From a Pennsylvania Game Commision press release:
Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Conservation Officers today announced that, on Oct. 29, [Andrew Moore, 46, of Tannersville] pled guilty to 30 counts of illegal possession of various species ranging from blue jays to raccoons, from chipping sparrows to gray squirrels, from groundhogs to purple finches. . . .

As part of the plea agreement, charges against Moore for cruelty to animals were withdrawn. District Judge Thomas E. Olsen, of Tannersville, ordered Moore to pay $2,250 in fines, and $750 in reimbursement to the Pocono Wildlife Rehabilitation Center for expenses incurred treating the wildlife that survived.

Check out the full, strange story.

OK, waterfowl hunters, here's a question for you: if you had a chance to hand over one of your ducks to a world-class chef and have him turn it into a meal fit for the most discriminating of gourmands, what species of duck would you choose?
 
Believe it or not, this isn't a hypothetical question, at least for California duck hunters.
 
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – With fall duck hunting season about to take flight, Sacramento’s own Grange Restaurant & Bar is giving area hunters the chance to bring their (dearly departed) feathered friends into the restaurant and pay respects in delicious style as part of an exclusive four-course meal prepared by acclaimed Executive Chef Michael Tuohy. As the ducks make their fall pilgrimages across ...

... the Pacific Flyaway, a select few will have a “shot” at becoming part of this memorable dining experience. Beginning October and continuing through January, hunters are able to bring their bounty into Grange 48 hours prior to dinner reservations. Not one to take the birds’ sacrifice lightly, Chef Tuohy will meet with each hunter and then create an amazing dinner menu, ensuring that the birds do not meet their delicious fates in vain. With a final ”bill” of only $75 per person, local hunters would be “quacks” to miss out on the repast.

A leader in California’s Slow Food movement, Chef Tuohy selects from seasonal and locally grown ingredients, nearly all of which are found within 100 miles of Sacramento. “This is the perfect opportunity to provide guests with a unique dining experience that celebrates the bounty of California and lives up to our mission of providing the best this region has to offer,” said Tuohy.  “We take great pride in being on the forefront of this Slow Food movement in Northern California, and our American Brasserie inspired menu options change daily to reflect this commitment.”

How cool is that? You make your reservations, go shoot a duck (hopefully), take it straight to the restaurant, kick back in your waders, have a drink and before you know it you're being served a four-star epicurean delight. You kill it. We cook it, but with style and panache. I think it's a brilliant idea and I'd gladly pay $75 for the opportunity to sit amongst a crowd of upscale diners, smug in the knowledge I was the only one gnoshing on something that I'd personally killed that morning.

But what duck to take? It would have to be something special. I've eaten pretty much everything, and if you asked me what my favorite-eating duck is, I'd say teal, but that's not what I'd hand over. Oh, no. Why? Too easy. Anyone can make a teal delicious. Real chefs like a challenge, so when I walked through the door I'd have a common merganser on my duck strap. OK, Chef Tuohy, let's see what you can do with that... 

In the never-ending debate over the impact of non-native species, there are invaders many of us have come to accept and even revere (the ringneck pheasant, Huns, chukars) and there are invaders that are almost universally reviled (the snakehead, kudzu, zebra mussels, Texas Longhorn fans).
 
But according to this interesting piece in Slate maybe invasive species, both "good" and "bad" really aren't such a big deal, after all.

From the story:
Tamarisk, a Eurasian shrub, is your classic invasive species—designated one of America's "least wanted" plants by the National Parks Service. In recent decades, it has spread along Southwestern riverbanks, replacing native trees such as willows and cottonwoods...Measures to thwart them include burning, herbicides, and "tammy whacking" (physical removal sometimes done by freelance volunteers). A few years ago, the USDA let loose thousands of leaf-eating Asian beetles in order to sic them on tamarisks, which die from the defoliation...But these efforts to oust the intruder have encountered a glitch. It turns out that a charismatic endangered bird—the southwestern willow flycatcher—is known to nest in the offending shrubs. Last March, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the government, charging that indiscriminately killing tamarisks jeopardizes the flycatcher
 
These controversies highlight a broader debate within "invasion biology," a field that emerged in the 1980s. Some scientists—such as Matthew Chew, Dov Sax , and Mark Davis—are challenging what they consider old prejudices about "alien" species. They point out the inevitability of change and the positive roles that non-natives can play in ecosystems, while describing eradication projects as often wasteful and even counterproductive.
 
It's certainly a provocative point of view. At what point do "invaders" become so established that they're essentially native? Take pheasants for example. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more popular gamebird than the ringneck pheasant. Millions of hunters pursue it. Dozens of states spend millions more managing for it. It has its own conservation group. It literally supports an entire industry. Huns? Introduced. Chukars? Introduced. Brown trout? Introduced. And beloved, all of them. The list goes on and on. The argument could certainly be made that there really isn't such a thing as a completely "native" ecosystem at all any more and as such arguments for them are superfluous.
 
So is the potential loss of native species worth the potential gains of the newcomers? For example, would you support programs to boost dwindling native gamebird species like lesser prairie chickens even at the expense of more popular non-natives like pheasants? What are your favorite "invasive" species, and if given the chance would you trade them for a native?

We all know there isn’t much love lost between hunters and anti-hunters, but nobody wishes anybody any real harm—except when some crazy anti-hunter does wish us real harm and a newspaper has the poor taste to print his wish. Then it’s the hunters, in this case the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who take the high ground.

From the NSSF website:
Shameful is the word that comes to mind for the Burlington Free Press and its decision to print a reader's anti-hunting letter. . . . that was written in response to the Vermont paper's story about the opening of moose hunting season. . . .

Here's the letter:
Take a Few Hunters Along with the Moose
On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to "pursue prized quarry." Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.

The NSSF asked for an apology and got one, as well an Op-ed from Wayne LaRoche, commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.