Of Roosevelt Elk, Bacteria, Hooves and Herbicides

[bbarnes]

In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.

[bobferris]

To further this along I will stipulate to three things.  RMEF has a history of great accomplishments and I have given them accolades in the past for this.  Most hunters do support RMEF.  And RMEF is not as extreme as SFW, SCI or BGF.  Hurrah again for the great accomplishments, but there are some serious cracks in the hull of this ship that need to be looked at and patched.   No RMEF is not as extreme as those other groups but in an analysis of positions would more likely be lumped with them than with those who have been their partners in the past (i.e., the hunters and anglers working in a coalition on climate change and ocean acidification).

Hunters are unlikely to notice this subtle shift as they do not look at who partners with whom or see which scientists from which organizations have lunch or drinks together at professional meetings, but many of us watch these dynamics and they are telling.  David Allen comes from the corporate world and has very limited history in the conservation movement which is about maintaining relationships so you can build strong coalitions when you need them.  That means keeping your head down on political issues, always starting and stopping on sound science even when it goes against your marketing principles, and working well with your partners so you have a system of support and sounding boards for policies.  David Allen can say anything to anyone because he has no reputation to protect in the scientific or conservation communities.  I on the other cannot.  And while RMEF continues to do good work, Mr. Allen's bull-in-a-China-shop actions damage both the long term reputation of RMEF and throw considerable sand in the inner workings of the dynamic between hunters, anglers and the greater conservation community. 

Examples of the above?  Sure.  Mr. Allen repeatedly labelled hunter and angler Mike Leahy as an anti-hunting and animal rights advocate when he worked for Defenders of Wildlife.  His assertions were false but this makes it hard for Defenders and others in the conservation movement to form needed partnerships on issues of mutual interest (i.e, wilderness protection, water quality, roads, energy development, etc.).  Hunting and angling groups even though they may want to are reticent to work with groups labelled at anti-hunting.  Mike is now the conservation director at the Ikes--at traditional hunting and fishing icon--and doing a great job.  And when I was at Defenders I had a great relationship with Paul Hansen and Jim Mosher who were formerly president and conservation director of the Ikes.  We talked a lot about hunting and fishing and sat on numerous committees over the years. 

Mr. Allen is not the only one who has contributed to this dynamic but he is certainly a player.  And whether he does this carelessly or with purpose, I am not sure that it matters. My agenda--as stated above--has been to repair this situation before we are forced too deep into our silos to ever reach across the gap. 

[grundy53]

To further this along I will stipulate to three things.  RMEF has a history of great accomplishments and I have given them accolades in the past for this.  Most hunters do support RMEF.  And RMEF is not as extreme as SFW, SCI or BGF.  Hurrah again for the great accomplishments, but there are some serious cracks in the hull of this ship that need to be looked at and patched.   No RMEF is not as extreme as those other groups but in an analysis of positions would more likely be lumped with them than with those who have been their partners in the past (i.e., the hunters and anglers working in a coalition on climate change and ocean acidification).

Hunters are unlikely to notice this subtle shift as they do not look at who partners with whom or see which scientists from which organizations have lunch or drinks together at professional meetings, but many of us watch these dynamics and they are telling.  David Allen comes from the corporate world and has very limited history in the conservation movement which is about maintaining relationships so you can build strong coalitions when you need them.  That means keeping your head down on political issues, always starting and stopping on sound science even when it goes against your marketing principles, and working well with your partners so you have a system of support and sounding boards for policies.  David Allen can say anything to anyone because he has no reputation to protect in the scientific or conservation communities.  I on the other cannot.  And while RMEF continues to do good work, Mr. Allen's bull-in-a-China-shop actions damage both the long term reputation of RMEF and throw considerable sand in the inner workings of the dynamic between hunters, anglers and the greater conservation community. 

Examples of the above?  Sure.  Mr. Allen repeatedly labelled hunter and angler Mike Leahy as an anti-hunting and animal rights advocate when he worked for Defenders of Wildlife.  His assertions were false but this makes it hard for Defenders and others in the conservation movement to form needed partnerships on issues of mutual interest (i.e, wilderness protection, water quality, roads, energy development, etc.).  Hunting and angling groups even though they may want to are reticent to work with groups labelled at anti-hunting.  Mike is now the conservation director at the Ikes--at traditional hunting and fishing icon--and doing a great job.  And when I was at Defenders I had a great relationship with Paul Hansen and Jim Mosher who were formerly president and conservation director of the Ikes.  We talked a lot about hunting and fishing and sat on numerous committees over the years. 

Mr. Allen is not the only one who has contributed to this dynamic but he is certainly a player.  And whether he does this carelessly or with purpose, I am not sure that it matters. My agenda--as stated above--has been to repair this situation before we are forced too deep into our silos to ever reach across the gap.

You worked for Defenders of Wildlife? WOW....

sent from my typewriter

[idahohuntr]

In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.

Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are.  It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions.  The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate.  There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. 

[bobferris]

IdahoHuntr, You have made an assertion by inference.  Please prove it or retract it. 

[snowpack]

In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.

Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are.  It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions.  The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate.  There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. 

I think there are some on here that would've liked to have been more supportive of WDFW regarding this issue.  But WDFW, for whatever reason, has given the impression that they aren't open to other suggestions.  In one of the threads, when a member questioned WDFW bios about pesticides, I think the response was something akin to 'pesticides?  We haven't looked into those at all.  Why would we? huh?'.  You're telling me that hoof rot has been around for at least 20 years....and known to exist by WDFW...and when the bios made the lists for ALL possible causes and links and then started crossing off the absurd like aliens and man-bear-pig (exaggerated), then working their way down to most likely causes...that nobody in WDFW ever even thought to say 'I wonder about pesticides'.  Even just a passing thought, nowhere as in depth as even as just calling Ag or DOE for a 5 min chat on spraying.  When it comes to salmon and steelhead the bios mention all kinds of the most obscure stuff, i.e. copper dust from brake pads washing into streams or chemicals in shampoos that pass through water treatment.

[idahohuntr]

IdahoHuntr, You have made an assertion by inference.  Please prove it or retract it.

What are you talking about? Prove what?

[BrushChimp]

In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.

Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are.  It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions.  The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate.  There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. 

idahohuntr: A consistent voice of rational thought and reason thus far.

Thank God. Keep it up.

[bobferris]

Idahohuntr, Who are you referring to when you mention anti-hunters?  If it was not directed at me and my organization it sure seemed like it and if so prove it, retract it or clarify it.

[idahohuntr]

Idahohuntr, Who are you referring to when you mention anti-hunters?  If it was not directed at me and my organization it sure seemed like it and if so prove it, retract it or clarify it.

Bob - I've got a better idea...Why don't you prove to all of us the large number of hunters in your organization by  posting all of the deer/elk/bear harvest pics from Cascadia Wildlands members on your groups website...front and center   

But to more specifically address your concern, I am not retracting my very factual "inference".  There is no doubt large segments of your current (Cascadia Wildlands) and former (Defenders of Wildlife) groups members are anti-hunters and my advice to hunters on this forum is: Beware.

I do appreciate the perspectives you provide on this forum, and you yourself may be a hunter...but please don't try and sell people here on the idea that CW and DoW et al. are just some group of misunderstood hunters 
Since you bring it up though...when was your last hunt and where was it?  Did you harvest anything?  How did you do in the permit draws this year?

[JPhelps]

Bob,
It is also evident you support Ted Turner (blocking  hunter access), blocking the delisting of wolves (unsound management), advocate for blocking spring bear seasons in Oregon,etc...

Activity work on blocking timber sales so it is evident you have existing issues with the timber companies and logging practices.

[bobferris]

Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences.  Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate.  Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources.  But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away.  This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population.  It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day. 

[Tbar]

Idahohuntr, Who are you referring to when you mention anti-hunters?  If it was not directed at me and my organization it sure seemed like it and if so prove it, retract it or clarify it.

Bob - I've got a better idea...Why don't you prove to all of us the large number of hunters in your organization by  posting all of the deer/elk/bear harvest pics from Cascadia Wildlands members on your groups website...front and center   

But to more specifically address your concern, I am not retracting my very factual "inference".  There is no doubt large segments of your current (Cascadia Wildlands) and former (Defenders of Wildlife) groups members are anti-hunters and my advice to hunters on this forum is: Beware.

I do appreciate the perspectives you provide on this forum, and you yourself may be a hunter...but please don't try and sell people here on the idea that CW and DoW et al. are just some group of misunderstood hunters 
Since you bring it up though...when was your last hunt and where was it?  Did you harvest anything?  How did you do in the permit draws this year?

[jackelope]

Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences.  Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate.  Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources.  But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away.  This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population.  It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day.

Sooooooo..........
Are you a hunter?
 

[bobferris]

JPhelps, While it is true that have connections with the Turner camp both with their biologists and the writer of Ted's most recent biography Last Stand, I have not had a conversation with him about his private lands business model.  My understanding is that he allows, but charges money for access to his properties.  I have been to two of Ted's ranches and they are pretty spectacular both in terms of wildlife and accommodations.  Whether or not it is worth it to pay to hunt or fish there, not sure I have an opinion there and in any case it is our of my economic reach. The delay in wolf delisting was and always will be an issue of the states demonstrating their readiness to take over recovery.  We delayed it and as evidenced by what is going in in Idaho we were right in doing so--transitioning a species from being an endangered species one day and a pest species the next is hardly credible and defensible management.  The spring bear hunt issue relates to a concern about biodiversity and sows with cubs if it were other then we would have asked for a total ban on bear hunting which we did not.