Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 09:50:36 PMI always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".
Yes, WDFW, which manages the wildlife in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. does have a more liberal wolf plan than other states. I also do not agree with the part of the plan that requires BPs in all three areas of the state before state de-listing...maybe wdfw did this because they think wolves are neat I think a better guess is they knew they needed a plan that they could sell to wolf lovers...probably because if they didn't appease that group in some fashion the legislature or governors office would do it for them.
Quote from: Bob33 on May 21, 2014, 10:12:36 PMQuote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 09:50:36 PMI always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”
Allen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”
Quote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 11:00:34 PMQuote from: Bob33 on May 21, 2014, 10:12:36 PMQuote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 09:50:36 PMI always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.I think I read that Idahohntr is in lockstep with REMF - and I can get behind this article.http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.htmlQuoteRocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”QuoteAllen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”But I gotta say, it doesn't sound like the Idahohntr I been reading lately - did someone hack his account?
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Quote from: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:39:49 PMThe only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.Oh brother, you just stirred up a hornest nest now. Don't you know Randy Newberg is alligned with the most vial of all [anti]hunting groups....Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (gasp). Any man caught referencing BCHA on this forum shall be hung for sedition. Any man actually caught contributing to BCHA will be shot for desertion. Do not fret. There is redemption for even the most unholy purveyor of DIY public land hunters. All that is required to purge yourself of this unconscionable alliance is a small contribution to Don Peay, Lifetime membership to SFW, and a willingness to wear or display BGF or MacMillan River Adventures (your choice) brand merchandise. Furthermore, you must publicly denounce the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. After you have completed these steps you are free to discuss your opinion on all matters pertaining to wolves, as long as they conform to the ideas set forth by the agencies listed above.***Disclaimer - You agree not to hold me personally responsible for any and all charges (past, present, and future) related to affiliation with aforementioned groups. Including; but not limited to; tax evasion, embezzlement, money laundering, and criminal co-conspiracy***
ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself. So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
Quote from: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:05:00 PMESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself. So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.That is simply NOT true. The actions of the WDFW demonstrate that. You must of missed my previous posts. Please review them because there is a small list of things they COULD have done or tried that would make them an "Ally". They simply are not, and to say so is absurd. What are you basing that statement on?
“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
Idahohntr So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??Quote“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.
Quote from: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 11:23:28 PMQuote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 11:00:34 PMQuote from: Bob33 on May 21, 2014, 10:12:36 PMQuote from: JLS on May 21, 2014, 09:50:36 PMI always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.I think I read that Idahohntr is in lockstep with REMF - and I can get behind this article.http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.htmlQuoteRocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”QuoteAllen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”But I gotta say, it doesn't sound like the Idahohntr I been reading lately - did someone hack his account?Yep, predators, like all other wildlife need managed. Again, you seem to be falsely implying I don't support predator management. RMEF is largely a habitat protection organization...their primary focus is conserving and enhancing habitat for elk and other wildlife. I consistently make the point of how important habitat issues are to wildlife. Randy Newberg is on the Board of Directors of RMEF...I'm a huge supporter of his views on wildlife management...he often rails against fringe groups like lobowatch, BGF, and SFW. Perhaps you should read this article posted on RMEF's website applauding WDFW's common-sense approach to utilizing a Montana pilot approach to wolf management: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx
Quote from: Special T on May 22, 2014, 07:15:00 AMQuote from: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:05:00 PMESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself. So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.That is simply NOT true. The actions of the WDFW demonstrate that. You must of missed my previous posts. Please review them because there is a small list of things they COULD have done or tried that would make them an "Ally". They simply are not, and to say so is absurd. What are you basing that statement on?Who manages the wildlife in this state? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I believe they very much have sportsmens interests at heart...but they also have to pursue those interests through a minefield of political pitfalls that folks like you and I probably don't really see very clearly...and yes, occassionally they stumble. But in the end if sportsmen are not supportive of WDFW the greenies win. As Bobcat pointed out, the greenies don't like the wolf plan either...they want 2x as many wolves