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

Wow, wolf huh. Do you really have any woodsman-ship skills. Those are cat tracks. I"ll bet BF can at least tell the difference. Most wolf lovers know the difference. Laffin!

You mean, Cascadia?

LOL!

I don't think hunting pics prove anything. Maybe Bob is a lowsey hunter. I am very interested in what the connection is between Arctic Red River Outfitting and Don Paey. Anyone care to shed the light. Maybe SFW is in my backyard after all.

Hey rc, how many wolves and or lions have you killed?

I'll bet you I've taken more! Do you feel lucky? Laffin!

Here's a link so you can identify the difference in tracks LMAO.

http://www.bear-tracker.com/caninevsfeline.html

Thanks, I thought I could slip one past ya!

LOL!

R i g h t !!!!!!!!!!!!

Gray Wolves to be Delisted

Contact your Senators and Reps to urge them to support delisting

Okay Mr Camuglia, here's a different question for you. It seems that the Wild Sheep Foundation auctioned a10 day dall sheep hunt sponsored by SFW and Tavistock Molnar of Arctic Red River Outfitters. I do not know how they split the donation but the special note added to the bottom of the pages. States...The proceeds of this donation will benefit the efforts of state management's for wolf programs.
So the question is....what the heck does that mean. To me it sounds a bit slippery. Doesn't sound like habitat improvement and just maybe really means used to pay SFW lifestyles.

Wow, first Aldo Leopold, now Michael Soule and Ted Williams. I don't know about the rest of these neanderthals, but I, personally, am mighty impressed.

I'd agree that "the hunting community" should have room for opinions outside the monolith. And your example of the founder of the Society for Conservation Biology is interesting. I'm not personally familiar with the organization, but a quick scan of their website left me very impressed. It's not every day that you find an organization so up front about it's goals. I was so impressed that I copied their five goals below.


The last three are blatantly self-serving for the organization and it's members. The first two are a little more nuanced, but I'd have to conclude that promoting the dissemination and application of science by a group of scientists is no less self-serving. And I'm a scientist.

Bravo; well-done:


In service to the mission, vision, and values, we focus on these five goals:

I. Advocate support for, and facilitate the creation and dissemination of, conservation science. Identify and support the scientific research needed to understand and conserve biological diversity. Appraise scientific outputs and disseminate the highest quality science.

II. Increase application of science to management and policy. Directly inform management and policy at local, national, regional, and global levels with the highest quality science. Routinely and openly evaluate the effectiveness of management actions.

III. Strengthen SCB's sections. SCB will encourage and support growth and development of its sections.

IV. Serve the interests of members. Identify, prioritize, and serve the needs and interests of current and potential SCB members.

V. Build and maintain organizational capacity. Assess and expand the organizational capacity necessary to implement and sustain the programmatic goals and objectives that advance our vision and mission.

You're (that means "your" in 4100 lingo) asking me that question as if I'm supposed to know the answer?

Why don't you contact the Wild Sheep Foundation and report "your" findings back here?

Oh, and I'm sure someone held a pistol to the head of John Q. Public and "stole" the tag. LOL!

It seems these type of organizations are Anti-Human Being.

Check out these "Values":

Organizational Values:
The Society for Conservation Biology holds these values:
1. There is intrinsic value in the natural diversity of organisms, the complexity of ecological systems, and the resilience created by evolutionary processes.
2. Human-caused extinctions and the destruction and loss of function of natural ecosystems are unacceptable.
3. Maintaining and restoring biological diversity are individual and collective responsibilities of humans.
4. Science is critical for understanding how the natural world operates and how human actions affect nature.
5. Collaboration among scientists, managers, and policy-makers is vital to incorporate high-quality science into policies and management decisions affecting biological diversity.

Take #2 for example. Extinctions caused by every other part of nature are acceptable other than Human? Humans happen to be a part of nature.

I don't think you should get your hopes up. Hey but send SFW/BGF some more dough.

Laffin again.

My hopes are up. I hope to be like you and shoot a few.

Well, I don't want to get too far off track, my only point was that this organization exists to serve the interests of its members and itself. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but holding it (or its founder) up as some sort of paragon who's a "desirable addition to the hunting fraternity" makes as much sense as holding up the founder of any other professional organization. Besides which, it's just name dropping.

As far as your point on human-caused extinctions, I have a different take. You're right in that all too often people forget that humans are part of nature. But that doesn't mean we should foolishly or wantonly cause extinctions. Two good examples are passenger pigeons and bison, both driven to the brink (or past) by foolish and wanton slaughter. I think most would agree that saving the buffalo was a good thing.

But the key is application of common sense. Another example is the city of San Antonio not being able to use more than 20% of its primary drinking water source, one of the most prolific aquifers in the world, because if it does then some local springs will go dry and possibly cause the extinction of a blind salamander that only lives in those springs. Some species are on their way out and not because of humans, but because they're not very well adapted or can only survive in a few places with just the right conditions. It's been said that there are more extinct species in the fossil record than are alive on earth today, so extinction is fairly common in nature over the long haul.

To my point!

I agree with your assessment concerning human beings and common sense with regard to specie extinction without question, but the fact remains that humans don't exist "outside" of nature. In our natural development and population growth comes conflict with other parts of nature. Wolves are a prime example.

They were handled the way they were by our predecessors for a reason

The Lefty's successful push for repopulation has reincarnated the problem our predecessors solved.

Elk, Bison, deer, antelope, sheep, eagles, grizzlies, lions, hawks, condors, etc. are just a few of the animals that were "handled" for a reason.

I'm glad visionaries like Ted Roosevelt, and Aldo Leupold were around to change the way people thought.

Your thinking would have left us with all those animals extinct, and this forum wouldn't exist. You would just be hunting game farms in Texas. Maybe more to your liking anyway.

Don Peay and rc are not visionaries.

Would love to see Don Peay take a polygraph and be asked if he really wants wolves delisted.

I know where my money would be.

I'm glad they were too. But we are "handling" wolves right now through tightly-controlled hunting, aren't we? I'd put that in the column of application of common sense. Some think there should be no wolf hunting, I'd put that in the other column.

Will you elaborate on this?

I was in no way advocating the extinction of wolves and you know that. I just like the fact that there are more of some of the others on your list in their absence