Big Horn Armory Model 89 Lever-Action Carbine

Big Horn Armory

Cody, WY --(Ammoland.com)- Obadiah was a field mouse living on his land out in the country in Wyoming.

Because of his hard work, he was a successful farmer and business mouse.

However, Obadiah was completely surrounded by large cats. Some of these cats had land with mineral rights that, if worked correctly, could bring great wealth and a contented way of life for the cat community.

The problem with the cats was that, even with all the land and potential wealth, they fixated their time and hostile efforts on the tiny patch of extremely productive land that Obadiah owned. In the name of their cat- God, they declared a holy cat war on Obadiah, his family and his fellow mice who lived on this land.

Obadiah from the Bible was a successful man who was a servant of God and used his own wealth to hide and protect the persecuted. The Wyoming Obadiah was also a protector of his fellow mice.

The cats came on multiple occasions to strike at Obadiah, many times in herds of cats. I am sure you can recall the expression “like trying to herd cats,” implying that, just as you cannot make a group of cats move in the same direction, at the same time, to accomplish a common goal, you cannot make some people move to accomplish a task. Trying to get a group of cats to strike at a common target and function in a coordinated effort is extremely rare.

What cats will do is wait until one cat has wounded its prey, and then the un-herd will move in as a collective body to share in the spoils.

Wyoming Obadiah, knowing the ways of cats and that he had a duty to protect his land and his fellow mice, decided he must out-gun the cats. He acquired a Wyoming made Big Horn Armory Model 89 lever action rifle in 500 S&W magnum. The cats were sorely afraid of the Model 89. They did not have such a weapon. They knew the Model 89 was capable of massive destruction of cats, should they attempt to attack Obadiah.

So they did what cats and children do when they do not get their way-they whined and complained to whomever would listen. “We do not have a Model 89 and no one will give us one.” “It is not fair.” “There needs to be a worldwide committee set up to look into Obadiah and his Model 89.” “There needs to be restrictions placed on Obadiah, his land and his Model 89.”

After all, what happens if the next time a cat or un-herd of cats tries attacking Obadiah, and he is so concerned he cannot repel the cats by conventional means, he brings out the big gun-the Model 89? Why won’t someone give us cats a Model 89? It is not fair-it is not fair. Do you think if we stood in the streets just outside of Obadiah’s land and threw stones & rocks and called to our cat-God to destroy Obadiah, that someone would give us a Model 89?

The cats were sorely afraid of the Big Horn Armory Model 89 Lever-Action Carbine.

The Model 89 is so powerful that if Obadiah fires it at one cat, the collateral damage down range may include many other cats. That is not fair-that is not fair. Obadiah continues to try to live in peace, even as he is circled daily by ever larger and more vicious cat-God inspired felines who wish to attack and be martyred into cat heaven.

Obadiah is a God fearing mouse and does not want the blood of many cats on his hands. He knows how the Model 89 works and what it will do to the cats, but he has never fired the “89.” He truly fears the day will come when he must make that deadly decision.

Obadiah knows he can fire the “89” many times and smite his enemies, but if he fails to defend even once, the cat un-herds will rush in and feed on the bodies of his fellow mice. If this happens, Obadiah’s lands will fall-perhaps-forever into the paws of the cats. Cats, who, after feasting on the dead, will allow the land to go feral and barren. The cats will also be free to prey on mice living outside of Obadiah’s former land and protection.

Make no mistake-Obadiah will use his Model 89, firing a Mt. Baldy Bullet, 50 caliber, 450 grain cat annihilating, Keith bullet, specially lubricated with beeswax and lard. He will do this before he allows the destruction of his own kind and his land, driving a spike into the heart of evil.

Cats have no idea what is truly fair or unfair, but they must learn–hopefully not from the mouth of a Model 89.

Responsive Management

Harrisonburg, VA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Fish and wildlife agencies nationwide are under increasing pressure to respond to nuisance wildlife calls and situations. Yet many agencies receive no funding for these activities — it simply constitutes an added-on, unfunded responsibility.

The differences between the responses of Delaware residents and Division employees presented below reveal a common dilemma for many fish and wildlife agencies that involves wildlife management, funding, and public expectations: What level of involvement should fish and wildlife agencies have in managing nuisance wildlife?

In the survey, about 1 in 5 Delaware residents (22%) indicate that they have had problems with wild animals or birds in their neighborhood or around their home — that means that close to 150,000 Delaware residents experience such problems. The most common problem animals are deer, raccoons, opossums, birds, foxes, woodchucks or groundhogs, and squirrels. Common problems are damage to gardens, damage to yards, threat to humans, threat or harm to pets, getting into garbage, structural damage to homes or buildings, and agricultural damage.

Delaware residents were asked who they think should be most responsible for addressing nuisance wildlife problems in Delaware, and they could name more than one entity. A majority of residents named the Division (66% think the Division should be most responsible). Other commonly named entities include the property owners themselves (31%) and local or county governments (31%). Given the scenario that the Division would address nuisance wildlife in specific incidents, Delaware residents were asked if the Division should primarily provide advice and guidance only or provide services such as removal as well (or if the Division should provide both about equally). The large majority (75%) indicated that the Division should provide both about equally; otherwise, they are split between advice/guidance (12%) and services (10%). In this question, 85% of Delaware residents give an answer that entails the Division providing some removal services.

In follow-up, Delaware residents were presented with the scenario that the Division would provide removal services. Residents were then asked if they agree or disagree that the Division should charge a fee to do so, and they are evenly split: 46% agree, and 47% disagree.

Division employees were also asked if they agree or disagree that the Division should be responsible for the removal of nuisance wildlife, and a majority of employees (61%) disagree that the Division should be responsible for such removal.

In the same follow-up as the resident survey, employees were presented with the scenario that the Division would provide removal services. Employees were then asked if they agree or disagree that the Division should charge a fee to do so, and the large majority (80%) agree that the Division should charge a fee for such services.

Some fish and wildlife professionals feel that involvement with nuisance wildlife beyond simple technical assistance should not be the responsibility of the state fish and wildlife agency. Others feel that the issue should be embraced and that it represents an opportunity for additional funding and a way to connect the agency with urban and suburban residents. Some fish and wildlife professionals also feel that nuisance wildlife is a wildlife management issue that will not go away and should be dealt with by the agencies in some way.

Regardless of individual philosophy, agencies will have to deal with ever-increasing nuisance wildlife calls in one manner or another, and internal and external assessments such as this study can provide an important starting point for confronting new and non-traditional wildlife management issues

About:
Responsive Management is a public opinion survey research firm specializing in natural resource, wildlife, environmental, and outdoor recreation issues. Visit: www.responsivemanagement.com

Feral Cats Kill 10,000,000's of Game Birds & Small Animals Every Month

Urban Wildlands Group

Los Angeles, CA --(Ammoland.com)- Conservation groups win suit to force city to conduct required environmental review of feral cat program

Six conservation groups won a lawsuit on Friday against the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Animal Services to stop the practice of encouraging feral cat colonies until the legally required environmental impact reviews are performed.

The Los Angeles Superior Court found that the City of Los Angeles had been “secretly and unofficially” promoting “Trap-Neuter-Return,” a controversial program to allow feral cats to run free, even while the Department of Animal Services promised to conduct an environmental review of the program.

The Court ordered the City to stop implementing TNR.

The plaintiffs, The Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and the American Bird Conservancy, sued the City in June 2008 to ensure that the controversial program to sanction and maintain feral cat colonies was not implemented before a full and public environmental analysis.

The groups decided legal action was necessary after their investigation revealed that the City had been unofficially implementing a so-called “Trap-Neuter-Return” program and the City repeatedly declined their request to stop implementing the program until environmental review was performed.

Although the City insisted that no such program existed, the Court concurred with the conservation groups and concluded in its Friday ruling that, “implementation of the program is pervasive, albeit ‘informal and unspoken.”

“Our goal was to see that the City follows the California Environmental Quality Act by thoroughly assessing the program’s impacts on the environment and considering alternatives and mitigation measures before making specific programmatic decisions,” said Babak Naficy, attorney for plaintiffs.

“Feral cats have a range of impacts to wildlife, human health, and water quality in our cities. The impacts of institutionalizing the maintenance of feral cat colonies through TNR should be discussed in an open, public process before any such program is implemented,” Naficy said.

In June 2005, the Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners adopted TNR as the “preferred method of dealing with feral cat populations as its official policy.” Thereafter, the Board directed the General Manager to prepare an analysis of the program under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This analysis was never completed but the Department implemented major portions of the program anyway.

The Department issued coupons for free or discounted spay/neuter procedures for feral cats being returned to neighborhoods and open spaces, including parks and wildlife areas. It also began refusing to accept trapped feral cats or to issue permits to residents to trap feral cats. The Department assisted outside organizations that performed TNR by donating public space, advertising their services, and referring the public to their TNR programs. The Department even encouraged and assisted in establishing new feral cat colonies at City-owned properties. The Superior Court recognized these actions as illegal implementation of the TNR program that could have an impact on the environment and enjoined the City from further pursuing the program until it complied with CEQA.

Dr. Travis Longcore, Science Director of The Urban Wildlands Group, said, “Feral cats are documented predators of native wildlife. We support spaying and neutering all cats in Los Angeles, which is the law, but do not support release of this non-native predator into our open spaces and neighborhoods where they kill birds and other wildlife.”

Even when fed by humans, cats instinctively hunt prey, including birds, lizards and small mammals. Colonies of feral cats, often thriving with the aid of handouts from humans, harm native wildlife and contaminate water bodies with fecal bacteria.

Longcore continued, “TNR is promoted as a way to reduce feral cat populations but scientific research shows that 70–90% of cats must be sterilized for cat populations to decline. This is virtually impossible to achieve in practice, but population reduction can be achieved with only 50% removal.”

The City must now stop its TNR program and any further proposal to implement such a program must undergo objective scientific review as part of the CEQA process. This will ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to comment and that significant impacts on parks, wildlife, water quality, and human health are avoided.

For further information about Trap-Neuter-Return see:

• Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. M. Sullivan. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap–neuter–return. Conservation Biology 23(4):887–894. http://www.ca.audubon.org/chapter_assets/Longcoreetal2009ConBio.pdf
• Williams, T. 2009. Felines fatales. Audubon Magazine. Sept-Oct, pp. 30–38. http://audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html
• Hat Tip: http://tnrrealitycheck.com/legalert.asp

About:
The Urban Wildlands Group is dedicated to the conservation of species, habitats, and ecological processes in urban and urbanizing areas.

Center for Wildlife Health Research

Pownal, ME --(AmmoLand.com)-We applaud the recent essay by Longcore et al. (In Press) in raising the awareness about trap-neuter-return (TNR) to the conservation community. TNR has gained a great deal of traction in recent years as an accepted form of feral cat management, but it has not lived up to the ideal it proffers. We concur with the authors’ thoughts and findings on TNR, but we also believe that there are several additional points that need to be highlighted concerning feral cat management and TNR in regards to environmental conservation.

First, TNR is often presented to policymakers and the public as a scientifically valid and humane way of controlling and managing homeless and unwanted cats that are typically found in colonies. Proponents of TNR are well organized and push for TNR-friendly policies in communities and shelters around the US, often with little opposition from the conservation and wildlife communities. It is imperative that we now begin speaking out.

By way of example, those of us who are conservation biologists should look to the evolutionary biology community. When local policies or regulations are put forth that promote the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, the evolutionary biologists have responded in force from across the nation and world. Such responses have been successful in defeating attempts to favor the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, and serve to remind the public that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. We the conservation community should consider the issue of TNR in the same light, and challenge such propositions when they are raised. Without such challenges by those who are knowledgeable about the subject, we simply allow the use of TNR to grow, and thereby gain further acceptance.

Second, the conservation biology and wildlife ecology communities need to build bridges with the animal welfare, veterinary, and public health communities. Many organizations within these communities oppose TNR, cat colonies, and outdoor cats in general, since cats living in these conditions tend to have shorter lives, higher levels of parasites and disease, and generally poorer health.

In fact, in Maine, cats are the leading domestic rabies vector. While proponents of TNR assert that they are providing services that allow cats to live full and healthy lives, the facts show that free-roaming and feral cats are often in very poor condition (Jessup 2004). The animal welfare community opposes ‘cat hoarding’ whereby people care for more pets than they can adequately support, because it is considered inhumane. TNR is essentially cat hoarding without walls. Considering that most communities have laws banning animal hoarding, we should consider the same standard for outdoor cats as those that are in a person’s home.

What then to do about the problems of outdoor cats, cat colonies, and unwanted cats?
The owned cat population is growing and likely mirrored by a growing population of feral cats (Schmidt et al. 2007). This problem almost certainly has been exacerbated by the current economic recession, whereby increasing numbers of pets are being abandoned or surrendered to shelters (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2009).

Concurrently, there are increasing efforts to convert animal shelters into “no kill” facilities. As a result, we face the conundrum of how to humanely deal with more and more feral cats. There is no simple answer that will please all parties, in large part because we now find ourselves in the unpleasant position of having far too many feral cats in the environment with no single solution that is acceptable to all.

Ultimately, the issue of feral cats is a social problem and one that many find uncomfortable due to the highly charged emotions associated with it. No one wants to euthanize animals and no one likes to see them suffer. But unfortunately, the consequences of allowing cats to roam wild or live in colonies with extremely poor health conditions are less humane than euthanasia.

We as a society do not allow dogs, ferrets, livestock or other domestic animals to roam free or live in the wild in colonies, and the same should be true for cats. Cats deserve the same humane treatment and legal regard as dogs and other pets.

We suggest that the following actions should be encouraged.

• First, conservation biologists, wildlife ecologists, and the like should have open dialogues with the animal welfare, sheltering, veterinary, and public health communities. These communities are generally on the same ultimate page of desiring to promote animal welfare and reducing cat overpopulation. If we do not begin to work together, we will face strong obstacles in reducing the numbers of feral cats present on our landscapes. Second, the wildlife and conservation communities need to challenge policies that are put forth to allow and/or promote feral cat colonies and TNR. Conservation biologists have just as much opportunity to make their points at local meetings, through the news media, and at outreach events as do TNR proponents.
• Second, although feral cats may not be the issue we are most interested in or want to pursue with our time, we should remind ourselves of our responsibility to provide scientific information to the public with regard to the environment.
• Third, the wildlife and conservation communities should advocate for policies that encourage responsible pet ownership as well as for the enforcement of existing policies. This includes requiring licenses for cats, substantially decreasing unwanted breeding of pet cats through mandatory and/or subsidized spaying and neutering, and requiring cats to be kept under their owners’ control at all times when outdoors. In many cases, local ordinances requiring owners to keep their domestic animals under control are enforced for dogs, but not for cats. In these cases, such policies are already in place but require increased enforcement in order to be effective.
• Fourth, “releasing cats into the wild and supporting feral cat colonies is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as laws prohibiting animal abandonment (Winter 2003).” Thus, it may become incumbent upon us to take legal action against colonies and/or colony managers, particularly in areas that provide habitat for migratory birds or endangered species.
• Fifth, we should seek laws making it illegal to maintain cat colonies on public lands.
• Finally, we need to increase public awareness about being a responsible pet owner, not just for the benefit of cats (and other domestic animals as well), but also for the environment. The issue of feral cats is not going away any time soon, and no matter what options are utilized, it may well be a generation or more before we can expect changes in human actions regarding outdoor cats.

Further delays will amplify the problems. The sooner we take action, the better.

Acknowledgments
We thank Steve Hess for fruitful discussions on the draft manuscript.

Click Here to Read Complete Draft

About:
The Center for Wildlife Health Research was created to help engage citizens in stewardship of wildlife through choices they make in their daily lives. We strive to empower people by showing the direct connections between individual action in ways that help them appreciate the interconnectedness between our actions and those of the wild animals around us.

The Wildlife Society

Erie County, PA --(AmmoLand.com)- The Humane Society of Erie County, like many municipalities, has adopted Trap, Neuter and Release as a method for managing feral cats, even though science tells us that TNR is ineffective in reducing feral cat populations, exceptionally cruel for the cats in question and that such programs take a tremendous toll on native wildlife, including migratory birds and small mammals (see Langhorn, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.W. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23: 887-894).

When are municipalities and their local humane societies going to get a clue?

When will they have the courage to make the hard decisions?

When are state and federal wildlife agencies responsible for conserving our native wildlife going to take municipalities to court under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Act and other federal legislation protecting native wildlife? Predation by managed feral cat colonies on protected species should be considered a “take” under the ESA and other legislation. From this perspective, what cat colony mangers are doing is illegal and should not be tolerated.

When are conservationists going to take action against this ill-advised practice, which has shown to be ineffective in reducing the numbers of feral cats?

The Human Society of Erie and the Humane Society of the United States (that also supports TNR) should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a failed policy which, although it may make them feel good about themselves (and helps them raise money from unsuspecting donors who also want to feel good about themselves), is an unmitigated disaster for our native wildlife. TNR is a policy that helps people avoid the hard decisions regarding feral cats, but in the end, is actually less compassionate and less humane than the alternative.

Conservation organizations and individuals who truely care about the future of life on this planet must come together to oppose TNR as anti-conservation and inhumane. Feral cats are non-native predators which exact a tremendous toll on native wildlife. Combined with other factors, such as habitat loss and pollution, they have the potential to push many species to the brink of extinction.

About:
The Wildlife Society (TWS), founded in 1937, is an international non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.

Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide.