http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/the-reality-behind-animal-rights-radicals-re-wilding/#ixzz38fgNmcDQ

California --(Ammoland.com)- There is an organized jihad being waged by radical environmental and animal rights activists against hunting, fishing, and trapping. Some of this push is overt, while other efforts are subtle yet equally sinister.

These radical groups hope to substitute natural resource harvesting activities (such as hunting) by humans as the long-standing preferred method of wildlife management, and to instead adopt a new approach incorporating a theoretical but unrealistic natural predator-prey environmental balance.


In their fantasy this balance would be �naturally� self-regulating, would bring the eco-system into harmony, and would make hunting unnecessary.

This contrasting natural resource management model is commonly known as �conservation biology� or euphemistically �rewilding.� The rewilding model rejects the traditional and centuries-old North American Model of Wildlife Management that intimately incorporates [low cost] consumptive-users (such as hunters) into the process of managing natural resources and wildlife.


It�s the radical environmentalists� utopian �Circle of Life.� But without humans in the circle.

Proponents of the worldview that rejects the North American Model of Wildlife Management are cunning in their approach to getting their agenda adopted. They start by advocating �conservation biology� to certain pre-disposed scientists, and they encourage those �scientists� to become activists of the approach rather than neutral observers and reporters. These scientists-turned-activists then argue that the very human-designed natural conservation activities that have saved and preserved most wildlife species[1] should be tossed out and replaced with their view of a �natural ecological system� approach to wildlife management. Under their approach predators like coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, bears and mesopredators[2] are counted on to thrive in dramatically increased numbers by preying on deer, elk, moose, small game herds, and even on livestock.

In perhaps the most stunning admission that human intervention can�t realistically be avoided when managing wildlife in the civilized world, the rewilders have a backup plan if the predators don�t kill enough game animals: put wildlife on birth control ( http://tiny.cc/8dbkjx ) . The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) says publicly that: �Hunting isn�t the answer. PZP contraception is a humane way to control the populations of deer and other wildlife.�

Carefully packaged, �rewilding� approach actually appeals to some susceptible outdoor enthusiasts � that is, until they discover that this scheme dramatically increases the numbers of many animals considered varmints or threats to humans, and minimizes or eliminates access to public land and the availability of game that can be taken by hunters.

Oh, and they also discover that a truly rewilded �nature� full of larger populations of predator species is a very dangerous place for humans.


All this in the name of protecting the proponents� favored �keystone� predator species.

The Rewilding Agenda

The details of this extravagant theory were first laid out by Earth First co-founder David Foreman. In his book, Rewilding North America ( http://tiny.cc/hkbkjx ) , he says:

�Specific actions that best meet my criteria for continental-scale conservation are the following:
�Reintroduce carnivores wherever possible
�Reintroduce beavers and other highly interactive species
�Establish species recovery goals for ecologically effective populations
�Generally halt all predator and �pest� control
�Reform wildlife management to adopt a more ecological approach
�Select and design new wilderness areas based on ecological principles
�Protect all large roadless areas on public lands
�Create larger roadless areas in the East
�Remove livestock from much of the public lands
�Reform livestock grazing where it continues
�Prioritize simple soil and gully erosion control
�Prohibit big tree logging
�Develop standards for ecological restoration in wilderness areas
�Remove abandoned and unnecessary livestock fencing
�Restrict all motorized vehicles to designated routes
�Reduce the miles of public lands roads
�Stop bogus R.S. 2477 (highway right-of-way) claims
�Establish landscape permeability as a public land management goal
�Identify and remove or mitigate barriers to wildlife movement ◦Encourage ecological management of private, corporate, and tribal lands important for linkages

�Identify private lands that should be acquired on a willing-seller basis
�Restore a natural fire ecology
�Remove destructive, unnecessary dams
�Restore or mimic natural, over-the-bank flooding, where possible
�Establish in-stream flow as a beneficial water use
�Prioritize removal of exotic species that threaten native species and wildlands
�Design networks for climate change . . . .�

That�s one hell of a �rewilding� wish list once you realize what he�s really advocating! Foreman proposes ignoring or devaluing the past, present, and unavoidable future influence of human intellect on the entire world ecosystem � tools, energy sources, plant and animal husbandry; in short, all of the environmentally dominating consequences of civilization brought on by human kind�s intellect and our compulsion to survive and thrive.

�Rewilding� is a generally �anthropo-phobic�[3] viewpoint of self-described �citizen conservationists� like Foreman. In Rewilding North America, Foreman argues that humankind is primarily responsible for all species extinction events since pre-historic man hiked out of Africa to search for food, water, territory, and perhaps to escape the kinds of pre-industrial climate change that was happening in Africa at the time. Foreman also comments negatively on the Asian migration across the Siberian Land Bridge, Polynesians migrating across the Pacific and, in his later works, the northern movement of Latin Americans.


To him it seems those pesky intercontinental immigrants really messed up the world.

It all makes for fascinating, yet and frightening, reading. Foreman�s position suggests that Humankind�s evolution beyond a primate prey species in Africa was a huge mistake, not worth the cost to the animal kingdom. You can almost hear Foreman saying that human evolution � past the primitive caveman stage � was a natural error; one big blooper that can only be rectified by something like human population reduction on a mass scale.


Well, let�s hope that�s not happening.

Works by other conservation biologists such as Dr. Michael Soul�, who is active in California now, make the �animals before humans� point even more profoundly.[4] Soul�s work is interesting because of his application of Albert Schweitzer�s value system (one conceded to have �borrowed� heavily from Jainism[5]) to biological studies. Soul� admits that the wisdom of providing for maximum biodiversity as a goal cannot really be tested or proven scientifically. Which of course makes it no different from any of the world�s other philosophies or religions.[6]


In other words, �rewilders� want us to accept their agenda on faith.

What is Really �Wild� Anyway?

It�s hard to imagine public acceptance of a radical viewpoint like rewilding, one that apparently considers the evolution of Mozart, the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, and Steve Jobs to be Gaia�s[7] biggest mistake. The �rewilding� philosophy ignores that humans have always been a very natural part of nature anyway. The pre-historic human�s brain doubled in size in two million years due to success as a hunter, and the nutritional benefits of that protein food supply. Cavemen hunted, domesticated wolves into dogs, refined wild seeds to grow and harvest crops, built farms, and built cities. In short, civilized humans have come to dominate �nature� because we as a species are more intelligent than other animals. Some humans may not like the current civilized agenda or state of human affairs, and admittedly some animal species have been limited, or even eliminated, by human domination. But that domination is nonetheless as �natural� as it gets. Just ask Charles Darwin. Intellect rules, not claws or jaws.

Regardless, much of the rewilding agenda has been at least suggested in many venues, and parts of it even initiated as government policy. The rewilders strive to reshape wildlife management agency philosophy along conservation-biology-as-theology lines. The rewilders have actually been successful in taking control of parts of the scientific agenda that make wildlife management decisions, like catch and bag limits for hunters nationwide.

Perhaps A Bit Too Re-Wilded?

Thankfully, the �conservation biology� agenda is not yet close to being fully accomplished. The �rewilders� will have to act fast before the general public catches on to their plan, because once the general public does, the public won�t like it. The �rewilding� faithful realize that their model doesn�t work without completely disrupting human activities. Once folks do catch on to that, the rewilders� job will get a lot harder.

Mountain Lion
Mountain Lion

California�s failed experiment with mountain lion protection since 1999 typifies the flaws with the �rewilding� model. California�s mountain lion protection efforts have not realized any of the predicted natural control (by the mountain lions) over mesopredators (such as coyotes) despite large scale wilderness designations across the state. In other words, more mountain lions as protected predators have not led to fewer coyote predators. But having more lion attacks in the state has led to some nature hikers being eaten alive, and it has scared the hell out of people who thought they really liked the natural wilderness experience � until it licked its lips and snarled at them from the bushes on the trail side.


Turns out the modern day public isn�t any more enthusiastic about a truly �wild� experience than Cro-Magnon humans were as they struggled to survive and to make a better, less vulnerable, more civilized life for themselves.

If wolves, wolverines, coyotes and grizzly bears are to be reintroduced into the �rewilding� mix, there may not be enough wild prey to feed these types of keystone predators. Of course, if there are not enough animals for the predators to eat, you can bet the number of hunting tags issued will plummet. And what will these predators eat once all the accessible wildlife are gone? Trash? Pets? Kids? Coyote attacks are on the rise is suburbia. The no-longer endangered American alligator has grown fond of small dogs and even retirees. Remember, under the theology of �conservation biology,� wildlife comes first. Fido is expendable.

What�s Next?

Sadly, it is clear that with a pseudo-academic theology such as �conservation biology,� there is little room for traditional activities such as logging, ranching, mining, farming, hunting, fishing, transportation, homebuilding and nation building. Nor is there room for many other forms of human activity. This is especially apparent when academics note that land and ecologies will have to be managed in such a way as to adapt for climate change, meaning that new lands to the North and in higher elevations will inevitably face additional restrictions on human activity to make way for endangered species of wildlife, plants, (maybe even microbes) and their habitat.

You can have faith in that.

Will the sporting community be able to join together and successfully resist these radical groups� hostile takeover of wildlife and natural resource management? Will we be able to maintain our cohesion, or will defections and side-deals by splinter groups with their own selfish agendas result in defeat? The sporting community and the other stakeholders need to take issue with this bias �peer-reviewed� agenda science masquerading as scientific fact. It is time for hunters, fishermen, recreational shooters, and critical providers of food, water, and energy to band together and exert their market place power on the state game management agencies that are beginning to take all of their real constituents for granted.

No.



Travis

When they get their way, and hunting opportunities dwindle, license revenue for managing these animals will dry up. There wont be any money to pay F&G to protect. No Game Wardens. That will leave it wide ass open to poaching.
That should make them happy.

Agreed.

Hunters have jobs, and when they get time off, they go play---------and hunt. Activists live on daddy's trust fund, and these political "causes" ARE their recreation. Politics is about money and quieting the squeakiest wheel. Greenies have time and money to invest.

Ever wonder where the Communist party disappeared to? I don't.

If you're not at the table, you're what's for lunch....see Sportsman's Act 2014. Hunter's got railroaded by both sides.

to simplify their ultimate goals: what they really want is a wildlife corridor with no humans at all. This corridor would encompass the entire great plains/Rocky Mtn area. Humans would be crammed into a handful of massive tent cities and handled as an invasive species.

If I really wanted to end hunting as we know it, I'd take away the biggest dependency that the majority of hunters rely on....Public Land.

thats cool. let me know when that doesn't work out and i'll bring the '06.

It seems as if hunters and outdoorsmen don't see the problem, or don't care, or don't want to face it.

This radical environmental terror effort is well underway, well funded, supported by the POS administration in charge, and implemented by the very agencies our tax dollars fund.

I doubt that even more than a handful of people here at the 'Fire even realize how serious this problem is. Nor do they care until it impacts THEM. A sad turn of events.

Even worse than hunters and outdoorsmen not knowing or caring, is the problem being ignored by powerful hunting organizations that could and should do everything in their power to stop this effort and people.

Even pleas for help far on deaf ears with these organizations. They are perfectly willing to let your right to hunt, especially on public land dwindle away at a rapid pace.

Here is one example.

http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/animal-protection-groups-stop-coyote-killing-contest/

Duane begged for help from organizations like SCI, Predatormasters, and many other organizations. He got no support. He didn't even get a letter of support, much less any money to help with his legal fees in fighting them. So, this is the result.

The same assaults in hunters and shooters have been going on for awhile with public land ranchers.

People are too stupid to see that the same Multiple Use Act that keeps them ranching keeps US hunting on public lands. You post about these land grabs, and other atrocities on places like this, and half the people even here take the side of the radical environmental groups causing the problem.

Dumbasses.

It will be too late. Soon.

This is the very same thing that happened to the logging industry. The very same organizations are who killed logging.

They would rather see the entire forest burn, (and everything in it) than see it logged for a healthy forest.

Liberal logic.

We all need to show up. Every one of us.

ingwe,

Keep in mind that the agenda is gun confiscation, which I can't rule out in my lifetime.

Moreover, since oppressive political constructs always arise from the left, should emotional wildlife "management" be adopted, expect severe penalties for poaching; e.g., felonies and loss of what gun rights might remain.

I used to have a game warden friend who's now in Heaven. He hated Morgan Fairchild because she duped easily duped CA voters to enact via initiative our state's mountain lion hunting ban. He was adamant that wildlife management is a science, not an emotion. Being a hunter himself, he was extremely supportive of hunting RIGHTS. He also told me to take my handgun when I hiked/fished certain areas. He told me that I always had the right to protect my life.

American voters are the most gullible (read: stupid) voters in the world.

Gun confiscation is only part of the agenda.

Their main goal is a complete takeover of all lands west of Texas.

Who controls the land, thus controls the money. Ask Harry Reid.

Witness the last 2 pres elections. nuff said on that.

OK, so what are you doing? Besides preaching to the choir here.

Personally, I think the tide is turning. More and more people are realizing that hunting is not a bad thing and more people are hunting, for different reasons than in the past.

More people are shooting too. A fancy new indoor gun club just opened up nearby, catering to an upscale clientele. Business is booming, no pun intended. That wouldn't have happened 20 years ago.

The DC gun ban was just overturned.

Having said all that, this is no time to be complacent. Everyone needs to do their part, and the best thing is to get more people interested in and participating in hunting.

But as far as these kooks getting their way and substituting predators for hunters, it'll never happen. Because none of their ideas will work, and people are smart enough to know that. Birth control is not feasible, and neither is having large populations of predators anywhere except in the wilderness. Agriculture would cease to exist if we eliminated hunting.

Yes, we all need to do our part, but it involves promoting everything that is good about hunting and shooting, and getting more people into these pursuits.

The half-baked plan of these nut-jobs don't stand a chance. They say hunting is "unnatural" while promoting prey species control by predators. The general public is smart enough to see through that. After all, most people eat meat.

Two points of correction -

1) Foreman is, or has been, a hunter and is not an anti-hunter.
2) Conservation Biology as a field and for the vast majority of Con.Bio professionals, is not anti-hunting.

There are some good points in that op-ed, and a whole lot of hyperbole, but those two points are glaringly wrong.

Hope you're right but think you are dead wrong. No slam meant.

You'd be surprised what I do to stop the groups.

I serve on two boards of directors dedicated to defending hunting rights or wildlife management, I engage the environmental terrorists with science that disproves their emotions and lies at the levels that do some good, like Game Commission meetings. I also write for two nationally distributed magazines, and never miss the chance to mention the fight in my articles.

I also participate and sponsor events that educate our youth about guns, hunting, trapping, and the like. My favorite of these events are where they bring city kids out into the wilderness, that otherwise would not have the chance to learn.

I have also engaged the opposing side of radical environmental terrorists in national radio talk shows. They hate facts, and hate to see me coming...

I also participate politically with the procedure in which our leaders and elected officials are chosen. This is important on a local level too. Local politics, and the people that don't know the difference need to be educated before they vote... Not be stuck with the idiots for years after they elect them.

So, I think I may contribute at least what I can to the fight.... I could ask the same question of you.

I don't think things are as rosy as you paint them as far as gun rights and hunting privileges.

Ground lost will never be regained.

But, I'm hopeful that people do wake up and smell the coffee before all is lost.

None taken. Again, I'm not saying its OK to be complacent, just that these screwballs don't have a snowball's chance.

The goal is to get every 'American' lumped together in a dozen or so mega-cities.

Lot easier to control critters when penned up.

Are you just sticking your head in the sand, or are you actually that misinformed?

This is by far the most accurate of statements. It goes WELL beyond hunting, and WELL beyond the conception of most of the "useful idiots" on the far left (and many on the right).

THIS ^^^ is the goal, and the rationale.

Exactly. The New American Magazine (John Birch Society) has thoroughly documented the Re-wilding movement, and its movers and shakers, for twenty or so years. This stuff ain't new.

Political appointees of the last several adminstrations are sympathetic to this bullschidt.

Neither, but I do what I can to get more people into hunting and shooting. What are you doing besides preaching to the choir on the internet?

Neither, I'm doing what I can to promote hunting and get more people into it.

What are you doing, besides preaching to the choir here?

I guess you don't read well either.

rockinbbar,

Out of curiosity, what organizations?

From 2011

Perspective: Animal rights group has infiltrated California Department of Fish and Game.

http://www.wonews.com/t-PerspectiveReport_AnimalRights_102011.aspx

Of that, there is no doubt.

They did in NM as well when Bill Richardson was governor and appointed 3 animal rights activists to the Game Commission. 2 of which were illegal appointments because they had to be appointed from different areas of the state and they weren't. Suzanna Martinez cleaned them out though, and we got a new Director of the NMG&F replacing the animal rights guy Richardson had in there.

I fight to keep politics OUT of game management...

4ager. New Mexicans for Proactive Wildlife Predator Management and two Cattleman's Associations.

Gotcha. Not familiar with those groups, but keeping politics OUT of game management is an honorable fight (and a damned difficult one).

You have no clue of how successful half-baked plans of nut-jobs have been and will be.

It's not doing something that'll work. It's doing the right thing. Getting non-hunters involved in hunting doesn't work. As hunters, we know it's a passion. People either want to hunt or they don't. I love to hunt. My son is indifferent about it. He has refused to o elk hunting with me this year. He does like to shoot, though.

My advice is to link hunting to individual liberty; that is: show indifferent Americans that hunting is a positive indicator of a free people.

As for those who are against hunting, it's a waste of time to try to convince them otherwise. You might as well dig a hole on a beach.

I will tell you for an absolute fact that underestimating enemies of freedom is a catastrophic mistake. I know. I live in CA.

You have no clue of how successful half-baked plans of nut-jobs have been and will be. One tiny compromise & one little new law at a time and they've gotten what they have wanted, and they'll get more of it using the same strategy.

It's not doing something that'll work. It's doing the right thing. Getting non-hunters involved in hunting doesn't work. As hunters, we know it's a passion. People either want to hunt or they don't. I love to hunt. My son is indifferent about it. He has refused to o elk hunting with me this year. He does like to shoot, though.

My advice is to link hunting to individual liberty; that is: show indifferent Americans that hunting is a positive indicator of a free people.

As for those who are against hunting, it's a waste of time to try to convince them otherwise. You might as well dig a hole on a beach.

I will tell you for an absolute fact that underestimating enemies of freedom is a catastrophic mistake. I know. I live in CA.

I didn't know BigSqueeze was a game warden, I sure can't imagine you having more than one friend

Which cattlemans's associations?

International Communism and National Communism never disappeared. They just changed the color of their lipstick and rouge and called themselves "Progressives."

Same ol' same ol'.

L.W.

You choose to live in la-la land, don't talk to me about getting a clue.

You can't even buy one there.

Smokepole, I know what side of the river you are on. We have had that discussion here before.

You and your bud's are government employees that oppose multiple use of public land.

You ARE the enemy. Yet, with all that has been documented about the plans of the radical environmental groups to take the west from public use, and use the same old government agencies to enforce that land grab, and denying people the rights and privileges they have enjoyed on public lands,.... you still deny that there are drastic efforts to do exactly that?

You ARE the problem.

You're full of unadulterated bullsh**.

I'm not a government employee, and never have been. And I challenge you to go back and find anything I've ever written here that is against multiple use.

You want to cite membership in unnamed "cattlemen's associations" as an indication that you support hunting.

I've got a news flash for you--cattlemen's associations exist to promote cattle ranching. Nothing wrong with that, unless you want to say membership proves you promote hunting.

Then it's just more bullsh**.

PS, I'm guessing one of the cattlemen's associations you belong to is the New Mexico Cattle Grower's Association. I'm sure it's a fine association. But I went on their website, read through it, and didn't see "hunting" mentioned once.

I don't put everything out in plain view where folks like you can get it.

The cattleman's assoc. supports hunting, trapping, multiple use of public lands and vehemently is opposed to the injection of wolves and other species that are not only in conflict with ranching, but hunting and public safety as well.

Next go around is grizzlies.

To say the cattleman's associations are not involved with supporting hunting is a lie. I see their presence not only physically at all the important meetings, but see the checks they write in support of proper game management and preserving hunting and trapping rights.

You never did answer me about WHAT you DO to help the efforts...

Folks like me? Talk is cheap, on the internet.

I volunteer my time, which is my most valuable resource. I teach hunter education so more people can hunt. I've helped approximately 700 students get their cards, and it's a pretty significant time commitment. Not only in class but to attend seminars and stay current.

I'm a life member of RMEF, a hunting and conservation organization. I've volunteered my time for several habitat improvement projects to promote hunting. I've had a few hunting articles published in their magazine.

I'm a member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

I'm a member of Trout Unlimited.

I've had letters to the editor in support of hunting published in newspapers here and in San Antonio when I lived there.


I'm not afraid to put that out there because these are hunting organizations. You won't say what organizations you belong because they're not hunting organizations.

Like I said, you can search the entire New Mexico Cattle Grower's Association website and not find the words "hunt" or "hunting." Not even once. That seems odd, seeing as you you say it's a pro-hunting organization.

Speaking of which, if you're such a dedicated hunter, how come a search of your posts turns up nothing in any forum that has "hunting" in the title? General big game, deer hunting, elk hunting long-range hunting, and so on.

Far as I can tell, you only post in this forum, also known as the freak show.

Look.

You and I have tangled way more than I ever should have let happen.

It's obvious that you are pissed off. Your posts reflect that emotion.

If you remember, it was YOU that said I didn't do anything but preach to the choir here...

And, yes. I'm guarded about what I put out there. Who wouldn't be? I have not revealed a minute fraction of the footprint I have in the hunting and shooting industry to you...

But, you say there's no plan to screw anyone out of anything. That we are all delusional.

A few years ago I would have been right there with ya, saying that people that thought they were out to take our hunting privileges and gun rights away didn't stand a chance. But, if you don't see the progress they have made in doing just that, then you are the one that's delusional.

You may or may not draw a paycheck from the government, but it sure is funny how you jump into threads here to defend government and their actions when they trespass on us.

Just keep thinking I'm a dumb cowboy. Nothing to see here.

This is just part of the long term leftist anti-gun agenda.

Equate the 2nd amendment with hunting.

Then do away with hunting.

I'm not pissed off. I just get tired of guys who think that posting a political opinion on this forum to be read by a bunch of guys who share the exact same opinions is some sort of accomplishment, or "taking a stand."

It ain't.



Defend the government? More bullsh**. Why don't you explain how anything I've said here can be construed as defending the government.

I don't draw a paycheck from the govt, never did. How about you?



Yes, that's exactly what I said. And you've replied with nothing of substance.




Now there you go again. I've said neither. What I said was, these screwball's plan to control wildlife populations with predators only doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Because it's unworkable and in short order would disrupt our food supply, and the public won't stand for that.



Never said that, but if you want to play that game, be my guest.

You are arguing with yourself at this point.

Still an Obama Supporter?

Well, it's not surprising you tossed that out there.

You've already said I was a government worker, and that I defended the government, neither of which are true.

Which makes you a liar.

Good job.

Better than a complete asswhole.



I do remember you said that Obama supporters are the new niqqers. So make that fit.

You remember that huh? Why don't you find it and post it. F'ing liar.




I think you've proven it's possible to be both.....

But tell me, why is it that such a hardcore hunter as yourself never posts on the hunting forums?

Here's what you said.



So, I have to post where YOU think I ought to post to have validity in what I say as a hunter? That's hilarious.

You and Buzz can post pictures til the cows come home about what great white hunters you are.

But, until you wake up and smell the roses about our public land hunting and gun rights being at risk, then you are indeed as stupid as you appear.

Rockinbar,
I would bet money that Smokepole is a pro. Green. Member of Backcountry H and A, the astroturf group founded because Pew Trust blew getting sportsmen on board for the roadless initiative?
BHA, which gets heavy funding from WCF which in turn is funded mostly by six foundatons working in tandem, cross-funding one anothers' projects?
A few greens like to hunt, but don't seem to realize there's not going to be a darn thing to hunt if Foreman's predators keep chowing on the game populations. They think there's gonna be a wildlife PARADISE if all those miners, loggers ranchers farmers trophy homers all just go away and they're the last ones standing. No -- the REAL greens, the leftie totalitarians, will come for you too, Smokey.

LOL, you do realize the difference between saying "Obama supporters are the new Niqqers," and "Obama supporters" is the new "Niqqer-lover" don't you?

My point in saying that was that people like you use the two in the same way, just like you did with me.

You have no facts, so you toss out "Obama supporter."

And that was after you said I was:

1) A government worker;

2) Against multiple use of public land; and

3) Defending the government.

All of which are lies.

You're a lying, pathetic POS.

And I doubt you're even a hunter. Do you know why I say that?

Because the hunting forums on this site are loaded with great information. Yet you never post there.

How any person who calls himself a hunter could come on this site and confine himself to this particular forum is beyond me.

And telling.

A professional greenie?

How much you want to bet on that Dave?

You guys crack me up. You can't comprehend how someone could be a member of BHA and not be an absolute total whacked out "greenie." And supporter of predator re-introduction.

Why don't you pull out some of the archives on wolf reintroduction and see if BuzzH and I were on the same page.

It'll be entertaining.

Buzz and I have divergent opinions on that. But I will say this--BuzzH is a hell of a hunter, and puts his money where his mouth is, as far as spending his time on things that matter to him. More than I can say for most on this thread.

Well, Azzwipe...

I'll be sure and conform to reasons why you think I should visit certain areas of this site. Right away, Sir!


I don't reckon it ever occurred to you that perhaps after spending years on such places, that someone might get tired of answering newbie questions and seeing the repetitive nature of them, and may just want to hang out and be a grumpy old man, along with the rest of the crew?

I will say this though, for someone that teaches Hunter Education, you must get their Journal? I'm slightly hurt that you missed a couple of articles I wrote for that publication...

You know, everything isn't in a neat little file that you would put it in. You may not actually know everything about everything. Or everyone. Heck, you can't even tell when someone is jerking your chain.

But, rest assured, that I don't need nor want your approval to keep doing what I'm doing.

You may not be a liberal, but some reason, we keep winding up on the opposite sides of an argument. There has to be a reason for that. Or maybe not. It could be that you actually ARE stupid enough to believe the horseschidt you posted about, through rose colored glasses in this thread earlier.

The rest of the folks are a bit worried they won't have a place to hunt before long, or anything to shoot it with either.

If you don't think those very things are threatened to the limits right now, then there is no help for you.

And you can't. Because you don't have any.

No, I DON'T. Not here. Not for you.

Can't and Don't are two different words amigo.

Unlike you, and your compadre that post strings of dead animals to prove your dick is bigger than mine, I don't HAVE to do that to know mine is bigger than yours.

You ARE grand entertainment though. I'll give you that much.

You just can't help yourself, can you. Show me where I said hunting and shooting are not threatened.

I did say, the tide is turning. Which I believe to be true.

I did say, hunting is not threatened by these particular nut cases, in my opinion. They're just too far out there to convince anyone to join their cause.

So, which articles did you write for the hunter ed journal?

I'd like to check them out. PM me if you don't want the information public.

Same excuse all big talkers use.

I'm not the one that started this game of Tu Madre. You are.

The reason I am not posting pictures is that when I do, every anti hunter, SOB out there will connect the dots to who I am and what I do and say.

There are folks here at the campfire that know me, and have been hunting with me. And they know the hunting and shooting industry professional affiliations I have.

So, you are free to believe what you like.

GFY. Liberal.

Tell you what. Any time you think you're man enough to meet and say that face-to-face, you just let me know.

The hippies gutted Oregon with the Spotted Owl, so now they're going to try their luck with the California Condor and mandated "lead free" ammo. Oregon already has declining hunting numbers (and revenue) so introducing an overgrown turkey vulture should give them another victory.

Say what? GFY?

You need to cool off and look at how stupid you have made yourself out to be from the onset in this thread today.

It is good that I can still piss off a liberal. It's one of my favorite pastimes.

Still an Obama supporter?

They have recently added hundreds of new animals to endangered species list.

They are using them everywhere.

Their goal is to push everyone out of the public lands.

Some interesting reading about part of the problem here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...combat-federal-la/#.U9aJlQ3fSOM.facebook

It ain't quite the rosy picture that some would have us believe. Our hunting privileges and gun rights are more threatened now than they have ever been.

Smoke probably wipes his azz with the Washington Times, them being slant-eyed moonies and all.

I agree. And ODFW doesn't appear to realize that the hippies aren't paying their salary, the hunters are. They've already "reintroduced" wolves to Oregon. Not the oversized coyotes that used to live here, but the huge Canadian bastids. So ODFW wastes untold dollars studying and tracking them, while they continue to multiply and snack on the dwindling elk and deer populations.

Those who thing the "kook fringe" doesn't have a solid game plan are sorely misinformed.

fait accompili in commiefornia.

Our very own 'fish and game' here in MT is being suckered by the greenies.

Along with a few 'do-gooder', transplant "Montanan's" who live on the opposite side of the state.
(some of whom post on this sight....)



It is unbelievable what is happening.

That's what I thought, no balls.

I'm not surprised though, coming from a guy who strikes fear into the hearts of greenies everywhere, but is afraid to show his face on a hunting website.

What were those articles you wrote, again?

They are well organized, well funded, and VERY vocal.

Even though most of what they talk is pure lies, they don't mind shouting the lies at the top of their lungs.

Sooner or later one would think that hunters and outdoorsmen would organize much like the NRA did to protect our hunting legacies and protect where and how we hunt.

Yep, look out for the "griz-corridor" between yellowstone and the Bob. Its coming.

You, my little Obama supporter friend can STILL GFY.

Yes.

But the largest land grab will happen with the lesser prairie chicken and the sage grouse in the NW will take millions of acres out of circulation.

I failed German in high school. Translation please?

I don't think Smoke is an obamaphile or ever voted for him. I'd bet a fair sum he's a RINO. Think SteveNO or Isaac. I have been wrong before, but not often:)

He is an accomplished hunter and is passionate about hunting, no doubt. The reason he's clueless about the green agenda is he never reads anything that isn't on the RINO/RNC approved reading lists.

Yep. Watch California to see your future. Then watch them move to your state and do the same thing all over again. Oregon USED to be a wonderful state, but 40 years of infiltration has destroyed it. Sorry to see it happening to MT.

Yeah, I think he hunts a lot, and kills a lot too.

But he better pull his head out of his ass before he can't do that anywhere at all though....

First part of pulling your head out of your ass is recognizing who the enemy is.

I'm not the enemy. Quite the opposite. I fight everyday so that our gun and hunting rights can be passed on intact.

You call yourself a cowboy, which is funny. What does the cowboy code say about talking Sh** that you are unable or unwilling to back up, cowboy?

While it's true that liberals are ruining America, if they didn't exist you'd have to invent them to have something to piss and moan about. This place reminds me of a bunch or old women more and more.

If greens/liberals/wackos of any stripe are going to put an end to hunting they'll do it through the ballot box, either directly through initiatives or indirectly through their elected representatives.

To win that battle, I'm doing what I can to make sure there are more of us than them.

You just piss and moan about what idiots they are, to an audience that thinks exactly like you do. There's an old saying for that.

All horn and no motor.

Still not good at enemy recognition are you?

Grow the fug up, man. You sound like Jr. High drama queen.

While you can't imagine, I know you're a mall cop. Now get back to Sears, women's underwear, aisle 6, for a spill.

I'm curious as to where you think leftist money from and where propaganda films are made?

California is the bellwether state of the nation. When liberals win elsewhere, you bet the clue that you don't have that the origin of that win was California.

California is all about huge liberal $$$ and huge liberal influence. Why would you suppose Obama didn't campaign here yet he won 57% of this state's vote??? How's that for a clue?

+1

I've understood for a long time what the real agenda was. But understand the anti-hunters are in it for their own reasons.

The govt is facilitating it to take away your ability to survive off the land when the coming battlefield arrives.

Look at everything they've done so far to ensure food is single-sourced or at least bottle-necked. Think of the bison slaughter that took away the Indians' autonomy. Same idea.

Liberals live(and rule) by emotion. Anybody who believes they have an agenda beyond that is as stupid as they are.

Their emotions sure have cost us a whole lot of liberty.

As a cop, you ought to know that it is not necessary to prove motive to prove a crime. Liberals' motives ain't nearly as important as their ability to destroy our liberties. And that ain't stupid.

Drama queen eh? Who's the one making up stuff about the other guy here? That would be you chief.

I recognize the enemy, and donate my time to counter the enemy. But like I said, these particular nut jobs don't have a chance, in my opinion. If you get your panties in a wad every time some leftist comes down the pike with a hare-brained idea, you'll spend your life with a wedgie and miss the bigger threats to boot. If you scream "the sky is falling" on a daily basis, pretty soon you lose credibility.

I think organizations like the HSUS are a much bigger threat. Most people don't even know what they're up to. So that's where I focus my attention.

None of my comments are directed towards the original poster. I know he's the real deal, and I like to keep up on these things. This is what I objected to:




Who died and appointed you spokesman?

Back to one of your previous posts. You said you have friends on here who've hunted with you. Have a couple of them send me PMs to that effect. No names or anything like that, just "I know him and have hunted with him, he's the real deal."

If they are guys who've been here a while with some credibility, I'll publicly retract what I said about you not being a hunter, and apologize.

You vastly underestimate my concern about what you think of me, or my hunting abilities, or my buds sending you a PM about anything.

Your main concern being the HSUS shows your lack of ability to identify the real enemy.

While HSUS is anti-hunting, the Center for Biological Diversity poses a ten times greater threat to anyone that enjoys public land in any way. They also pose a threat to the industries that use public land, as well as the hunters and shooters.

Obama's EPA, the USF&G, and other government agencies are a greater threat as well, with USFS, BLM, and the Natl. Park Service being the enforcers.

Why don't we agree to disagree?

Quit whining and trying to pull your dick out. Your threats make you look small as well... You obviously are not one that checks to see how deep the water is before jumping in the creek.

Don't we have enough on our plate without fighting each other?

Good freakin' grief.

Aren't the two of you in CO? How about a beer between you and settle this?

As for threats, yeah CBD is an enemy as are the captured agencies listed (BLM used to be "Beef, Logging, & Mining" - it's now "Butterflies, Lizards, and Mice"). HSUS has teeth, but it's been wounded heavily by the Ringling Bros. case and there are a lot of holes in that ship. PETA is a joke.

The real threats are those coming out of the PRK and NYC; extremely wealth individuals who either 1) fund animal rights cases because everything is cute and cuddly and hunters are "evil", and/or 2) buy up every damned bit of land they can to lock others out from hunting/fishing/access (a second subset of #2 funds hare-brained schemes like selling off public lands to private investors - and the Chinese will be the biggest buyers).

We've got FAR more in common and at risk to fight FOR with each other than we have to fight over as differences.

I agree.

And no, I ain't in liberal Colorado...

Just a quick check-in here from Blue State Country.

Twenty eight million people live within 100 miles of downtown Manhattan, NYC. If they made that half-circle its own state it would be no. 2, just ten million behind California.

In fact I'd recommend such a visit for anyone Out West, Down South or anywhere in Red State Country, these people collectively exercise a lot of National political clout on all of us, everywhere (our current Administration for example).

The majority of these people are so far removed from the lawful use of firearms and/or hunting that ANY Greenie policy proposal has a chance of passing.

Being a career high school teacher too I have witnessed the fundamental shift in attitudes among our young folks over the last three decades and the power of the MSM and electronic media in shaping those views.

The long-term prospects of ALL the shooting and/or hunting sports are worrisome and I wouldn't take any threats or proposals lightly.

Birdwatcher

Though it must be noted that the land mass of Manhattan is 33.77 square miles as compared to California's 163,696 square miles.

Slight difference.

Carry on...

Much less at the voting booths.

Not to quibble, but Birdy's 100-mile diameter half-circle contains about 15,700 square miles. A bit different than 33.7.

I saw this in a movie the other night - After Earth with Will Smith & his son. Supposedly a "series of cataclysmic events" forced humans to abandon the planet. 1,000 years later the ship Will Smith and his son are on crash lands back on Earth.

Absent human interference and left to its own devices, Earth, to quote Will Smith's character "everything on this planet has evolved to kill humans."

Hell, it's that way now. Life feeds on life, or more properly upon the taking of life. We're nothing more than another animal that feeds on some and can/does feed others.

Well, I can assure you that I don't take any of these threats lightly. These threats collectively are why I donate my time and money to something other than a message board filled with like-minded individuals.

More on that below.




First, I already offered to meet face to face with him, but he declined.

Second, I agree with your quote above, especially the part about wealthy donors who bankroll these things, they are a huge reason for the successes that these groups have and it seems that every time something bad happens, it's one of these people from somewhere else who bankrolls the whole deal.

Money and lawyers are key. We need more of that on our side.

Third, as far as needing to stick together and not fight each other on these issues, I agree 100%, which is why I took issue with this guy's comments in the first place.

From what I can tell, all he does is flap his gums here.

But there are thousands of people all over the country who donate their time, skills, and money to promote hunting and get more people involved with it. That will be key to our success, more voters on our side. Some of these volunteers are retired with lots of time on their hands, but lots have demanding jobs and still find time to contribute. A lot of effort goes in at the local level, focused on things that impact these people directly. The thing they/we have in common is, we all do what we can.

So who the hell is this jerk-off to come along and throw these people under the bus, denigrate them, and give them the back of his hand because they don't happen to share HIS particular priorities or do the things he thinks they should do:

Pull my dick out? I'm at a loss to understand your use of crude language here.

I'm just giving you the chance to substantiate some of the things you've claimed here, without risking blowing your "cover" LOL.

So far you've claimed to have buds on here you hunt with, and you've claimed to have written articles for the Hunter Ed Journal (I'm assuming IHEA). But you refuse to back any of that up.

You also claimed to belong to multiple organizations that promote hunting, which turned out to be a couple cattlemen's associations you refuse to name.

I think you're a phony. Prove me wrong "cowboy."

And as far as making "threats," let's get one thing perfectly clear: I've made none. Or, if you think I have, go back and find them.

What I said was, any time you think you're man enough to say the things you've said on here to my face, you let me know.

Just giving you the opportunity to live up to the cowboy code.

I'm not surprised you won't.

And by the way, your first line in the quote above means you're even more concerned than I realized.

Who knew?

I'm the same guy that posted about a friend in need of help, and under attack by anti-hunters.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...Road_We_Don_t_Want_to_Go_Dow#Post8899990

The suggestions he got were to direct him to contact various organizations, mostly though SCI.

In many cases, his phone called went unreturned. In all cases, not one dollar was donated. Not one. The organizations would not even give him a letter of support.

You can read the aftermath of the lawsuit here.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ttlement_ends_SE_Oregon_coyo#Post9058123

So, yeah. I stand by what I said. I meant it.

Actions speak louder than words.

You have a PM incoming.

Thanks for the PM.

But as you said above, we will have to disagree on this.

I'm not a member of SCI. Their focus and objectives are a little different than mine. But by all accounts from people who are familiar with them, they represent hunters and our interests well, and they're an effective organization in that respect. I value and appreciate that, even if they're not fighting the same battles I would choose.

Organizations like SCI and RMEF need to represent their membership and spend their limited funds on things that are important to their members. They have to pick their battles.

A few years back RMEF got in hot water on the wolf issue. A lot of people got pissed and quit, because RMEF went against a lot of member's wishes.

I didn't quit, and I'm glad I didn't. Even with that mistake, I figured on balance they're better in promoting hunting and habitat preservation/improvement in the areas and for the species that are important to me than any other organization I know of. And they got new leadership and changed their position, which I was glad to see.

I can understand why some people are still pissed because wolf reintroduction was a big deal and affected a lot of people.

But throw an organization like SCI under the bus because they didn't jump in and help a friend of mine? Come on, man!

SCI didn't choose that battle. Your friend did. I sympathize with the guy, sounds like he got a raw deal, but you seem to think SCI had an obligation to jump in and help, and that's where we differ.

It would have been nice if they helped, but I don't think an individual should feel entitled to their help in getting out of a situation of his own doing. For all you and I know, they may have taken a look at this and concluded it was a no-win situation.

My point was that we need an organization that will back the American hunters on American issues.

I understand where SCI stands. Safari is pretty exclusive to Africa. They spend the bulk of their time, money and effort there.

We need an organization that stands for protection of hunting privileges of Americans and will defend litigation and introduce and back legislation that deals with the frontlines of the battlefields we have here in the U.S.

The ones that would take our freedoms are well funded as well as well organized. It's time we did the same.

How about U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance?

http://www.ussportsmen.org

About: http://www.ussportsmen.org/about-ussa/

USSA Foundation: http://www.ussportsmen.org/foundation/

I have been to their site before and know some of the people with them, on the committees. Perhaps they are worth the price of admission.

Been thinking the same thing. The bank account just got a little bit lighter.

Sam the Mighty Farmer says

Along with a few 'do-gooder', transplant "Montanan's" who live on the opposite side of the state.
(some of whom post on this sight....)


You better not be talking about ME, Sam.

I finally read the HSUS complaint. It's all BS, but the interesting thing is the organizations listed and the token "hunters" they found (not).
There's like ten people driving this, one lady represents two "groups" and her husband is listed as a private citizen and "sportsman." That -- or get divorced and pay. She's a zealot.
As for Smokey -- BHA is a joke, you are willing to sell out everything for "roadless areas," right?
And you support predator restoration? Did you know the science is in and wolves eat down 75 to 85 percent of the production? Have you ever considered that hunter success is important to the survival of hunting and OUR recruitment? And that good game production happens where the vegetation is managed to create forage?

I always see elk in seas of pumpkin patches and road hunters behind a windshield or handlebars.

Damn this gets old. Can you read the English language?

Go back, read what I wrote, and tell me how on earth you came up with me being in favor of predator restoration.

Oh, that's right, I'm a member of BHA, so that means I'm a professional "greenie," no doubt a wolf-lover and Obama supporter to boot. You crack me up.

In my post above, I referred to the initial RMEF position as a mistake that I was glad they corrected.

As far as BHA being a joke, no, it's not. Obviously, it has a different focus and different priorities than you.

But I do get a kick out of people who say out one side of their mouth: "we as hunters need to stick together" and then out of the other side "that group is a joke" because we have different priorities and focus. It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

And WTF are you talking about "sell out everything?" That's nonsense and you know it.

I like to hunt roadless areas, and the reason I like to hunt roadless areas is really simple: The hunting is better there. Much better.

It's been documented in study after study that elk and big mule deer don't like vehicular traffic. They leave areas with lots of it, and so do I.

I'm not out there advocating the creation of more roadless areas, I just want to keep what we have. And if you look at the percentage of public lands that are roadless, the vast majority are not. Even in roadless areas, ranchers aren't locked out. My favorite area to hunt has sheep all over it more years than not, and the last bull I stuck an arrow in was in a roadless area that was "locked up" to vehicles but not to the rancher on horseback running his cattle there, who I had a nice conversation with.

So yes, I belong to BHA. Name another pro-hunting organization that's focused on preservation of roadless areas. What organizations do you belong to and what do you do to preserve hunting?

People who want to drive everywhere whine and bitch about being "locked out" of roadless areas. Which is hilarious to me because all you need to hunt roadless areas is the willingness to walk a couple miles.

That is, if we're still talking about hunting here.

Are we?

As for BHA - I think the Clearwater Basin Collaborative in ID and BHA's role in it (increased access, increased logging, increased backcountry protection, and all partners agreeing from left to right as a win/win) negates the "pro-green, enviro-wacko" diatribe. So, too, would going to one the National Rendezvous. Then again, the nutcases on the left try to paint NRA members as rabid, Rambo-esque retards Hell-bent on overthrowing the government and shooting every minority, woman, and child in sight.

Neither baseless stereotype is correct.

This thread provides some good examples of why conservatives are losing a lot of political battles: they spend much of their time fighting each other and arguing over ideological purity instead of uniting to defeat the opposition.

Whether we are talking about control of the senate or defeating attempts to marginalize and ban hunting it takes some unity to win. You will notice that our opponents don't have this problem. And it helps them win.

We need to get our act together.

I went to the one in Denver. It was pretty good, lots of serious hunters and good gear on display there. Got to try out the new Paradox pack (that was the one they loaded with rocks and had the "guess the weight" contest) and ended up buying one. I'm glad I did, and I hope to be hauling some heavy loads of something other than rocks in it come this September.

That's exactly right.

I get into discussions that can get heated here because I tend to see the overall picture about the big battle we have on our hands now.

While I may not use what you use for a gun, or may not hunt the way you hunt, I'll fight for your rights and freedom to do so, and use what you want.

We have allies in the fight to keep the radical environmental groups from totally controlling public lands, and what goes on within them. It's not just about hunting. It's about freedoms and multiple use our public lands have had since they were created.

We not only need to stand together as hunters, we need to embrace these allies and join forces with them. The environmentalist, anti-hunting, and anti gun groups are doing that very thing. Divided we fall.

Exactly. It's long past time we all figured that out.

Ah, now we're down to the crux of the matter, as I suspected. For me, it is about hunting. And shooting, hiking, fishing, and camping on public lands.

Last time I checked, that was the reason for this website.

I support multiple use. As long as it doesn't screw up the land and water for the things listed above. Logging and grazing are pretty much managed so that they don't. Mining is pretty much kept to limited areas where it doesn't, although historically that wasn't true. And still isn't, if we were to give mining companies free reign on things like the Pebble Mine. Oil and gas drilling needs to be managed so that it doesn't.

Lastly, you do recognize the arrogance inherent in this statement:



It implies that the people you get into these heated discussions with don't have the same insight as you. Which I can assure you is not the case.

Sorry, but the entire "hunters and anglers" movement is based on splitting the hunter baby. That's why it's funded by Commie foundations, not real members. You're a token, Smokey, or what is regarded as a useful tool, in a deliberate strategic ploy to co-opt the conservation cred away from the long-standing institutions and traditionally conservative (and CONSERVATIONIST) sportsmen to a preservationist, anti-human utility model.
One of the things you kids need to realize is, hunting is only five weeks a year. Ya gotta be able to do something the other 47 weeks to buy all that gear that also gives you the disposable income to be able to take the time off required for the sort of hunting experience you crave.
Second, you can't "preserve" the landscape. It's dynamic, even wildernesses. If you want to do any kind of vegetation management (yo, food) and have it be cost-effective, you need to put iron on the ground and iron needs road access to get the wood (which pays for the management) out to a mill. Nothing else works on the bottom line.
Don't you guys "get" that the same people funding the uber radicals like CBD also fund the "moderate" groups? Ever heard of astroturf? Ever heard of good cop bad cop? Of having a radical out front to make YOUR positions look reasonable? Duh!
As for the Clearwater group, I doubt the BHA people support access unless it's through private property, and only for nonmechanized recreational use with a sop thrown to the mountain bikers.
Go ahead and be misguided, kids.

You might doubt it, but you'd be wrong. It seems you have a lot of hyperbole but little facts.

You are right about a division within the sporting ranks, though. You've done that to yourself.

+1. No facts. Calling the rest of it hyperbole is being charitable.

Love to see your information on how BHA is funded Dave. Care to share that?

If BHA is a deliberate "strategic ploy" to co-opt the conservation movement, is must have been founded by a bunch of radicals. Who are they Dave?

I suspect that Dave will pull up this site: http://www.greendecoys.com

Amazing how IWLA (been around a very long time), Trout Unlimited (yeah, because they are a "fake" group), BHA and others headline that site.

And yet, a quick analysis of who runs that site and who pays them and for them is rather telling. There are not many people out there who can get paid to run a group by groups that they used to work for, and then hire themselves and their family out as "consultants" to both groups to be paid to do "research" on their target organizations.

Last time I checked I didn't need your GD permission to talk about what I want to talk about.

And the last time I checked, Rick didn't need a dumbass for a moderator either.

If you read at the top of each page, the title says "Where the outdoor flame burns bright". Discussion or subjects are not limited to "hunting". But if that trips your trigger, you may want to consider staying out of the "freakshow" as you put it...

If you think that statement was arrogant, you are entitled to your opinion. I call it educated. I have dealt with the enemy on many fronts. Not just anti-hunters.

Lastly,....

.... You support a lot, as long as it's done the way YOU think it ought to be done.

All that you mentioned are "managed"... Some of them are being "managed" into extinction as industries.

The very laws and policies that keep those industries on public lands are what keeps YOU hunting on them.

Well, that discussion of finding commonalities and not differences didn't last long...

Ya think?

I don't know why we always end up on the opposite end of things. Perhaps it's because we really ARE.

I know I see things in pretty much black and white. I don't have much compromise to me... That's what got us in this mess of loss of freedoms and gun rights and hunting in the first place.

But I'll be damned if he's gonna tell me one more time that I can't talk about anything but "hunting".... I WAS talking about hunting.

That's right, you don't need my permission. And I don't need your permission to comment on what you say either. And let's be clear, I'm not attempting to moderate anything, it's an open forum. I'm just saying things you don't want to hear.

My point about this being a hunting site is this--you keep saying you're all about hunting and doing all you can to preserve our tradition.

But you're not, you're all about multiple use on public lands. Which is fine, just don't misrepresent what you're about here.



LOL, are you telling me you're any different? You, who see things in black and white and don't have much compromise in you?

You are just too fuggin' dumb to realize that multiple use is what keeps you hunting and shooting on public lands.

But, hey I'll make a bet with ya.

For however much you want.

I'll bet you that in the past 5 years I have hunted and killed 10 times the animals you have. On either public, or private land....

Lets talk about hunting....

FWIW - multiple use does not have to conflict with, and in many ways strengthens, our sporting heritage. As with everything else, the Devil is in the details.

That said, I have a suspicion that smokepole and rockinbbar would find a way to argue with each other over free beer ...

I'm REALLY not trying to be argumentative here. I guess I just get offended by his manner, and how he thinks I ought to be posting about what he thinks should be posting about.

No it's not. If you want proof of that, look at designated wilderness in the NF. I can hunt there all I want.

And I'm the dumb one eh?

LMAO!

The two of you might not be trying, but you're both damned sure succeeding - at least when it comes to each other. No matter what one of you types, the other is bound to read it in the most argumentative, insulting, "wrong" manner possible, respond in kind, and vice versa.

Well, it ain't the smartest thing to allow environmentalists to close an area for certain activities and leave them open for others.

You think that hunting isn't on their hit list too?

How about that bet, hotshot? I ain't talking about prairie dogs either...

Good freakin' grief...

You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you.




LOL, who was it the other day talking about people posting pictures to see who had the biggest dick.



You post what you want, it's an open forum.

You were wrong on your point about multiple use allowing me to hunt public land, as I showed. See if you can find it in yourself to admit that.

And I agree 100% on your point about additional regulations and restrictions. But who said anything about regulations and restrictions beyond what is already in place? I must've missed it.





Which requests would those be? I don't recall having asked about how many animals you've killed, or saying that I've killed more than you.

I do recall asking what you've done to help preserve hunting.

I agree on all counts. I'm not a preservationist. I understand the need for multiple use. I just don't think every square inch of our public lands should be open to every possible consumptive use. Setting aside a small portion of our public lands is not preservationist.

Plus I'm thinking he drinks Coors Light......

I used to... Now I like Shiner Bock.

For the record, I support those areas of public lands too.

Just don't think they ought to be adding to them to further the environmentalists wet dream agenda.

Well there's something we agree on, but I prefer to call it a pipe dream.

The thought of the other makes me cringe.

If you ever come through, I'll buy you a Shiner Bock. It ain't bad beer, we can agree on that too.