Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Claymore15 on May 19, 2014, 08:41:58 PMwe have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming.
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my if someone has another side I am willing to listen
Fair question. It is a philosophical matter...what species have a "right" to exist? If they cause humans harm should we eliminate them? In 1973 congress passed and the president signed into law the current Endangered Species Act which basically said we shall not let any species go extinct and should work to reverse their declines. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation and so the federal government is responsible for ensuring survival of all species "whatever the cost". So the question of "what are they good for?" is irrelevant when it comes to ESA and federal law. They don't have to be good for anything. With respect to "agendas": Are there ways green groups and anti-hunters are using the ESA, the wolf, the spotted owl, salmon, you name it to achieve a larger agenda? Absolutely. The more "preservationist" members of society believe that humans are an intrusion into the environment and preservation/reserve/refuge systems are their goal. Keep human influence out or minimize it as much as possible is their stance. I absolutely believe that special interest groups have all kinds of ideas about how they can use state and federal laws, policies, and politicians to push their agenda. Where I draw the line is when folks, with no proof, suggest that entire government agencies are in collusion and spearheading major cover ups and felonies on a systematic basis to eliminate hunting rights/opportunity etc. Greenie, anti-hunting groups are the enemy...WDFW is not...even if they have some bad apples and make mistakes, they are not the enemy...wolves are not here because WDFW asked for them. WDFW does not have the authority or ability to exterminate wolves. WDFW has to manage them though, along with all the other wildlife in the state...not an easy job. I think that largely addresses your questions. I could go on and on about early conservation and natural resource management efforts, utilitarian perspectives, rise of environmentalism and preservation management, uses and abuses of ESA etc. etc. but I won't bore you any further. If you ever find yourself incarcerated in the state penal system for a felony conviction I occasionally teach a night class in the old gray bar hotel on Conservation and Natural Resource Management.
Fair question. It is a philosophical matter...what species have a "right" to exist? If they cause humans harm should we eliminate them? In 1973 congress passed and the president signed into law the current Endangered Species Act which basically said we shall not let any species go extinct and should work to reverse their declines. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation and so the federal government is responsible for ensuring survival of all species "whatever the cost". So the question of "what are they good for?" is irrelevant when it comes to ESA and federal law. They don't have to be good for anything. BS - Canada is full of them, AK is full of them and the NE is full of them as well. We don't need them here, especially this sub-species we got now. With respect to "agendas": Are there ways green groups and anti-hunters are using the ESA, the wolf, the spotted owl, salmon, you name it to achieve a larger agenda? Absolutely. The more "preservationist" members of society believe that humans are an intrusion into the environment and preservation/reserve/refuge systems are their goal. Keep human influence out or minimize it as much as possible is their stance. Whoa - back the train up, you just said there was no agenda that it's law but you contradict yourself here - there IS an agenda. It's call anti-hunting, anti-grazing anti-human in the outdoors in any capacity other than parks. I absolutely believe that special interest groups have all kinds of ideas about how they can use state and federal laws, policies, and politicians to push their agenda. ......and you're one of them to be sure, a wolf in sheep's clothing. You've nothing to gain by your constant presence on the wolf forums, yet you're here continually pushing an agenda. Where I draw the line is when folks, with no proof, suggest that entire government agencies are in collusion and spearheading major cover ups and felonies on a systematic basis to eliminate hunting rights/opportunity etc. Greenie, anti-hunting groups are the enemy...WDFW is not...even if they have some bad apples and make mistakes, they are not the enemy...wolves are not here because WDFW asked for them. WDFW does not have the authority or ability to exterminate wolves. WDFW has to manage them though, along with all the other wildlife in the state...not an easy job. BS! - WDFW asked for and got the most asinine wolf plan of any western state. All the other states fought hard to get their wolf plan approved via USFWS and ESA requirements. WDFW capitulated, and now has an unworkable wolf plan requiring far too many wolves. I think that largely addresses your questions. I could go on and on about early conservation and natural resource management efforts, utilitarian perspectives, rise of environmentalism and preservation management, uses and abuses of ESA etc. etc. but I won't bore you any further. If you ever find yourself incarcerated in the state penal system for a felony conviction I occasionally teach a night class in the old gray bar hotel on Conservation and Natural Resource Management.
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".
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: 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.
KF- for somebody who knows nothing about me or who I am you sure like to put a lot of words in my mouth. Dude, you put the words out there for all to see. I don't rubberstamp wdfw actions...their existing wolf plan is flawed IMO. It could be worse, it could be better. It must be nice for you to sit in la la land and pretend wdfw operates in a vacuum...in reality wolf management is extremely political...wdfw is not our enemy in wolf management. If they were, they would have no problem steam rolling all the little rural folks up in NE Washington and wouldn't even propose moving towards de-listing. Didn't you just argue that wolf hysteria in Idaho had nothing to do with the political climate or wolf control? WDFW is our enemy when they implement a crazy wolf plan with very little input and when they did come out to visit for public input they were...ummm well less than forthcoming 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.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the science-based management of wolves and other predators.
“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.When asked about the utility of predator-prey relationships, Allen explained, “Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real.” Under his leadership, the Elk Foundation recently offered the state of Montana $50,000 to contract with the federal Wildlife Services agency to “aggressively” kill more wolves. “And the next step is the grizzly bear,” he said. “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.”
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, 10:05:00 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.Your logic doesn't hold water. WDFW created and put into place a more liberal wolf plan than any other western state, forcing 15 BP's into a state that is geographically smaller, far more populated than the other states, and with smaller herds to support the wolves. On top of that, no area can be managed until wolves populated all three areas of the state. I cannot see how that can be considered "the biggest ally" we have regarding the wolf issue.
