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

We know that forests need to burn though, not to say responsible, focused logging doesn't have a positive effect but we need both. The negative of logging is the need for roads and access, so while we seek to improve habitat we reduce it at the same time with roads/access where elk/deer can be stressed.

I never thought about it before, but did the fire of 1988 lead to the over capacity? Meaning was so much ground opened and good browse established (possibly coupled with average to below average winters in later years) that elk were allowed to thrive too much?

Bob, under what circumstances would you be for the killing of predators?
I am of the opinion that wolves, bears, coyotes, and lions all take valuable protein and turn it into poop. Therefore, just as every race of humans that has set foot on the NA continent has done, we should manage game animals for higher population densities that maximize harvest opportunities.

And back on topic. I believe people like SFW are the beginning of the end for hunting as it is known in NA and should be opposed vigorously.

When it is biologically or ecologically defensible. Like the example that I gave earlier where the habitat was under-exploited and predators were driving down populations. And yes the Yellowstone fires created an abundance of habitat and food. The elk populations responded in absence of dampening by predators and quickly were over-utilizing their habitat. This latter issue was exacerbated by drought conditions and a shortened length of time before brown up.

Read; litigation.

I am not sure it is always productive and constructive to label folks. I certainly would not label myself as an environmentalist, though I am frequently identified as both an environmentalist and animal rights activist--neither label is accurate. Now as to the comments about timber and grazing--I think that both as well as the fossil fuels industry need to be re-examined from a full-cost accounting perspective including their impact on ecological services like clean water,carbon sequestration,and recreational amenities. I think some of the results from examining these systems originally set up to increase settlement of western lands would break down myths of the appropriateness on today's landscape and their real economic impact. And what might have started out as beneficial and profitable several generations ago is now draining our treasury and natural wealth.

Thats what the ESA is for. If the feds says its safe to reduce predator population, why do groups like yours tie the matter up in court for years?

I am not against public grazing per se, but I believe that if a outfit is grazing on government land that they should grant public access for hunting as a quid pro quo. I also believe that private landowners should not be able to benefit from selling public resources and as such leasing for hunting rights should be illegal.

Like I said, it's always been. I nailed it in my first post on page one.






Now, let's talk about your issue of who's really "stealing" the public's tags.

Don Peay, SFW and others, or bob ferris, cascadia wildlands and other like-minded groups

SFW is in the business of growing big game so more tags are available to the public. They do this by improving habitat and being proponents of continual predator control. Their money comes from donations from supporters and from the sale of conservation tags.

The Utah DWR distributes the conservation permits and the Utah Wildlife Board has authority over the number and type. There are rules as to how the proceeds from the sale are allocated.

1. The group who sold the permit gets 10% of the proceeds to cover administrative costs and 60% of the fee is retained. The rules state that those funds must be used on DWR approved wildlife projects and activities. Some donate their share back to the DWR. Of the funds SFW retains, 0% is used for salaries. Since the programs inception in 1981, over 90% of those funds go to programs that directly benifit the species for which the permit was issued in the form of:

1. Habitat improvement and restoration
2. Species transplants
3. Radio telemetry studies and research
4. Aerial surveys
5. Education

Of the total amount of permits available, conservation permits were 5%. They were all limited entry, once-in-a-lifetime hunts. Without this program, projects could not be funded with the DWR's budget. License fees would have to be raised at least 20$ or a larger percentage of licenses would be allocated to non-residents who pay a much higher fee.

Since inception over 76,000,000 dollars have been raised, 5,400,000 of which has come from the six sportsmen's groups who participate. Those dollars a leveraged into matching funds from other agencies and the Federal government

The Utah Legislature recently perfomed an audit of the DWR and concluded:







Now consider bob ferris, cascadia wildlands and other pro-wolf/anti-predator control groups:

They have lobbied for wolf re-introduction and have made it happen. The results have been devastating to ungulate populations, financial conditions of rural communities that depend on hunter's dollars, outfitters and guides, and have had the affect of reducing tags available to the public













http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YS13%281%29.pdf

rc', we can agree on a few things, but the whole SFW thing?

Drink some more LOL..

That's ok.

You can lead a horse to water, but ...

I'd wager that bob ferris has never fired as much as a Daisey Red Ryder.

Now your talking my language. I think the exact opposite would occur if a study occurred concerning the extractive industry - at least coal mining. Have a gander at the cost of coal in full view of new regulation. I can make an operator do anything I deem responsible. How much would you like to pay for your electricity?

Coal mining poses little future threat to the long term environment if reclaimed in the manner currently considered correct. Coal mining is a temporary land use - final reclamation is to take the land back to pre-mining condition. In many areas it improves the pre-mining landscape by reclaiming scars of the past.

Carbon sequestration is mostly a myth. I find it a bit arrogant to think humans are going to engineer climate change. As part of a rule making we studied carbon sequestration on mined lands. In the big scheme of things, it amts to squat.

At the end of the day, what is the alternative electric generation source? Coal is and will be in the near future the cheapest source of electric production.

If you pick nuclear, can we site the reactor in your backyard? Natural gas? Drill rig on your land? Wind mills - want 20-30 on your land? A look at the windmills along I-70 around Salina, KS look cool at night but not so much during the day.

Its easy to say NO to everything but decisions must be made. What is your solution?

Public lands livestock grazing costs the American public $124 million dollars annually and estimates of full costs in terms of below market leases, damage to fish and wildlife and ecological services range from $500 million to $1 billion.

I think one of the good things about this dialogue is that more possibilities get introduced into the discussion about wolves and elk particularly in the context of the Northern Yellowstone herd. Things like the effect of the 1988 fire that opened up vast areas of habitat and emergent vegetation and then natural succession happened and did just the opposite taking away a food source when there were even more elk to feed. Then there is the whole concept of density dependence which is discussed in the below article and defined in the other link. This basically tests the principle that reproductive rates are generally high when densities are low and low when population densities are high. The third piece below talks about the fire and its impacts but it also talks some about the elk population crashes in the 1950s and 1960s in the absence of wolves that were attributed to drought and were very similar to what we are seeing now. Those who think that it is obvious that wolves are the problem have not taken time to look at all the moving part in this system.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...4&uid=3739256&sid=21101988299157

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_dependence

http://www.x98ruhf.net/yellowstone/fire.htm

We will agree to disagree. Idaho fit that theory? I'm also guessing the wildlife mgrs group that published the article on the Yellowstone and their findings seem to implicate wolves as a major contributing factor.

CR, So how much would you wager hot shot, because I need some new gear? I know you would like this to be true because that would make it easier for you to discount what I say and demonize me as one of "them" rather than one of "us." But it is simply not the case. Certainly I worked for Defenders of Wildlife but I was hired as they were transitioning into a science driven organization and they felt the fact that I was also a hunter and an angler was a plus. But I am sure your attempt to characterize me as a non-hunter or anti-hunting would please the Don Peay's and David Allen's of the world who are throwing science out the window; tightening ties with ranchers and the extractive interests that are diminishing the ecological value of our public lands; and orchestrating the privatization of the wildlife resources we all want to enjoy. (This is actually pretty funny as I am now about two feet from an official Daisy Red Ryder BB gun that I bought for my wife so she could peg deer invading her garden.)

But it's complicated.

I'm really having a hard time believing you're a "hunter and fisherman first" bf.

It is complicated - most natural systems are.

But - the 'coincidence' of wolf re-introduction and 70% decline in elk populations is pretty hard to overlook. And attribute to system complexity. At a minimum, wolf re-introduction is a significant factor. The thing I find most disturbing is the willingness to overlook the 'coincidence' and point to habitat, drought and any one of a myriad of things that have been going forever. I don't find it mere coincidence. Apparently the wildlife managers group didn't think so either.

I'm from PA and started deer hunting in the heyday of the whitetail in PA's big woods. I'm aware of carrying capacity, over population, and crashes. I've seen it first hand.

I agree. It was a smart ass remark.

Bf's credibility to me is pretty low. Like many of his ilk they are quick to discredit any study that goes against their agenda, but the ones they quote are as solid as a rock.