Outdoor Writer

This is from the latest AGFD Hunting Newsletter. -TONY Gould’s turkeys thrive, allowing further range and distribution By Doug Burt, public information officer, Arizona Game and Fish Department The Arizona Game and Fish Department and the National Wild Turkey Federation, along with sportsmen and private citizens, successfully captured and relocated 50 Gould’s wild turkeys from the Huachuca Mountains in early March. The captured birds were relocated to the Santa Rita and Catalina Mountains to help supplement existing populations and continue to expand the range of this unique but once eradicated wild turkey subspecies. The Gould’s turkey is common in Mexico, but only Arizona and New Mexico support populations in the United States. Six mountain ranges throughout southeastern Arizona now support populations of the Gould’s turkey: the Chiricahua, Pinaleno, Galiuro, Santa Rita, Catalina, and Huachuca Mountains. All of these mountain ranges are part of the Sky Islands. This 70,000-square-mile region extends from southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and the northwestern part of Mexico. This region encompasses one of the most diverse ecosystems in North America. The Gould’s reintroduction project began as a joint international effort with Mexico, where the first populations of Gould’s subspecies came from to restore Arizona’s historic populations during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Today, Gould’s populations in the Huachucas are significant and capable of sustaining further range expansion from our own populations. This translocation marks the fourth time that in-state populations have been used to continue the repopulation effort, indicating that the reintroduced Gould’s turkeys to southern Arizona are healthy and adapting well. Translocation programs are designed to increase diversity of wildlife populations throughout the state and beyond. Turkeys nationwide have expanded from a historic low of less than 100,000 to over 7.4 million birds today. Programs are possible by funding from license sales, concerned sportsmen groups, special auction tags and other concerned conservationists.

These are some of the more recent items I've written on the Gould's over the last several years for my IN THE FIELD column in Rocky Mt. Game & Fish. They should provide the basic info of where they are now living. -TONY 10/2000 GOULD’S TURKEY PROJECT Before the white man came to Arizona, a good population of the Gould’s species of wild turkey roamed the oak-studded grasslands of southeastern Arizona. By the end of the 1800s, though, they were all but gone – virtually killed off by ranchers, soldiers, miners and other settlers. Using birds captured in the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua, the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) started reintroducing the Gould’s in the Huachuca Mountains during the 1980s. The planted birds have taken root there, and although they are not overrunning the country, they now comprise a growing population. In the 1990s, another transplant in the Galiuro Mountains took place. Although this one was unsuccessful, the failure didn’t convince the AGFD biologists that establishing viable populations elsewhere within the once historic range of the endangered species is impossible. The key is learning more about them. To this end, game department biologists began an extensive, 3-year-long research project in July. Jim deVos, chief of the AGFD’s research branch, feels part of his job is to help restore the Gould’s variety. “This species lived in the state prior to European settlement but disappeared completely and mostly due to causes related to humans. One of the game department’s goals is reestablishing native wildlife to its native range. The fact that the Gould’s turkey is found in only a few limited areas of this country makes this an important project for us.” The research consists of a three-pronged approach: count the existing population in the Huachucas; determine the number of birds needed for additional transplants to be successful; and identifying other mountain ranges and areas in the southeastern quadrant of Arizona that are likely locations for future reintroductions. To accomplish the first of the three goals, the researchers will use rocket nets or traps to catch the birds, then outfit them with radio transmitters. Remote cameras will also monitor the flocks at drinking areas. The data from the bird’s daily movements and habits should give biologists a basis to predict how well the turkeys might adapt to similar habitat at another location. A prior count of the Huachuca population totaled 65 birds, but deVos thinks more exist. “You can never count them all. If you see 65, there’s probably plenty more.” Several of the areas ripe for transplants are the Santa Rita and Chiricahua mountain ranges and the area along the San Pedro River. If any of these show good potential, moving birds from the Huachuca Mountains could take place as early as this winter. 12/2001 Gould’s Turkey Permit The line in the hunt regulations booklet for Arizona’s 2002 spring turkey season read, “4027 - Apr. 26 - May 23, 2002 (3) - 35A (except Fort Huachuca) - Bearded turkey –1,” which in itself isn’t too attention-getting until one read the (3) footnote. It stated: “Turkeys in Unit 35A are Gould’s turkeys.” Translated, it means someone received an historic tag in the drawing last month to pursue a Gould’s turkey – a first ever for all of the U.S. according to the records. The permit will allow the lucky hunter to kill a gobbler from a growing number of the once-native bird in the Huachuca Mountains near Sierra Vista. The first-time ever hunt resulted because of a 20-yr.-old ongoing project to reestablish self-sustaining Gould’s population in several areas of the state. At one time, both the Merriam’s and Gould’s subspecies were native to the state. The Merriam’s has held its own in the higher elevation pine forests, but the Gould’s of the oak-studded grasslands of southeastern Arizona was extirpated around the turn of the 20th century. Using birds captured in the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua, the AGFD started reintroducing the Gould’s in the Huachuca Mountains during the 1980s. According to AGFD Research Branch Chief Jim deVos, the birds in the s are now doing well, with an estimated population around 100. At one time, though, some concerns about hybridization with Merriam’s turkeys cropped up. DNA analysis of blood samples showed no hybridization occurred, however. And now the success of the Gould’s reestablishment into Huachucas is providing biologists with information for future transplants into other mountain ranges such as the Galiuro and Santa Rita. The three-year study is less than half over, so hunting in other units other than 35A isn’t too likely in the near future. On the other, it’s a good bet the number of permits for 35A will increase as the population there does. 08/2004 More Gould’s Turkey In its ongoing effort to reestablish populations, the Arizona Game & Fish Department recently released 43 Gould’s turkeys. The birds, captured in Mexico’s Sierra Madre Mountains, were set loose into three mountain ranges in the state. The Pinalenos, north of Wilcox received 35 turkeys, and the Chiricahua and Huachuca mountains, which already have viable populations of Gould’s, received five and three birds respectively. The Gould's subspecies is one of five in North America and once ranged throughout southern Arizona before being wiped out a century ago. The reintroduction, which began in 1983 with the first relocation of Mexican birds to the Huachuca Mountains, is a cooperative project that includes the AGFD, National Wild Turkey Federation, U.S. Forest Service and the Mexico government. Since the first transplant, several others comprising turkeys from Mexico have occurred. Relocations to the Galiuro Mountains began in 1994 with 21 birds. Additional plants of birds either captured in Mexico or in the Huachuca range took place in 1997, 1999 and 2001. Unfortunately, predation and limited habitat has made this effort less than a success. Although nearly 100 birds have been moved there, only 20 to 30 exist today. The first transplant of 39 turkeys to the Chiricahuas happened in 2002, and another 10 were added this year. Five came from Mexico and five came from the Huachuca flock. In contrast to the Galiuro effort, the Huachuca project has been a huge success. The estimated population is 150, even after some were captured to supplement flocks in the Galiuro and Chiricahua mountains. And for the first time in 2002, the AGFD authorized two hunting permits for the Huachucas. One permit went through the general draw and the other was auctioned by the NWTF with the proceeds coming back to Arizona to fund future turkey projects. The same occurred for the 2004 season. 05/2006 NEW HOME FOR GOULD’S TURKEYS Both the Gould's and Merriam’s turkey subspecies once roamed in Arizona, but by 1920 the Gould’s had vanished. The Arizona Game & Fish Department, in cooperation with the National Wild Turkey Federation, Mexican government and other agencies, began an extensive program known as Go for the Gould's to reintroduce the native bird into its historic habitats. To continue that effort, biologists and volunteers recently released 25 Gould’s in the Santa Catalina Mountains, located north of Tucson. Ten of the birds in this initial release in the Catalinas are wearing radio transmitters, which will help biologists monitor the birds’ movements, survival and reproduction. Gould's turkeys are slightly larger than the Merriam's subspecies found throughout much of the state’s high country. The Gould’s once lived in riparian corridors and isolated mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona, but their population dwindled as more people moved westward and saw the birds as a ready source of food. Today, the largest population lives in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico. In 2005, the game department and volunteers relocated 28 Gould’s turkeys from Mexico to Arizona, bringing the total of birds set free since 2003 in the Huachuca, Chiricahua and Pinaleno mountains to 82. Wakeling is pleased because the Gould's turkeys are expanding their population and range. “A survey we did in the Huachuca Mountains last year observed 321 Gould's turkeys. The highest previous number for that area was 90 in 2004," he said. Dr. James Earl Kennamer, NWTF senior vice president for conservation programs, was more elated because of unexpected habitat expansion. “There was even a report of several turkeys being seen in the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains where birds have not been released,” he said. Although a tiny Gould’s population exists in New Mexico, Arizona is the only state that allows a very limited Gould's wild turkey hunt. Last year, only three Gould's turkey tags were issued. Two were auctioned through the NWTF to raise money for the Go for the Gould's project, and one was issued through a statewide lottery. Since 2002, the NWTF's Gould's tag auctions have raised $47,665 for the restoration efforts in Arizona.

Here's some of the stats on the survey cards for the 2007 deer seasons. It's too bad more hunters fail to cooperate. If they did, the harvest stats would be a LOT more accurate. Of course, if they lie they might as well not return the cards. -TONY Number mailed------- 42543 Number returned ----- 19177 Return rate------------ 45.1% Previous year's rate---44.2%

Thanks, Bob. I did a bit of searching yesterday afternoon and found it in the CA regulations. What I couldn't find was how info on the dupe validation tag got back to the game department, which you explained above. It sounds like that sort of system might work, but of course it depends on the compliance factor of both the hunter and the folks that validate and return the tags. For informational purposes, these are the CA rules . -TONY Tag Information (Exerpts from Section 708(a), Title 14, CCR) Tagging Requirements: Immediately upon killing a deer, both portions of the deer license tag must be completely filled out and the date of kill permanently marked on the deer license tag. The deer license tag must be attached to the antlers of an antlered deer or to the ear of any other deer and kept attached during the open season and for 15 days thereafter. Except as otherwise provided, possession of any untagged deer shall be a violation (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4336). Tag Validation and Countersigning Requirements, and Transporting for the Purpose of: Any person legally killing a deer in this state shall have the deer license tag validated and countersigned by a person authorized by the commission as described below before transporting such deer, except for the purpose of taking the deer to the nearest person authorized to countersign the license tag, on the route being followed from the point where the deer was taken (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4341). Deer Head Retention Requirements and Production Upon Demand: Any person taking any deer in this state shall retain in their possession during the open season thereon and for 15 days thereafter, that portion of the head which in adult males normally bears the antlers, and shall produce the designated portion of the head upon the demand of any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this regulation (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4302). License & Tag Information Deer Tag Reporting Requirements: Every person to whom a deer tag is issued shall return the completed report card portion to the department within thirty days of taking a deer. Deer Violations, Tag Forfeiture: Any person who is convicted of a violation involving deer shall forfeit their current year deer license tags and no new deer license tags may be issued to that person during the then current hunting license year, and that person may not apply for a deer tag for the following license year (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4340). Deer and Elk Tags, Persons Authorized to Validate. The following persons are authorized to validate or countersign deer and elk tags: (A) State 1. Fish and Game Commissioners 2. Employees of the Department of Fish and Game 3. Deputy Foresters 4. Assistant Deputy Foresters 5. Forest Rangers 6. Park Rangers--Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 7. Supervising Plant Quarantine Inspectors 8. Junior, Intermediate and Senior Plant Quarantine Inspectors 9. Foresters 10. Fire Prevention Officers--Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 11 . Fire Captains 12. Fire Apparatus Engineers (B ) Federal: (FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, BLM = Bureau of Land Management) 1. Range Technicians (BLM) 2. Forest Supervisors (FS) 3. Assistant Forest Supervisors (FS) 4. District Forest Rangers (FS) 5. Foresters (FS, BLM) 6. Range Conservationists (FS, BLM) 7. Forest Engineers (FS, BLM) 8. Forestry Aides (FS) 9. Fire Control Officers or Aides (FS, BLM) 10. Clerks (FS, FWS, BLM) while on duty at their headquarters 11 . Game Management Agents (FWS) 12. Wildlife Management Biologists (FS, FWS, BLM) 13. District Managers (BLM) 14. Information Specialists (BLM) 15. Area Managers (BLM) 16. Realty Specialists (BLM) 17. Natural Resource Specialists (BLM) 18. Engineers (BLM) 19. Engineering Technicians (BLM) 20. Recreation Resource Specialists (BLM) 21. Geologists (BLM) 22. Recreation Aides (BLM) 23. All Uniformed Personnel of the National Park Service 24. Commanding officers of any United States military installation or their designated personnel for deer taken on their reservation. 25. Postmasters 26. Post Office Station or Branch Manager for deer brought to their post office. (C ) Miscellaneous: 1. County firemen at and above the class of foreman for deer brought into their station. 2. Judges or Justices of all state and United States courts. 3. Notaries Public 4. Peace Officers 5. Nonsalaried police officers or deputy sheriffs while on scheduled duty in a city or county of appointment for deer brought to a police station or sheriff’s office 6. Officers authorized to administer oaths 7. Owners, corporate officers, managers or operators of lockers or cold storage plants for deer brought to their place of business. (D) No person may validate or countersign their own tag.

Bob, Can you more thoroughly explain how the system works in CA? -TONY

If that intent existed, it would likely state such in the law, as in "according to the legal methods..." etc. And although it has no bearing on this case since it doesn't relate to legal HUNTING methods but to the taking of animals under a depredation statute, anyone can legally shoot deer, elk or antelope in NM with a shotgun during a regular hunting season as described in: Legal Sporting Arm Types Any Legal Sporting Arm Centerfire rifle or handgun; shotgun no smaller than 28 gauge, firing a single slug; any bow and arrows; any muzzleloading rifle. Crossbows may be used only by Certified Mobility-Impaired Hunters, see page 15. The same is true with shotguns for all big game in AZ, BTW. -TONY

You're preaching to the choir about the ranching/elk issue here. I just provided those meeting minutes as somewhat interesting reading material to show why this issue is ongoing in EVERY western state that have elk and likely will be for years to come. But again, any of the current laws can be changed. ANY group or individual is free to start an initiative proposal. Given enough signatures, it makes it to the ballot and people get to vote on it. That done, it's pretty much irreversible, unlike statutes enacted by the legislature that can be changed with a whim. As for bull elk being dangerous, if we ever get to meet, remind me to tell you about the 6x6 that had me pinned behind a tree for 5 minutes while we both went in circles -- he with his antlers wrapped on both sides of the trunk and me trying to keep my body far enough away but not relinguishing the cover the tree afforded me. Fortunately, a satellite bull came to my rescue by distracting my foe long enough for me to escape unharmed except for soiled pants. RE: MO laws You probably are aware of this, but until 1969, the laws there were similar to here under the "open range" statutes. Now it's a "closed range" state where livestock owners must control their critters. -TONY

Also, in the way of clarification as stated in the Title 17 statutes: 17-102. Wildlife as state property; exceptions Wildlife, both resident and migratory, native or introduced, found in this state, except fish and bullfrogs impounded in private ponds or tanks or wildlife and birds reared or held in captivity under permit or license from the commission, are property of the state and may be taken at such times, in such places, in such manner and with such devices as provided by law or rule of the commission.

And..here is the relevent statute from the Title 17 codes that address depredation issues in AZ. -TONY 17-239. Wildlife depredations; investigations; corrective measures; disposal; reports; judicial review A. Any person suffering property damage from wildlife may exercise all reasonable measures to alleviate the damage, except that reasonable measures shall not include injuring or killing game mammals, game birds or wildlife protected by federal law or regulation unless authorized under subsection D of this section. A person may not retain or sell any portion of an animal taken pursuant to this subsection except as provided in section 3-2403. B. Any person suffering such property damage, after resorting to the relief as is provided in subsection A of this section, may file a written report with the director, advising the director of the damage suffered, and the species of animals causing the damage, and the director shall immediately order an investigation and report by an employee trained in the handling of wild animal depredation. C. The department shall provide technical advice and assist in the necessary anti-depredation measures recommended in the report, including trapping, capturing and relocating animals. D. If harvest of animals is found to be necessary to relieve damage, the commission may establish special seasons or special bag limits, and either set reduced fees or waive any or all license fees required by this title, to crop that wildlife. If the commission determines that this cropping by hunters is impractical, it may issue a special permit for taking that wildlife to the landowner, lessee, livestock operator or municipality suffering damage, provided that the edible portions, or other portions as prescribed by the commission, of all the wildlife taken by the person suffering damage are turned over to an agent of the department for delivery to a public institution or charitable organization. E. Except as provided in section 41-1092.08, subsection H, in the event any person suffering property damage from wildlife is dissatisfied with the final decision of the commission, the person may seek judicial review pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

Here are the minutes from a 2001 AZ G&F commission meeting where the issue of crop damage by elk was the topic. -TONY

Forgot this part: The reason is simple: it too is LAW. In this case, it is part of this state's "open range" statutes that have been in existence for decades. But I think there are also some restrictions included where the owner is possibly liable. Also under the open range laws, if you want to keep someone else's cattle off your property, YOU must fence in your property. AND, if YOUR dog is harassing someone's cattle, he has the right to kill the dog on the spot. Of course, any of the laws can be changed by either the legislature or the public initiative route. -TONY

Well, yeah; it says that in the first sentence of the article you posted (see below), and no where in the law does it say he couldn't use it, a shotgun or 105mm howitzer on his private land. "A northern New Mexico rancher using a shotgun and an all-terrain vehicle has chased down and shot dozens of antelope feeding in his wheat field, according to the state Game and Fish Department. "

Doesn't make any difference. If the state owns the game but then the state passes legislation or rules that allows someone to take or kill such, it is not only legal but constitutional as well. That's exactly why we get the privilege to hunt the state's game. And yes, you are correct that it could happen here under the same circumstances IF the legislature or G&F put such a law/rule into effect. TX has a similar law except the landowner must obtain depredation permits before taking action. -TONY

Ain't it great to live in a country where every citizen of legal age is free to vote for his or her choice, and where the person who wins under the system in place then becomes president? -TONY

Oh, the slippery slopes we sometimes build. -TONY

Only guessing here, but perhaps he wasn't collecting ANY income or fees, i.e. not getting or selling landowner tags. Of course, that's also his right -- not allowing hunting on his property. -TONY

Someone mentioned the case of Bruce Thompson -- director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Here's the item I wrote for my IN THE FIELD column in the June issue of Rocky Mt. Game & Fish. -TONY NMDGF DIRECTOR CONVICTED Lincoln County Magistrate Martha Proctor recently found Bruce Thompson, director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, guilty for shooting a deer without permission on private land in southeastern New Mexico. He had pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge. Proctor ordered Thompson to pay a $500 fine and sentenced him to 182 days in jail, before suspending the jail time and placing him on probation. The conditions of Thompson's unsupervised probation require that he not violate any local, state or federal laws for 182 days. A second misdemeanor charge of unlawfully hunting or possessing a protected species was still pending at press time. Thompson had pleaded not guilty and was awaiting a jury trial. The charges stemmed from a Nov. 17, 2007 incident on the Diamond T Ranch, west of Roswell. Thompson allegedly killed a deer but didn't get the landowner's permission. Hunting on private property in New Mexico without permission is illegal. Thompson, who did possess a valid deer hunting license, had said he believed he was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit. Based on evidence and witness accounts at the time, investigators determined both misdemeanors were committed unintentionally. New Mexico law does not make allowances for lack of intent, however. The investigating conservation officers said a hunting guide employed by the ranch owner saw Thompson with the dead deer, and later reported the incident to the owner, who then called a NMDGF officer. Thompson's hunting license was valid on public land or on private land with permission. Thompson answered questions and provided a written statement. "I have cooperated with the investigation and I will accept the consequences of my honest mistake," he said. "I apparently used an incorrect entry in my GPS unit while conducting my hunt, but that is no excuse, and I expect to be treated like any other hunter who unintentionally violates wildlife regulations." The hunting guide who reported the incident verified that when he confronted Thompson, the director told the guide he believed he was on Bureau of Land Management land based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit. Thompson later said, "I made an honest mistake, and this situation concerns me because I pride myself on being a hunter who pays meticulous attention to the rules. I used one wrong GPS coordinate when I planned my hunt, which unknowingly led me onto private land. When I realized I might have made an error, I immediately reported the incident to my staff and asked that I be treated no differently than any other hunter, which means I will accept any pertinent consequences." As required by state law, the department seized the mature buck deer and sold the meat.

Not to condone this idiot's actions or say the law is proper, BUT... It appears not everyone is reading the entire article cited above, especially this part of it: The 1997 law that allows ranchers to shoot crop-threatening game is known as the Jennings Law. It is named after its sponsor, Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, who is now the Senate president pro tem. The law allows the no-strings-attached killing of wildlife that presents an "immediate threat" to life or property, specifying only that the shootings be reported within 24 hours. It doesn't matter who owns the game, what he used or what he did. UNDER NM LAW, he had every right to do what he did. (See below). The ONLY way to keep it from happening again is either to amend the current statute to include greater state control -- i.e. such as requiring depredation permits first, etc. -- or to cancel the law completely. -TONY 17-2-7.2. Landowner taking; conditions; department responsibilities. A. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill an animal on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that presents an immediate threat to human life or an immediate threat of damage to property, including crops; provided, however, that the taking or killing is reported to the department of game and fish within twenty-four hours and before the removal of the carcass of the animal killed, in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. B. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill animals on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that present a threat to human life or damage to property, including crops, according to regulations adopted by the commission. The regulations shall: (1) provide a method for filing a complaint to the department by the landowner or lessee, or employee of either of them, of the existence of a depredation problem; (2) provide for various departmental interventions, depending upon the type of animal and depredation; (3) require the department to offer at least three different interventions, if practical; (4) require the department to respond to the initial and any subsequent complaints within ten days with an intervention response to the complaint, and to carry out the intervention, if agreed upon between the department and the landowner, within five days of that agreement; (5) permit the landowner or lessee to reject for good cause the interventions offered by the department; (in this case, his "good cause" in rejecting the fence offer was he didn't want to foot the bill for future maintenance) (6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and (7) permit the landowner, lessee or employee, when interventions by the department have not been successful and after one year from the date of the filing of the initial complaint, to kill or take an animal believed responsible for property depredation. C. For purposes of this section: (1) "commission" means the state game commission; (2) "department" means the department of game and fish; and (3) "intervention" means a solution proposed by the department to eliminate the depredation

All alarms that use a high-pitched beep are inaudible to this long-time shooter who no longer hears sounds in that range. When I travel, I carry a small wind-up alarm that emits a VERY loud buzz! It always packed in one of the small compartments of my soft duffle.-TONY

Great looking birdie. Nice job. -TONY

Subject: Unauthorized Dam - DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2007. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David L. Price District Representative and Water Management Division. ***** From Mr. DeVries: Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. Price, Your certified letter dated 12/17/06 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.) I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof tha t this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers a nd I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2007? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not careful where they dump! Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. THANK YOU, RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

As Mike indicated, the dam letter has been in circulation for a while now, and you certainly don't need my dam permission to use the dam thing. -TONY

That's exactly what I told them. Those few paragraphs are just the lead into a 2,500-word article that will appear in the Oct. issue of RM G&F magazine. -TONY