls Valley man charged with animal cruelty, accused of leaving dog in snow storm

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

https://www.kxii.com/2025/01/21/pauls-valley-man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-accused-leaving-dog-snow-storm/

Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small CapsDefault X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-LargeDefault Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light BoldDefault Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%A man in Garvin County is charged with felony animal cruelty after he allegedly left a dog outside during a snow storm.

By KXII Staff

Published: Jan. 21, 2025 at 1:29 PM PST

GARVIN COUNTY, Okla. (KXII) – A man in Garvin County is charged with felony animal cruelty after he allegedly left a dog outside during a snow storm.

Court documents stated that Everett Johnson, 61, of Pauls Valley, allegedly had the dog chained to a pole, without shelter, during snowy weather that had temperatures dip into the 20s.

Johnson has not been arrested

Two Bills Seeking to Roughly Halve Montana’s Wolf Population Pass Out of Committee

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Two Bills Seeking to Roughly Halve Montana’s Wolf Population Pass Out of Committee

Scientists discover alarming link between hiker behavior and carnivorous predators: ‘People may not realize’

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Scientists discover alarming link between hiker behavior and carnivorous predators: ‘People may not realize’

Two Bills Seeking to Roughly Halve Montana’s Wolf Population Pass Out of Committee

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

HB 222 and HB 176 seek to reduce Montana’s wolf population by expanding the hunting season and lifting hunting and trapping limitsBy Amanda Eggert, Montana Free PressJanuary 27, 2025

Two Bills Seeking to Roughly Halve Montana’s Wolf Population Pass Out of Committee

A wolf slinks through the grass at dawn in the North Fork area of Glacier National Park on July 30, 2022. Hunter D’Antuono | Flathead Beacon

The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee this week advanced a pair of bills that aim to aggressively reduce wolf populations in Montana.

As originally proposed — it was later revised by the committee — House Bill 222 would establish an open season for wolf hunting and trapping until the population reaches 600 animals.

Many commenters on HB 222 Tuesday also offered testimony on House Bill 176, a proposal by Shannon Maness, a Republican representative from Dillon, that removes bag limits for wolves until the state’s wolf population, currently estimated by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks around 1,100 animals, has been cut in half.

Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup.

Proponents of the two measures argued that attempts to use other methods to bring down wolf numbers — i.e., hunting them at night and using bait and neck snares — have failed to achieve their purpose. The Montana Legislature should provide the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the governor-appointed body charged with setting quotas and seasons for game animals, with stronger direction, the proponents argued.

Opponents of the two bills countered that the proposals are unscientific and will insert politics into the season-setting process. They also argued that they would give Montana a “black eye” for its predator policies and that such wildlife management decisions properly rest with the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Testimony on the two measures continued into the evening Tuesday. Organizations testifying in favor of one or both bills included the Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Trappers Association, the Outdoor Heritage Coalition and the Foundation for Wildlife Management.

Justin Webb with the Foundation for Wildlife Management, which partners with the Idaho Fish and Game to reimburse hunters and trappers for the wolves they kill there, argued that neighboring states have only been able to reduce wolf numbers by drastically increasing season length and the methods that can be used to kill them.

“Idaho has year-round hunting season, no quotas, far more liberal trapping and snaring seasons, no lynx or grizzly protection zones, and continues to manage wolves,” said Webb, whose organization has recently established a presence in Montana. “You’ve directed FWP to reduce numbers in years past, yet those populations have not fluctuated more than 60 wolves up or down in the last 10 years.”

Other proponents referenced a familiar debate, that wolves reduce elk numbers, thereby limiting hunting opportunities.

“In 1995, the elk population in Yellowstone was around 17,000. In 2024, that number has dropped around 4,000,” Maness argued during his bill introduction. “Elk and moose are suffering.”

Proponents countered, and FWP Conservation Chief Quentin Kujala confirmed, that most hunting units across the state currently have more elk than wildlife managers would prefer.

During opponent testimony, Eric Clewis with Defenders of Wildlife argued that HB 176 represented “legislative overreach” that could threaten the long-term viability of a Montana wolf population.

“Requiring an unlimited quota when the wolf population is above 450 individuals removes the science from wildlife management. The feedback loop from biologists to the Fish and Wildlife Commission is effectively severed by this bill and any chance for adaptive management based on real-life conditions is lost,” Clewis told committee members.

Cara McGary, a Gardiner-based wildlife-watching business owner with the Wild Livelihoods Business Coalition, argued that without quotas or spatial structuring in the season-setting process, wolves just outside of Yellowstone National Park would be particularly vulnerable.

“The wolves that are harvested there are almost exclusively wolves who are denning and spending most of their lives in the park. They’re the ones that I show to my tourists, that [support] a half-a-billion-dollar economy in Park County,” McGary said. “It is our everything, and these bills would have a major impact on us here in Gardiner.”

After speaking with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks about some concerns they had around the target population, HB 222 sponsor Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, successfully amended the measure to lift the target population from 600 wolves to 650 wolves and allow the commission to “close the season in only May and June for the consideration of denning and whelping.” Similarly, the identified population target in HB 176 was successfully increased by 100 wolves to 550 wolves.

During committee discussion on the bills, Rep. Jill Cohenour, D-Helena, warned that measures like HB 222 and HB 176 could result in a loss of state management of wolves by encouraging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency to step in and reassume authority over their management.

Rep. France, D-Missoula, argued that the measures are overkill given that there was no testimony from agricultural interests suggesting there are issues with a long-standing program that reimburses livestock producers for sheep and cattle losses attributed to wolves.

“Wolf numbers have been stable at around 1,000 to 1,200 for at least 10 years, and a little before that, and livestock depredations over that period have been stable, too. So, where’s the emergency?” France said.

Schubert answered that it was “very possible” that livestock loss numbers have been higher than thought due to underreporting.

HB 222 and HB 176 are similar to a series of bills that the Legislature passed in 2021. During that session, lawmakers lengthened the wolf trapping season, authorized the use of neck snares and allowed hunters to receive reimbursement — characterized by critics as a “bounty” — for their efforts. Those laws sparked a lawsuit centering on the “public trust doctrine” of state wildlife management that’s still in state court and an unsuccessful petition by wildlife advocates to restore Endangered Species Act protections to wolves.

This story originally appeared in the Montana Free Press, which can be found online at montanafreepress.org.

Human case of avian flu detected in England

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Human case of avian flu detected in England

Uncle Si death rumors debunked after hunting accident confusion

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

Uncle Si death rumors debunked after hunting accident confusion

What to know about Trump’s first executive actions on climate and environment

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Exposing the Big Game

1 of 3 |

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)Read More

2 of 3 |

Pumpjacks operate in the foreground as the Buckeye Wind Energy wind farm rises in the distance, Sept. 30, 2024, near Hays, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)Read More

3 of 3 |

A sign is displayed at an electric vehicle charging station, March 8, 2024, in London, Ohio. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)Read More

https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-orders-climate-change-environmental-policy-e4fb2b2495c0bcf880fab46605936b09

By MELINA WALLINGUpdated 8:41 AM PST, January 27, 2025Share

President Donald Trump’s first week in office included a flurry of executive orders with implications for Earth’s climate and environment.

While former President Joe Biden made climate change a hallmark of his administration and some of his policies remain, at least for now, Trump is quickly unraveling that, even as many of his moves are likely to be challenged in court.

Experts say Trump’s moves to step away from global climate action, ramp up domestic oil and gas production and remove incentives for electric vehicles are worrisome as the planet continues to heat up. 2024 was Earth’s hottest year on record, and climate scientists say the rising heat is contributing to extreme weather affecting millions.

“These orders will make our air dirtier, make people sicker, make energy more expensive, and make our communities less prepared for extreme weather,” wrote Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a marine biologist, policy expert and author who co-founded the non-profit think tank Urban Ocean Lab.

Pumpjacks operate in the foreground as the Buckeye Wind Energy wind farm rises in the distance, Sept. 30, 2024, near Hays, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

Here are some of Trump’s most notable moves affecting climate and environmental issues in his first week:

Pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement

Trump signed an executive order Monday directing the United States to again withdraw from the landmark Paris climate agreement aimed at global cooperation on climate change.

The agreement requires participating countries to come up with nationally determined contributions to the effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet. Trump’s move means the federal government won’t be trying to meet emissions reductions goals, nor any financial commitments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“Walking away from the Paris Agreement won’t protect Americans from climate impacts, but it will hand China and the European Union a competitive edge in the booming clean energy economy and lead to fewer opportunities for American workers,” said Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute.

https://1ea21a2e74264c93601bf5a21078a194.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Declaring a “national energy emergency,” doubling down on oil and gas

Trump declared an energy emergency via executive order amid a promise to “drill, baby, drill.”

The order urges oil and gas expansion including through federal use of eminent domain and the Defense Production Act, which allow the government to use private land and resources to produce goods deemed to be a national necessity.

Experts dispute his description of an “inadequate energy supply” as part of the basis for the order.

“The reality is that the United States is well-supplied with energy in all of its forms,” said Gary Dirks, senior director of the Global Futures Laboratory at Arizona State University. Dirks said he thinks the move is actually more targeted at bringing down prices at the pump.

“It’s important to note that the United States right now is the largest producer of oil of any nation in history. And we got to that point under the Biden administration, not because of the Biden administration’s policies necessarily, but because of policies that have been ongoing for four decades,” he said.

Faster permitting for energy; harsh words for Endangered Species Act

and Arctic protections

One section of the order declaring an energy emergency states that the Endangered Species Act cannot be an obstacle to energy development.

The Endangered Species Act has been a hurdle for the development of fossil fuels in the U.S. for decades, and weakening it would accelerate the decline and potential extinction of numerous endangered species, including whales and sea turtles, said Gib Brogan, a campaign director with conservation group Oceana.

Trump also opened up areas in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Biden had previously both restricted and approved drilling in other parts of the Arctic, part of a long process mired in litigation and complicated by political battles.

“I would begin by pointing out that there was an attempt to lease for oil drilling recently and nobody bid,” Dirks said. “I don’t actually think that the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is an exciting place for oil and gas exploration.”

But he expressed concern about preserving biodiversity, something other scientists and environmental groups have highlighted.

https://1ea21a2e74264c93601bf5a21078a194.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

“The Arctic is a very fragile system,” said Peter Schlosser, vice president and vice provost of global futures at Arizona State. Schlosser added that drilling there would disrupt the land and sea, and that potential contamination or oil spills are more difficult to clean up there due to low temperatures.

A sign is displayed at an electric vehicle charging station, March 8, 2024, in London, Ohio. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)

Revoke Biden’s goals on electric vehicles

Trump promised to eliminate what he incorrectly calls Biden’s “electric vehicle mandate.”

What that means in practice is that the order will revoke a non-binding goal set by Biden to have EVs make up half of new cars sold by 2030. He will also likely seek repeal of a $7,500 tax credit for new EV purchases approved by Congress as part of Biden’s landmark 2022 climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.

All of that is likely frustrating for automakers, who have to make long-term decisions, said Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at auto-buying research firm Edmunds. As the rest of the world moves to electric cars, automakers have to decide how to factor in the global direction the industry is headed alongside the sudden lack of federal support.

“We do think that the long-term end goal here is going to be electrification. It’s just the timeline it seems is uncertain right now,” she said.

Eliminate a push for environmental justice

When the government reviews new facilities that emit pollution, officials are no longer likely to consider a concept known as environmental justice, or how that new pollution will add to the emissions that have tended to fall more heavily on poor and minority communities.

Those are sweeping moves that Rena Payan, chief program officer at nonprofit Justice Outside, called “rolling back decades of progress in addressing environmental discrimination.”

That means more of a burden for state and local groups to fight to protect those communities. Trump’s decision to cut off support will hurt, but many of these organizations are used to operating without federal support — they have done so for years, according to Peggy Shepard, co-founder and executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice.

“What I’m grappling right now with is both the grief of these losses, and the fact that we were on an upward swing, if you will, just weeks ago,” said Jade Begay, an Indigenous rights and climate organizer.

___

Associated Press reporters Seth Borenstein, Patrick Whittle, Jennifer McDermott, Michael Phillis, Alexa St. John and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

___

Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.