Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Don Peay: The Man Who Would Be King...Baron

As the liberal, tree-hugger in question here, I thought it only fair that I enter the fray. First, I am both a hunter and fisherman. And I am particularly interested in how being for the creation of wilderness areas, the blocking of harmful roads and the protection of forests can be seen as a less than positive undertaking by anyone who hunts, fishes or otherwise enjoys the out-of-doors. As an active member of the Natural Resources Summit of America organized by BASS in the mid-1990s which brought all the elements of the natural resources community together, I am dismayed that the strong bridges built during that exercise have been purposely destroyed by elements of the extractive industries with the help of powerful forces within the trophy hunting and ranching communities. Now some of this is entertaining like when my relatives in South Carolina bust on me for being an animal rights activists while we are all sitting in a duck blind waiting for the sun to rise. But the rest is not so funny as we are purposely pitted against each other by fellows like Don Peay when we should be working together on pressing issues of mutual concern. And yes we can debate the wolf issue and you can certainly lay that at my door step because I was one of the volunteers who went to Ft. Saint John BC at the end of January in 1996 to bring those animals south. But I am also a wildlife biologist and I have yet to see the scientific evidence of the doom being created by wolves. I have, however, seem evidence of widespread summer habitat issues and competition with cattle on public lands as well as the effects of climate change driven drought on overall habitat quality. I think these are all things that we should talked about in the absence of name-calling and based on facts and science. Let's see if we can do that.

Bob Ferris
Cascadia Wildlands

Thanks for posting this. I think it is an important discussion.

Bob Ferris
Cascadia Wildlands

Right, Bob Ferris of Defenders of Wildlife. VP if I remember right. You say you "volunteered" to fetch those wolves from Canada? I think it was more like on the company dime that you went up there. Never mind the National Wolf Strategy for the Lower 48. And you and Hank Fischer wanted to jam grizzlies into the Bitterroot with all the bells and whistles attached.
Never mind that the introduction of wolves and Defenders subsequent resistance to delisting and endless litigation makes it pretty clear that the griz thing in the Bitterroots would have been an equivalent "occupy and conquer" disaster.
I guess I have one question. Why would you give up a coosh job with Defenders for a podunk EF! spinoff? Rodger Schlickeisen was your protector or something?

All of us who went to Canada that winter volunteered to travel into -45 degree weather with out facilities for most of the day. I left Defenders and DC because I was ready to do something else and get out of an urban environment. Staying in DC much more than I did made little sense for a wildlife biologist who wanted to be in wilder areas. Simple as that.

Defenders and SFW, not too long ago, were on the same side of the delisting issue.

Ironic...

One of the bullet points for azsfw on legislating 350 tags for special interest funding was to lobby against wolf introduction... especially in areas that wolves were never indigenous before... what sportsman wouldn't want that?

Except that those funds can't be utilized by a 501C-4 lobbyist, they would have to be laundered through a 501C-3... azsfw'c', c for 'conservation', is a separate 501C-3 from azsfw 501C-4.

Now, at a board meeting I was challenged to be at, after the president of azsfwc gave his presentation of why they needed these tag funds... and then asked for questions.

I asked who would administrate the funds... he said azsfwc... I then asked if azsfwc could transfer funds to azsfw to use for political lobbying and he wasn't expecting such an obvious question and was confused. I then addressed the board and many heads were shaking No and no one challenged my observation... I pointed out the can of worms opened by this legislation and how the anti orgs would most likely go to court, not to undo, but to gain their own tags on the precedent set, what a cluster it would become... and heads were nodding yes.

Anyway, we are in dangerous times and some dangerous precedents are being set, on purpose. We need to work through our local and national orgs through donations... same as the NRA works... and not use the model of ACORN, NAACP of public funding for political issues and private gain.

Utah DWR and SFW are locked together now and no matter what they say, .008 of a budget isn't the reason though it is the logical fallacy. Only Utah sportsmen can rectify the situation there.

The rest of us can only try to contain the virus in our state when it infects.

Kent

Kent,

Obviously, Defenders and SFW were on that "same side" for different reasons. The irony is that Defenders' reasons are related to the very issue that we are talking about here vis a vis SFW: state systems that are more vulnerable to political pressure and fear than they are to sound science and reason.

And 501(c)3s can lobby, the just have limits. What 501(c)4s can do that c(3)s cannot is participate in electioneering (i.e., work to get folks elected)and that is why donations to (c)4s are not deductible. The interesting thing here is that Big Game Forever is neither, they are an LLC or a for-profit entity which has very limited public reporting. They may have become a (c)3 or (c)4 but all of their materials currently list them as an LLC.

Defenders and a lot of other biodiversity protection groups, were concerned that once states gained control of wolves that it would be pretty much open season rather than measured and surgical management. I think the fact that Idaho sold 70,000 permits that were applied across 1000 or so wolves bears this out. Where else would you see something like that and think that is defensible as a "management plan." Hysteria yes but management no.

azsfw was a super PAC, which is a whole nother level.

SFW/BGF have set a dangerous precedent of legislating funds for political lobby of wildlife, no matter their status.

Either states control the management of predators that prey on the wildlife intrusted to their care under the Public Trust Doctrine... or they need to remove themselves completely of any biological support, enforcement and leave it to federal jurisdiction.

The only way to control predators is to kill them... old lesson.

Hybred/genetically different predators and/or introducing them into areas they have never been isn't biodiversity... it's a zoo concocted in the imagination of urbanites.

Kent

It's illegal to kill wolves here in NM

This is what folks have to do to protect their children at rural bus stops

I'm sure people in many communities in the West would like to thank bf for his work and what it has spawned.

Same here is az... this issue will not be settled over legislated funds that are a red herring at best. There is a true fight going on and SFW is not the leader, just a distraction and in the past a hindrance.

I don't apologize to anyone for being a predator and not wanting wolves in areas where humans fundamentally exist not just visit, especially hybreds, The biodiversity crowd are quick to biodiverse where they don't live... I don't see them tearing down cities to rehabitat.

Kent

They can start with Detroit.

Ha! Wolf proof bus stops. That's hilarious. What a bunch of paranoid crybabies. The dingo got my baby!!

Kent,
I think if you review the reintroduction documents and the associated scientific commentary, the right animal we put in the right areas. The red wolves situation is a little tricky but that is more a result of the history of wolf/canid colonization and recolonization in North America which was just being sorted out as the recovery plans were being developed.

And biodiversity preservation is about species but it is also about functions such as predation particularly as we look at disease control and habitat over-utilization.

It is funny that you mention Detroit because they actually are tearing down buildings and creating parks and agricultural areas because they cannot afford to provide services for unoccupied structures and abandoned neighborhoods. In essence it is cheaper to tear them down than patrol them and keep them supplied with utilities. You will also find, if you look at my career, I have a long history of looking for creative and economically rewarding ways to bring more wildlife habitat to urban and industrialized areas.

Wow, coyotes have attacked more kids than wolves, and you never saw any cages built to protect kids. Knee jerk reaction by ignorant people. Laffin!

Again bf, the hunters in the West and rural residents thank you for your "hard work"

Headed fishing for a few days, there's a reason wolves and humans don't coexist well. Biodiversity doesn't work without containment.

There is no "containment" when it comes to wolves.

The sky is falling.

The devil's in the details cunnilingus..

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/article_423cde12-86e4-11e2-b8c1-0019bb2963f4.html

" First, I am both a hunter and fisherman"

Bob, did you buy a wolf tag?