Post by: wolfbait on January 02, 2016, 06:18:08 PM
http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/introductionofwolves.htm
Post by: villageidiot on January 02, 2016, 09:37:27 PM
There are two methods to get this reversed. One is the SSS method and the other is the legal method changing the laws. If you have not participated in either then you are as guilty as these corrupt government and environmental groups.
Post by: hunt6226 on January 02, 2016, 09:41:23 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 02, 2016, 09:45:36 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 02, 2016, 09:49:18 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 03, 2016, 09:12:53 AM
Rural folks that hunt will forever be suppressed due to wolves? :rolleyes:
Dude did you care to read the whole story in the link? :dunno:
If not maybe you should, and see the corruption that has taken place with all our tax dollars destroying what they were meant to protect. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on January 03, 2016, 12:26:57 PM
I don't need to read a disgruntled employees rant to question the validity of a statement suggesting rural folks who hunt are forever suppressed by wolves. :tup:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The sniff test i always use is how would i be treated if i tried to do what a government agency does, and what would happen to me if I screwed up. The IDFG never got the importation permit to bring the wolves into ID. They didnt treat or test for known parasites....
UC Warden is just a disgruntled retired WDFW gamie should we disregard everything he says also? Perhaps looking at the facts is important... only to some of us.
Unfortunate fact is that there is a huge trend in federal and state government that laws are for the people to follow but only a recommendation for Gov agencies... Is there any surprise that there wholesale distrust of Gov? EPA destroying the mining retention dam off the Colorado river, ATF fast and furious gun running, BLM down in OR or in Nevada, The handling of the fires in this state the last 2 years, This whole wolf fiasco and many other ESA related controls used to further some agenda.
Post by: Dan-o on January 03, 2016, 02:35:21 PM
I don't need to read a disgruntled employees rant to question the validity of a statement suggesting rural folks who hunt are forever suppressed by wolves. :tup:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Idahohunter,
I read enough of this wolf stuff to see that you chime in regularly against the total anti-wolf crowd, and I can respect that.
Rather than taking one sentence -that is anecdotal at best - I'd like to know what you think of the hard care allegations in the article.
* The P_R funds being stolen?
* Required xfer forms not being filled out (for which you or I would go to jail)?
Personally, I'm not anti-wolf, per se. I am an active hunter, but I love seeing the occasional Grizzly (I've seen 7-8 and it makes the hunt awesome whether I come home with meat or not!!). I haven't seen wolves while hunting, but have seen them 3 times in Montana/Wyoming.
What makes me anti-wolf in this case is that is the criminal actions of the government in concert with liars on the pro-wolf side. You and I both know that the wolf proponents have moved the goal line for recovery many times. I can't trust liars, and they are liars.
Do you think that's a fair assessment, or not?
Thanks,
Dan
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2016, 09:19:41 PM
I think your assessment is understandable given the frustration surrounding a polarizing topic like wolf management. I think it is also important to recognize the extremists on both sides of the wolf issue lie, exaggerate, and twist truths to suit their agenda.I don't need to read a disgruntled employees rant to question the validity of a statement suggesting rural folks who hunt are forever suppressed by wolves. :tup:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Idahohunter,
I read enough of this wolf stuff to see that you chime in regularly against the total anti-wolf crowd, and I can respect that.
Rather than taking one sentence -that is anecdotal at best - I'd like to know what you think of the hard care allegations in the article.
* The P_R funds being stolen?
* Required xfer forms not being filled out (for which you or I would go to jail)?
Personally, I'm not anti-wolf, per se. I am an active hunter, but I love seeing the occasional Grizzly (I've seen 7-8 and it makes the hunt awesome whether I come home with meat or not!!). I haven't seen wolves while hunting, but have seen them 3 times in Montana/Wyoming.
What makes me anti-wolf in this case is that is the criminal actions of the government in concert with liars on the pro-wolf side. You and I both know that the wolf proponents have moved the goal line for recovery many times. I can't trust liars, and they are liars.
Do you think that's a fair assessment, or not?
Thanks,
Dan
My general position has never been pro-wolf, but rather a desire to decrease the number of well meaning hunters from spouting information that if heard by non-hunters and decision makers would erode the credibility of the hunting community. In that vein, I do not take Jim Beers allegations all that seriously...or the state of Idaho permit issue some folks bring up from time to time. Wolf reintroduction was debated for years with numerous reviews, decades of public meetings and culminated in the release of wolves in Central Idaho and YNP...the President of the United States showed up to release a batch of wolves. To suggest the introduction was illegal over a state permit (which is not a requirement for the Federal Government) or funding type (USFWS does still have jurisdiction over PR funds) is grasping at straws. Maybe some policy or minor guideline was not followed to the t...but wolf reintroduction was going to happen, like it or not. I was and have always been in the camp of not liking it at all...but I'm not going to cry forever and grasp at these straws or push articles written by people like Jim Beers who are simply trying to line their pockets collecting speaking fees from misguided and frustrated hunters and the organizations they belong to.
But most important, I do not see any value in frittering away time and energy focusing on funding nuance or whether the federal government received permission from the State some 20+ years ago. Wolves are here and they are not going away. Lets focus on issues much more important to the future of hunting - access and habitat. Predators need managed, but don't let the doom and gloom "end of the world" crowd convince you wolves are the end of hunting. They are not, and they certainly will not forever suppress rural hunters.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 03, 2016, 09:40:32 PM
I don't need to read a disgruntled employees rant to question the validity of a statement suggesting rural folks who hunt are forever suppressed by wolves. :tup:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Funny this is your signature line.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR
Jim Beers, and ucwarden are the men in the arena defending things you just can't comprehend. ;) :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2016, 09:46:04 PM
Jim Beers and other nuts like him are not in any arena defending anything. Please get educated on the subject (and the quote) before you continue embarrassing yourself. :tup:I don't need to read a disgruntled employees rant to question the validity of a statement suggesting rural folks who hunt are forever suppressed by wolves. :tup:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Funny this is your signature line.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR
Jim Beers, and ucwarden are the men in the arena defending things you just can't comprehend. ;) :twocents:
Post by: JLS on January 03, 2016, 10:03:48 PM
Jim Beers, and ucwarden are the men in the arena defending things you just can't comprehend. ;) :twocents:
The difference is that ucwarden is able to provide actual documents to back up his claims. Beers, not so much.