This fella understands the situation greatly. A good read on what Don Peay is.


http://www.care2.com/news/member/906244710/3543662

Like i said in the other thread i've heard in the past SFW being talked about in a negative way,more than a couple of times.
For the few that defend this organization there seems to be alot more that oppose it.

If you were to do a little research on the organization who's story you share by link, you would find out that they are a group of Liberal, Tree-Hugging Wackos who are IN FAVOR of the re-introduction of wolves.

No doubt that they are against Don Peay and his anti-wolf stance!

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/03/05-8

Josh Laughlin of Cascadia Wildlands, the organization that had the piece you cite, did the lobbying.




This leads me to believe that you are either ONE OF THEM, or so stupid and easily duped that you believe their propaganda

Definately not one of them. Yeah i iguess i must be stupid like most of the guys in the other thread.You're the only guy that REALLY knows the truth about SFW and Peay.

Seems like you have a vested interest SFW and Peay,are you kissing ass for a little personal gain?

Finally, you're right!

How about this article, also released yesterday, by the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper. You going to argue that a newspaper in the most conservative state in the nation is "liberal" rcamuglia?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55960783-90/300000-anti-contract-game.html.csp

After hearing a similar pitch from Big Game Forever co-founder Ryan Benson, the Legislature last year appropriated $300,000 to fund wolf-related lobbying, with virtually no oversight of precisely how the money was used or what it accomplished. Big Game Forever submitted the only bid to do this lobbying on July 28, 2012, and won the one-year contract four days later.

That contract throughthe state Division of Wildlife Resources calls for the nonprofit to "work with state and federal agencies to pursue legal and legislative solutions to achieve [the state�s] legal and management authority over wolves to protect wildlife." It specified that Benson was to be paid on completion of the work, but Michael Styler, the head of the Department of Natural Resources, DWR�s parent agency, approved an immediate payout.

Styler�s Aug. 6 letter to state purchasing officials four days after the contact was signed cites a provision in the division�s request for proposals that allows payment upon receipt of an invoice. State policy generally prohibits paying contracts upfront, but the state�s administrative rules allow agency heads to request early payment if they are willing to assume the risks, said Kent Beers, the state�s purchasing director.


There are no Washington lobbyists currently registered for Big Game Forever and have been none since April 1, 2011.

At a Feb. 21 appropriations hearing, Peay gave a vague response when asked about the work his group has accomplished with this money.

"It�s been used to do a very complex, political, legal, grass-roots effort," he said. The current line item comes at the request of Senate Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, who did not respond to an email request for comment.

Newsflash rc, but the over-whelming consensus after the comment period on wolf recovery ended was that people were in favor of wolf reintroduction by a huge margin.
There's lots of groups out there organizing against Peay and company. You guys have nobody else to thank but yourselves.

How can you argue about this?

The science shows what we are doing is the correct path to take. We have nothing to fear from a group like that who believes in the science. How about you and SFW? What do you believe in, other than making a profit from the resource we all own.

Anyone, I mean anyone associated with SFW or BGF is on the wrong side.

Not Browning....that explains Camuglia's position on SFW !!!!

Ding, ding we have a winner.
http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/don-peay-_-rossi-appointment.pdf

It's obvious that if you think wolves should be reintroduced because "most people think so", you are a Big Lib Tree Hugger. Especially while looking at the "Big Lib Tree Hugging" site you are citing.




SLM,

If you think my postition on this is because I shoot for Browning, you're cracked. But suit yourself.

Now excuse me, I've got to get to the mailbox and open up that big check Browning sends me every month to support SFW.

LOL!

The part I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is you defend what you believe is good about SFW but are not aware of issues in your own state.

The funny thing is if we were all sitting around drinking we would all probably get along fine....as long as you didn't bring up SFW.

Anybody that knew anything about the wolf recovery effort was against SFW's wolf stance. The only outcome from their efforts would have been continued protections. That is what SFW Peay and Benson wanted. The wolf was, and still is his money train. Regardless of who he throws under the bus in doing so. Anyone that listens to and believes in, Peay and company are either an idiot, or a hackman. Which are you?

Being a spokesmodel isn't the pinnacle of objectivity is it?



Kent

The real funny thing is that you have no idea that it takes lots of money to grow big game and improve habitat. It's not biology.

Every sheep tag sold in the general draw in Utah generated a measley 55,000

The 2 sold at auction generated 300,000.00

A Montana sheep tag was just sold at SCI for 480,000.00. That's one sheep for $480,000.00

In Utah, the Antelope Island auction tag for Mule Deer sold for $310,000.00. One tag was also put in the general draw for a cost of 5$. The general draw hunter killed a bigger buck than the customer for the tag.

The guy who runs Antelope Island says that until Don Peay and SFW became involved and turned around Utah, there were no funds whatsoever coming from the state or feds.

90% of the money generated hits the ground directly to grow big game.




Those who don't realize this are quite ignorant and should be embarassed to let everyone know it on the World Wide Web.

Bullchit... I posted the real numbers on the other thread... I received a hard copy of those numbers last year from a source when I was seriously involved with defeating azsfw here in az last year. They are no longer in az.

I don't care to put that much effort with you.

Less than 50% actually was funded for conservation projects on the ground... that's a verifiable fact.

Kent

Fixed it for ya.

Thats really funny.


This is the 2010 990 tax form for this group, take note of line 5 compensation of currant officers and $342,000 other salaries $67,000
Also line 19 conferences, committees, conventions. $736,000. could mean anything, it's not itemized.

On this 990 form 28% of the money spent when to on-the-ground projects. The rest when to who know where.

Want another one?

Keep drinking the cool-aide, your making yourself look like a real tool. Most everyone else has seen the evidence.

Laffin!

Why don't you tools show up at SFW banquets and show your "evidence" to the members?

I'm sure you'll make friends and exact a ton of change.

I'll video the interaction and post it here.

I can only show you whom your slaving for. What you do with it is your business. I choose to get the money I raise for wildlife to real on the ground projects. At least 80% out of every dollar I raise gets there.

Your efforts would do so much more for another organization.

I don't believe rc has ever raised money or worked on a project, for youth retention, or wildlife.

He's a professional spokesmodel... he gets compensated.

Kent

Holy crap! You've found me out even though I've tried to hide.

I'm sure my income is in jeopardy now since you have uncovered this incredible discovery!

Please, please, please don't tell my owners (SWF and Browning).

I'll renounce Browning and SWF if you azzholes just be quiet!

Ignorant dumbschitz!

Don't you have a bikini wax scheduled?

Kent

I'm sure you've been fantasizing about it for some time now.

Are you and your Lib buddies (I emphasize "buddies") for gay marriage as well as the re-intoduction of wolves?

Sick-O!

90% of the people there are just like you. They have no idea what SFWNM has done,will do or want to do. They are there for a chance at drawing a rifle, nothing more, nothing less.

AGAIN I ask you, what has SFWNM done in NM besides the pipe deal? Anxious to see how you dodge the question this time.

A very professional way for a Browning ProStaffer to respond in a public forum.

Spokesmodels are known for being bright.

Kent

rc', let me help you. I'm sure an organization that puts so much money and hard work into "habitat" would show case all of their accomplishments so everyone can see. I'm sure I'm right on this cause SFWNM pasted the pics of the pipe deal any and everywhere they could.

http://www.sfwnm.com/events/

So the next question would naturally be. If they have done nothing, where does all the money go?

Trying to make it as easy as I can on you since your attention span seems pretty short. MR. Espinoza talks a lot about donations they have received, but again, no mention of "habitat" projects.

http://sfwnm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2010-Spring-Directors-Message.pdf

More of the "habitat" word. I read a lot about donations and raising money. But again I see no mention of what has been done. Maybe I'm missing it, help me out.

http://sfwnm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2009-New-Mexico-Healthy-Landscape-Initiative.pdf

Yep. I'm a changed man

I will immediately start shooting for Beretta and join the Sierra Club!

SMF'erz

Im positive you and your Liberal O'bummer voting friends would never come to the Albuquerque SFW banquet to really try to start "hope and change"

Why not?

I'm sure you would be welcomed with open arms

Don just emailed me and said since you've done such a chitty job being his spokesmodel. you don't get the premium booth next to the budlight beach bikini sugarshack.

He's putting you between the baboon/warthog and the organic catfish bait exhibits.

sorry...

Kent

You can't stick to the topic at hand can you? YOU are the one telling me how good SFW is for our wildlife, no one else. Yet when ever asked a question you resort to your childish BS answer of O'Bummer voting [bleep].


Class act.

LOL! I'm sure!

Loser

Peay would be smart to e-mail him and tell him to SHUT-UP!! He's done more harm than good with his fiction responses.

Shhhh... he's our best weapon against SFW with his mouth.

Kent

You're in NM right SLM?

Show up to the banquet and change things.

Like I said, I'd like to document on video how the ranchers and real hunters in my state treat you

rc, you know what the best, and maybe only good thing about Obama winning the election was?

Don not getting appointed to any position. I think it was Don that lost the race for Romney. Millions of sportsman across the country voted Obama because of the Don. Laffin!

That's not how it's done, if you want to actually address an issue you go to the open board meetings and address the board.

Your ignorance of protocol is impressive.

Kent

It's obvious that Im dealing with MORONS...

I'm done!

Going to the mailbox to get my well earned Browning/SFW money!

thanx goober boys..!

I see it as you being extremely obtuse, and you think the same of us..I can relate as i supported SFW in the begining.But the day came that I could no longer make excuses for them and my opinion of them changed.

Don used to post a lot on MM, I've seen these threads play out like this going on 10 years now.Even with him running damage control he couldt stop the bleeding..SFW is losing ground with the public. The expo is not a barometer to judge their popularity. Take 200 public tags and of course folks will show up to apply for them. MOst would also like to see them returned to the general draw where they belong.

And whats with all the obama/lib bullshit? You cant answer a question so you stomp your feet and spew out BS? Sounds about par from the SFW supporters, grow the [bleep] up, answer a question and at least try to support your position instead of posting up more SFW propaganda. They run an excellent game of smoke and mirrors, someday you might look at their BS with a critical eye instead of being a fanboy.

LOL

Adios... you missed a spot on your bikini wax... don't want you getting embarrassed and all...

Kent

The stance you all are taking is blatantly left wing. Tags for the rich, the King's deer, stealing the people's property, engaging in class warfare, Pro-wolf, posting information from Left wing writers and sources, etc...

SFW won't address these stupid threads because it's a waste of time engaging 3 or 4 anonymous boneheads who are grinding an axe. SFW is not losing ground whatsoever; the opposite is happening.

The only people who believe your BS are the uninformed. Just like Obummer's voters. Dolts.

Why don't you really try to change SFW's minds by coming to the banquets and picketing like a good worker's union member? You're definitely an apparatchik.

Just opened my envelope from the Boss. Wow! Bonus!

LOL!

What happened??? Thought you were DONE.

Marching orders from above. After I looked at the big check, I felt bad that I hadn't given it my all.

LOLX2!

More from the Left Wing website you adore:



http://www.cascwild.org/restoring-wolves-and-other-species/







Yep, they "understand the situation greatly"

From Your Heros at Cascadia Wildlands:

LOL!



LOL!

LOL!




A real "knee-slapper"!

Here's some of their "Business Partners"


Hahahaha!

Rc, I never said I believed in that group. They just understand the Don. Like so many other groups that have figed him, and the fact that this is a livelihood for him. No better or different than "Earth Justice" or "Defenders of Wildlife". He's following their leads to create a issue and profit from it. You can't figure that out?

You belong to SFW, and are a active mouth piece for them. So anything they do bad will be a reflection on you.

How about the issue in Utah were sportsman from that state are trying to get access to the rivers and stream. SFW comes out against them. To suck up to landowners. You have to love the treatment the peasants receive from the Don.

From an Outdoor life article:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...ter-stream-access-legal-battle-continues

Another good read:



http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/sportsmen-stab-theodore-roosevelt-in-the-back



It's anything but a small group of 3 or 4 people! LMAO!

rc, dispute the article. Trying to discredit the group serves no purpose. Rebut what was written. Tell us what was a lie and back it up.

Does a left wing group have any less credibility than a far right fringe group does like SFW? If there's something they wrote that's wrong, it should be easily disputed, right?

So explain your false statement about the 90% of the money that gets on the ground from SFW funds, and the fact that the 990 form I posted shows 28%.

You see rc those are facts that people can see.

Answer please!

If caught in a BS statement, always change the topic!

Is that what Don taught you. He does the same thing.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...717a3c3-6b1a-51d8-8799-6027644d2027.html

Another paper has picked up the story in another state.

rc. Laffin now?

It's not just the 5 or 6 here that don't agree with everything. I thought the whole idea was "more animals".


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50889688-76/wildlife-deer-percent-utah.html.csp


"Critics charge that opportunity for the average hunter is being lost at the expense of the well-heeled, who are more interested in trophy animals and believe these new laws are the best way to produce more. And everyone, beginning with the DWR's top big-game biologist, agrees the changes do nothing to address the plight of the state's dwindling deer herds."

Care 2?
First "cause" listing is animal welfare. Cascadia Wildlands is an Earth First spinoff.
And the Salt Lake Tribunal is a Pravda front full of LDS haters. Not that I love LDS unconditionally, but the Tribune has a huge shoulder chip. They are worse than the New York Times.
Utah should fight with all resources possible to prevent wolf repopulation of Utah -- they can kiss their epic deer and elk goodbye.

If they keep taking tags from the public it doesn't matter what happens with wolves. It's just insult to injury to hand over a $600k check of tax payer funds with no strings and then take more tags for auction.

It will be entertaining to watch BGF/SFW use that 300K to lobby their way out of the ESA.

Laffin'...

Wonder if Suzanne Gilstrap will be their lobbiest?

Kent

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?

I'll keep practicing cunnilingus.

You keep practicing Fellatio...

Certainly there have been loses in elk populations in the presence of wolves as there have been gains. What is generally lacking is science that indicates that the main or leading cause is wolf presence. Grizzly bears for instance have increased 300% since 1987 and there has been a substantial decrease in the quality of summer range due to drought which has been linked to declines as well. And when you look at long terms trends, Yellowstone elk herds cycle and have experienced crashes like this in the past in the absence of wolves. And when we look at female condition and reproductive rates in these areas where significant drops are happening the low fat content which influences both reproduction rate and winter survival is a function of habitat not predation. In short, correlation is not causation.

Actually it is just the opposite, biodiversity fails with containment. That is one of the core lessons of island biodiversity studies and the underpinnings of the species-area curves. More space/more species and higher functioning corridors/more species.

[quote=bobferris]Certainly there have been loses in elk populations in the presence of wolves as there have been gains. What is generally lacking is science that indicates that the main or leading cause is wolf presence. Grizzly bears for instance have increased 300% since 1987 and there has been a substantial decrease in the quality of summer range due to drought which has been linked to declines as well. And when you look at long terms trends, Yellowstone elk herds cycle and have experienced crashes like this in the past in the absence of wolves. And when we look at female condition and reproductive rates in these areas where significant drops are happening the low fat content which influences both reproduction rate and winter survival is a function of habitat not predation. In short, correlation is not causation. [/quote

What is your opinion of delisting grizzly bears in the lower 48?

No, for several reasons. First, my position regardless of all the chatter is that wolves are still recovering and I have yet to see compelling evidence that population reductions are necessary or effective. I know that some are claiming that wolf populations are too high but population growth curves give no indication that wolves are at or nearing carrying capacity. My last reason is a personal one, I hunt for a number of reasons but those reasons do not include feeling threatened by predators or seeing them as competition or enemies. And I have no need for trophies or self-aggrandizement by hanging something on my wall. For more on this see: http://www.cascwild.org/what-we-might-all-learn-from-james-fenimore-cooper/

Likely appropriate in some spots but not all. Grizzlies are painfully slow at recolonizing and should be allowed to establish viable populations and adequate genetic connections to retain population health. They are big, scary beasts but part of what makes real wilderness truly wild. It is interesting looking at this dialog that I have been in a few situations where grizzly bears have certainly made my heart beat a little faster, but I have experienced the same feeling with wolves--even in enclosures.

Bob, just by the amount of trouble they are now getting into, and the fact that the numbers are a lot higher than they first though (DNA study) There's no reason biologically to keep them listed. There will be more killed without delisting than with.

You do understand the concept that if the locals don't accept them and have a vested interest in their well being, then their doomed. The wolf lovers actually cost the wolf in terms of tolerance levels with locals. They over played their hands with the constant litigation. Now there's a pull the other way. I as many other locals supported wolf recovery, but the constant litigation turned me against it.

There is a time to stop and re evaluate the situation and look a what your going to gain vs what you stand to loose. The time for the Griz is at hand and my suggestion is what we have in terms of Grizzly recovery we are there. All of the criteria has been met for delisting. The time is right for the Grizzly.

Numbers in the Northern Cascades are very,very low and zero in the Bitteroots. So at least two of six recovery areas are not where they should be.

+ 1
Not sure how my kids have survived this long playing in the back yard in BC/Yukon. Doesn't this seem at least a little bit silly to most hunters? Just sayin

I was led to believe elk populations were suppose to decrease in order for some over used habitat to recover. At least this was my understanding? I happily give up a few elk to wolves but will never to give up my right to access public lands or public wildlife.

But how should we manage them. Should we be holding back some areas if other areas are not where they should be? Or should we have more of a fluid situation that allows for state management of some areas that are biologically recovered and still allow for the rehabilitation of other areas?

I love grizzly bears and seeing them always makes my day while spring bear hunting. I would like to see more of them out in the mountains, but I worry about resistance to reestablishing populations if we continue to prevent management in the areas where their density has reached a point where they more frequently have run ins with people. All these run ins create bad press and highlight the negatives of having grizzlies around. Wolves are one thing. Only the severely uninformed or ridiculous worry about having a wolf attack them. But grizzlies can be a legitimate safety hazard. I feel that people against any re-introduction efforts will be given more credence than if it was another species.

So are you for hunting the other four? Or is it all or nothing?

Where did you get that gem?

Bob, are the Cascades in the Grizzly bear Recovery area? Is there any opportunity for Grizzly bears to exchange DNA from the Cascades to the Rockies?

Good luck on getting anything done in the Bitteroots. Thank the continual litigation over the wolf for that.

The genetic exchange with the Northern Cascades is with grizzlies in BC. And there are 6 grizzly bear recovery areas or zones.

Greenhorn,
Doug Smith has been up to his eyebrows in the disaster that is Yellowstone. The decline is leveling off because they are near the bottom.
I wonder what Smith has to say about the Shiras moose being all but toast.

Oh, no, now we are getting the Noss model of "conservation biology" which isn't honest science at all.
Never mind the land restrictions associated with grizzlies based on an outrageously-flawed mid 1990's series of radio collar tracking that was done by air -- in the daytime -- when the weather was nice. Duh!
When they put the GPS collars on, they found that travel speeds and distances from roads were directly linked to time of day and weather conditions. But there wasn't "enough funding" for comprehensive collaring, and the IGBC is sitting on the tracking results they DO have.
As far as genetics are concerned, all this garbage about "natural" exchange when one or two sows every half-generation would take care of the issue without setting aside millions of acres as restricted corridors just kills me. It is SO irrational and dishonest, I can't stand it.
Same thing for linking wolves -- if it breeds and has viable offspring, its the same dang species, [bleep]. What a joke.

I understand that, but the two main areas or distinct population segments, are past recovery. The genetic exchange is secure up the continental divide. What good does it do to not remove them there?

We lose support for ESA, along with any recovery efforts for other wildlife when we don't follow protocol.

Wolverine, sage grouse listing will all be vigorously challenged because of this. Is it worth it?

Sez you and please Mr. Skinner let me know what qualifications you have to make such a pronouncement. Do you have some lofty degree that makes you an authority on the relative values of various scientific sub-disciplines? My understanding is that you are conservative blogger and while all are entitled to their opinions, the value of those opinions should be driven by the relative depth of the grounding in that topic of the person offering the opinion. Conservatives tend to have darker view of wolves than progressives and it has less to do with science and more to do with politics. http://bobincascadia.blogspot.com/2012/04/wolf-green-fire-or-beast-of-waste-and.html

Here again this is the back bone of this discussion. If state agencies were allowed to follow science and not bullied into making bad decisions by folks like Mr. Peay, the conservation community would be more willing to switch from federally led recovery to state management which could include measured control and limited hunting. But that has not been our experience in the inter-mountain West. Wish it were.

Skinner, is Yellowstone really a disaster? The elk are at the bottom? What do you mean? Obviously, the numbers are way lower than pre-wolf. Moose have taken a nose-dive no doubt in Montana and Wyoming, but honestly I've seen moose drop off in a huge way in a couple local areas that have very few wolves. Any ideas on why? I don't know.

Although SFW makes the headlines, they aren't in control of Idaho, Montana. (They might have a bigger role in Wyoming though). That's why the wolf delisting is going back to court. Money, money, and more money for SFW/BGF.

Anyway, Montana exceeded wolf recovery, has shown it's commitment to manage wolves in a responsible manner. We will keep their numbers above a threshold of 425. That's far more than the recovery showed was necessary.

Unfortunately there's those in the predator preservationist community that will look to over extend their hand once again. Trust me when I say, it's not going to help with the efforts, in future recovery (Wolverine, sage grouse) efforts nationwide. Support at the local level will erode, just as it did with the wolf. Will we be destined to follow history and repeat the same mistakes that happened with the wolf?

Looks like it to me.

My suggestion is drop the emotion, and look squarely at the science.

I put my footprints on the ground a lot. Griz sign is showing up all over the state, and more frequent. They don't just stop moving about when they run into human habitation. We have Grizzly bears clear out in the plains of Eastern Montana now, far from the recovery areas. In some cases hundreds of miles. People noticed a Grizzly walking on the East side of the Bitterroot Valley a couple of years ago. He was seen headed south after walking the entire length.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hu...-it-time-start-hunting-grizzlies-montana



The direction the enviro community takes will be a gamble. If the anti hunting crowd plays over plays their hands, and throw the common sense sportsman under the bus, then groups like SFW/BGF (Don Peay) will continue to thrive and prosper. You see more money tossed at them, for better or worse.

I've followed this and several related threads over the past few weeks. I understand the enviro point of view - a bit. I even understand the wolf re-introduction - a bit. I understand all restoration efforts of endangered species - a bit more. I keep coming back to the flawed premise that underlies the enviro point of view.

The flawed premise is two-fold: A. In the spirit of progressiveism, humans inhabit this planet and are the superior life form. As humanity 'progresses', (r.e. human populations expand) changes to the natural balance must occur. How much the equilibrium shifts is up for debate - but the fact that it happens is not debatable. So we find ourself in the position of making choices - between wolves and big game, minnows and dams, coal mining and minnows, etc. These decisions have to be made but at what cost? The flawed premise is that the equilibrium state between humanity and nature is static, never changing. Not so.

B. The second flaw I see is the anthropomorphism of animals. Some enviros think 'nature should take its course'. Having never witnessed nature at its cruelest, they fail to see the humane means of hunting to control populations. Hunting works to control populations. Associating humanistic views to animals makes hunting seem cruel, inhumane, and that somehow nature will take care of itself in a much better fashion. Animals eat other animals. They do so while they are still alive and kicking. Simple things like a fox catching a mouse. Fox will play with the mouse before he finally eats it. I've seen coyotes do the same thing. I've seen wolves eat a very small portion of elk/deer and leave the rest. Do the enviros even consider that the possibility exists that hunting may be more humane than nature? None that I've ever been lectured at.

So we are faced with decisions. This current debate between wolves and big game seems like a loser - to big game, those that hunt, and those that rely on hunter's business to support their families. I am a fan of wolves - I like seeing them, hearing them, knowing they are around, and the country they inhabit. This is the part of wolf re-introduction I understand. The part I don't understand is when wolves swing the nature pendulum back to something it wouldn't be absent the human being. I've elk hunted in Idaho and know that Idaho isn't the same place with the wolf present in the numbers currently seen. Empirical data indicates elk and deer are less numerous. Sportsman's dollars have gone to other areas (mine to Colorado), outfitters have gone out of business, and local economies have taken a big hit during the fall. Has anyone supporting wolf re-introduction studied the economics of wolf re-introduction? Have those in favor of re-introduction spent their dollars in these locales to see the wolf? What we've ended up with is a re-introduced species, lower elk/deer populations, and loss of hunting areas. For what gain? To say we have wolves in the lower 48 again?

Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of predator re-introduction. I can understand if populations are limited but in my viewpoint the wolf re-introduction has been a boondoggle. And I agree with the posters that state it will have unintended consequences - all progressive/liberal ideas do.

As to the original post, human greed is an interesting thing to observe. I don't pretend to know the issues and actions of the SFW or their spokesman - which is why I've stayed out of the fray. I see both sides of the tag issue but can't quite swallow the need for a third party arbitrator. If tags are so valued that a third party can raise a gazillion dollars from their sale - why doesn't the game mgt agency do so and use the money for habitat, restoration, etc? A third party is not needed for that.

On the whole issue of acquiring tags for the rich and famous, I vehemently disagree. Hunting is moving toward a privileged hobby - those with money can hunt more places than those without. Some of that is mere coincidence based on one's financial circumstance and supply/demand. Some is based on greed. Another example, Why do I need a guide to wander around Wyoming wilderness areas? I somehow manage to do so in other States.

Human greed always come back to bite those that practice it. I joined RMEF simply because of the guide issue and Randy Newberg. Hunting is getting to be a have-have not proposition. I fully support Randy's viewpoint and find the issue with the Guide Associations repugnant. So much so that I called RMEF to inquire of their stance and sent them my money. I've also informed my hunting companions of the issue, sent them the names on the various Guide Association lists and opined that they should not spend any more money with folks supporting the Guide Association position. I know of at least 1 hunt that didn't get booked because of my efforts. Really, really bad idea.

Sorry for the length of the post - I've been stewing about this for a while. It really raises my blood pressure............

Too bad this has become a wolf thread.............We were talking about 2 legged wolves stealing the publics tags. Wonder if that great ram shown in the link to with Don Peay was a donated hunt.

To get an idea of historic variation in several of these herds I would look at this piece and in particular Figure 25.13
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S193679610800225X

I may be sounding like a broken record on this, but proofing is lacking in those few areas where elk populations are dropping that pins those drops on wolves. We do see a lot of evidence that these drops are related to habitat quality and the on-going drought. That federal lands managers are dropping grazing permit numbers should be an indication that all is not right in the world of habitat. You can kick the wolves all you want but it does not change the facts that there is little evidence that they are the main cause of these declines.

Actually, if you read Fanning's various biographies he claims a BA in biology and sociology from Notre Dame. I have seen it variously described as a BS or BA. Without knowing the course work it is hard however to judge its relevancy and I have not seen much evidence in his statements that the biology portion dealt much with ecology, wildlife biology or wildlife management.

Bob, welcome to the 'fire. Your posts are definitely adding some new perspectives and I've found them interesting.

So how do we defeat a grafting philanthropist like Don Peay? I watched Rocky Evans and Jerry Allen of Quail Unlimited steal it's members money for decades before it finally imploded. No amount of questioning where the money we raised disappeared to did much to change other member's minds.

I think you're drinking the same Kool-Aid as Don Peay, just from a different glass. I think everybody can agree that there are other factors contributing to the decline, but to say there is no proof that the wolf is a large part of it is ludicrous .

"Predation by wolves and grizzly bears is cited as the major reason for the decline in elk numbers. Wolves in northern Yellowstone prey primarily on elk. Also, predation on newborn elk calves by grizzly bears may limit the elk population�s ability to recover from these losses."



http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11005.htm

I think there is more going on here. First, if this is all about wolves and wolf populations are dropping then why are these herds continuing to drop. If it was a simple system and less wolves meant more elk, then why are they not recovering? And why are more and more of the elk becoming migratory? They are not getting away from wolves by migrating, because wolves would follow the elk. High predation in winter certainly involves predators but is driven in part by animals in poor condition. This is not as simple as it is being portrayed.

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...baec009-60ef-5fb0-9f99-e37b905150c4.html

I am not sure what the answer is here. Most of these groups start with the best of intentions and somehow change as they get larger and money becomes more of a factor. The same thing has happened at Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I remember working closely with them in the mid-1990s on a number of issues. I would sit on committees with their biologists and now you hardly hear from their technical people. You hear a lot from David Allen and their PR folks, but somewhere they just stopped being authentic. They need to get that original blue collar spirit back, lessen their direct ties to ranchers and rejoin the mainstream conservation community. Don Peay was never authentic. I think the path to his doom will be an IRS audit. He is someone who feels that he is above the law and that makes him vulnerable. Perhaps the more important question in all of this is how do we reunite hunters, anglers, environmentalists and conservationists who have worked as natural allies for generations so that we are able to make progress on the issues of core importance to all of us such as habitat quality and quantity, water quality, and access. I was just reading about Teddy Roosevelt and how much he loved the Audubon Society for all they had done. What happened to drive all of us apart?

I'm really starting to see more likes than dislikes between how SFW and you hype your agenda.

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324

I'm pretty sure I don't agree. Graph up the elk numbers in Yellowstone from 5-10 yrs before the wolf introduction through the present. There is a drastic change in herd population. The same phenomena is evident in Idaho's population.

The only way your point has merit is if something equally catastrophic event(s) must be evident. Habitat degradation doesn't fit the sudden, drastic downturn in elk populations.

At the end of the day, nature is in a dynamic equilibrium state. It will maintain a steady state condition if the variables are unchanging. Wolf reintroduction caused a change in the equilibrium condition. Habitat change also causes a change in the status quo but at more gradual levels except in a few situations pertaining mostly to protected populations.

Even if wolves have not eaten all the elk, they sure have changed their behavior. They bugle far less and hang in tighter cover. This is a bit subjective but the number of hunters reporting such isn't an anomaly.

If you look at long term numbers you'll find cycles similar to what we are seeing today in the absence of wolves. And when you say "numbers," Montana and Wyoming elk numbers overall are up. Idaho numbers are the only ones where we see an overall decline and that is localized. Yellowstone herds were at historic highs and were predicted to crash. The crash is likely deeper because of climate and predation issues but the area was clearly over stocked which was predicated to carry on for a little while and then lower the carrying capacity of area.

There have been two or three studies that have come after this initial Creel study that have brought into question the conclusions of this study and the broad applicability of this study. There was some thought that pellets from sub-adult females and some males could have been included in the analyses which could have impacted the results(See Part IV. Discussion in http://books.google.com/books?id=ts...=elk%20progesterone%20wolves&f=false) Arthur Middleton also tested for this "cost of vigilance effect" and found that is was not a factor as well. Middleton's and other's findings were reinforced by a study that in Alberta that found that human presence was more stressful than predator presence (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509092/).

Popular articles are good for news but rarely lead to in depth discussions of these complex concepts or understanding of these multi-faceted relationships. To get some of that you need to dig deeper.

I don't doubt that at all. Like I said, I think most everyone can agree there is more going on than just wolf predation. My point is you want everyone to believe that it is everything but wolves when there are numerous studies that say different .

I have not said that at all. Wolves are predators, but my position has been that overall their impact is more beneficial that detrimental. That can certainly be debated by someone whose goals are to maximize elk populations and create a landscape dominated by domestic and wild ungulates. My goal is to preserve biodiversity in order to make these natural areas more sustainable in the long run. That means different lenses and different conclusions.

I guess I read it wrong.

SLM, And I may have written it wrong as well. And I am perhaps a tad sensitive about this because I have to deal far too much with blatantly false and incendiary comments about wolves. My concerns being three-fold in that the comments do not reflect well on the hunting community, they have a direct impact on wolf populations, and they are designed to distract all of us from working on issues of import to the broader community of folks who enjoy the outdoors.

So we got a bunch of guys with fancy degrees and we can't come up with an answer why the elk are diminishing.LOL..unbelieveable!

How about asking the guys that ACTUALLY hunt them. They probably would have more postive input than the talking heads!

Gravestone, I think you are miss-characterizing the situation. There are a lot of answers and it depends upon where you look and when. Some herds around wolves have no problems and in fact some are increasing. Some herds are decreasing and it has nothing to do with predators or wolves are absent. And some herds are decreasing and it has something to do with predators but the reason it could be predators may have some strong links to habitat conditions--so predation per se is an impact but perhaps not a driver. I think there is a desire on the part of some for some universal truth here and it really depends on a number of interactive components. With the most cited example--the Northern Yellowstone Herd--biologists have know that this herd was artificially high for some time and was used for years as an example of a crash about to happen. Personally I think it was naive for folks to think that elk populations could continue to grow and be held at higher than historic levels without consequences to habitat quality and ultimately carrying capacity.

Loss of habitat, poor management, predators, drought, increasing human interaction...did you not read the conversation?

I'd be curious to see how springtime human pressure has on birth/calves. Shed hunting has increased exponentially over the last decade as well as other instances like mushroom (morel) hunters.

I had a cabin in central Washington that bordered NF and for years there was never any traffic before Memorial Day. Now in the late winter months you can see the fourwheeler tracks from shed hunters and in early spring there are literally dozens of cars from mushroom hunters.

I knew exactly where the calving grounds were, and the mushroom hunters were all over it. I saw some folks getting ready to head out and I stopped and told them where they were.

"Really? We had no idea?"

No chit Sherlock, I've been in these hills for 25 years and while I don't have a degree in biology I understand the ecosystem of these hills. Unfortunately, I think occurrences like these are common and we haven't yet quantified the impact.

You would think that if you can't see past your nose, but it has always been a wolf thread.

The thread is about a Left Wing article written by a Lefty who is a champion of wolf re-introduction. His agenda is to fight and defame those who oppose it as well as the control of other predators.

Don Peay, SFW and other Pro-Hunting organizations have been on the forefront in the fight against re-introduction, the very reason bf wrote the article. Demonize Don Peay




Your grasp for reality is underwhelming.

Yes Bob,perhaps i chose the wrong word. There seems to be alot of "answers" but so far no solutions.

I can empathize a bit except I work on the other side of the coin. I see much BS spouted about things like this from the left. Some blatantly false. I still believe the answers provided on 'lack of evidence of wolf depredation on elk' is a symptom looking for a cause. It is not rocket science to see the elk numbers pre and post wolf introduction. The effect is striking, empirical, and obvious. To argue otherwise casts doubt on much else that is forthcoming and couched as science.

We should have this same debate on your statements on global warming. Would be curious if you think it is man-made or natural cycle - but that is another thread.

Obvious? I think you are confusing correlation with causation. If the correlation were causation we would see elk numbers jump with the reductions in wolf populations but the situation is not so simple and that is not happening.

Ah solutions. It is interesting when we look at range management for cattle that we understand at some point that we have overstocked and the obvious answer is to lower the number of cattle or sheep before you do permanent damage to the range. But that same logical approach gets lost when talking about elk populations. So we artificially keep those populations high and freak out when natural correction in whatever form happens. It has to be someone or something's fault. That's right but the finger should really be pointing at all of us. Laying the blame on wildlife managers shouldn't fly either because since the time of Aldo Leopold wildlife scientists have been ruled by commissions and legislatures that frequently disregard the advice of scientists. And the undue influence of the livestock industry and trophy hunting organizations leads to train wrecks like what recently happened to Ken Mayer in Nevada--science was trumped and instead of dealing with habitat issues they are pursuing predator control which has been demonstrated time and again not to work--particularly with coyotes. (see: http://www.cascwild.org/ken-mayer-thanks-for-standing-up-for-science-and-wildlife/ and http://www.cascwild.org/quotes-that-hurt-the-mind/)

The above is complete BS, bf!

A 10 second internet search turned this up from the Yellowstone Insider:

The annual aerial survey of the herd conducted during December 2010 resulted in a count of 4,635 elk, down 24 percent from the 6,070 reported the previous year. There has been about a 70 percent drop in the size of the northern elk herd from the 16,791 elk counted in 1995 and the start of wolf restoration to Yellowstone National Park.

Predation by wolves and grizzly bears is cited as the major reason for the decline in elk numbers, according to the Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group, made up of resource managers and biologists from the Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, National Park Service (Yellowstone National Park), U.S. Forest Service (Gallatin National Forest), and U.S. Geological Survey-Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center in Bozeman. Wolves in northern Yellowstone prey primarily on elk. Also, predation on newborn elk calves by grizzly bears may limit the elk population�s ability to recover from these losses.

Bold emphasis is mine. Have no idea of the political leanings or aspirations of the Yellowstone Insider but these are numbers I've seen before.

Guess the 'population crash' happens to coincide with wolf reintroduction. Pretty good coincidence.

Seems the issue is two-fold: wolf predation on elk which reduced their numbers, Grizzly predation on spring calves. Seems a drought may also contribute. But to say many factors exist outside of wolf predation is again the answer looking for a cause not wolf related.

He already debunked that study with "it's complicated.

Missed that conversation. It literally took me 10 seconds to find that. Further reconnaissance indicates same.

I have no doubt the system is complex - deal with complex systems every day. That's what I get paid to do in a different scientific arena. Elk numbers can't make a substantial rebound with the hit they've already taken. Apparently, two predators are at work on the elk but the thing that puzzles me is - grizzlies have always been in the park - so I think their effect is minimized to some extent. I'd profer the initial hit by the wolves over a 10 year period, with the 'normal' grizzly predation, and throw in a drought when their at their lowest and we arrive at the situation of 70% drop in elk numbers.

It would be curious to see how the elk reacted to just the grizzly and drought. Kinda like its been since Yellowstone was created..........

[/quote]

Habitat may be a factor but elk normally migrate many miles between summer and home range. They are not the stationary animals that many are. If habitat was an issue, elk would move to find food - just like they do everywhere else. If elk moved out of the park, then harvest numbers on the park periphery should reflect that trend. I can't say for sure but doubt they do based on folks that I know that have hunted around the park for years.

Same thing with Idaho. Elk harvest has dropped in many units that happen to coincide with wolf populations. Folks on the ground report same.

I still maintain this isn't rocket science at a high level.

Really, quoting Wildlife Services as a source for reliable science? Here a piece from the Sacramento Bee part of the 3 part expose of the agency and if that does not suit a similar treatment by FOX News.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/06/4469067/suggestions-in-changing-wildlife.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/1...practice-within-federal-wildlife-agency/

That's exactly right, cause when the leave the local pub, their IQ level moved up the charts significantly. Just ask em! Burp!

Neither of your sources are exactly what I would call sources that are reliable in regard to information pertaining to predator control. I've already seen the article from Fox, you would think by reading them that all predator control is inhumane. That simply isn't the case. In the end, dogs worrying a trapped coyote is nothing that the coyote might not be subject to in nature. With the currently high fur prices, USDA coyote control is going to be less of an issue than it has been. High prices mean more dead coyotes. I will agree that wolves aren't the only factor that has reduced elk populations, but I wouldn't say that they aren't a big part of those same reductions. Bears, lions, wolves, and high harvest numbers are all to blame along with silly environmentalist treatment of logging which has reduced browse and created less suitable habitat. If the environmentalists were out of the equation, ALL hunting, thus all game populations, would be in better shape.

Habitat is generally the main factor and the ratio of migrating elk has more than doubled in the past several years.

This (below) is a review paper which means it conglomerates the findings from a number of papers to produce a more universal view of what is going on. In terms of predator control their conclusions were basically it works when prey (in this case deer) are well below carrying capacity and does not work when populations are high and near carrying capacity. This latter condition is what we see in Yellowstone and in other areas resulting from too large of populations for too long a time and from the on-going drought. The drought is effecting summer habitat and shortening the time to brown up by a week or more which is significant when you look at the total length of time they have to accumulate fat during the warmer months. And this latter factor is even more impactful in the presence of grazing cattle that compete with and displace elk and deer. Elk and deer are essentially pushed onto steeper slopes and are eating lower quality feed at the very time when they need access to the best food available.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...4&uid=3739256&sid=21101768730313

Now as to forestry practices�yes, if you cut more trees more often you have more elk for a time but you also lose deer wintering habitat as we have seen on Vancouver Island and in the Alexander Archipelago. You also lose fisheries because of water temperature and water quality issues. And if you remove predators from this system you have congregating elk that easily spread disease from one to another, have limited mechanisms for purging lethal recessive genes, have a huge drop in overall biodiversity and myriad of other issues that come from having too much of a good thing. It also strikes me that the quality of the hunt diminishes as you create more pastoral environments.

Interesting read. I can go with the reduction in habitat, for whatever reasons to a degree, however I'm not so sure that climatic changes have been significant enough to be the primary thrust behind reductions in elk #'s. Certainly the elk numbers in Yellowstone were above what they should likely have been, the environmentalist answer to this phenomenon was to introduce wolves, the common sense answer would have been to allow consumptive human use. Much like the environmentalist would say that grazing is at fault for reduced elk herds.

In the past, wildfire and logging created forest openings and increased browse. Today, logging is an almost taboo field of endeavor, resulting in enormous fuel loads on many forestlands. I would prefer to see the timber logged and utilized in a responsible manner than to see it burn or rot on the ground. Here again, we see environmentalism standing in the way of best practices and causing harm to wildlife and the landscape.

Surely the huge wildfire that supposedly consumed Yellowstone a decade ago can explain part of the loss in elk numbers as the positive effect starts to wain.

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.

I am not sure how to respond to the hunter and fisherman first comment. I suspect that I am a little like Aldo Leopold in that my passion for both has diminished as my age has increased and my energy decreased. How much of that is a function of time, location and opportunity I am not sure. When I was with Defenders in DC I had a hunting camp on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and was either hunting or fishing most weekends and tended to spend my vacations there or hunting on my uncle's place in South Carolina. Moving and working a lot tend to cut into one's recreation, but I am off today to get a new set of chest waders for a steelhead adventure next week so I guess I am not totally out of the game.

As to the Idaho situation, yes the same forces are at work (i.e, drought, vegetative succession following clearcuts, and density dependence interactions). I would also throw disease in here too as natural predation--particularly performed by coursing predators like wolves--tends to have a cleansing effect on diseases like chronic wasting disease which hunting cannot address (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269999).

http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ne...re-killing-thousands-europe-report/4924/
http://dea.org.au/news/article/coals-economic-cost-to-human-health
http://www.wvgazette.com/Business/201110053163
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/

Bob, do you live in any of the areas you pushed for wolves?

I am not arguing that predator is not making this situation worse , but it is hard to sort out the additive versus compensatory predation in this happenstance. Moreover, I believe based upon what I have read, studies and experience that this will sort itself out for the better and may involve an eventual and natural wolf crash as well. My suspicious is that if we rush that eventual outcome by randomly killing wolves in an effort to maintain an elk population at an artificially high level for habitat conditions the end result will be worse for elk than would occur otherwise.

I have lived and worked in four states with wolves and frequently visit wild areas in all western states and Alaska that have wolves.

I guess my question was kinda vague. Are you from or have direct ties to anywhere you pushed for wolves?

The reason I ask is I'm from a small community that was devastated by the original endangered species, the spotted owl. I remember clearly going to town hall meetings and such and the people pushing the hardest to preserve the "possible" habitat were from mostly California and the East Coast. It's funny that after the injunctions to stop all logging and the immediate financial hardship none of these people were around to see it.

Wildlife Services is a notorious program in the scientific community. Studies repeatedly bring their methods and results into question. See here: http://www.mammalsociety.org/uploads/committee_files/ASM-Federal%20wildlife%20control%20letter_0.pdf

Article after article in the scientific and popular literature have called for investigations of Wildlife Services from ethics and safety reviews to science and fiscal audits. They have resisted all because they are buried within a program at USDA.

Devastated or saved? The spotted owl was basically used as a tool to stop an unsustainable harvest pattern that was created by a series of ill-advised federal policies that should have recognized that the resources were not infinite and over-harvesting of timber not only impacted the spotted owl but steelhead and salmon too. This unrealistic expectation led to an overbuilding of timber mills and so on and hence the economic impact when the house of cards fell apart. Ironically I met yesterday with two of the architects of the Northwest Forest Plan to look at ways to cut more timber and create more jobs without causing damage--thinning and ecological forestry versus clearcutting--the former creating jobs and the latter creating industry profits which are not really the same thing. As to people in California and the East having a say--absolutely--these are federal public lands and your community as well as a most rural areas in the West receive more in the way of federal revenues that they pay in taxes--in essence folks in richer states and more populated areas subsidize rural lifestyles. I am glad they do but it is unreasonable then to not think that those people should have a voice in those areas they pay for.

Saved??? How about you come down and I will personally take you through the community and introduce you to people and let them know who you are,and what you stand for. You can make an attempt to persuade them all that they were saved. I'm sure everyone will understand better after you explain it to them.

For the record, there was no clear cutting, steelhead or salmon and ONE mill.

Where are we talking about then? Coastal Oregon? Washington?

New Mexico.

Ok, you are talking about Mexican spotted owl versus Northern Spotted owl. This near the Gila National Forest? Yes the issues there are different in some particulars but similar in consequences and solutions. The debate and the solutions involve the same issues and a switch from logging mature forests to thinning/restoration logging that speeds the process towards creating a larger inventory of mature forests to support the owls which area sensitive species--need large patches of older trees to survive. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...n-calls-for-ex-24176.html?pagewanted=all

Northern NM.

Either way,I have no use for you,spotted owls, or your kind.

I can't believe you'd say that about 4100fps's Hero, SLM!

Don't make me agree with you on something.

Your an idiot!

It's "you're", you dope!

Ha!

OK, You're an idiot! Doesn't change the meaning does it?

It does.
But, just like "your" thread, "you're" too dense to know it!

4100fps! The gift that keeps on giving!

You believe in Don Peay, Enough said. Laffin!!!

In summary,...

-Wolves are good.
-Logging is bad.
-Grazing is bad.
-Coal is bad.
-People that live in large cities that rarely visit federal lands should decide how to manage them...and by "manage" they mean keep out anyone that might ever be caught wearing blue jeans in the woods.

HE WORKED FOR DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE. Do you guys REALLY need him to explain his thoughts to understand what he's all about?

He compared himself to Aldo Leopold for chit's sake. I have no doubt he's furiously writing the sequel to "Sand County Almanac" as we speak.

Not sure where Mr Ferris lives, but the organization he is speaking for is out of Eugene Oregon. Eugene and Corvallis are the epicenter of latte' drinking, pot smoking, Prius driving, Liberal Douchebag pieces of schitt that like nothing better than telling the rest how it should be.

...and he's 4100's HERO.

Good analysis.

You forgot to emphasize that he wrote the obscure, Internet "article" simply to bash people who are against wolf repopulation and discredit them; Don Peay and hunter's organizations spearheading the fight.

I'm not defending him, but you sure suck peays arse. Laffin again. That was the point of this thread.

I suppose that it is a disappointing fact of human nature that when people run out of facts to debate personal attacks and name-calling seem to dominate. Is that really the best you can muster?

You mean like your disciple, 4100 calling me an "idiot" and saying I suck Don Peay's "arse"??

You'll notice I only responded in kind and not even to the same degree. Not surprising you'll ignore obvious facts and defend those on your side, even though they're clearly in the wrong...

Oh, gee, kind of like the whole "wolf re-introduction" thing!

LMAO. Ask the "defenders" how much they spend on habitat, which is THE most critical issue for wildlife.

The comparison to Aldo was very entertaining! Definitely puts some perspective of he sees in the mirror out there...

I also note that he has not trie to refute your characterization of his views on those issues. He's tried to veil his anti-grazing bias some, but the more he posts the more he lets out of the bag. Heck, the biggest 'biodiversity group' in this country has ranches they graze in an effort to produce biodiversity. But he hasn't cited those publications.

What would be even more telling is having Mr. Ferris tell us how much his employer spends on habitat acquisiton/improvement directly. Many of these groups like to tell agencies/landowners how to do it, but they're very, very rarely around when the $$ is needed to do the work they've wanted or to buy the land and do it themselves.

In a former job a certain group had a problem with the condition and maintenance of some riparian exclosures. They offered "any help that we would need" for those exclosures in a multi-entity meeting. However, they got real quiet when asked if they would sign an agreement to pay for and do the work on those exclosures.

All you have is name calling. You never argue with facts. That's the one constant with SFW folks, is they through grenades all over the place with nothing to back it up with.

Very first page on this thread: rc says:



At least I endured your childish bs behavior until the 18th page.

Please enlighten us on how SFW/BGF fought for us on the wolf war? Do tell how I'm wrong on the whole ""wolf re-introduction" thing. Facts please.

BTW, you do suck Don Peays arse. That sentence shows what you do, not who you are.

Pointer makes a very good argument. Even the wolf reintroduction was paid for through the PR funds. Without sportsman's dollars there would have been no augmentation with wolf reintroduction. Thats not to say it wouldn't have taken place, and what the outcome would have been though.

IMO it could have been worse.

The green groups rarely throw any money at habitat. If Defenders and the other green groups, had put all the money they spent on wolf litigation, into buying up habitat for wildlife, it would have made a huge life long impact on the future of those species. The money the greens waste is giant compared to groups like the RMEF, and their funding.

That reminds me of a project I participated in as an RMEF volunteer. We put up fences to keep people out of a sensitive riparian area that was also critical winter range for deer and elk. It was being torn up, creek banks eroded, etc. by riders. The DOW and Boulder County Open Space also participated.

We heard from the DOW that they had set up trail cams to try and catch the people who were riding right by the "Keep Out" signs before we put the fences up. Turns out the worst offenders were not those nasty 4-wheelers, but (drum roll please) mountain bikers.

Probably transported to the site on Subaru Forrester roof racks with "Defenders" bumper stickers. Didn't see any defenders on the work crew though.

I had a conversation with the manager of Red Canyon Ranch, which is a TNC property managed for biodiversity and still grazes cattle. He related to me a picture taken from the ranch was included in the coffee table book 'Welfare Ranching' as evidence of cattle impacts on riparian areas. He said the real funny part, is that the cattle hadn't been in that pasture for over 2 years and what they had taken a picture of was a public access fishing site!

IME, for some of these groups its less about actually fixing the problem but more about that it has to be fixed our way. It boils down often to the fact that difference of means is something that can me mitigated, but the difference of goals is often something neither side would fudge on.

I know I would love to see some hunting and/or fishing pics from Mr. Ferris from these places with wolves...

I would like to see ANY hunting pics of BF.

Spent or received from the EAJA?

The landscape of non-profits is almost as complicated as the ecological relationships of natural landscapes. Some organizations are policy organizations, some are land acquisition and some are both. Defenders tends more towards policy and their direct actions focused more towards species re-introductions--particularly in the predator realm but they also worked on trumpeter swans, prairie dogs and beavers during my tenure. The more hard advocacy oriented an organization the less likely it was to get substantial corporate support like TNC that does relatively less policy work as a percentage of their budget. But to say that Defenders does not and has not done work benefiting habitat is not accurate. Defenders has a long history of lobbying for monies to manage public lands for wildlife, was active in pushing for many of the conservation provisions contained in the federal farm bill, and looking at a whole range of economic incentives both on public and private lands such as grazing lease retirement, market labeling for predator friendly beef, tax code modifications to maintain private forestry lands, and grass banking. The characterization of them as an anti-hunting group that does not work on habitat is both untrue and unfair.

"Predator friendly beef"???!!! People can be guilted into damn near anything today. "Organic", "predator friendly" beef would really be something of an accomplishment for the enviromentalists. How about a little common sense instead of a bunch of handwringing urbanites trying to dictate to producers the best way to raise cattle. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on how to best manage wildlife and public lands. On the one end you have the well intentioned city folk who believe whatever emotional sewage that groups like Defenders wish to spew, and on the other end of the spectrum you have groups like MOGA and SFW that wish to monopolize our resources and public lands for themselves. Both sides are dead wrong in their philosophies, but will continue to consume as much funding as possible, taking away from those organizations that might actually do some good. Characterizing Defenders as anything but an anti-hunting group (whether they do a little habitat work or not) is very disingenuous.

"Predator friendly beef".... WTF??? Do they have 3 legs so your beloved wolf doesn't have to work as hard to catch one?

Pointer, I am not sure what you think was so offensive about my comment regarding Aldo Leopold and his changing attitude towards hunting--I think many of us follow that path. I remember a conversation that I had with Leopold's late daughter Nina after I named my registered yellow lab Aldo Leopold. She told me that Aldo favored German short-haired pointers and always named them Flick or Spud. I am sensitive to the Leopold comment because I was Ray Dasmann's last graduate student and Ray was Starker's last graduate student at Berkeley--I value that legacy. I also spent time with the family,at the Shack and with Leopold biographer Curt Meine and hope that my comments about them are always respectful. What's more my "Aldo" was an incredible dog and I still remember him doing a triple blind retrieve that nearly brought tears to my eyes at the time. Moreover,if you look in the comment section of the RMEF critique that I wrote (http://www.cascwild.org/rocky-mount...on-hats-and-more-10-pound-brains-needed/) the comment that I value most is from Estella Leopold (Aldo's youngest daughter and the last living Leopold from that generation). Dr. Leopold and I had last interacted when she was writing a piece for Defenders magazine about what changes would be wrought in Yellowstone with the wolves--her positions being that elk had overgrazed the landscape and were headed for a crash.

I beg of you...alll of you...regardless of your feelings about SFW...please stop giving this windbag a reason/avenue to continue lecturing everyone.

He's full of more chit than a Christmas Goose and Mark Twain's warning about arguing with fools was never so apropos.

Never said it was offensive. I said it was entertaining. Please re-read what I posted. IMO, you were drawing parallels between yourself and Aldo Leopold. Something I'd consider pretty bold considering his impact. I found that funny. Sounds like you got to spend some time with the family. I'm sure they had some interesting stories to share about Aldo. I will let you continue to bask in a Berkeley legacy...

Sounds like Defenders lobbies for money to do habitat work, but doesn't put any of their cash directly into the projects. Is that a fair characterization?

You also appear to paint with a pretty broad brush regarding grazing and it's negative impacts. Do you think grazing can be done in and still promote biodiversity at a level that is economically rewarding for the grazer?

Predator friendly beef = no wolves to eat/harass them. My kind of beef! And elk. And deer.

I am not sure that I would agree with your characterization because staff time costs money and staff time was used to lobby for the funding and push for the enabling payments for private lands enhancements as well as hold the workshops with stakeholder to find out exactly which economic incentives would be the most helpful.

All life is about trade-offs. I eat meat and at least some of that comes from cattle. Grazing is always going to have an impact but a lot can be done to minimize the impacts by altering patterns, levels and timing. The impact is never zero but there are gradients that run the gambit from responsible rotational grazing with dedicated buffers for waterways on private lands to overloading on public lands. My preferences lean towards the former and away from the latter. There are large operations doing good collectively like the Malpais Borderland Group (http://www.malpaiborderlandsgroup.org/) and small operations doing similar things. I worked with a group when my wife and I were living in Vermont who started raising yak using similar techniques and their neighbors helped finance a local slaughter facility so that the meet stayed local. Both Malpais and our local yak folks increased biodiversity locally and made enough money to be profitable.

From the Salt Lake Tribune today--

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56012807-78/wildlife-utah-sfw-deer.html.csp

You guys really are no different. You both see the wolf as a cash cow.

So, the answer is no, Defenders has not put their money directly into a habitat project. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Also thanks for almost answering the question of grazing and biodiversity...

Missoula Montana?

Ease up pointer, spending other people's money is hard work, especially if you have to have staff to lobby for it.

For pete's sake man, "Defenders" has lobbied for policies that helped protect prairie dogs, and the guy named his dog after Aldo Leopold!

This is a giant of the modern conservation movement you're talking to, show some respect.

Sorry iddave, I just had to acknowledge this giant among us.

I'm all about making sure the facts are accurate

Show one. Prove those places are what you claim. Waiting for a link.

Thank you for the admonishment. Proper amount of demerits awarded. I will do better in the future.

Is it time for pics yet?

Here's a pic of my boot and a big doggy track on a trail we used to pack two elk back the camp the day before.


I'm betting BF has many similar such pics he'd like to share with you.

It's obvious that the "reporter" for the Left Wing Rag, The Salt Lake Tribune, is a wolf-humping Liberal Dikhead. You'll have to ask Oregonmuley for more info on the other places.

Oh, wait....

Check these out after you get through humping bob ferris' leg...

http://hippy.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=90

http://www.yelp.com/list/land-of-grumbling-hippies-eugene

The dialogues here remind me a little of the give and take between hunters before a hunt. Like give crap to the kid who shot a hole in his neighbor's floor when he thought the shotgun was unloaded. Or my soon to be 93-year old father who shot an ibis that he mistook for a duck 30 years ago and whenever we see an ibis everyone in the group raises their guns and then lowers them saying oops it just a grampy duck. Every hunter gets that and understands that is the way hunters are and that is the way hunting lessons are re-enforced. What worries me here is the intolerance for the ideas of others and the concept that hunters need to have some monolithic political belief system otherwise they are not real hunters. That makes hunting and hunters vulnerable because it makes them easier to pigeon hole and demonize. If anything the hunting community needs to be more open and needs to attract more hunters like Michael Soule founder of the Society for Conservation Biology who started hunting later in life at the urging of his grad students and a philosophy professor. It is ironic that at the same time that I am fielding snarky comments on this thread that I am also butting heads with animal rights activists who just got outdoor writer and friend Ted Williams removed from the masthead at Audubon Magazine because he opined that feral cat colonies could be poisoned with Tylenol. It is an interesting and complicated world.

NO!!! Girly pics....

I still want to see some of BF's hunting pics.

Venison and Beef-friendly Grey Wolves in the Gila...

bf's hunting pics will be of him shooting deer in his cannibus garden with a Daisey Red Ryder

boy that proves it, you posted links from personal sites and blogs. Great job rc.

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

Sorry smoke, that question was for 4100

OK.......................I like wolves. There I said it. But I've killed far more than any wolf hater i ever met and will continue to enjoy their company on my next hunt. Now that they are delisted more haters may come to enjoy hunting the hunters themselves.

How many have you killed and how do you do it legally?

Here they are protected and I would think drawing a tag for one anywhere else in the country would be a feat.

Ive killed wolves in BC and Yukon.
Some of my most cherished hunts. Ive also let them walk away plenty of times.

In Montana, and Idaho you can kill up to 5. The season runs from Sept. to Oct 25th for archery and gun. Then from that point through the end of February. There is also a trapping season in both states that runs from around Dec. 15th Montana (earlier in Idaho) Cost for a None res tag around $50 and $31 respectively.

Not very strict on regulations if you ask me.

Amazing that you are allowed that many and elk, moose and deer herds are still depressed.

Ya'll must not be doing your jobs!

Even more reason to completely remove Federal protection.

Ya'll are an idiot. I'm sorry but it's true for you dude.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...78d3a6b-da74-576b-9a6d-2de47c472e42.html

Ok Dikkhead...




http://www.ktvq.com/news/biologists...elk-population-with-wolf-hunt-changes/#_

http://www.kbzk.com/news/yellowstone-elk-herd-numbers-decline/

Here's some interesting quotes from readers of the site responding to the report:

Qualifications - "Top Commenter" and "Works at Northwest Children's Home"

That $hit's is Gospel right there.

100 years ago Alberta and Montana had the same moose, elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, grizzly bears, antelope, mountain goats but apparently the wolves were a different species eh?

Old news douche bag. Look at the date. We didn't even have trapping then. What a tool!

Are you saying you can compare the predator/prey issues of 100 years ago to today?

You do know that hunting and trapping aren't allowed in Yellowstone National park, right?

Also over in the Yellowstone ecosystem there's a big meat eating mammal called a Grizzly bear. You know that we aren't allowed to kill them either.

Hey, maybe Don can start fighting the Grizzly bear de listing. He's done so much for us on the wolf issue, I'm sure he has the political clout. Next time your doing your business with Don, let him know the good news.

Hey, rc, couldn't you find anything about the diseases these non native huge Canadian wolves are carrying?

You deserve a cookie for the great job of copy, and pasting you've been able to achieve.

No just tired of "the illegal Canadian wolf" reference as if they are some kind of exotic species introduction. There was no fence 100 years ago and no fence today.

I will name my next dog bob ferris.

Actually I did.

Most of the disease is shot out of wolve's azzes at 4100fps

Are you really this ignorant on the subject? First you try to pass off cat tracks as wolf, now this..No wonder SFW has you drinking at the trough.Come on man

rc', you should go to MM and read the SFW thread in the WY forum.

We'll save you yet.

Not keeping up much on this pointer, but what page?

Separating the wheat from the chaff is not a problem for me.

Anyone can find proponents for their point of view anywhere on the www

My motto is just like TR's. "Make sure you're right, then go ahead". You all will benefit from the work of those committed to what is right by hunting more abundant game.

But it will take you forever to understand why.

You have some serious problems dude. What have you been "RIGHT" about? The wolf, lion tracks? Maybe the fact that SFW/BGF tried to derail the Tester/Simpson rider? The fact that Peay claimed he was speaking for SCI, RMEF, NRA and others and got told to stand down? What exactly are you referring too? How delusional you are? Yep!

Let's see.

1. You started this thread by embracing a wacko Left Wing group's opinion

2. Wolves have devastated deer and elk populations

3. When you're not humping bob ferris' leg or a wolf, you're being blown out of one's sphincter at 4100fps.

Not sure as the only copy I've had my hands on was as part of discovery in an appeal. Red Canyon Ranch is in Wyoming. You'll have to browse through your copy...

Red Canyon Ranch

Quoting TR while defending Don P in the same breath(thread)...

Oh the hypocrisy...

Kent

#1, I never denied posting the article, or tried to hide who wrote it. I said he gets what Peay is. All but the Kool-aide drinkers do. What were you "right about"?

#2. Big statement there, only in a few areas are ungulate numbers decreasing. Not all are attributed to wolves only. Montana for example had around 90,000 elk in 1995, and today we have 140,000. You have proven nothing.

We are helping to pay for a 3 year predator study in the Bitterroot Valley, to see what's killing the calf elk. After 2 years, your theory of wolves decimating the ungulate populations doesn't hold any water. I can post several studies that show the wolf is down the list on top predator of elk. Not sure you could comprehend the literature though.

#3 Coming from a duff that doesn't know the difference between a cat track or a dog! Laffin!

May I suggest you can can find everything you want and apparently need as a "hunter" at any canned hunting operation. Abundent game (well hormoned for antler grownth) fences to keep the 4 legged wolves at bay and 2 legged ones limited to lazy (but well healed types),that I refuse to call fellow hunters. The only downside is you will have to list your trophies with SCI instead of the real deal.
Finally your commitment to "fixing" hunting as I have practiced for 40 years is destroying the grand tradition..............please just go away.

"We are helping to pay for a 3 year predator study in the Bitterroot Valley, to see what's killing the calf elk. After 2 years, your theory of wolves decimating the ungulate populations doesn't hold any water. I can post several studies that show the wolf is down the list on top predator of elk. Not sure you could comprehend the literature though."

Curious who "we" are and what did they pay for?

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2011/BitterrootElkStudy.htm#.UUtIZxzFXpY

Thanks JR. I should have been more specific as I was wondering which WE 4100 belonged to.

His desk is right next to bob ferris over at Cascadia Wildlands Headquarters.

rcamuglia...

Your "best" is quite impressive...you dont know a lion track from a wolf track. You think wolf tags are "hard to draw". You have no idea what the real problems are with elk, moose, etc.

For an encore you like sucking SFW Kool-aid straight from the Dons tap...How many pairs of knee pads have you worn out? Plenty I'm sure.

As far as 4100fps...you could try for the rest of your life and you'd have NO chance of acquiring the hunting and woodsmanship skills he has...and thats a simple fact.

I was born, grew up in, and hunted/fished/trapped some of the same country as 4100fps...it isnt for limp-wristed windbags like you, and your boy Peay, another simple fact.

While you were still trying to figure out what a wolf track looks like, many of us were busy in the wolf issue and getting state plans going. Wayyyy before SFW even existed...and wayyy before they started taking credit for the rider that they tried to kill that actually did delist wolves.

Your lack of knowledge on these issues as well as woodsmanship in general is pretty laughable...maybe you should post up some of the pictures you have of lower-48 wolves, bobcats, fishers, marten, coyotes, lynx, etc. that you've taken.

Show us how much you "know" about predators...

I suggest you stay on the porch before you're sized for a 3XL asshat...you've already got the 2XL.

Whoa!
Just got back from my woodsmanship 101 class at the university. Had to make a stop to get my hat resized too, so I just saw this.

I do have a lot of pictures of what I think are coyotes that I've shot, but after you've pointed out my greenhornness, I'm even starting to doubt what I thought I knew. They could be a house cat of some kind; I'm too embarrassed to post them for fear that I'm wrong.

Hold on a minute, I'm a tad thirsty.






Ahhhhh....



Koolaid!!!




Ok, I'm all better.


Hey! I see you're in Wyoming!

Guess what?!?! I'll be in your neck of the woods at the end of May!

PM me your contact info. It would be a great opportunity for us to get together. I'd love to pick your brain for information on all the stuff I need to learn!

I'll be on the porch in a rocker taking it easy til then, waiting for my knee pads to be repaired. They're at the upholsterer.

Guess were having somewhat an impact. Not as good as SFW would, or could, but it's a start.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/nu...7afbf2c-927c-11e2-be0f-0019bb2963f4.html

Crazy that you would reference that link/article since you have clearly stated that wolves are NOT an issue in regard to elk, moose and deer populations.

As some dick head has said earlier, LAFFIN'!

As always your reading comprehension skills are that of a third grader. I never said once that aren't having a impact. What I said was they aren't the number one predator of elk in our study. That study only is in regards to elk mortality. You either didn't read the study, or can't understand what you read. Then again it wasn't written in crayon!

This post was to show how amusing your statements are! Your doing yourself no favors in answering anything.

Glad to see you still have a sence of humour.
I really hope you will see the light.
tz

RC,did the "coyotes" look like this one?


And yes SLM I like posting this pic.

Yep! Those are the ones!

Is that a "coyote"? I sure hope so, cuz I've shot a bunch of them and wanna be sure. We haven't got that far yet in the Woodmanship 101 class I'm in.

Maybe you can tell me, but most of them look similar:






One of them even looks like this...







Sorry. That last one was a pic of me wrestling with 4100fps. I got dirty and he was happy.

As long as your not drinking the same Kool-Aid as rc'.

930 YDS is pretty impressive.

rc', what's SFW's thought on Bidigain being appointed?

You might want to ask them.

I lied. It was really 934 yards.

I thought I was.

LOL!

930 yards,schitt I missed them at 20-30 yards,HA top that!

I'm not. I like tea.

BuzzH is spot on!