Post by: wolfbait on January 08, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Introduced, Says Whistleblower
http://www.mtpioneer.com/2013-November-Non-Native-Wolves-Illegally.html (http://www.mtpioneer.com/2013-November-Non-Native-Wolves-Illegally.html)
Post by: TopOfTheFoodChain on January 08, 2014, 07:59:01 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 08:00:07 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on January 08, 2014, 08:05:43 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on January 08, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
Post by: wonder on January 08, 2014, 12:26:11 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 08, 2014, 12:36:37 PM
I'm also wondering if this was so illegal and we have the documentation to prove that. What's stopping the movement and legal means to reverse course and attempt to get the problem under something resembling management and control?Liberal greenie :mor: mainstream usually. :tree1: Ever notice on the tube, that when a movie or TV drama wants to truly DEMONIZE a character they almost always use an "environmental" issue??? :tree1:
Post by: wolfbait on January 08, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
The USFWS, state game agencies and brain-washed biologists have steadily been losing the wolf battle do to their lack of honesty.
Post by: AspenBud on January 08, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
If you feel wronged that's your thing, but it doesn't change that fact nor will it have an impact on how they are managed.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2014, 01:00:57 PM
Lie or no lie it's completely irrelevant. They are here and growing in numbers.:yeah: Well said.
If you feel wronged that's your thing, but it doesn't change that fact nor will it have an impact on how they are managed.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 01:13:59 PM
I'm also wondering if this was so illegal and we have the documentation to prove that. What's stopping the movement and legal means to reverse course and attempt to get the problem under something resembling management and control?
Two separate issues, unfortunately. If you sought to tie the lying and deceit to the present wolf population, that would mean completely wiping them out and starting over. I'd love that if it meant starting over with smaller wolves and an existing environment of de-listing so that management could begin any time we decide it needs to. However, the greenies control the wildlife commission and the DFW, and that's never going to happen. Beers has been talking about these lies for 4 years now and no one is listening. No one cares except for the small part of the population who have to live with these eating machines or those who see the results of their residence, like cattlemen and hunters. The other 90+% of the population is brainwashed by the pro-wolfers and their cute and cuddly dogs that they take around to the schools.
Post by: Bigshooter on January 08, 2014, 01:16:46 PM
I'm also wondering if this was so illegal and we have the documentation to prove that. What's stopping the movement and legal means to reverse course and attempt to get the problem under something resembling management and control?
Two separate issues, unfortunately. If you sought to tie the lying and deceit to the present wolf population, that would mean completely wiping them out and starting over. I'd love that if it meant starting over with smaller wolves and an existing environment of de-listing so that management could begin any time we decide it needs to. However, the greenies control the wildlife commission and the DFW, and that's never going to happen. Beers has been talking about these lies for 4 years now and no one is listening. No one cares except for the small part of the population who have to live with these eating machines or those who see the results of their residence, like cattlemen and hunters. The other 90+% of the population is brainwashed by the pro-wolfers and their cute and cuddly dogs that they take around to the schools.
:yeah:
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2014, 01:26:25 PM
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Post by: Bigshooter on January 08, 2014, 01:39:21 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
I don't really care about the misuse of funds that Beers talks about. I am more concerned about a nonnative species being introduced.
Post by: huntnphool on January 08, 2014, 01:43:56 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 01:44:32 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
I don't really care about the misuse of funds that Beers talks about. I am more concerned about a nonnative species being introduced.
I'm pissed about both. Those funds are funds that you and I paid which are supposed to be earmarked ONLY for wildlife enhancement/habitat creation and enhancement/hunter education. The fact that they were used on an illegal program and went to pay the bonuses of the crooks in charge of that program really sucks eggs.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him. :dunno: And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2014, 01:51:29 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.
Post by: Special T on January 08, 2014, 01:51:53 PM
Unfortunately these issues require some study to cry fowl and MOST people are not willing to read all the articles. Jim Beers and Scott Rockholm have likely put as many of the pieces of the puzzle together as we are going to get. Unfortunately because Scott is loud and confrontational, and people think Jim Beers has an Axe to Grind they dismiss what they say or the evidence they produce. Its unfortunate that they didn't find the right way to package and spread the message 6 years or so ago before the economy tanked. For the general population that MAY have been interested in this have now put it on the back burner due to more pressing matters.
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him. :dunno: And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.
How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee? The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit. The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.
Post by: huntnphool on January 08, 2014, 01:55:19 PM
So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point? :dunno:Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him. :dunno: And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.
How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee? The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit. The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.
So JLS, do you actually have anything that would show that Jim isn't telling the whole truth or are you just going to cast doubt on him for whatever reason? Because of his history, I find his story quite compelling. I see that he's got little to gain and lots to lose. Tell us what you know that could change our minds about him. :dunno:
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2014, 02:22:53 PM
So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point? :dunno:Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.
My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.
Post by: wolfbait on January 08, 2014, 02:26:32 PM
I'm also wondering if this was so illegal and we have the documentation to prove that. What's stopping the movement and legal means to reverse course and attempt to get the problem under something resembling management and control?
Two separate issues, unfortunately. If you sought to tie the lying and deceit to the present wolf population, that would mean completely wiping them out and starting over. I'd love that if it meant starting over with smaller wolves and an existing environment of de-listing so that management could begin any time we decide it needs to. However, the greenies control the wildlife commission and the DFW, and that's never going to happen. Beers has been talking about these lies for 4 years now and no one is listening. No one cares except for the small part of the population who have to live with these eating machines or those who see the results of their residence, like cattlemen and hunters. The other 90+% of the population is brainwashed by the pro-wolfers and their cute and cuddly dogs that they take around to the schools.
Good post!
The bottom line is we will never get back to where we were, and there will never be any true wolf control until there is nothing left. which is the desired goal.
People who do not have to deal with wolves do not have the same motivation as those who do. Unfortunately there seemed to be too many in WA that have not had the true wolf experience, that will change in the future. And like IDFG, and the RMEF< WDFW will leap to their feet in shock at a new study, that says wolves are to blame.
Conservation NW and Defenders of Wildlife and several other "middle man" environmentalist for the USFWS will have made millions and contributed to politicians who support or believe they will profit.
Outdoor people, hunters, ranchers, farmers and rural communities will suffer greatly and in the end be mostly gone, if not gone their communities will be recreational areas. All roads into the national forest will be traveled by fee only. We are seeing this already with first the WDFW pass and now the discover pass, in the end an environmental group will be in charge of all federal and state lands.
If you like your health plan you can keep it, Period…
If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period.
If you like your hunting, ranching, farming, and rural life you had better start fighting for it!!!!!!!Period!
Post by: huntnphool on January 08, 2014, 02:28:44 PM
I got ya, thanks. :tup:So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point? :dunno:Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.
My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.
My point being that even when we do have congressional hearings we still have no conclusion as to the truth of its entirety, neither validating nor invalidating the claims. ;)
Post by: link on January 08, 2014, 04:02:38 PM
So you really think that congress would find it pressing to find out why millions of dollars of PR money ( tax dollars) were misused?!?! HA!! You cannot seriously believe that.So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point? :dunno:Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example. ;)
For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.
My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/01/01/fws-slush-fund-exposed-congressional-hearings (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/01/01/fws-slush-fund-exposed-congressional-hearings)
There have been plenty of rabid conservatives in office over the duration of the wolf recovery, including Helen Chenoweth (the salmon hater :)), that I find it hard to believe that none of them latched on to all of the alleged illegalities and improprieties associated with the wolf recovery.
Post by: buckfvr on January 08, 2014, 04:31:47 PM
You just cant believe a word any of them say regarding wolves, so fo me, that carries over to everything. I have no faith in any government agency, period. :twocents:
Post by: Northway on January 08, 2014, 05:45:49 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him. :dunno: And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.
How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee? The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit. The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.
So JLS, do you actually have anything that would show that Jim isn't telling the whole truth or are you just going to cast doubt on him for whatever reason? Because of his history, I find his story quite compelling. I see that he's got little to gain and lots to lose. Tell us what you know that could change our minds about him. :dunno:
Who likes which biologist is predictable when it comes to the wolf debate. Wolf advocates are going to like one of several recognizable individuals, and anti-wolf folks are going to like Valerius Geist, Jim Beers, or Charles Kay.
Then there's the back and forth of talking points about who is more credible. Although I'm not particularly fond of Jim Beers, I'd be lying if said I've never read anything from him that has influenced how I think about the wolf issue.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 08, 2014, 05:52:02 PM
Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?
I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations. The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.
I don't really care about the misuse of funds that Beers talks about. I am more concerned about a nonnative species being introduced.
I agree, but I think Congress cares more about the money and that's what might get traction on the issue. Think Al Capone + bad taxes.