Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: wolfbait on March 26, 2014, 11:51:33 PM


Advertise Here
Title: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 26, 2014, 11:51:33 PM
The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
by Alan CarubaMarch 25, 2014



A recent article in The Wall Street Journal took note of what has occurred since the 1990s when some three dozen gray wolves were captured in Canada and transferred to the wilderness of Idaho. According to federal biologists, this was necessary to restore the ecological balance in a region teeming with elk and other creatures on the gray wolf food chain.

The article noted that more than 650 wolves roam the state today according to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which has been hearing a lot of complaints that the wolves “are wreaking havoc on Idaho’s prized elk and livestock, and prompted the governor’s office to embark on an effort to wipe out three-quarters or more of the population.”

So the federal biologists bring in the wolves and a few years later the governor’s office says kill them. Why? Because the elk population has fallen about 15% since the wolves arrived, along with 2,589 sheep, 610 cows, and 72 dogs.

Take a moment on contemplate how arrogant and unconscionably stupid it is to take gray wolves from Canada and put them in Idaho in the name of “ecological balance.” The only balance achieved was a significant imbalance in the elk population and witless destruction of sheep and cows which represent a livelihood to ranchers and dinner to the rest of us.

Throughout America we are all paying for the environmental notion of “endangered species” and the quest to “save” some from extinction. The problem with that conceit is that 95% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct over hundreds of millions of years. One paper on this noted that “Mass extinction of biological species has occurred several times in the history of our planet.”

The Endangered Species Act became law on December 28, 1973, just over forty years ago. It’s not about saving species. It’s about providing a vehicle to environmental groups to shut off access to vast areas of the nation in order to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas or mining them for coal and other minerals.

In a December 2013 Wall Street Journal article, Damien Schiff and Julie MacDonald reported that,

“A law intended to conserve species and habitat has brought about the recovery of only a fraction—less than 2%–of the approximately 2,100 species listed as endangered or threatened since 1973.
“Meanwhile, the law has endangered the economic health of many communities—which creating a cottage industry of litigation that does more to enrich environmental activist groups than benefit the environment.
“One reason the Endangered Species Act has spun out of control is that the federal agencies that decide whether to list a species—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—no longer based decisions on what the law calls for: data. Instead they invent squishy standards like ‘best professional judgment.”
The result of that can be seen in California’s San Joaquin Valley where much of the nation’s almonds, broccoli, onions, watermelons, lettuce and tomatoes have been grown. About 13% of all agricultural production in the nation takes place in the region where some 250 different crops are grown. That is, until the Natural Resources Defense Council won a lawsuit against California’s water-delivery system that they claimed was endangering Delta smelt, on the Endangered Species list since 1994. The result was a manmade drought for the valley’s farmers and ranchers. If you wonder why the cost of everything in the vegetable section of your supermarket costs more, you can thank the NRDC.

Lying about animal species is so much a part of the environmental movement that polar bears have become a fund-raising symbol over the years despite the fact that polar bear populations, said to be threatened by melting Arctic ice, have been thriving since the 1970s. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears worldwide, living in Canada, Greenland, the northern Russian coast, islands of the Norwegian coast and the northwest Alaska coast. Hunting them was banned in the U.S. and worldwide with the exception of Alaskan Natives for tribal needs.

Currently almost half the land west of the Mississippi river belongs to the federal government and environmentalists want to expand on that to prevent the nation’s booming oil and gas development. That development could make the U.S. energy independent, create many jobs, and its revenues could significantly reduce the tremendous national debt.  At the heart of the environmental movement is an intent to destroy capitalism and reduce the U.S. among other nations to an era before fossil fuels improved life for everyone.

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.

The Endangered Species Act should be repealed because it has a pathetic record regarding its goal over the past forty years and because it threatens the economic development of the nation. Unless or until this occurs, environmentalists will continue their assault on America.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-green-scam-of-endangered-species/ (http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-green-scam-of-endangered-species/)



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 27, 2014, 10:10:56 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 27, 2014, 02:56:32 PM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 27, 2014, 03:15:14 PM
I was on the ESA long before the wolf. When some guy in CA couldn't develop his own land back in the early 90s because he had a certain rat living there, I knew the ESA was being manipulated to forward the personal goals of greenies. It's been used by greenies to make our forests incredibly unhealthy here in the PNW through the fiasco of the spotted owl. As a result, it's another onslaught on our ungulates with loss of habitat and proper grazing in the forest. The ESA is a tool of enviro-wackos and the wolf is just another example of how they manipulate it and use taxpayer money to sue the federal government when it tries to manage wildlife. The extremists use it as their personal tool.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: villageidiot on March 27, 2014, 07:44:00 PM
 :yeah:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 27, 2014, 10:27:59 PM
The ESA is a tool used for control. I was on to the ESA during the spotted owl era in the late 80's It devastated logging and THAT was the purpose... And we have learned today the REAL reason for the spotted owls demise had NOTHING Tot do with habitat but rather a competitor... When some one tells me its all about "Habituate" All I hear is some one is trying to control the use of land that is NOT theirs.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 09:32:19 AM
Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2014, 10:00:41 AM
So now the HuntWA group is against ALL endangered species???  Good grief. 

I agree that the wolf delisting has been a nightmare, and that the ESA should not be used as a hammer to further personal agendas.  The ESA should be used to keep animals that are declining or going extinct (or extirpated) from being lost forever.   
 H
As a "hunting group" (if that is what this forum should call itself?) how can you support idly standing by and watching species go away?  Our hunter/conservation forefathers would roll over in their graves.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 10:11:27 AM
So now the HuntWA group is against ALL endangered species???  Good grief. 

I agree that the wolf delisting has been a nightmare, and that the ESA should not be used as a hammer to further personal agendas.  The ESA should be used to keep animals that are declining or going extinct (or extirpated) from being lost forever.   
 H
As a "hunting group" (if that is what this forum should call itself?) how can you support idly standing by and watching species go away?  Our hunter/conservation forefathers would roll over in their graves.

Really, that's what you read into this conversation WAcoyote, we're all about killing panda bears and peregrine falcons? This thread isn't about opposing the saving or protection of endangered species. This discussion is about how extreme greenies use it to forward extreme greenie agendas. Wolves need management and the game departments of WY, ID, and MT have decided on management plans. Greenies are using the ESA to oppose them because they don't want any killed under any circumstances. Do you agree with them or do you agree with the game departments who are experiencing wolf problems?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 10:25:54 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.

What I see here is a double standard. You go railing against wolves and belly ache about how it is supposed end to all hunting and then turn around and effectively say "the hell with upland birds if it messes with my land or grazing rights." Upland bird hunters talk about hunting sage grouse and prairie chickens because they don't know how much longer they'll be able to. Why? Because their habitat is disappearing thanks to development and the grazing practices of some ranchers on leases further degrades what's there. To be fair, a number of ranchers have gotten religion and started working with people trying to save the birds, but for anyone to single out these birds, birds that people like to hunt, because it interferes with their property rights just tells me that they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2014, 10:28:15 AM
And in ID they are going to kill 4k ravens because those PREDATORS have gone unchecked for 40+ years
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 10:32:44 AM
they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.
:yeah:  Saving endangered species is all fine and good for some folks until it has even the slightest hint of harming their immediate bottom line...tragedy of the commons.

I think ESA has been abused to further agendas in many ways, but it has also done a lot of good in terms of addressing environmental problems.  ESA has a lot of "teeth" that other environmental laws and regs lack...which is good and bad.   

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: mulehunter on March 28, 2014, 10:33:04 AM
I was on the ESA long before the wolf. When some guy in CA couldn't develop his own land back in the early 90s because he had a certain rat living there, I knew the ESA was being manipulated to forward the personal goals of greenies. It's been used by greenies to make our forests incredibly unhealthy here in the PNW through the fiasco of the spotted owl. As a result, it's another onslaught on our ungulates with loss of habitat and proper grazing in the forest. The ESA is a tool of enviro-wackos and the wolf is just another example of how they manipulate it and use taxpayer money to sue the federal government when it tries to manage wildlife. The extremists use it as their personal tool.

Well said.    :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 10:35:09 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.

What I see here is a double standard. You go railing against wolves and belly ache about how it is supposed end to all hunting and then turn around and effectively say "the hell with upland birds if it messes with my land or grazing rights." Upland bird hunters talk about hunting sage grouse and prairie chickens because they don't know how much longer they'll be able to. Why? Because their habitat is disappearing thanks to development and the grazing practices of some ranchers on leases further degrades what's there. To be fair, a number of ranchers have gotten religion and started working with people trying to save the birds, but for anyone to single out these birds, birds that people like to hunt, because it interferes with their property rights just tells me that they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.

Well, there's no double-standard in this thread that I can see. No one's talking about upland birds except for you, so that's way out of left field. And, since it sounds like you don't know the facts, I'll give one to you; licensed hunters have NEVER caused the extinction of an animal in the US, ever. So, have your rant that has nothing to do with anyone at all. We'll go back to talking about greenies who are using the ESA to forward their extreme agendas.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 10:37:20 AM
And in ID they are going to kill 4k ravens because those PREDATORS have gone unchecked for 40+ years

I wish them luck. I have serious doubts that it will help.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 10:38:00 AM
they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.
:yeah:  Saving endangered species is all fine and good for some folks until it has even the slightest hint of harming their immediate bottom line...tragedy of the commons.

I think ESA has been abused to further agendas in many ways, but it has also done a lot of good in terms of addressing environmental problems.  ESA has a lot of "teeth" that other environmental laws and regs lack...which is good and bad.

Again, your words are rhetoric only. Licensed hunters have never caused the extinction of any animal in the US. Do we want wolves here? No.  Are we going to cause them to become extinct? There's not a chance in hell. It won't happen. You got the wolves you love so dearly and they're here to stay.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 10:41:30 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.

What I see here is a double standard. You go railing against wolves and belly ache about how it is supposed end to all hunting and then turn around and effectively say "the hell with upland birds if it messes with my land or grazing rights." Upland bird hunters talk about hunting sage grouse and prairie chickens because they don't know how much longer they'll be able to. Why? Because their habitat is disappearing thanks to development and the grazing practices of some ranchers on leases further degrades what's there. To be fair, a number of ranchers have gotten religion and started working with people trying to save the birds, but for anyone to single out these birds, birds that people like to hunt, because it interferes with their property rights just tells me that they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.

Well, there's no double-standard in this thread that I can see. No one's talking about upland birds except for you, so that's way out of left field. And, since it sounds like you don't know the facts, I'll give one to you; licensed hunters have NEVER caused the extinction of an animal in the US, ever. So, have your rant that has nothing to do with anyone at all. We'll go back to talking about greenies who are using the ESA to forward their extreme agendas.

Actually Wolfbait's article talked about them pretty explicitly towards the end, did you read it? He himself has mentioned them several times in the past as an example of the ESA gone wrong.

You need to stop gulping down the government conspiracy theories and think about things a little.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 10:43:03 AM
they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.
:yeah:  Saving endangered species is all fine and good for some folks until it has even the slightest hint of harming their immediate bottom line...tragedy of the commons.

I think ESA has been abused to further agendas in many ways, but it has also done a lot of good in terms of addressing environmental problems.  ESA has a lot of "teeth" that other environmental laws and regs lack...which is good and bad.

Again, your words are rhetoric only. Licensed hunters have never caused the extinction of any animal in the US. Do we want wolves here? No.  Are we going to cause them to become extinct? There's not a chance in hell. It won't happen. You got the wolves you love so dearly and they're here to stay.

Way to twist the facts. No one said hunting was causing anything to go extinct. Bad land use practices are.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on March 28, 2014, 10:45:22 AM
And in ID they are going to kill 4k ravens because those PREDATORS have gone unchecked for 40+ years

I wish them luck. I have serious doubts that it will help.

Actually, Nevada has found that as an INTERIM measure it will likely benefit grouse numbers.  However, as you and I both know, it is not a long term fix.  Rather it is a band-aid measure to be used while habitat is improved/restored.

Nevada has had some pretty big fires that have eliminated a lot of sage grouse nesting cover.  Cheat grass has not been kind to sage grouse.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 10:52:04 AM
One of my big pet peeves with the anti-wolf crowd is a lot of them like to try and draw in hunters by trying to establish there is a threat to the activity. Often those same people talk out both sides of their mouth. They scare everyone into thinking the end of hunting is coming while effectively not giving a rip about non-big game species.

They don't like wolves because they eat livestock and they don't like sage grouse because their decline represents a threat to how they use the land.

They don't care at all about hunting, it's just a convenient side story they try and use to manipulate hunters.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 10:52:48 AM
So then, you deny that the ESA is being used as a tool of environmental wackos to forward their agendas? This is only a conspiracy I'm gulping down? Why am I not surprised that you feel that way?

Some land use hurts wildlife. Some wildlife will go extinct through no fault of anyone, like the dusky goose should. But the people using the ESA to stop wolf hunts are not doing to save the wolf, because the wolf isn't in danger. Many of them are doing it to stop hunting; to create a crisis which forces F&G departments to curtail deer and elk hunting. And with the help of the ESA and the wolf, they'll accomplish it by depleting ungulate herds to dangerously low levels.

The ESA is a poorly written piece of legislation and needs to be re-written.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 10:56:57 AM
One of my big pet peeves with the anti-wolf crowd is a lot of them like to try and draw in hunters by trying to establish there is a threat to the activity. Often those same people talk out both sides of their mouth. They scare everyone into thinking the end of hunting is coming while effectively not giving a rip about non-big game species.

They don't like wolves because they eat livestock and they don't like sage grouse because their decline represents a threat to how they use the land.

They don't care at all about hunting, it's just a convenient side story they try and use to manipulate hunters.

I'm amazed by your insane comments? Do you just hate anyone who isn't a pro-wolfer?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
Ya think, Bearpaw?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 11:02:18 AM
Ya think, Bearpaw?

He has a double standard, cries when he gets called a wolf lover but seems to hate anyone who wants to manage wolves and calls them anti-wolf or wolf haters.  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2014, 11:03:08 AM
JLS while you are correct it is not a complete fix it IS doing soemthing meaningful to provide relief.

The ESA has very few sucess stories. The most notable are predators, kinda ironic...  Wolves, american aligator, Sealions?

Mostly it isn't sucessful and is just a tool for control... More HABITAT when they shut down logging didnt help the spotted owl... HUNTING the competing own may however provide some relief... There is a LOT of $ to be made by "non profits" in aquireing land, selling it and doing habitat projects.

HUNTING is the most costeffective tool to help provide balance and relief, aminl because sportsmen PAY to do it and are willing to report thier kills
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 11:07:42 AM
I lease a ranch in Utah that has been part of a sage grouse study for about 5 years. The ranch owners invited the University and UDWR to do the study and we quit hunting sage grouse while they study them.

Yep, it obvious ranchers and hunters hate sage grouse and only are concerned about the bottom line.  :rolleyes:

I would have no problem with the ESA if it was used to bring back species which are in danger rather than a tool for enviro groups to stop activities they don't endorse.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 11:09:13 AM
Ya think, Bearpaw?

He has a double standard, cries when he gets called a wolf lover but seems to hate anyone who wants to manage wolves and calls them anti-wolf or wolf haters.  :chuckle:

That's actually pretty funny Bearpaw. I've said on numerous occasions that there should be some kind of management of them. I am however quite critical of all the propaganda and extremist views thrown around here about them. I make no secret of it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2014, 11:10:24 AM
I lease a ranch in Utah that has been part of a sage grouse study for about 5 years. The ranch owners invited the University and UDWR to do the study and we quit hunting sage grouse while they study them.

Yep, it obvious ranchers and hunters hate sage grouse and only are concerned about the bottom line.  :rolleyes:

I would have no problem with the ESA if it was used to bring back species which are in danger rather than a tool for enviro groups to stop activities they don't endorse.

Yup, and I acknowledged that some have started to be helpful. Or did you conveniently miss that part?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 11:15:31 AM
Ya think, Bearpaw?

He has a double standard, cries when he gets called a wolf lover but seems to hate anyone who wants to manage wolves and calls them anti-wolf or wolf haters.  :chuckle:

That's actually pretty funny Bearpaw. I've said on numerous occasions that there should be some kind of management of them. I am however quite critical of all the propaganda and extremist views thrown around here about them. I make no secret of it.

You seem to be the extremist, I think most hunters on this forum simply want reasonable management.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2014, 11:15:39 AM
Pianoman- did you read the article he posted???  Re read it and get back to us about birds, bears, and other species.  They are clearly arguing that since many species have gone extinct in the past that its ok to let it happen nowadays.  Unbelievable.   

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on March 28, 2014, 11:18:27 AM
Is the ESA misused?  Certainly.  Does it need re written or abandoned?  Certainly not.

What criteria do we use in determining which species are worthy of protection?  I could care less about newts and salamanders, but does that mean they aren't worthy of protection?  Think of the canary in the coal mine.  Yes, the species may be going extinct for valid reasons and we maybe shouldn't necessarily lose sleep over it.  However, that is probably a decision that should be weighed carefully.

Add grizzly bears and eagles to your list of recovered species.  I would foresee that grizzly bears will be sport hunted for sport in the very near future.  This will be a tremendous opportunity for sportsmen and is a testament to how the ESA can and should work.

Alligators are sport hunted and provide a valuable economic return to those areas.  Note that there is a new site sponsor that specializes in alligator hunting?

Has anyone noticed the lesser prairie chicken is being listed as threatened?  Think this is something to be concerned about?  For some folks it's a big deal.  Is it an isolated instance, or a canary that is indicative of a larger problem?  I think if you look at other trends, it's likely a canary.

I would certainly agree that land use is something that is very important to our country in terms of energy resources and economic assets.  Sometimes those should take precedence over the landscape, but sometimes they shouldn't.  Who decides?  What filters are you looking through?

What legacy do you want to leave your kids?  What do you want them to be able to experience?  I for one would love to accompany a family member or friend on a grizzly bear hunt.  Better yet, I'd like to chase one deep in the Bob Marshall with my bow and arrow.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 11:23:46 AM
they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.
:yeah:  Saving endangered species is all fine and good for some folks until it has even the slightest hint of harming their immediate bottom line...tragedy of the commons.

I think ESA has been abused to further agendas in many ways, but it has also done a lot of good in terms of addressing environmental problems.  ESA has a lot of "teeth" that other environmental laws and regs lack...which is good and bad.

Again, your words are rhetoric only. Licensed hunters have never caused the extinction of any animal in the US. Do we want wolves here? No.  Are we going to cause them to become extinct? There's not a chance in hell. It won't happen. You got the wolves you love so dearly and they're here to stay.
Where did I say or even remotely imply licensed hunters in the US caused the extinction of an animal?  Oh thats right, I NEVER DID!

I don't love wolves dearly, I love hunting dearly, and like Aspen I get frustrated when the fringe folks spout conspiracy theories that make hunters look like fools...but you and others like to twist that into trying to make many of us some kind of wolf lovers...which is a joke.  Why is it you guys can never just articulate your point...you always have to call/portray people who don't agree as "wolf lovers"?  I have yet to understand such behavior...its really pathetic.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 11:26:33 AM
I would have no problem with the ESA if it was used to bring back species which are in danger rather than a tool for enviro groups to stop activities they don't endorse.
Even if it means limiting or regulating land management/resource extraction activities you support?

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 11:32:44 AM
I would have no problem with the ESA if it was used to bring back species which are in danger rather than a tool for enviro groups to stop activities they don't endorse.
Even if it means limiting or regulating land management/resource extraction activities you support?

Yes of course, but too many times the ESA has been used by extremists more interested in stopping the other activities they don't endorse. That is clearly why most people are opposed to the ESA.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2014, 11:40:23 AM
So does everyone agree that the ESA, despite its faults, has value and should remain
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 11:41:20 AM
Pianoman- did you read the article he posted???  Re read it and get back to us about birds, bears, and other species.  They are clearly arguing that since many species have gone extinct in the past that its ok to let it happen nowadays.  Unbelievable.

I did read it and I do think that prairie chickens and sage grouse are being used to forward political/environmental agendas. Like the rat in CA that caused the 9th District Court to stop a man from developing his own land without compensation, greenies have decided they don't want shale oil production and fracking, and the way to stop it is through the ESA.

We have many big problems in the US. Can't do much about Obama. Another is that if we don't figure out a way to become energy independent very fast, our economy will be held hostage by those who hold the oil. Another problem is balance in environmental policy. We don't seem to be able to find middle road anywhere, especially when someone uses the ESA to stop projects and programs with which they disagree. Find a frog and stop a building or a new community. It hurts our economy and it's a major intrusion on private property rights, often for no good reason.

I mentioned the dusky Canada goose before. It's a goose that Mother Nature would've killed all by herself, no help from man, due to the earthquake in AK in 1964. It raised the nesting ground by 6 feet, allowing predators to ravage their eggs. Because of the ESA, strict hunting guidelines are now in place throughout SW WA and NW OR, limiting the number of geese taken, penalizing hunters for taking a dusky, and causing hunters to not shoot many times when they should, in fear of dropping a dusky. As a result, the farming industry in SW WA and NW OR suffers great crop damage due to over 2 million wintering geese - and the numbers keep going up. For what? To save a goose which left to nature would've been extinct 30 years ago. There's little middle ground. Our food gets more expensive, the farmers lose money, all because the stupid dusky remains on the edge of extinction not to do with anything man has done.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 11:43:07 AM
So does everyone agree that the ESA, despite its faults, has value and should remain

I agree it has value. I think it should be heavily amended and one amendment would take out the ability of non-profit groups and individuals to sue the government using taxpayer money. Many frivolous lawsuits would be avoided in this way.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2014, 11:49:08 AM
I hate the ESA because it lacks the ability to use logic. Salmon/steelhead are on the ESA in some rivers and have protection. MOST people talk habitat yet ignore the predators that have boomed under leagal protections, Cornmerants, Sealions etc... Neither are in danger of becoming threatend, however could use some thinnning of the population. Gov is slow to action, and the ESA has been making NonProfits $ and allowing the means for controlling others property. Despite this ONE of the bottlenecks in the solution has NOT been addressed despite the fact that is only costs the stroke of a pen.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2014, 11:50:35 AM
The frog and rat are exaggerated examples, and I am skeptical of them without seeing the case. 

The ESA only requires consideration of habitats and species.  It is not the roadblock that you are making it out to be. 

I agree that the frivolous lawsuits are the problem.  Fix those.... Don't attack the idea of the ESA.

The article wolfbait posted is ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2014, 11:52:33 AM
Pman they are more than frivolous. The Sue and settle strategy has been used by bureaucrats to close off opportunity with out due process. It also allows cover for Shyster politicians and Bureaucrats so that they can deny having any involvement because they were subject to a lawsuit, and just following the court... Despite the fact that they have settled and no real oversite or judicial judgment was made.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2014, 11:57:14 AM
So does everyone agree that the ESA, despite its faults, has value and should remain

I think congress needs to rewrite or replace the ESA so it cannot be abused for purposes other than protecting truly endangered species.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2014, 12:44:20 PM
The frog and rat are exaggerated examples, and I am skeptical of them without seeing the case. 

The ESA only requires consideration of habitats and species.  It is not the roadblock that you are making it out to be. 

I agree that the frivolous lawsuits are the problem.  Fix those.... Don't attack the idea of the ESA.

The article wolfbait posted is ridiculous.

They're not exaggerated. They're used all the time.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 01:29:12 PM
Some of you are confusing the ESA with other legislation.  It is the equal access to justice act that makes suing the feds profitable...that bill needs revised so that it meets its intended purpose...large non-profit groups should not be eligible for reimbursement.  Its intent was generally to make sure little old ladies could put up a fair fight against the feds...but like other well intentioned legislation it has been severely abused.   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2014, 01:47:07 PM
I confuse nothing... the ESA is just one tool out there that is used and abused. It takes a saw, hammer, tape measure, square and many other tools to build a house. The ESA just seems to be the favorite tool by some to force control over others.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 28, 2014, 01:56:26 PM
 :tup: AMEN to that Special T

Talked til we were blue in the face about "protected" predators during the listing of the Salmon, fell on deaf ears(biologist state and Feds) DIDN'T meet Their agenda.  But they held their required "public meetings" THAT IS all that counted.

ESA was LAW and all common sense was out the window!!

The "act" came about as a attempt by Congress to "appease" the hippie and anti-war crowd the were destroying college campie's back in the day!!!  Most senators who voted for the act and are still alive "wished" they had not done it.  Water under the bridge NOW. 

Here is some fun,  just take the Spotted Owl.  Was it or is it a "timber" bird!??

Hint, You'll have to find study's(that were done)back in 1910 to find the answer.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Eli346 on March 28, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
 What really bothers me is the waste of money that these frivolous lawsuits brought upon the US government by the so-called 'enviro' groups are causing. Doesn't the government realize that the funding for the lawsuits themselves usually comes from government grants? The US government is paying to have themselves sued and then spending money to defend it! Idiotic at best but the 'enviro' groups keep making a living suing us honest taxpayers.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2014, 04:46:27 PM
It's not a "scam." That's all I will say. Some of you need your tin foil hats.   :tinfoil:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Northway on March 28, 2014, 05:12:46 PM
The ESA in general was a good idea. I think one of the big reasons that more endangered species haven't benefited is because so much of the funding is steered towards a few species, as opposed to being more widely distributed.

Where things go awry is when some groups challenge obscure, technical aspects of the act to get their way, which was the case when a few groups challenged the wolf delisting in Wyoming. Another concern is that there is just not enough funding or manpower to go around to take care of all the species that might warrant listing. Tough decisions have to be made. 

The threat of ESA listing can also be a good motivator. States are scrambling to come up with a solution for declining sage grouse populations in an effort to stave off the ESA.

The impression that I get from some politicians is that financial interests should always trump the ESA, no matter what. At that point, it would be a waste of time to even look after threatened species because there are not many scenarios where someone isn't affected in some way financially.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 28, 2014, 06:32:13 PM
Again, your words are rhetoric only. Licensed hunters have never caused the extinction of any animal in the US.

Weasle words....... Because before modern management took over hunters didn't buy a license to hunt.  The list of animals hunted to extinction before the advent of hunting licenses include the Passenger Pigeon, and the Stellar Sea Cow. Other animals hunted to extinction in various locals would include the Eastern Elk, the Eastern Woodland Bison, Californian Golden Bear, even the Yakima elk herd. And these are just a few examples from North America. There is more all over the world. Not to mention species hunted to the brink of extinction.

So to imply in any way that hunters haven't, or couldn't,  or wouldn't wipe out animals is dishonest at best. There wouldn't be anything to hunt if our recent ancestors hadn't taken the bull by the horns and made strict laws regarding recovery and then hunting.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 07:12:40 PM
Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf)

Until I posted this the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd seemed to have No Comment, I guess when one of their own is high-lighted they leap to their feet to defend>I guess when you hit the target they have a response.

My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on March 28, 2014, 07:33:33 PM
Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf)

Until I posted this the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd seemed to have No Comment, I guess when one of their own is high-lighted they leap to their feet to defend>I guess when you hit the target they have a response.

My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???

If you honestly think I care one bit about her then your IQ must fall somewhere on the left side of zero on a number line.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 07:41:08 PM
Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf)

Until I posted this the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd seemed to have No Comment, I guess when one of their own is high-lighted they leap to their feet to defend>I guess when you hit the target they have a response.

My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???

If you honestly think I care one bit about her then your IQ must fall somewhere on the left side of zero on a number line.

It's clear that you do: First off you pretend that you don't care when as we have all seen you do, and second you don't even know me, but yet you comment on my IQ. So where do you go from their?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
I lease a ranch in Utah that has been part of a sage grouse study for about 5 years. The ranch owners invited the University and UDWR to do the study and we quit hunting sage grouse while they study them.

Yep, it obvious ranchers and hunters hate sage grouse and only are concerned about the bottom line.  :rolleyes:

I would have no problem with the ESA if it was used to bring back species which are in danger rather than a tool for enviro groups to stop activities they don't endorse.

When predator birds were controlled, other birds such as the sage grouse etc. were plentiful> With ESA and protecting predators it has reversed everything> If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 07:51:09 PM
My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???

Yes, your post triggered a secret alarm in the nuthouse and several of us were deployed immediately to go into damage control so that we could prevent you from exposing all of our lies.  Alas, we have failed and will probably be called back to the mothership any hour now.

That, or some independent folks have different perspectives on a controversial topic posted to an internet forum...lets go with your theory though...sometimes reality is boring.  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 28, 2014, 07:53:40 PM
If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!
Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.   :bash:  :bash:

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 07:55:15 PM
My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???

Yes, your post triggered a secret alarm in the nuthouse and several of us were deployed immediately to go into damage control so that we could prevent you from exposing all of our lies.  Alas, we have failed and will probably be called back to the mothership any hour now.

That, or some independent folks have different perspectives on a controversial topic posted to an internet forum...lets go with your theory though...sometimes reality is boring.  :tup:

I'm surprised you wasted so much time with your blabber, I bet you are proud of your self, hope you didn't burn a finger.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 28, 2014, 08:00:37 PM
If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!
Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.   :bash:  :bash:

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.

I'm sure you do!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: luvtohnt on March 28, 2014, 08:30:16 PM
I believe there has been a recent change in legislation. The government got smart and saw that the lawsuits were draining all the funding mechanisms, further reducing the amount of work that could be done. The legislation states that any party that is going to sue the federal government must show that they have the funds to finance the lawsuit if they loose. Hopefully this will prevent roughly 30% of the lawsuits so that the USFWS can actually accomplish something good (other than write defense papers). I will see what I can find as far as info on the new law.

The Endangered Species Act was a very thoughtful piece of legislation, however like any legislation that was produced in the 70's, it should be updated to mesh with modern technology and a vastly more modern world.

Brandon
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on March 28, 2014, 09:30:09 PM
Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/03/10/panel-roundtable-canadian-gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/#sthash.FAkDYDWZ.dpuf)

Until I posted this the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd seemed to have No Comment, I guess when one of their own is high-lighted they leap to their feet to defend>I guess when you hit the target they have a response.

My question is: Did CNW or WDFW kick the agenda driven pro-wolf people in the arse for a response, or did they leap to their feet all by themselves???

If you honestly think I care one bit about her then your IQ must fall somewhere on the left side of zero on a number line.

It's clear that you do: First off you pretend that you don't care when as we have all seen you do, and second you don't even know me, but yet you comment on my IQ. So where do you go from their?

You show me one single quote of mine where I have voiced my support for Jamie Clark.  Not hating wolves  and not buying into the end of hunting conspiracy theory does not equate to supporting her or her agenda.

Where I go from here is to ignore your ridiculous accusations and jabs.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2014, 06:33:43 AM
Again, your words are rhetoric only. Licensed hunters have never caused the extinction of any animal in the US.

Weasle words....... Because before modern management took over hunters didn't buy a license to hunt.  The list of animals hunted to extinction before the advent of hunting licenses include the Passenger Pigeon, and the Stellar Sea Cow. Other animals hunted to extinction in various locals would include the Eastern Elk, the Eastern Woodland Bison, Californian Golden Bear, even the Yakima elk herd. And these are just a few examples from North America. There is more all over the world. Not to mention species hunted to the brink of extinction.

So to imply in any way that hunters haven't, or couldn't,  or wouldn't wipe out animals is dishonest at best. There wouldn't be anything to hunt if our recent ancestors hadn't taken the bull by the horns and made strict laws regarding recovery and then hunting.

It's not weasel words and it's not an implication. It's fact. Licensed hunters in the US don't make animals go extinct, period. What happened up to 1900 is not my responsibility. I'm an active participant of conservation. The animals you listed where killed by market shooters and the shooters in many cases were supported or hired by our own government. And, licensed hunters pay more money and put more volunteer hours into helping keep wildlife abundant than all other groups combined. Animals hunted to extinction all over the world have not done so as a result of licensed hunters. Sorry you don't know your facts but there they are.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2014, 06:46:22 AM
It's not a "scam." That's all I will say. Some of you need your tin foil hats.   :tinfoil:

It's got nothing to do with tin foil hats. It's got to do with the act being used to forward private agendas. That was not the purpose of the original Act. It was supposed to protect and when possible, restore endangered and threatened animal populations. It's being used by extreme greenies to do a whole lot more. I don't believe that the ESA is a scam. I believe its use by certain specific groups (DOW, HSUS, PETA, etc.) to forward their agenda is, however.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 29, 2014, 08:17:27 AM
If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!
Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.   :bash:  :bash:

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.
:) habitat loss.... as difficult as it is for some folks on here to comprehend, wildlife needs a place to live.  The ESA details habitat protection for that purpose. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2014, 08:48:16 AM
In my life time, I can honestly say I have witnessed great amounts of habitat loss from human encroachment.  That is the main pertinent factor in most of the changes Ive noticed since the late 60s early 70s. 

With human encroachment into most , if not all winter ranges of our wildlife, conflicts are to be expected. 

But with that, I would say introduction of predators and the soft management of predators will only be the root of many more problems going forward in time.

Its all about agendas.........so many agendas, so many people in need of a cause.

Did I mention, so many people ????????   Like way too many.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
It's not a "scam." That's all I will say. Some of you need your tin foil hats.   :tinfoil:

It's got nothing to do with tin foil hats. It's got to do with the act being used to forward private agendas. That was not the purpose of the original Act. It was supposed to protect and when possible, restore endangered and threatened animal populations. It's being used by extreme greenies to do a whole lot more. I don't believe that the ESA is a scam. I believe its use by certain specific groups (DOW, HSUS, PETA, etc.) to forward their agenda is, however.

Well, I simply don't agree that it has to do with "agendas." What it has to do with is protecting certains species and their habitat so they don't become extinct. I agree some of those species it may be arguable whether they're worthy of saving or not, but is it possible to write the law in a way that would allow some to be protected and others not?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 29, 2014, 10:55:40 AM
The basis of the act is honorable, reasonable efforts should be made to protect and restore (if possible) all animals. There was nothing honorable or reasonable about reintroducing the wolf.  The ESA May not be a scam but it is being used perpetrate scams.  The greenies are purchasing land as fast as they can to lock up for their own purposes and this is another way for them to lock up lands and not use their own resources.

I like to compare the wolf reintroduction to the reintroduction of the Sea Otter in SE Alaska. Prior to reintroducing a non native sea otter stock there were flourishing urchin, crab, clam, and other shellfish stocks. Now, in many areas of SE AK there are areas where the sea otters have wiped out all mollusk stocks and possibly even exterminated some of the shellfish species. Now large areas are covered with impenetrable kelp mats and thousands of otters that cannot be managed in a reasonable manner.  AK natives can hunt them and I have seen guys coming in with boat loads but it does little to the overall population.  I have heard there are plans in the works for a limited season which would be great, but in many places it is too little too late. Hopefully saner heads prevail down here and one day I don't see packs of wolves roaming the Entiat and not a single deer to be seen.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 11:05:43 AM
The stupid thing is that wolves never were in danger of going extinct, and should not have been listed as being "endangered," in my opinion. There were always plenty of wolves in Alaska and Canada. Bison are just as endangered as wolves ever were, and I don't see them  trying to restore bison to all of the areas where they previously existed. So yes, I do have issues with the way the ESA works, but I just don't think it should be eliminated entirely.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2014, 11:28:03 AM
 :yeah: There were roughly 60,000 northern wolves in North America before they were introduced in ID/YNP. Another reason people are opposed to the abuse of the ESA and why congress needs to rewrite or scrap it altogether.  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on March 29, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
Good post Wolfbait!  :tup:
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 12:38:22 PM
The ESA does do some good- look at bald eagles, they were brought back from the brink of extinction thanks to the protection they received from the ESA. Also, what about salmon and steelhead, they're important species that deserve saving, I'm sure most everyone would agree with that. And then, as the article mentioned, sage grouse and prairie chickens are benefitting from the ESA. Again, those are species that are important to me and I don't want to see them wiped out entirely.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 29, 2014, 12:38:58 PM
Good post Wolfbait!  :tup:
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.

Just curious, are you all for getting rid of all "non-native species" that were introduced? Or is it just wolves? Many non-native species compete with native species for food and habitat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 29, 2014, 03:59:03 PM
No one have a answer to my question yet? :dunno:

Remember the Spotted owl was/is used to protect "old growth" by getting it listed.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 04:52:13 PM

No one have a answer to my question yet? :dunno:

Remember the Spotted owl was/is used to protect "old growth" by getting it listed.

I think you've got it backwards. Old growth was protected to save the spotted owl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on March 29, 2014, 04:56:15 PM
Quote
Good post Wolfbait!  :tup:
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.




Just curious, are you all for getting rid of all "non-native species" that were introduced? Or is it just wolves? Many non-native species compete with native species for food and habitat.

I'm for getting rid of all the unlawfully-introduced Canadian gray wolves. Having a small number of native wolves here would not bother me.
If there was a way, I would say let's get rid of the rats (which are not native to this country) and I wouldn't mind getting rid of the eastern gray squirrels in western WA too.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2014, 06:45:49 PM
If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!
Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.   :bash:  :bash:

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.
:) habitat loss.... as difficult as it is for some folks on here to comprehend, wildlife needs a place to live.  The ESA details habitat protection for that purpose.

Do to wolves in WA, MT, ID, WY, OR, and where ever wolves show up, they create more habitat by putting the game herds in a predator pit sooner or later. The argument that more habitat is needed after wolves go through is total BS. Look at where wolves have decimated the game herds in Idaho etc., and soon WA will be in far worse shape. But the pro-wolf agenda driven people still tout more habitat as to the answer for declining game herds etc.. It is a joke, but it probably sounds good to those who are brain-washed.

Here we are 18 years later, we have seen what the wolves have done in other states and yet WDFW are playing the same game as the USFWS did through their wolf push on the three hardest states to introduce wolves in once the truth was known. We shouldn't even be talking about this from the history that we now know, WDFW should be hunting these wolves as a predator instead of protecting them above all else.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
As far as the ESA, it has never been used to protect a truly endangered species, but instead to acquire  land or shut down areas such as they did with the spotted owl and logging, or shutting down water rights for farmers over a fish that isn't even close to being endangered. The ESA is just another tool used to control the land and the people. It should be scraped.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on March 29, 2014, 08:29:30 PM
Quote
Here we are 18 years later, we have seen what the wolves have done in other states and yet WDFW are playing the same game as the USFWS did through their wolf push on the three hardest states to introduce wolves in once the truth was known. We shouldn't even be talking about this from the history that we now know, WDFW should be hunting these wolves as a predator instead of protecting them above all else.

So true Wolfbait. It is the anti hunting and anti 2nd amendment crowd that is behind this and there are some people who call themselves hunters who go along with this corruption. They aren't hunters though.
Once they rid us of huntable ungulates, they will say - what do you need guns for? Their objective is obvious to a normal-minded person.
I pray that good overcomes evil in this challenge.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 29, 2014, 09:05:37 PM
"I think you've got it backwards. Old growth was protected to save the spotted owl."

Which goes back to my question, bobcat.

Was/is the Spotted Owl a "timber" bird??

This might help you answer,  the research was given to a politician before "it" was listed, it was not entered into the debate.  I wonder WHY!!!! 

Can anyone on here HELP him out,  I would hate to think I am the only one who knows.   I know there are a few other(old) loggers on here.  Young ones would most likely not know all the details.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 09:09:00 PM
Timberfaller,

I really don't understand what you're getting at. But yes, spotted owls do live in "timber," more specifically old growth timber. It's what they do best in and what they prefer. Does that answer your question?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 29, 2014, 09:12:50 PM
Nope,  you have to go to their "beginning"

They are in timber now.  BUT when first discovered they were not.

Sorry but I am not used to quick responses on this site.  All my other ones take  anywhere from half an hour to a day!!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2014, 09:20:07 PM
I'm not so sure about that. But if that is true, maybe they are trying to avoid the barred owls, which are a newcomer to this state.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on March 30, 2014, 11:06:02 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.
+1
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 30, 2014, 02:44:46 PM
Ok, no ones seems to want to bite.

The Spotted Owl was NOT a bird found in "timber" when discovered and studied.  You'll find the study in a National Geographic magazine, if you can find one!!!  Dated 1910, I have forgotten the month.

What happened between 1910 and the Owl being used as a pawn to shut down logging by Greenie Groups(lawyers) and crooked politicians(bought and paid for) was the OWL was forced into the "timber" by the expansion of "city dwellers".  AKA, Seattle, Olympia, Vancouver,Portland on down the Pacific coast.  And of course, most people know that the main argument of the Greenies is "Old Growth" and the myth that it can live forever.

The Spotted Owl preferred to nest in Rocks and under the eve's of Houses.  BUT it lacked the ability to "adapt" to the increase of "human" presence, so it started to migrate to the "timber" where it meet the Barred Owl.  Who is more aggressive in nature then the timid Spotted Owl.   The rest is history.

Now for the "scam".  Did any of you hear during the Spotted Owl scam, about the Barred Owl attacking and killing the Spotted Owl????   Did any of you see the St. Rigis pictures of Spotted Owls nesting in the "bone yards" in culverts, While acres of "old growth" surrounded the yards???

A Pinkerton man, gave ALL that information to a "politician" and he refused to take it into account.  Said man gave that information to his daughter, had he not I and a bunch of others would never had seen it.  For just days after informing "politician" The Pinkerton man's home was ransacked top to bottom.   And that to is history.

If the Spotted Owl goes extinct, it will not be the fault of evil loggers but because of wacked out scientist, greenies(using ESA), and the Barred Owl.  The "scientist" believe the way to save the Owl now, because stopping old growth logging didn't bring their numbers back, is to go into the forest and "shoot" the Barred Owl and balance out the "numbers" between them and the Spotted Owl

 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2014, 05:41:18 PM
Dont Confuse me with FACTS Timberfaller...I know what i've been told by the good people with my best intentions in mind... Take off your  :tinfoil: !         :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 30, 2014, 06:18:51 PM
I am not even sure what the original premise of this thread was now but going toward the Spotted Owl portion of the argument I remember when the whole issue made nation wide headlines. It was certainly the loggers and the decimation of the old growth timbers that were wiping out the species, until they actually tried to figure out where the owl habituated and the old growth was not it. Damn! A swing and a miss!  Oh well precedent is already set and now everyone knows old growth is the only habitat that the owl can survive in. And then (as was said above) everyone figured out the Barred Owl was keeping the species from recovering.

There has been so much misinformation and blatently false information over the years that no one really has a clue any more. As far as I can recall over the years the official Spotted Owl preferred habitat has changed at least three times. This was all a ruse by the rotten greenies who do not care about anything except getting their agenda forwarded.

The ESA is a good tool, for the greenies. So far it has done very little for the rest of the country and likely done more harm than otherwise.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2014, 06:38:21 PM
I did work in the woods for 10 years in northeast washington and do agree never seen a owl in big timber.They seemed to like stands that were 25-50 year old stands.I can only speak for northeast washington but the state is already logging alot of the big timber for fire danger,and it does create alot of jobs .They woulnd rather get the money for it then see it burn.That does not mean i agree with the way they do it though.They leave 50-100 trees per acre calling them wildlife trees or seed trees.These trees have alot of space and exposed to alot sun that they didnt have before .So some die from over sun or a big wind storm comes up in the winter and can blow over all the trees they left .I have seen them have to go back after winter and take all the (seed trees) they left because of this.I do think all forests shoulnd be harvested cut back and all that.For fire danger health of forest ect.But think they shound be takeing a clear cut deal leaveing stips of big timber like on a ski hill.maybe 5 acre wide strips up mountains leaving 10-20 acre strips wide of big timber.Creates jods,fire breaks,habitat,and nice glassing area for hunters.Dont want any state land,national forest developed were already loseing hunting ground as it is dont wanna see houses litter the mountain side ,so they can use whatever reason they want dont matter to me call it endangerd speicies works for me.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 30, 2014, 06:41:05 PM
The spotted owl was a distraction to keep people from noticing that all the timber jobs were going over seas (just like many other jobs) because the ban on exporting unprocessed logs was lifted by the Reagan administration. And it worked. While everyone was fighting and arguing over the spotted owl, no one noticed that most of the true old growth forests had long since been cut and most logging is done in second and third growth tree farms and most of the wood is sent overseas to be processed.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 30, 2014, 06:42:36 PM
Spotted owls do live in old growth and that's what they prefer and what they do best in. That has never changed that I know of and I don't believe any scientist has ever said that spotted owls habitat is anything other than old growth timber.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 30, 2014, 06:49:59 PM
This is from the Fish & Wildlife Service:

Quote
Habitat

Northern spotted owls live in forests characterized by dense canopy closure of mature and old-growth trees, abundant logs, standing snags, and live trees with broken tops. Although they are known to nest, roost, and feed in a wide variety of habitat types, spotted owls prefer older forest stands with variety: multi-layered canopies of several tree species of varying size and age, both standing and fallen dead trees, and open space among the lower branches to allow flight under the canopy. Typically, forests do not attain these characteristics until they are at least 150 to 200 years old.



Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2014, 07:40:49 PM
Spotted owls do live in old growth and that's what they prefer and what they do best in. That has never changed that I know of and I don't believe any scientist has ever said that spotted owls habitat is anything other than old growth timber.
That may be true i dont know them being very rare and all,there was on more than one time that we didnt touch this stand or that stand mostly for linx habitat i was told,even though it was in the contract to cut it . And when i did see an owl here and there i coulnd not tell u what species it was.Just telling what i seen in ten plus years.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2014, 07:46:40 PM
The spotted owl was a distraction to keep people from noticing that all the timber jobs were going over seas (just like many other jobs) because the ban on exporting unprocessed logs was lifted by the Reagan administration. And it worked. While everyone was fighting and arguing over the spotted owl, no one noticed that most of the true old growth forests had long since been cut and most logging is done in second and third growth tree farms and most of the wood is sent overseas to be processed.
I agree with alot on your comment most mills these day wont even accept bigger timber here in northeast washington very few will take it anymore.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 30, 2014, 07:57:52 PM
Dont Confuse me with FACTS Timberfaller...I know what i've been told by the good people with my best intentions in mind... Take off your  :tinfoil: !         :chuckle:
at least his head isn't buried' in his greenie arse :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2014, 08:00:00 PM
This is from the Fish & Wildlife Service:

Quote
Habitat

Northern spotted owls live in forests characterized by dense canopy closure of mature and old-growth trees, abundant logs, standing snags, and live trees with broken tops. Although they are known to nest, roost, and feed in a wide variety of habitat types, spotted owls prefer older forest stands with variety: multi-layered canopies of several tree species of varying size and age, both standing and fallen dead trees, and open space among the lower branches to allow flight under the canopy. Typically, forests do not attain these characteristics until they are at least 150 to 200 years old.




Thats why i dont agree with there current forest plan of leaveing so much space on trees of 50-100 trees per acre it takes away habitat ,thats why i always talk about the ski run style of cutting ,works for habitat,firebreaks,jobs,hunters alike they will never do it though because your clear cutting in some peoples mind.But your clear cutting a small spots compared to what your leaveing and leaveing so much big timber on each side of these strips means the clear cut area will reseed itself very fast without planting ,then someday they woulnd take the old growth and leave the younger strips lets say like every 100 years.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 30, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
LOL "This is from the Fish and Wildlife Service" :chuckle:

I'll try and state it a little clearer,  IN 1910 when the report came out about the Northern Spotted Owl. HE was not found in Old Growth timber.  IT was not his habitat!

The "powers that be"(early 1980) used the ESA and a good brainwashing by the media(greenies) and "government agency's" figuring No One was interested in the propaganda taking place amongst them.

Early birth of the LIV!!!  Low Information Voter

Yes they are now found in Old Growth, NO its not their preferred Habitat and the Barred owl is letting them know they don't belong there. 

Remember this quote?   "Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help" Riiiiiiiiiiiight!

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 30, 2014, 08:45:45 PM
LOL "This is from the Fish and Wildlife Service" :chuckle:

I'll try and state it a little clearer,  IN 1910 when the report came out about the Northern Spotted Owl. HE was not found in Old Growth timber.  IT was not his habitat!

The "powers that be"(early 1980) used the ESA and a good brainwashing by the media(greenies) and "government agency's" figuring No One was interested in the propaganda taking place amongst them.

Early birth of the LIV!!!  Low Information Voter

Yes they are now found in Old Growth, NO its not their preferred Habitat and the Barred owl is letting them know they don't belong there. 

Remember this quote?   "Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help" Riiiiiiiiiiiight!

I don't think it would be correct to assume that because Swarth in 1910 thought that the spotted owl had a different habitat than they do now, that Swarth was necessarily correct.  His was the initial description of a previously undescribed species, and he may have been in error.  You're making huge assumptions
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on March 30, 2014, 09:32:08 PM
The pocket gopher is the latest tool of the hippie crowd around here to try to stop development.  This is going to be bad for me to say, but I have to question why we place some animals ahead of our needs?  Why worry about gophers or spotted owls?  Let them adapt if they want to survive.

Seems to me that the timber industry should have been more valuable than an owl, and someone building a home on their 2 acre lot should be more important than a damned gopher. 

But with that said, I do think it does set a bad precedent if we determine which species are more worthy of saving.  It really is a tough situation.   
The most frustrating thing like with the case of wolves is when they are not even endangered.   The California sea lions is not protected by the E.S.A. They are protected by another bs law......The marine mammal protection act.  Like the E.S.A. , I am sure the law was made with good intentions but there needs to be some common sense used to control these predators.

Cormorants are a similar example.  An international treaty Signed in 1918 protects them because Canadians didn't want them killed, but it is obvious the population has gotten way out of hand.  The population should have been decreased starting 20 years ago or more.  Luckily they are an ugly bird and therefore won't be a ton of opposition to snuffing a bunch.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2014, 10:24:45 AM
A little Wyoming History

I, Jonesy (Maury Jones), was personally involved in the legislation trying to craft a Wyoming wolf management plan that would be acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Our legislators and our governor specifically lamented that the feds would not tell us what we had to have to get it approved.  We literally begged the USFWS to tell us what we needed in our plan.  They would not, perhaps because they were aware of a recent Supreme Court Ruling.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer, or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S 898 (1997)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html)
So we crafted the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan based on the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Impact Statement, and the Final Rule for Introduction of the Grey Wolf.  10 of 11 wolf experts approved of Wyoming's plan saying that it would adequately protect 150 wolves (the minimum required was 100).  In spite of that, the USFWS ignored the experts and disapproved of the Wyoming plan, because we only protected wolves in the northwest corner of the state, not the whole state.  We didn't want wolves in the rest of the state, as it is not suitable habitat for them and thus they would prey on livestock to a great degree.  The EIS and the Final Rule specifically said that most of Wyoming was not suitable habitat for wolves, therefore Wyoming was only doing what the law said.
So all this about Wyoming being the problem is NOT TRUE!!!  The blame lies squarely on the USFWS and the wolf-worshippers who run the show.
The final solution is for the states, Wyoming specifically, to openly defy the feds and their attempts to control our management of OUR wildlife, by declaring that we, and we alone, own the wildlife in our state and will do what we damned well please with it.   
We must REFUSE to allow their federal dog to destroy our huntable populations of wildlife.  See the attachment.
http://tinyurl.com/2da47py (http://tinyurl.com/2da47py)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 31, 2014, 11:54:50 AM
"You're making huge assumptions"

NOPE

Read the article and seen the data and pictures.

Swarth??  did a internet search, not even close to the REAL data and research.

A not so old saying, "tell a lie often enough and long enough, it becomes the truth"

Why do you think the Climate change HOAX is still going on??

NO difference, just other scientist with a political agenda.

A lot of "early" scientist didn't have a "axe" to grind, but their research has been USED for "agenda's" by others

Here is a good read,(Swarth is there)  but you have to read the WHOLE page.  Very funny in places!!

http://www.birdzilla.com/birds/Spotted-Owl/bent_life_history.html (http://www.birdzilla.com/birds/Spotted-Owl/bent_life_history.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 31, 2014, 12:01:05 PM
And what is that supposed to be proof of?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 31, 2014, 12:12:43 PM
Timberfaller, I don't see anything in that where it says spotted owls don't live in old growth, and I've never seen anything credible that says old growth is not spotted owl's preferred habitat.

You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 31, 2014, 01:56:01 PM
No animal brings out habitat problems more than the spotted owl. On one hand it needs a place to live, on the other some of the practices in place to save it have hurt several other species that rely on early successional forest, grouse and deer come to mind and that's just the start.

That someone in 1910 would notice them in younger stands shouldn't be that surprising, old growth forest doesn't let much sunlight in and as a result leads to virtual deserts on the forest floor. Younger forest allows that light in which creates more cover and food for prey animals.

In short, spotted owls probably hunt the edges like a lot of grouse hunters. That said, just because you find them around food does not mean they choose live where they hunt.

The spotted owl still isn't doing all that swell. If I had to guess it's because the emphasis has been too much on old growth and not healthy, mixed age class, forests. The thing everyone forgets is these birds lived in a world where forest fires burned out large swaths of land from time to time. They didn't live in unchanging habitat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: magnanimous_j on March 31, 2014, 02:04:04 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 31, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
"You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down."

I not making anything up, bobcat.

The 1910 article I am referring to showed the "owls" known habitat.  It was a "pencil lead thin" line starting in Seattle and going down the PNW coast line and almost halfway through present day Kalifornia.  NOTHING east of the Cascade crest.

The link I posted IS NOT the research I am referring to.   I posted it because it shows the A BIG difference in Ideology between the THEN scientist and the ones we have today.

How many scientist of today talk about how "stupid", or I could have "killed" the "specimen"  so easy, and the one I laughed at the most, "if I had a gun" I could have killed......

If you read the whole article through you should have also picked up on 4 different owls.  Not just the Northern Spotted Owl we were mislead on and clubbed over the head with.

The problem with "Old Growth" is that it is "protected" Why? Because people have been brainwashed into thinking so.  And city dwellers can go out of their concrete jungles and Ou and Ah when they see a big tree.

But then that a whole nother subject that has been "mis-informed" to the general public.

I wonder when the term "marketable" changed to "old growth" in reference to trees used for lumber?


Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on March 31, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
You need both. A healthy forest is a mix of age classes. Cutting down all the old growth isn't any better than ceasing logging operations in many areas.

The problem as I see it is they didn't just decide to stop cutting existing old growth, they decided to create it. I still talk to friends who are loggers who talk about logging stands that will be replanted with X hardwood, never to be logged again. Personally I think that's unwise.

They have a variation of this argument in the Midwest all of the time. Groups like the Sierra Club try to stop logging of aspens on state lands for this or that reason and seemingly fail to realize that several other species rely on aspens and early successional forest, that if you don't clear cut aspens periodically the stands will eventually die, not come back, and be replaced by other species of tree that aren't as friendly to wildlife.

Bare forest floor = hunting no more

On the surface that could look like an anti hunting plot, but I personally think it's more a matter of people not understanding how forests work.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2014, 08:02:03 PM
"You can't just make up your own facts in regards to these owls, simply because you don't like the fact that preserving their habitat means some old growth forests can't be cut down."

I not making anything up, bobcat.

The 1910 article I am referring to showed the "owls" known habitat.  It was a "pencil lead thin" line starting in Seattle and going down the PNW coast line and almost halfway through present day Kalifornia.  NOTHING east of the Cascade crest.

The link I posted IS NOT the research I am referring to.   I posted it because it shows the A BIG difference in Ideology between the THEN scientist and the ones we have today.

How many scientist of today talk about how "stupid", or I could have "killed" the "specimen"  so easy, and the one I laughed at the most, "if I had a gun" I could have killed......

If you read the whole article through you should have also picked up on 4 different owls.  Not just the Northern Spotted Owl we were mislead on and clubbed over the head with.

The problem with "Old Growth" is that it is "protected" Why? Because people have been brainwashed into thinking so.  And city dwellers can go out of their concrete jungles and Ou and Ah when they see a big tree.

But then that a whole nother subject that has been "mis-informed" to the general public.

I wonder when the term "marketable" changed to "old growth" in reference to trees used for lumber?

Actually Timberfaller is correct, and at the time CNW which was then known by a different name was pushing the owl agenda, and the spotted owl was filmed living in warehouses in Seattle WA.

I wonder how much it cost the USFWS to relocate a few spotted owls?

Old Growth?  A better question is how old is old growth?

Since the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction has been proven time and time agin, the spotted owl now plays into the same game.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on March 31, 2014, 08:11:20 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2014, 08:17:38 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!

Global warming has always been a total joke, thats why they changed it to climate change $$$$$$.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 31, 2014, 08:19:48 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!

The geologic record is quite clear that the climate has changed, it is also clear that the climate has been warming.  It borders on ignorance to argue against global warming.  What is fair game for discussion is the degree of anthropogenic warming.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 31, 2014, 08:20:23 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/end-permian-mass-extinction/index.html (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/end-permian-mass-extinction/index.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on March 31, 2014, 08:33:30 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!

The geologic record is quite clear that the climate has changed, it is also clear that the climate has been warming.  It borders on ignorance to argue against global warming.  What is fair game for discussion is the degree of anthropogenic warming.
Since the ice age maybe but before that it was tropical all over.  Its bad science is what it is!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2014, 08:34:18 PM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!

The geologic record is quite clear that the climate has changed, it is also clear that the climate has been warming.  It borders on ignorance to argue against global warming.  What is fair game for discussion is the degree of anthropogenic warming.

If you want to discuss global warming, why don't you start your own thread? Or would you rather divert the ESA topic?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 31, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
That would be directed at your pal jasnt, correct?  Because he was the one who went off topic against climate change.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on March 31, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
I dont understand how the grey wolf could even get on the ESA list. Have they forgotten about Canada?  It is part of north America and just cause there is an imaginary line up there doesn't mean diddly to an animal. They could have come down here if they chose. I thought these guys were all for animal rights but it was ok to kidnap them and drop them off in straige lands and say good luck.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on March 31, 2014, 08:50:23 PM
Funny how people on here think they know about global warming and spotted owls, and go so far as to say it's "bad science." Sorry but I think I'll believe the science and the scientists over you guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2014, 08:51:45 PM
I dont understand how the grey wolf could even get on the ESA list. Have they forgotten about Canada?  It is part of north America and just cause there is an imaginary line up there doesn't mean diddly to an animal. They could have come down here if they chose. I thought these guys were all for animal rights but it was ok to kidnap them and drop them off in straige lands and say good luck.

http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html (http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html)
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/wildlands_project_step_by_step.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/wildlands_project_step_by_step.htm)
 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on March 31, 2014, 08:56:21 PM
Thanks for the link. Looks like I got lots of home work
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on March 31, 2014, 09:21:07 PM
Thanks for the link. Looks like I got lots of home work
Yea...I would do your homework alright.  Any link wolfbait gives you is almost certain to be nothing but a bunch of conspiracy garbage dreamed up by unemployed anti-government dumb@%$# who belong in a locked padded room.  For example, his first link takes you to a page and one of the subjects is conservation easements.  The page tells you how evil they are...what a joke.  Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2014, 05:40:32 AM
Thanks for the link. Looks like I got lots of home work
Yea...I would do your homework alright.  Any link wolfbait gives you is almost certain to be nothing but a bunch of conspiracy garbage dreamed up by unemployed anti-government dumb@%$# who belong in a locked padded room.

 :lol4: :lol4: :lol4:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on April 01, 2014, 07:40:12 AM
Quote
Yea...I would do your homework alright.  Any link wolfbait gives you is almost certain to be nothing but a bunch of conspiracy garbage dreamed up by unemployed anti-government dumb@%$# who belong in a locked padded room.  For example, his first link takes you to a page and one of the subjects is conservation easements.  The page tells you how evil they are...what a joke.  Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

More often than not - the people who lose animals to the wolf end up 'not' getting compensated for the loss. That has been happening from the beginning of this nightmare.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 01, 2014, 07:51:32 AM
What makes you think we are having a climate change? 

At this point, denying global warming is like denying a round earth or asserting that schizophrenics are possessed by demons. They had to change the name to Climate Change because every time is snows, some retard will invariably chip in "Ha! Where's your global warming now, Al Gore?"

The scientific process has thoroughly vetted the theory and found it scientifically sound. The time where "it's debatable" is rapidly drawing to a close. It won't be too long before denying it will make a person look as stupid as saying the Earth is 6000 years old or that the wind is caused by ghosts.

If you want to educate yourself, here is a good link that debunks all the common Denier arguments and links actual, peer reviewed scientific work.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ (https://www.skepticalscience.com/)


 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Broker on April 01, 2014, 08:16:27 AM
mag·nan·i·mous
magˈnanəməs/
adjective
adjective: magnanimous

    1.
    very generous or forgiving, esp. toward a rival or someone less powerful than oneself.
 :yeah:

I'm not going to continue to veer this topic off course into your far left lane but if you are trying to convince us that your version of reality is correct, you may want to try a little harder to live up to your screen name.  Nobody likes to be called the names you are slinging around.
At this point, denying global warming is like denying a round earth or asserting that schizophrenics are possessed by demons. They had to change the name to Climate Change because every time is snows, some retard will invariably chip in "Ha! Where's your global warming now, Al Gore?"

The scientific process has thoroughly vetted the theory and found it scientifically sound. The time where "it's debatable" is rapidly drawing to a close. It won't be too long before denying it will make a person look as stupid as saying the Earth is 6000 years old or that the wind is caused by ghosts.

If you want to educate yourself, here is a good link that debunks all the common Denier arguments and links actual, peer reviewed scientific work.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ (https://www.skepticalscience.com/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 08:34:17 AM
Thanks for the link. Looks like I got lots of home work
Yea...I would do your homework alright.  Any link wolfbait gives you is almost certain to be nothing but a bunch of conspiracy garbage dreamed up by unemployed anti-government dumb@%$# who belong in a locked padded room.  For example, his first link takes you to a page and one of the subjects is conservation easements.  The page tells you how evil they are...what a joke.  Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

Did I hit one of your sore spots, ID?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 01, 2014, 08:38:59 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 01, 2014, 08:43:36 AM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!
It is totally ignorant to deny a recent, rapid climate change.  We can argue about the cause, but the climate is changing very rapidly.

The geologic record is quite clear that the climate has changed, it is also clear that the climate has been warming.  It borders on ignorance to argue against global warming.  What is fair game for discussion is the degree of anthropogenic warming.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 01, 2014, 08:44:42 AM
To get this debate back on track and off the HOAX and the HOAX'sters!!  For THOSE on here that have swallowed hook line and sinker, that is what the "founders" of the Weather Channel called the CC and GW propaganda!! :yike:

"Since the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction has been proven time and time agin, the spotted owl now plays into the same game."

DON'T forget about what the "scientist" did with the "Lynx"  :bash: it and all the other "lies,fraud,planted evidence and corrupt politicians"  have taken a lot of "creditability" from the realm of scientific findings!   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2014, 08:46:37 AM
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Human beings had a hand in a very very small amount of those.

The difference is that we have done our damage in the course of a couple hundred years, which is geological time is faster than the blast of an atomic bomb. We are killing off species much faster than the meteor finished off the dinosaurs. And if we don't get the climate change under control, we could speed it up even more.

Human beings are the most vicious extinction even the planet has ever seen.

What makes you think we are having a climate change?  We as humans have only been keeping track of weather for a few hundred years. How do we know what's normal?  Global warming is a total joke!!!!!

The geologic record is quite clear that the climate has changed, it is also clear that the climate has been warming.  It borders on ignorance to argue against global warming.  What is fair game for discussion is the degree of anthropogenic warming.
Since the ice age maybe but before that it was tropical all over.  Its bad science is what it is!

What's bad is somebody commenting on "bad science" who doesn't realize that we've had periodic ice ages all the into the Archian
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm (http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 08:49:53 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 01, 2014, 08:50:45 AM
Thanks for the link. Looks like I got lots of home work
Yea...I would do your homework alright.  Any link wolfbait gives you is almost certain to be nothing but a bunch of conspiracy garbage dreamed up by unemployed anti-government dumb@%$# who belong in a locked padded room.
]

Hahaha.... yeah, its sort of like that.  Some pretty crazy ideas get posted up with regard to conservation.

 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 01, 2014, 08:56:13 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
As opposed to what?.... you delivering this crap like it's gospel and defending every stupid anti-wolf, anti conservation, and anti-government post until rational people throw their hands in the air and quit the "dialogue" is a pretty good example of "controlling the message"
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 08:56:52 AM
To get this debate back on track and off the HOAX and the HOAX'sters!!  For THOSE on here that have swallowed hook line and sinker, that is what the "founders" of the Weather Channel called the CC and GW propaganda!! :yike:

"Since the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction has been proven time and time agin, the spotted owl now plays into the same game."

DON'T forget about what the "scientist" did with the "Lynx"  :bash: it and all the other "lies,fraud,planted evidence and corrupt politicians"  have taken a lot of "creditability" from the realm of scientific findings!   

And now after 18 years of lies from the USFWS and state game agencies the same "science" is still being used in WA and other states. More studies on the same problems that MT, ID and Wyoming had. The illegally introduced wolves just keep on giving, it's like they are a new wolf in every state they "migrate" to.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 08:58:06 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
As opposed to what?.... you delivering this crap like it's gospel and defending every stupid anti-wolf, anti conservation, and anti-government post until rational people throw their hands in the air and quit the "dialogue" is a pretty good example of "controlling the message"

Are you upset with me Wacoyote?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 01, 2014, 09:01:01 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
As opposed to what?.... you delivering this crap like it's gospel and defending every stupid anti-wolf, anti conservation, and anti-government post until rational people throw their hands in the air and quit the "dialogue" is a pretty good example of "controlling the message"

 :chuckle:

Sez pot to kettle, "but, but, you're black!"
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 01, 2014, 09:10:38 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
I only call people tinfoil hat folks when they spout garbage with no factual basis and they have to resort to wild conspiracies and secrets to justify their statements...I call a spade a spade.  Sorry it doesn't fit into your little view where you post something and a bunch of lemmings follow you over a cliff. 

By the way, why don't you explain to me why conservation easements are such a bad thing as reported in that link you posted wolfbait? 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 09:19:35 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
I only call people tinfoil hat folks when they spout garbage with no factual basis and they have to resort to wild conspiracies and secrets to justify their statements...I call a spade a spade.  Sorry it doesn't fit into your little view where you post something and a bunch of lemmings follow you over a cliff. 

By the way, why don't you explain to me why conservation easements are such a bad thing as reported in that link you posted wolfbait?

Here's a couple more links you might like ID.

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/wildlands_project_step_by_step.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/wildlands_project_step_by_step.htm)


THE WILDLANDS PROJECT  http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/ (http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/)



The Consensus Process  http://nwri.org/the-consensus-process/ (http://nwri.org/the-consensus-process/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Northway on April 01, 2014, 09:24:01 AM
To get this debate back on track and off the HOAX and the HOAX'sters!!  For THOSE on here that have swallowed hook line and sinker, that is what the "founders" of the Weather Channel called the CC and GW propaganda!! :yike:

"Since the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction has been proven time and time agin, the spotted owl now plays into the same game."

DON'T forget about what the "scientist" did with the "Lynx"  :bash: it and all the other "lies,fraud,planted evidence and corrupt politicians"  have taken a lot of "creditability" from the realm of scientific findings!   

Why not just come out and say that if Spotted Owls go extinct it's of zero concern to you? Most people will never see one; who needs them anyway, right? Similar scenario with old growth: why not cut them all down? What kind of fool would leave a good stand of merchantable timber there to rot over the centuries?

There's so much more honesty in that debate. How often does it boil down to a guy who will scour the internet for any shred of material that could be viewed as supporting their predetermined opinion (The REAL science is on my side!). So what if they have to wade through an overwhelming amount of evidence that goes contrary to what they just deep down want to believe because it supports their career, or their political, religious, or cultural beliefs.

It's not easy to be open to your own ideas being challenged. You are forced to defend them, and in the process have to be open to allowing sometimes tightly held beliefs to evolve based on debate.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 01, 2014, 09:40:55 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
I only call people tinfoil hat folks when they spout garbage with no factual basis and they have to resort to wild conspiracies and secrets to justify their statements...I call a spade a spade.  Sorry it doesn't fit into your little view where you post something and a bunch of lemmings follow you over a cliff. 

By the way, why don't you explain to me why conservation easements are such a bad thing as reported in that link you posted wolfbait?

I've got it. Anyone who disagrees with you "wears tinfoil hats", a "lemming with a little view", or a "conspiracy theorist". Great. Elitist much?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 10:01:39 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
I only call people tinfoil hat folks when they spout garbage with no factual basis and they have to resort to wild conspiracies and secrets to justify their statements...I call a spade a spade.  Sorry it doesn't fit into your little view where you post something and a bunch of lemmings follow you over a cliff. 

By the way, why don't you explain to me why conservation easements are such a bad thing as reported in that link you posted wolfbait?

I've got it. Anyone who disagrees with you "wears tinfoil hats", a "lemming with a little view", or a "conspiracy theorist". Great. Elitist much?

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT  http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/ (http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/)

The information above shows the reasoning behind the "habitat" push by the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd. It's no wonder they scream when it hits the light of day.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on April 01, 2014, 10:04:27 AM
Seems I struck a nerve.  I stand by my beliefs. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 01, 2014, 10:33:21 AM
Wolfbait, anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or wears a tinfoil hat.

He just wants to control the message P-Man, we have seen this with others over the years.
I only call people tinfoil hat folks when they spout garbage with no factual basis and they have to resort to wild conspiracies and secrets to justify their statements...I call a spade a spade.  Sorry it doesn't fit into your little view where you post something and a bunch of lemmings follow you over a cliff. 

By the way, why don't you explain to me why conservation easements are such a bad thing as reported in that link you posted wolfbait?

I've got it. Anyone who disagrees with you "wears tinfoil hats", a "lemming with a little view", or a "conspiracy theorist". Great. Elitist much?
How about you speak for yourself and stop putting words in my mouth  :tup:   Shouldn't you be out submitting FOIA's for all the public officials who are releasing public information anyways?  :chuckle:  :chuckle:  :chuckle:

Oh, and since you feel so inclined to defend your buddy wolfbait, can you tell me why Conservation Easements are such a horrible thing as described in the link he posted?  Nobody seems to want to tackle that one.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 01, 2014, 10:34:06 AM
The governor of ID is calling for the "extermination" of many of the state's wolves. Things aren't going so well there with the new "balance" to nature I see.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 01, 2014, 10:39:24 AM
Not sticking up for anyone. Just making an observation. You just continue going along in lala land with the Defenders, HSUS, and the CBD. Have a nice day. Really done with you.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 01, 2014, 10:49:55 AM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2014, 03:36:48 PM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 01, 2014, 06:24:31 PM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?
So when will the wolves ruin hunting, ranching, camping, and living in rural areas? 5 more years? 100 more years?? when?  Wolves were reintroduced in Idaho 18 years ago...nearly two decades...their population numbers are decreasing from highs in 2009 yet there is still a ton of hunting, ranching, camping and rural living over in Idaho.  Seems the plan is not going very well for those devious greenies who planned to end all of these activities with the big bad wolf  :dunno:  Or maybe all the wolf whackos exaggerated the outcomes of wolf re-introduction and the back-peddling will commence soon...or will they double down on crazy hysteria  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Broker on April 01, 2014, 06:41:18 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/)
ESA strikes again!  :bdid:

It's just too bad that one group can hold everyone else hostage this way. 


 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on April 01, 2014, 08:14:13 PM
Wolfbait - keep up the good work  :tup: :tup:
It must be difficult to keep positive when all the name calling is going on by people who can't actually bring something worthwhile to the discussion.
Year after year it amazes me at what is happening not only to our hunting opportunities, but to our basic liberties. As many of us know, the unlawful wolf introduction was done to run people off ranches, end hunting opportunities, and basically destroy a food source (our wild ungulates) which they are successfully doing right before our eyes.  :bash: I have several friends who quit hunting Idaho due to elk numbers being so low.
I don't know of any other person on this forum that has exposed as much fraud, lies, and corruption in the wolf issue as you have. God bless you my friend! And keep up the good fight  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 01, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 02, 2014, 01:27:20 AM

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?

Hilarious!

Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and in the 30+ years I lived there I don't remember anyone who gave up camping because of them. In fact, I never heard anyone who went camping express a concern about them. And the hunting is pretty good. Especially if you get away from the crowds.

And Canada..... Canada has 50,000 to 60,000 wolves and not only do they camp up there, the hunting is pretty darn good, and there are successful ranches all over the place. Never heard of a person moving away from Canada because of wolves.

But keep up the funny stuff!

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 02, 2014, 04:49:21 AM







And with this posted by yourself, please tell us how the grey is, or ever was endangered, and why they are or ever were needed in Washington, or in the lower 48? The introduced sub specie has undoubtedly made the native species truly extinct by now.

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?

Hilarious!

Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and in the 30+ years I lived there I don't remember anyone who gave up camping because of them. In fact, I never heard anyone who went camping express a concern about them. And the hunting is pretty good. Especially if you get away from the crowds.

And Canada..... Canada has 50,000 to 60,000 wolves and not only do they camp up there, the hunting is pretty darn good, and there are successful ranches all over the place. Never heard of a person moving away from Canada because of wolves.

But keep up the funny stuff!




Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 05:38:07 AM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.

Thats quite the push back on a topic that you say is BS>I remember back in 09 you were defending the wolves and spouting more habitat then also. kind of funny how you don't defend the wolves now as you did then but are up in arms about the Wildlands Project, and of course you are back to discrediting the messenger instead debate. 

The wolf issue is not all about hunting, it will eventually affect everyone in some way. As far as whether I hunt or not, you have never taken an interest in the past, and I'm quite sure you don't really care now.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 06:14:46 AM







And with this posted by yourself, please tell us how the grey is, or ever was endangered, and why they are or ever were needed in Washington, or in the lower 48? The introduced sub specie has undoubtedly made the native species truly extinct by now.

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?

Hilarious!

Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and in the 30+ years I lived there I don't remember anyone who gave up camping because of them. In fact, I never heard anyone who went camping express a concern about them. And the hunting is pretty good. Especially if you get away from the crowds.

And Canada..... Canada has 50,000 to 60,000 wolves and not only do they camp up there, the hunting is pretty darn good, and there are successful ranches all over the place. Never heard of a person moving away from Canada because of wolves.

But keep up the funny stuff!

Also could you tell us why both Canada and Alaska use aerial hunting to control wolves decimating caribou etc., and why they have bounties, trap and hunt wolves extensively. You have noticed that they don't use the failed techniques that WDFW are pushing, they don't do study after study on the same wolf.  And explain to all of us the expansion of Alaska compared to say, WA? After all WDFW has a set number of wolves before delisting, how many wolves can WA truly support knowing what we know today? How many wolves will WA truly have before WDFW are forced to confirm the BP"s needed to delist?

Why are WDFW and environmentalists buying up so much land? After wolves go through an area there is plentiful habitat, as there is very little game left. Like parts of Idaho, no one hunts where there are no more elk.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 06:45:45 AM

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?

Hilarious!

Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and in the 30+ years I lived there I don't remember anyone who gave up camping because of them. In fact, I never heard anyone who went camping express a concern about them. And the hunting is pretty good. Especially if you get away from the crowds.

And Canada..... Canada has 50,000 to 60,000 wolves and not only do they camp up there, the hunting is pretty darn good, and there are successful ranches all over the place. Never heard of a person moving away from Canada because of wolves.

But keep up the funny stuff!

There are huge differences between wolves in AK and Canada, and anywhere in the lower 48, but specifically WA. The Canadian grey wolf is native to Canada and AK, not the lower 48. Even so, they have so many wolves that they're having control problems, especially in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. AK has also never been without wolves and the ungulate populations have grown used to them over many thousands of years. In addition, the human population densities of those areas are extremely tiny fractions of WA's. So, to say that you can go camping and hunting and running through the woods naked in those places, implying that it'll be the same here, is either completely naive or a straight out manipulation of the truth to push your own point.

Were the wolves to inhabit WA as they have the aforementioned areas to the north, it would probably take centuries for the entire ecosystem to balance in such a way as to bring back abundant ungulate populations as we now have. The pressure on ungulate populations during the interim is going to mean problems for us and the native wildlife. This is on top of the fact that we didn't need another apex predator in WA and that the wolf they chose was not the one which had been native. Add to that the disease problems associated with the Canadian wolves and their apparent propensity for mating with domestic canids, and you have an even larger mess.

You may argue that mixing things up for a couple of hundred years to eventually create natural balance which includes the Canadian grey wolf is the right thing to do. I would argue that we already had a good natural balance without introducing them and that this will hurt my opportunities to hunt and enjoy nature as I have my whole life. Selfish? Maybe. Were we hurting without the Canadian wolves 10 years ago? Definitely not. Do they belong in AK and northern Canada? Sure. Do they belong in WA with a population density of 100 times that of AK? Not a chance in hell.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 07:02:26 AM
No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 07:11:41 AM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.

Thats quite the push back on a topic that you say is BS>I remember back in 09 you were defending the wolves and spouting more habitat then also. kind of funny how you don't defend the wolves now as you did then but are up in arms about the Wildlands Project, and of course you are back to discrediting the messenger instead debate. 

The wolf issue is not all about hunting, it will eventually affect everyone in some way. As far as whether I hunt or not, you have never taken an interest in the past, and I'm quite sure you don't really care now.

Is that you Spurs???  :) :)

I hadn't really thought about it until Aspen brought it up.... ?  So, do you hunt much?  I can't imagine how you make time with all the effort you put into your wolf research and that big court case you were planning... We are all still waiting with bated breath for some news on that! :)

I still argue that more habitat, and better habitat will make more deer and elk, depsite wolf predation.  It's a pretty simple concept... think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows   

easy enough right????
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 02, 2014, 07:21:28 AM
No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

There you go.  That is the point.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 09:16:39 AM
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.
interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.

Thats quite the push back on a topic that you say is BS>I remember back in 09 you were defending the wolves and spouting more habitat then also. kind of funny how you don't defend the wolves now as you did then but are up in arms about the Wildlands Project, and of course you are back to discrediting the messenger instead debate. 

The wolf issue is not all about hunting, it will eventually affect everyone in some way. As far as whether I hunt or not, you have never taken an interest in the past, and I'm quite sure you don't really care now.

Is that you Spurs???  :) :)

I hadn't really thought about it until Aspen brought it up.... ?  So, do you hunt much?  I can't imagine how you make time with all the effort you put into your wolf research and that big court case you were planning... We are all still waiting with bated breath for some news on that! :)

I still argue that more habitat, and better habitat will make more deer and elk, depsite wolf predation.  It's a pretty simple concept... think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows   

easy enough right????

"think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows"

That would work out fine if the wolves weren't killing all my cows, but since the wolves have killed 3/4 of my cows I now have plenty of grass, and not enough cows. I don't need more habitat I need to kill a bunch of wolves.   Easy enough right????

So why are the environmentalists and WDFW buying up so much land?, it isn't because more habitat is needed, thanks to the protection of predators we now and will have far less ungulates and much more habitat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: snowpack on April 02, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.
But Washington has a small wolf population (only 52 according to WDFW) and there have been enough encounters to argue otherwise.
A hunter was almost attacked during the high hunt and had to shoot a wolf.
A hunter from this forum was chased by wolves when scouting for the high hunt.
A blogger was chased by wolves in the NE on his property.
A bowhunter was chased up a tree by wolves in the NE.
A lady had them follow her as she went to the mailbox at the end of her rural driveway.
Probably a few more cases I haven't heard of.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 09:45:18 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 09:51:09 AM
No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

There you go.  That is the point.

My point is that with a population density of 1 person per sq mile in AK, the wolves have plenty of places to go so as not to interact with man. In WA that's not the case. The population density for WA is 100 ppl per sq mile and even in the infancy of the program, we're seeing plenty of human/wolf conflict. A lot of people are blaming those conflicts on the people, like ranchers who don't want to hire full time range riders or stop ranging on public land. I blame it on the fact that most of the area in WA is unsuitable for wolf habitat - not remote enough and way too populated.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Longbowz on April 02, 2014, 09:56:14 AM
Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 09:58:46 AM
Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

They have more room to live in No. Canada and AK, and don't need to come around man like they do here. Two completely different scenarios.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 09:59:43 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 10:03:36 AM
Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

They have more room to live in No. Canada and AK, and don't need to come around man like they do here. Two completely different scenarios.

Plus the fact that wolves are hunted and trapped along with arial gunning, even with these methods of control there have been several wolf human encounters in both Alaska and Canada. Now put wolves in a highly populated area such as WA and protect them above all else and the end results are wolves that have no respect for humans.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 10:08:44 AM
Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

Wolf Attacks
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 10:17:06 AM
So... what exactly is the topic of this thread? I thought it was about the green scum but now we're talking about wolves. ???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 10:22:54 AM
I think you have to go back to the original post.........it is posted under the wolf forum and the post was about wolves.  It kind of veered off a bit, like normal ........but pretty much is still on topic of the ESA. :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 10:27:04 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.

Your cattle don't count, WB. You're a wolf hater. As such, those are now acceptable losses. We must support the "endangered" wolf!  :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 02, 2014, 11:11:59 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.

Your cattle don't count, WB. You're a wolf hater. As such, those are now acceptable losses. We must support the "endangered" wolf!  :bash:

He cares so much about hunting that if a game animal would cause him to have to change his cattle grazing practices he'd wish it dead. He cares so much about hunting that he hates it when easements are created to benefit hunters. He cares about hunting so much he thinks habitat, improved or God forbid more of it, is evil.

He's a shill, and one whose concern is not that of hunters. But trying to scare everyone does help his cause.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 11:17:43 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.

Your cattle don't count, WB. You're a wolf hater. As such, those are now acceptable losses. We must support the "endangered" wolf!  :bash:

The new wolf specialist out of Okanogan told Scott Fitkin there would be NO more lying about confirming wolf predation/attacks, as we have seen Fitkin still thinks his opinion means something, and as we also saw, it really doesn't. Hopefully WA will finally get some honesty out of WDF&Wolves.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 11:24:19 AM
I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.

Your cattle don't count, WB. You're a wolf hater. As such, those are now acceptable losses. We must support the "endangered" wolf!  :bash:

He cares so much about hunting that if a game animal would cause him to have to change his cattle grazing practices he'd wish it dead. He cares so much about hunting that he hates it when easements are created to benefit hunters. He cares about hunting so much he thinks habitat, improved or God forbid more of it, is evil.

He's a shill, and one whose concern is not that of hunters. But trying to scare everyone does help his cause.

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 02, 2014, 12:47:03 PM

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know.  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 01:12:58 PM

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know.  :chuckle:

People are seldom banned on this site and when they are, it's because they've been repeatedly warned not to disrupt threads or for threatening physical violence. Just being a non-hunter doesn't do it. Being a non-hunter and opposing hunting or disrupting hunting threads time after time will do it. He's done none of those things.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 01:28:54 PM

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know.  :chuckle:

"So you are not a hunter"  Where ever did you get that idea? Next week I am going rattlesnake hunting, maybe do a bit of groundhog hunting on the way. And of course we are always hunting wolves with our cameras.

I guess it's a good thing you don't own this site, it would be filled with agenda driven pro-wolf people, you would ban everyone who didn't agree with you and your agenda friends. :yike:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 01:44:45 PM
Hahahaha! Snake and groundhog hunting huh...do you hunt big game??  That's what you're always griping about the wolves decimating.
 Save that snake oil.... Might be able to sell it more easily than the wolf stuff. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 01:50:21 PM
Hahahaha! Snake and groundhog hunting huh...do you hunt big game??  That's what you're always griping about the wolves decimating.
 Save that snake oil.... Might be able to sell it more easily than the wolf stuff.

Well I haven't gone elephant hunting yet, but I would really like to some day, I hear they taste a lot like chicken.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 01:54:47 PM
Tough time giving us a straight answer. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 02:01:40 PM
Tough time giving us a straight answer.

Just having fun with you Wacoyote,  :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Maybe some day I will post some pictures of a few of the muley bucks I have taken, but it won't be because I am defending myself for anything you or your friends have to say.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 02:04:10 PM
Tough time giving us a straight answer.

The topic has strayed from any useful debate to nothing but personal bs. It's kind of hard to respond to that. Were we still talking about the ESA, that'd be one thing. But, we haven't been for a while. You guys have fun with your inquisition of the cattleman. He stands with most of us hunters on this issue. I also don't believe he's a non-hunter.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 02:10:26 PM
Why is the USFWS, WDFW and the environmentalists buying up so much land? With less ungulates there is/will be more habitat then before wolves were illegally introduced into the lower 48. WDFW doesn't take care of the land they now own.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 02:17:33 PM
So, anybody know whatever happened to the Marbled Murrelet?  Seems like that was the favorite ESA species right after the spotted owl killed most logging on the Oly Pen.  But I haven't heard much about that specie lately? :dunno:

As I said earlier, the current favorite ESA animal of the hippie crowd in Thurston Co is the pocket gopher (basically a damned mole).

I seem to remember a butterfly being an issue a while back. 

And down in Oregon and CA it was some sucker fish that was on the ESA list and it caused a bunch of farms to go broke because they couldn't irrigate because of the sucker fish. 

Anybody have a list of ESA species that the enviro wackos are using to further their agendas?  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 02:23:30 PM
there is a list of threatened and endangered species online.if hunters, as a group, do not agree with the lists all we have to do is prove that they do not warrant protection.
sportsman could use the same avenues as environmentalist groups to help our cause
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
I think the wolverine is the next pet project for WDFW and crew, Scott Fitkin has been working on that along with the fake endangered wolves.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
That's no secret.  Wolverine are up for listing.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 02, 2014, 04:40:13 PM
Corridors of Wilderness: How much land should the government own?

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb_2002/corridors_of_wilderness.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb_2002/corridors_of_wilderness.htm)

Washington’s Fish and Wildlife riles Asotin County with land buys
Kerri Sandaine
Lewiston Tribune

 Posted 3/9/2014
ASOTIN, Wash. – The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has gobbled up more than 10 percent of the 410,240 acres in Asotin County and that’s ruffled some feathers.

A group of Asotin County residents say purchases by the state agency are having an adverse effect on every other property owner in the county, whether they live in the country or city.

When that land goes off the tax rolls, everyone else winds up absorbing the added tax burden, said Brad Forgey, of Asotin. He and other members of the agricultural community are hoping changes are made at the state level to address the problem.

“We’re trying to even up the playing field,” said Matt Seibly, of Anatone. “The state needs to make the county whole, because the burden is on the remaining taxpayers.”

State-owned lands are exempt from property tax, but counties can receive payments in lieu of taxes from Fish and Wildlife to compensate for the loss. Those payments have been frozen at 2009 levels, which translates into a tax revenue hit for the county on all of the new acquisitions, said Bruce Petty, of Cloverland.

“The state isn’t paying its fair share and it affects everyone,” said Dan Sangster, of Anatone.

According to Dan Budd, a real estate section manager for Fish and Wildlife, the department owns 42,151 acres in Asotin County, and the annual payment in lieu of taxes is frozen at $36,123.

Several more purchases are in the works, including additional 4-0 Ranch property near the Grande Ronde River, Budd said. When complete, the state will have acquired 12,000 acres, just north of the Oregon-Washington border, from Mike Odom, the ranch owner.

The department can purchase land for public use if the sellers are willing, and the Asotin County group said they don’t have a problem with that. But they are worried about what it will do to the overall tax base.

Two bills have been introduced that deal with Fish and Wildlife land purchases. One is backed by Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, who said he’s been concerned about this issue for the past 20 years.

Currently, Fish and Wildlife doesn’t pay anything on small parcels, but his bill would require payments in lieu of taxes on parcels of all size, except boat launches and nearby parking lots. The bill has moved through the Senate and is now in the House.

“I’ve been concerned and working to limit these purchases for many years,” Schoesler said. “I think the state needs to redirect its funding toward such things as school construction and higher education, rather than acquiring more land that we can’t afford to take care of.”

http://citizenreviewonline.org/washingtons-fish-and-wildlife-riles-asotin-county-with-land-buys/#more-2749 (http://citizenreviewonline.org/washingtons-fish-and-wildlife-riles-asotin-county-with-land-buys/#more-2749)

Why is the USFWS, WDFW and the environmentalists buying up so much land? With less ungulates there is/will be more habitat then before wolves were illegally introduced into the lower 48.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2014, 05:17:33 PM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Title: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 05:18:27 PM
It's for wildlife habitat. Simple. And it's a good use of our money. I'd rather see my tax dollars be spent on wildlife habitat than some illegal immigrants' college education.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: snowpack on April 02, 2014, 05:25:40 PM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
If it is open to hunting (and desirable), it is likely that the land generates enough revenue in the local area (fuel, food, lodging, etc) that it could offset the additional tax to the county.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 02, 2014, 05:37:19 PM

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know.  :chuckle:

To set the record straight:

Even though H-W is a hunter's website we have not made it a policy to delete accounts of non-hunters, unless they cause trouble, fail to follow the forum rules, or misrepresent themselves as hunters when in fact we learn they are not hunters. If we learn that a member is misrepresenting themself as a hunter when in fact they are not, that is a swift way to be banned. Anyone doubting that this policy has been fair, please post the name of any member who has been unjustly banned from this forum.

I would also point out that numerous hunters on this site are ranchers, just as there are other members of most other professions.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 02, 2014, 05:57:06 PM

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.
So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know.  :chuckle:

To set the record straight:

Even though H-W is a hunter's website we have not made it a policy to delete accounts of non-hunters, unless they cause trouble, fail to follow the forum rules, or misrepresent themselves as hunters when in fact we learn they are not hunters. If we learn that a member is misrepresenting themself as a hunter when in fact they are not, that is a swift way to be banned. Anyone doubting that this policy has been fair, please post the name of any member who has been unjustly banned from this forum.

I would also point out that numerous hunters on this site are ranchers, just as there are other members of most other professions.
So non-hunters are ok...makes sense...would be tough to enforce anyways.  But non-hunters who pretend to be hunters are banned swiftly...why?  Is it simply anyone who misrepresents themselves?  Or just non-hunters who say they are hunters?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on April 02, 2014, 07:59:53 PM
Humanure!  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: villageidiot on April 02, 2014, 09:57:43 PM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 10:00:33 PM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 03, 2014, 07:13:28 AM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2014, 07:57:33 AM
It's for wildlife habitat. Simple. And it's a good use of our money. I'd rather see my tax dollars be spent on wildlife habitat than some illegal immigrants' college education.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2014, 08:02:04 AM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

What will happen to the land once there is nothing left to hunt?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 08:28:15 AM
Quote
Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. If you want answers, ask the WDFW. I did a quick google search and found a good summary that shows why the property was purchased. I hope this helps to answer some of your questions:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 03, 2014, 08:58:48 AM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

What will happen to the land once there is nothing left to hunt?

Ah yes, here we go again. How do you feel about changing grazing practices or disallowing it in some areas for sage grouse Wolfbait?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 09:03:26 AM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

What will happen to the land once there is nothing left to hunt?





How long are we going to keep hanging on to and perpetuating this myth that there will be "nothing left"?  If you want to support hunting of wolves I'm right there with you.  To do so under the auspices that there will be nothing left if you don't is asinine.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 03, 2014, 09:04:32 AM
I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....
Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.
Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

What will happen to the land once there is nothing left to hunt?





How long are we going to keep hanging on to and perpetuating this myth that there will be "nothing left"?  If you want to support hunting of wolves I'm right there with you.  To do so under the auspices that there will be nothing left if you don't is asinine.

 :yeah:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2014, 09:09:26 AM
Quote
Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. If you want answers, ask the WDFW. I did a quick google search and found a good summary that shows why the property was purchased. I hope this helps to answer some of your questions:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf)

You want me to ask WDFW, the same outfit that refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves unless they are forced to do so, refuse to confirm wolf packs unless they have no other choice, refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are/and will have on WA ungulates. Do you think they would be honest enough to tell me what they have planned for all the land they have and are buying when there is nothing left to hunt?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 03, 2014, 09:12:09 AM
Quote
Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. If you want answers, ask the WDFW. I did a quick google search and found a good summary that shows why the property was purchased. I hope this helps to answer some of your questions:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf)

You want me to ask WDFW, the same outfit that refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves unless they are forced to do so, refuse to confirm wolf packs unless they have no other choice, refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are/and will have on WA ungulates. Do you think they would be honest enough to tell me what they have planned for all the land they have and are buying when there is nothing left to hunt?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/)

I'll say this for you, you're good at staying on message.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 09:16:07 AM
Wildlife habitat is wildlife habitat. I don't care if the intent was to buy it for wolves or if it was bought for an endangered frog. If there are deer, elk, and game birds available to hunt and it's open to the public, then it benefits me and I'm certainly not going to argue against it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 09:20:03 AM
Quote
Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. If you want answers, ask the WDFW. I did a quick google search and found a good summary that shows why the property was purchased. I hope this helps to answer some of your questions:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf)

You want me to ask WDFW, the same outfit that refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves unless they are forced to do so, refuse to confirm wolf packs unless they have no other choice, refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are/and will have on WA ungulates. Do you think they would be honest enough to tell me what they have planned for all the land they have and are buying when there is nothing left to hunt?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/)

Well, the 4-O does have some really good chukar hunting  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
Quote
Well, the 4-O does have some really good chukar hunting 

Yes but will there be any left or will the wolves eat them all?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 09:28:52 AM
Quote
Well, the 4-O does have some really good chukar hunting 

Yes but will there be any left or will the wolves eat them all?

Dazzam, I didn't think of that  :o :o
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2014, 10:19:13 AM
Interesting read!

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 03, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
After being involved with one "land acquisition" by the WDFW,  all I can say is, They need to sell off ALL they've purchased, They can't take care of what they have and they always claim they are broke!!

Here is the "crutch" or code word as to WHY they are constantly BUYING land!!

"legislative mandate"

The one "purchase" I was involved with cost the WA taxpayers millions and millions of $$$$$$$$ :bash:needlessly!!! and didn't benefit "wildlife" one bit, if anything it did "Harm" :yike:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 11:10:28 AM
Timberfaller, really...what is there to "take care of?" Just the fact that the land is no longer able to be turned into housing subdivisions is enough for me. And it's open for public use. I'm sure the wildlife will take care of itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 03, 2014, 11:23:26 AM
Yep REALLY,  they didn't take the "winter habitat" with the sale(was in original acres) THAT was turned into "housing development". 

Only a small percentage(less then 25%) of purchase is "open" to hunters now.   But then when I was the Foreman NO one was allowed to hunt on it.

You'll know it as the "Big Valley Ranch" if you travel Hwy 20 to Winthrop.   It had turned into a big weed farm after I left.

Gee I wonder WHO paid for the nice pivots that are on it now??  After the taxpayers shoveled out millions to save the irrigation ditch during the Hwy re-construction!!

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 03, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
After being involved with one "land acquisition" by the WDFW,  all I can say is, They need to sell off ALL they've purchased, They can't take care of what they have and they always claim they are broke!!
I can't fathom how or why a hunter would support selling off public land  :bash:  Coming up with ways to manage more efficiently and at lower cost...sure...but to want to get rid of public land...WOW!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: snowpack on April 03, 2014, 11:57:22 AM
After being involved with one "land acquisition" by the WDFW,  all I can say is, They need to sell off ALL they've purchased, They can't take care of what they have and they always claim they are broke!!
I can't fathom how or why a hunter would support selling off public land  :bash:  Coming up with ways to manage more efficiently and at lower cost...sure...but to want to get rid of public land...WOW!
You make the assumption that all the land they buy would allow hunting.  They have been buying land in developed areas that probably won't allow any hunting, might eventually allow some fishing.  The rules from other agencies about doing much near fish bearing rivers are strict enough that the fish are pretty safe if a private buyer purchased it.  So, what you have is a park for the neighborhood and birdwatchers.  Now any future development will be outside the developed boundaries--sprawl.  For the hunting side, I'd prefer they purchased somewhere outside of towns to allow for all types of hunting.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 03, 2014, 12:14:53 PM
"why a hunter would support selling off public land"

Because most land was NOT "public" before hand, it was "private" and mostly "farm" land.  IT actually produce something other then WEEDS! and provided for "family's" well being! :twocents:

 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2014, 06:41:05 PM
Interesting read!

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)

Did any of you read this? If you didn't you should and then compare it to the Wildlands Project video!

The Wildlands Project Wildlands Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVTGK1uYqJo#)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 04, 2014, 07:09:03 AM
"why a hunter would support selling off public land"

Because most land was NOT "public" before hand, it was "private" and mostly "farm" land.  IT actually produce something other then WEEDS! and provided for "family's" well being! :twocents:

You are making the big assumption that any buyer other than the state would be interested in farming it and not simply plopping a subdivision on it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 04, 2014, 07:10:21 AM
Interesting read!

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)

Did any of you read this? If you didn't you should and then compare it to the Wildlands Project video!

The Wildlands Project Wildlands Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVTGK1uYqJo#)

See many blue helmets in the woods Wolfbait?   :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 04, 2014, 09:37:35 AM
"You are making the big assumption that any buyer other than the state would be interested in farming it and not simply plopping a subdivision on it."

No I don't,  if you've been paying attention for a couple of decades the "family farm" has been dis-appearing.

I know WHO was going to buy the ranch before the "state" was directed to its sale.  Some one had to have 5 million on hand!!  Had not that country's dollar taken a hit, the Big Valley would have become a golf course.   Thankfully it didn't.

Farm land SHOULD remain farm land and kept up.   WFWD buys up land, based on "assumptions" that will sound good to the un-informed  public.  Then they allow them to become weed farms because the don't have the man-power to keep them up.

The only time their land acquisitions work is when they lease them out and make someone else responsible for its up keep.

I like the ole saying, "Hello, I am from the government, I am here to help!" :yike:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on April 04, 2014, 10:12:01 AM
Farm land SHOULD remain farm land and kept up.   WFWD buys up land, based on "assumptions" that will sound good to the un-informed  public.  Then they allow them to become weed farms because the don't have the man-power to keep them up.

I can agree with that.  And I have an example to share, except this property was bought by USFWS.  There was a longtime dairy farm near Littlerock on the Black River.  Well about 10 years or so ago the property was bought and turned into a wildlife refuge.  I hunted there a few times back in the 80's and there were always tons of ducks and geese there in the river and up on the grass that was grazed by the dairy cows.

Fast forward to now when it is a refuge.  Hardly ever see any ducks or geese there now.  The grass is always 4' feet or so high and not good feed for ducks or geese.  It was much better waterfowl habitat back when the farm was in operation.

There are some ducks and geese that nest there, so that is good, but they could have nested when it was an operating farm too.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 04, 2014, 10:31:55 AM

No I don't,  if you've been paying attention for a couple of decades the "family farm" has been dis-appearing.

Farm land SHOULD remain farm land and kept up. 

I actually don't disagree with that, the problem is that means zoning laws and inevitably someone like Wolfbait will complain that the government is telling him what he should do and that it's his property and if he wants to sell it to a land developer to make it a subdivision or golf course that's his right.

I'll take state acquisitions over housing and golf courses.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 04, 2014, 10:41:52 AM
Farm land SHOULD remain farm land and kept up.   WFWD buys up land, based on "assumptions" that will sound good to the un-informed  public.  Then they allow them to become weed farms because the don't have the man-power to keep them up.

I can agree with that.  And I have an example to share, except this property was bought by USFWS.  There was a longtime dairy farm near Littlerock on the Black River.  Well about 10 years or so ago the property was bought and turned into a wildlife refuge.  I hunted there a few times back in the 80's and there were always tons of ducks and geese there in the river and up on the grass that was grazed by the dairy cows.

Fast forward to now when it is a refuge.  Hardly ever see any ducks or geese there now.  The grass is always 4' feet or so high and not good feed for ducks or geese.  It was much better waterfowl habitat back when the farm was in operation.

There are some ducks and geese that nest there, so that is good, but they could have nested when it was an operating farm too.

On the other hand you have a another phenomenon unfolding in the Midwest where CRP is being converted to crop land and actually destroying nesting habitat for ducks and cover for pheasants.

This is not a black and white issue imo.  Both sides are guilty of mismanagement. The difference is public land is just that, public.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 04, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
The Dirty Little Secret on Sage Grouse

http://m.elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-the-dirty-little-secret-on-sage-grouse/article_6b260c46-b946-11e3-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true (http://m.elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-the-dirty-little-secret-on-sage-grouse/article_6b260c46-b946-11e3-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 04, 2014, 11:37:29 AM
Oooh, another dirty little secret that doesn't support the ESA "scam" theory.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/04/feds-mine-grizzlies-can-coexist-in-cabinet/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/04/feds-mine-grizzlies-can-coexist-in-cabinet/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 04, 2014, 11:46:01 AM
The Dirty Little Secret on Sage Grouse

http://m.elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-the-dirty-little-secret-on-sage-grouse/article_6b260c46-b946-11e3-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true (http://m.elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-the-dirty-little-secret-on-sage-grouse/article_6b260c46-b946-11e3-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true)

And the other dirty little secret is that a very large number of Montana ranchers, you know those hippy minded enviro freaks that have roots dating back to the 1880's, highly oppose both increased coal mining and the development of additional railroad infrastructure to support the increased coal mining.

Maybe the representate from Superior should focus on the mines in the Cabinets.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/26/nation/la-na-montana-coal-20130427 (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/26/nation/la-na-montana-coal-20130427)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 04, 2014, 12:15:43 PM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

Clint McRae is a personal friend of mine.  He has a conservation ethic that is beyond compare, which may come as a surprise to many that think ranching and wildlife are not compatible.  The McRae's embrace their heritage and ranching tradition while supporting groups like the Montana Wildlife Federation.  Their land is open to public hunting.  They care about the legacy they leave behind.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201305/warren-buffett-coal-2.aspx (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201305/warren-buffett-coal-2.aspx)

https://www.northernplains.org/ (https://www.northernplains.org/)

I am posting all of this because it irritates me to no end when editorials run that try to pin everything on ESA species.  The sage grouse is not endangered in Montana, so let's focus on that.  Let's not get led astray by a pipline of BS spread by someone that has much greater motives that are not all that transparent.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 04, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
BLUE: TheBlazeTV with Dana Loesch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSNqdseT2nY&list=UU9g-fHxqchPA0fy38VG0PrA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSNqdseT2nY&list=UU9g-fHxqchPA0fy38VG0PrA)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 05, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

Clint McRae is a personal friend of mine.  He has a conservation ethic that is beyond compare, which may come as a surprise to many that think ranching and wildlife are not compatible.  The McRae's embrace their heritage and ranching tradition while supporting groups like the Montana Wildlife Federation.  Their land is open to public hunting.  They care about the legacy they leave behind.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201305/warren-buffett-coal-2.aspx (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201305/warren-buffett-coal-2.aspx)

https://www.northernplains.org/ (https://www.northernplains.org/)

I am posting all of this because it irritates me to no end when editorials run that try to pin everything on ESA species.  The sage grouse is not endangered in Montana, so let's focus on that.  Let's not get led astray by a pipline of BS spread by someone that has much greater motives that are not all that transparent.

So you are tired of the ESA fraud being exposed? It's funny that you are not up in arms about the wolf predation on livestock, one in nine livestock kills confirmed, cows aborting their calves or the weight losses from wolf harassment. You are taking a stand now?

"The sage grouse is not endangered in Montana, so let's focus on that."

The Canadian grey wolves were never endangered, but look what happened there?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 05, 2014, 12:00:07 PM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 05, 2014, 01:56:46 PM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 05, 2014, 03:10:24 PM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?

Gee Whiz Wacoyote, lets see, the environmentalists want to use a grouse to shut down mining for grouse "Habitat". The grouse aren't endangered just like the Canadian wolves weren't endangered, yet WDFW protect them above all else. WDFW pretend to care about protecting all wildlife yet they protect the predators while hunting the heck out of the ungulates. How long before WDFW finally admit the deer and elk etc. are in bad shape because of an over population of predators? Probably never, they will insist it is because there is not enough habitat.  Isn't that what you have been pushing for, more habitat? I didn't realize you had taken the time to read WDFW's Wildlands Project.

COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
CWCS ACTIONS
Leave no species behind
Protect wildlife and habitats most in need of help, while working to keep common species common.
 Identify Species of Greatest Conservation Need
 Determine priority habitats
 Identify the most serious
conservation problems
 Identify the most effective
conservation actions
Build a plan of plans
Use existing plans, assessments, and scientific tools.
Review and synthesize hundreds of conservation plans that provide information and recommendations for priority wildlife species and the habitats upon which they depend.
Strengthen conservation partnerships

Emphasize biodiversity conservation
Identify, protect and restore areas that support the greatest diversity of wildlife.
Coordinate development and implementation of the CWCS with the Washington Biodiversity Council.

How does not managing predators fit into more wildlife?

Leverage taxpayer dollars
by expanding on WDFW’s existing partnerships and identifying new opportunities for cooperating with other organizations.
Partners:
Federal and state agencies Local governments
Farmers and forest landowners Treaty Indian tribes
Nonprofit conservation
organizations
Local and regional land trusts==Do you see where it says anything about hunting or money from hunting? Or is this plan a few more years down the road after the wolves finish up WA?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 06, 2014, 03:08:43 PM
The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?

The CWCS includes habitats that are crucial for the conservation of at-risk wildlife species and for keeping common species common. This list of 20 habitats was developed using two detailed scientific assessments (the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species list and Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington), as well as the list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)

Do to protected predators, I would say the ungulates such as deer, elk, moose, etc. are the at-risk wildlife species at this time, but yet WDFW will not address the impacts of the illegally introduced wolves on these animals.

WDFW claim to care about protecting all wildlife, are they liars? Or have they changed into an environmental group?

Secure adequate funding for wildlife conservation

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will work closely with other state wildlife agencies and the nationwide Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to get the CWCS in the hands of state, federal and local decision-makers, business interests, the conservation community and the general public. In particular, WDFW will make copies of the CWCS available to members of Congress and federal agency administrators who will help provide the necessary funding to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.

Emphasize biodiversity conservation

The Washington Biodiversity Council is developing a proactive blueprint for Washington’s first-
ever biodiversity strategy. This 30-year vision
will include a strategy for educating the public about biodiversity and will incorporate statewide and ecoregional priorities and benchmarks for conservation of land and water (both fresh and marine).

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)

A timeline of Conservation Northwest
1989
Mitch Friedman founds the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) in Bellingham “to promote the protection of biological diversity through the conservation of large ecosystems, focusing on the greater Olympic, North and Central Cascades, and Columbia Mountain ecosystems.”

http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/milestones (http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/milestones)

Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity 

http://www.defenders.org/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf (http://www.defenders.org/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf)

Defenders of Wildlife

Working with States
Because the amount each state wildlife agency receives each year is not enough to meet all of its conservation goals, Defenders encouraged Congress to require each state to create a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, also known as a State Wildlife Action Plan. http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defenders-action (http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defenders-action)

From the December 2009 Idaho Observer: Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project

by Dr. Michael Coffman

As residents of the state of Idaho, we are particularly concerned with the red areas on the below map since our homes lie there and our Congressman Walt Minnick (D-ID) has set up a “Panhandle Collaborative” with local county commissioners and a myriad of environmental groups in order to devise a forest management plan that would eliminate human use of over two million acres of national forest land in North Idaho and Montana. Local Commissioner Cornel Rasor stated that our county seat is a member of ICLEI and “sustainable development” is on the move into North Idaho.

Read More@  http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm)

Washington Associations of Land Trusts
http://www.walandtrusts.org/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.pdf (http://www.walandtrusts.org/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 07, 2014, 07:32:36 AM
OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL. 

Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 
Having a few populations spread across the region certainly helps the genetics and sustainability of the whole species. 
Its the "all your eggs in one basket" idea... We are wise to keep all the species on the landscape whenever possible.
Of course, the idea of wolves leading to any extirpations is rediculous. Deer/elk are not going to be wiped off the landscape... Although declines are likely.... Wolves are going to have an impact, but your doomsday scenario is unlikely.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 07, 2014, 08:59:45 AM
OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL. 

Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 
Having a few populations spread across the region certainly helps the genetics and sustainability of the whole species. 
Its the "all your eggs in one basket" idea... We are wise to keep all the species on the landscape whenever possible.
Of course, the idea of wolves leading to any extirpations is rediculous. Deer/elk are not going to be wiped off the landscape... Although declines are likely.... Wolves are going to have an impact, but your doomsday scenario is unlikely.

I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars. It showed where at first people didn't have a problem with cougars but after a few year the cats started coming in and killing their pets and livestock. The people of FL are getting the same line of BS we are, which is "people just need to learn to live with predators".

The state level ESA reeks of Wildlands Project implementation, didn't IDFG introduce the same idea? I think they called it the “Idaho Wildlife Summit.
”Poor Attendance at “Idaho Wildlife Summit” Reflects Citizen Mistrust of F&G Refusal to Manage Wildlife - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/12/12/poor-attendance-at-idaho-wildlife-summit-reflects-citizen-mistrust-of-fg-refusal-to-manage-wildlife/#sthash.QryjllEs.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/12/12/poor-attendance-at-idaho-wildlife-summit-reflects-citizen-mistrust-of-fg-refusal-to-manage-wildlife/#sthash.QryjllEs.dpuf)

IDFG Director Moore Says The Agency Sponsored “Wildlife Summit” Was A Success…Idaho Sportsmen Feel It Is Just Another IDFG Lie!
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/09/06/idfg-director-moore-says-the-agency-sponsored-wildlife-summit-was-a-success-idaho-sportsmen-feel-it-is-just-another-idfg-lie/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/09/06/idfg-director-moore-says-the-agency-sponsored-wildlife-summit-was-a-success-idaho-sportsmen-feel-it-is-just-another-idfg-lie/)


TWIN FALLS, Idaho • Wildlife officials will spend as much as $100,000 over two years to poison ravens in three areas of Idaho, but officials don’t know whether that kill will permanently boost sage grouse populations as intended.

Ravens are a main predator of sage grouse eggs, and their numbers have increased throughout Idaho and the West, said Ann Moser, wildlife biologist for the state Department of Fish and Game.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/poisoning-ravens-to-help-sage-grouse/article_4cd847e4-bbae-11e3-82ee-001a4bcf887a.html (http://magicvalley.com/news/local/poisoning-ravens-to-help-sage-grouse/article_4cd847e4-bbae-11e3-82ee-001a4bcf887a.html)


More habitat is not the answer, controlling predators is the logical choice, but that doesn't help the excuse that more habitat is needed does it?  Your own simple concept: "think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows"

That would work out fine if the wolves weren't killing all my cows, but since the wolves have killed 3/4 of my cows I now have plenty of grass, and not enough cows. I don't need more habitat I need to kill a bunch of wolves.   Easy enough right?

The article below is a joke, after 18 years the USFWS and state agencies are still playing the same game of grossly underestimating wolf populations. Even people who are not up on the wolf issue realize this info is total BS. It really shows the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction. The USFWS and state game agencies have never been held accountable for their fraudulent wolf counting, but the facts on the ground prove them liars.

Wolf populations in Northern Rockies states

The Associated Press April 4, 2014 Updated 16 hours ago

Gray wolf numbers in the Northern Rockies have declined about 6 percent from 2011, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Congress removed the wolves from the federal endangered species list in 2011. A state-by-state breakdown of year-end 2013 minimum wolf count and percentage change over two years:

-Idaho: 659 wolves; down 14 percent

-Montana: 627 wolves, down 4 percent

-Oregon: 61 wolves; up 110 percent(asterisk)

-Utah: 0 wolves; no change

-Washington: 38 wolves; up 46 percent(asterisk)

-Wyoming: 306 wolves, down 7 percent

-NORTHERN ROCKIES TOTAL: 1,691 wolves; down 6 percent

(asterisk)includes wolves only in eastern portion of state


Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/04/3117751/wolf-populations-in-northern-rockies.html?sp=/99/101/531/#storylink=cpy (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/04/3117751/wolf-populations-in-northern-rockies.html?sp=/99/101/531/#storylink=cpy)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 07, 2014, 09:09:06 AM
I agree that the wolf numbers are flawed, the problem is they cannot accurately determine them without a survey. So they give the bare minimum number to be safe, but I think everyone knows it is higher.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 07, 2014, 10:08:28 AM
I agree that the wolf numbers are flawed, the problem is they cannot accurately determine them without a survey. So they give the bare minimum number to be safe, but I think everyone knows it is higher.

Flawed? Fraud----Bare Minimum? You mean some BS number they pick out of the sky and go with, according to Mech wolf populations double each year. After 18 years and ungulates plummeting where wolves show up IDFG want people to believe there are only 659 wolves in Idaho? I bet we have that many in WA now.

What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery


Wolf Numbers Underestimated
There are so many variables involved in attempting to estimate the total number of wolves in a state that any such estimate is prone to large errors even with the best information available. But when the existence of every wolf that has not been part of a "collared" pack is ignored, any such estimate is suspect. For example, local residents reported several wolf packs in Boise County yet FWS had documented only two. When the Team finally documented the existence of three more packs there were 2-1/2 times as many wolf packs as had been recorded and a similar increase in the number of breeding pairs – indicated both by pups and by yearlings that were born in the prior year and survived. Although FWS goes back and adjusts the number of breeding pairs for the prior year when this evidence is documented, this system always results in initially underestimating both total wolves and breeding pairs recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said they were, yet the actual number of breeding pairs was not admitted and recorded until after the fact.


"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website) … report.pdf
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 07, 2014, 10:20:34 AM
I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars.
Purposely biasing count data is not the same thing as having uncertainty in a population estimate.  I hope we can all agree estimating the number of wolves, particularly in dense forest habitats like NE Wa and N. Idaho and NW Montana is extremely difficult.

If you have evidence of how an agency is intentionally underreporting wolf numbers please post it.  Simply stating you think (or some wolf biogist at a University 2000 miles away) thinks the number of wolves is xxxx is not a valid or useful critique.  All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports.  Your continued blabbering about how wolves are being miscounted because some armchair biologist says the growth rate should be xx% is laughable and only demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the subject of estimating abundance of wildlife. 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 07, 2014, 10:32:20 AM
 :yeah: the counts are tough... They have to be able to make a number that they can defend.  The counts that are thrown around on here are pretty wild and could NEVER be defended.  The state uses collar data to fly an area and get their eyes on the wolves.  That's the best way to count and it is expensive.  Estimates are not useful for delisting... Actual counts are needed
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 07, 2014, 10:36:35 AM
I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars.
Purposely biasing count data is not the same thing as having uncertainty in a population estimate.  I hope we can all agree estimating the number of wolves, particularly in dense forest habitats like NE Wa and N. Idaho and NW Montana is extremely difficult.

If you have evidence of how an agency is intentionally underreporting wolf numbers please post it.  Simply stating you think (or some wolf biogist at a University 2000 miles away) thinks the number of wolves is xxxx is not a valid or useful critique.  All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports.  Your continued blabbering about how wolves are being miscounted because some armchair biologist says the growth rate should be xx% is laughable and only demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the subject of estimating abundance of wildlife.

"All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports"

While Washington’s wolf population increased by at least one last year, officials of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife say the number of cattle that were killed decreased.

Department carnivore section manager Donny Martorello told the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday the estimated number of wolves and wolf packs has increased. Last year, the department estimated 51 to 101 wolves were in the state. This year, the minimum increased to 52, based on the number of wolves seen by department staff.

“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.” 
- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140310/ARTICLE/140319987/#sthash.rgb5x5rN.dpuf (http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140310/ARTICLE/140319987/#sthash.rgb5x5rN.dpuf)

So the WDFW staff only saw one more wolf last year?

Which armchair biologist are you talking about ID? Are you talking about Mech?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 07, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
:yeah: the counts are tough... They have to be able to make a number that they can defend.  The counts that are thrown around on here are pretty wild and could NEVER be defended.  The state uses collar data to fly an area and get their eyes on the wolves.  That's the best way to count and it is expensive.  Estimates are not useful for delisting... Actual counts are needed

They have to be able to Make a number that they can defend? And you think they have been doing a great job at making up their wolf numbers? WDFW staff saw one more wolf?  Could there be two or three more wolves? geeze thats sound real accurate.

"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website) … report.pdf
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 07, 2014, 10:56:04 AM
Its pretty clear that you don't have a clue about how they are working on wolf issues.  They need to be able to DEFEND and justify any number they put out.  So, the wdfw cannot say there are 500+ wolves in WA because a guy on an internet forum says its true.... They have to use science and accurate data.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 07, 2014, 11:04:47 AM

“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.” 


So the WDFW staff only saw one more wolf last year?
Look at your own darn quote above  :bash:  :bash: Yes, they physically observed only one more wolf but Martorello states he believes the number is HIGHER...that is part of the uncertainty in estimating animal abundance.  "I believe the number is higher" does not sound at all like something someone would say if they were trying to underreport wolf numbers...how can you not see that?

Which armchair biologist are you talking about ID? Are you talking about Mech?
Any biologist not directly involved in counting wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana etc. is who I am talking about.  Monday morning quarterbacks are dime a dozen.  I'm gonna stick with numbers/estimates/trends from the guys actually collecting the data...basically, I am saying I will take Martorello's estimates for wolf numbers in WA far more seriously than some guy sitting in his ivory tower academic office...or a bar stool in Stevens County for that matter.   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 07, 2014, 11:19:44 AM
Its pretty clear that you don't have a clue about how they are working on wolf issues.  They need to be able to DEFEND and justify any number they put out.  So, the wdfw cannot say there are 500+ wolves in WA because a guy on an internet forum says its true.... They have to use science and accurate data.

So they add one more wolf :chuckle:

I think it would be impossible to get an accurate count of wolves, but refusing to confirm known wolf packs does not help their count, wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 07, 2014, 11:54:15 AM
...or a bar stool in Stevens County for that matter.   

 :peep:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 09, 2014, 01:32:25 PM
Convention on Biological Diversity: Set aside half the land in America for animals
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-un-wildlands-projecttaking-over-america-starting-with-florida (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-un-wildlands-projecttaking-over-america-starting-with-florida)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
Convention on Biological Diversity: Set aside half the land in America for animals
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-un-wildlands-projecttaking-over-america-starting-with-florida (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-un-wildlands-projecttaking-over-america-starting-with-florida)
Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists are wildly misinformed.  Do you just post any old thing that you come across online???   The article is written by a guy that works for a pesticide manufacturer... ?

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 09, 2014, 02:27:46 PM
We'll see what happens in Thurston and Pierce Co.s now that it looks like several residents are going to be put on the ESA. I dare say that those of you who find the ESA flawless would change your tune if you bought land to develop and then couldn't. This is real and happening in a town near you.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2014, 02:30:32 PM
There are ways to mitigate developments to account for ESA regulations.  My apologies for not feeling sorry for a developer... They NEVER pay the real cost of their developments. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 09, 2014, 02:36:52 PM
There are ways to mitigate developments to account for ESA regulations.  My apologies for not feeling sorry for a developer... They NEVER pay the real cost of their developments.

When I said develop their land, I'm talking about any citizen who owns a patch of land on which they intend to build. I wasn't talking about building neighborhoods, although we need those, too. Where the heck do you live, anyway, in a tree? You certainly are showing your colors. Anyone who builds developments is bad. Got it. Anyone who owns land and feels screwed when they can't build on it is just SOL and should be. Got it.  Wow!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2014, 02:54:10 PM
There are ways to mitigate developments to account for ESA regulations.  My apologies for not feeling sorry for a developer... They NEVER pay the real cost of their developments.

When I said develop their land, I'm talking about any citizen who owns a patch of land on which they intend to build. I wasn't talking about building neighborhoods, although we need those, too. Where the heck do you live, anyway, in a tree? You certainly are showing your colors. Anyone who builds developments is bad. Got it. Anyone who owns land and feels screwed when they can't build on it is just SOL and should be. Got it.  Wow!
hahaha- I guess I don't remember saying those things, but you're always welcome to accuse me of being a treehugger... :) 

I live in a county with 12k people... where developers often buy a big section of timber or farm land and break it into a sub-development, log the $hit out of it, then sell the lots and get out of the area with a pocketful of money.  Most of us here in Pend Oreille County want the place to maintain a rural feel.  I don't care to see our community chopped into small lots and homes.  We have a 10 or 20 acre division rule and I think that's about right to keep it rural. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 09, 2014, 03:07:49 PM
My response was brash and had a sharp edge to it, and I apologize, WAcoyotehunter. I'm sure Pierce Co. was also rural at some point and the people there didn't want any more to move in either. All due respects, I just that I find that argument, whenever I hear it and from whomever I hear, to be fairly hypocritical. It's like someone in Seattle saying to someone in Colville, "the wolves lived there before you did." They lived in Seattle too at one time. That doesn't mean that they belong at Pike's Market.

We need developments (even though I was only talking about a single person/family developing their own land). You may not like where they go because the area was once wild and open. But unless you own the land, that's not your decision. And apparently, even owning the land doesn't make it your decision.

There are animals which should go extinct (gasp from the crowd). Some would do so without the help of man and will eventually anyway. Whether they have an inability to adapt to changing natural conditions, such as the dusky Canada goose, or because there were just discovered in the middle of Tacoma yesterday and there are 4 of a certain toad remaining, there has to be some reason in making decisions which affect our society. Currently, I see little reason being used with regards to animals included in the ESA.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on April 09, 2014, 04:09:14 PM
OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL.   Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 

One of my personal pet peeves is when  a set of rules ONLY apply when it benefits ones side... EITHER a wolf is a wolf and they are all the same from Canada to Mexico, or they are not.... IF they are all the same then there are PLENTY of wolves in Canada and was no reason to bring them back here. IF they are NOT all the same then Bringing wolves FROM the McKenzie valley in Canada and calling them indigenous is wrong.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2014, 04:28:48 PM
OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL.   Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 

One of my personal pet peeves is when  a set of rules ONLY apply when it benefits ones side... EITHER a wolf is a wolf and they are all the same from Canada to Mexico, or they are not.... IF they are all the same then there are PLENTY of wolves in Canada and was no reason to bring them back here. IF they are NOT all the same then Bringing wolves FROM the McKenzie valley in Canada and calling them indigenous is wrong.

Well not necessarily... There are VERY clear differences in the Eastern wolf and the Timber wolf... to say that a "wolf is a wolf" would clearly be a mistake in that case... similar to saying "a dog is a dog"....

I do not know the difference, or if there is one, in the Yellowstone wolves (the ones reportedly there before reintroduction) and the McKenzie river wolves.  Obviously there is all the controversy surround the """ILLEGAL CANADIAN GRAY WOLVES!!!"""  but there is not much hard factual information about the wolves that were there.  If there were so many wolves still in Yellowstone, that are now gone due to this "new" wolf- then there must be some museum specimen, some taxidermy collection, anthropological specimen....something to substantiate the claims that the "new" wolf is a different creature all together...  Does that make sense?

I don't have that answer.  Obviously Bergman's law would apply and an animal from a colder climate would be larger, but who knows how they respond behaviorally compared to wolves that were here in the past??

 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 09, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/07/18/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/07/18/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant)

obviously some bias here, but a decent article
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on April 09, 2014, 04:59:18 PM
As far as "Illegal Canadian wolves"  the YNP  population was done legally to my best knowledge but sold as an "experimental population".
The Wolves brought into ID never got the proper permitts so It would be proper to say that  those were illegal... Hard to discern which are which now... May I see your Papers Big Bad Wolf?  :chuckle:

The WDFW knew there were wolves in WA in the 90's because they closed coyote hunting in the Psyden wilderness...  I personally have a hard time Believing what the WDFW or USFS spouts, mostly because they choose to ignore facts that don't fall into their narrative. I have friends who have attempted to be helpful with information, pictures and evidence of wolves in WA. All they have received in return is condescension, and arrogance... Unfortunately it is NOT limited to just wolves. The same treatment was received by people giving information on grizzly bears and spotted owls.  What I find so abhorant is the fact that Washington state citizens that do some leg work and actually provide some evidence, not just hearsay, are treated like children who have an axe to grind, yet organizations like DoW Are Viewed as a partner.

You and Me MAY disagree on some of each others points, and that is OK with me. It is the ACTIONS or lack of them by our WDFW and USFS That show me what they are up to. They can tell me what every they want but that doesn't mean they have those same intentions.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 09, 2014, 08:26:25 PM
People and Predation

by Rex Dalton

The biocentric eco-activists who seek the removal of industrial civilization from North America consider human life just another link in the food chain.

"Biocentrism," the ideology that inspired the Wildlands Project, holds that humanity is just one species in a democratic "biosphere." From this perspective, humans who choose to live within the habitat of a protected non-human species are interlopers. This is why Wildlands fanatics - in addition to shutting down economic development, private land ownership, and recreational use of "re-wilded" lands - seek to "re-colonize" those lands with non-human species. This process is presently underway within the proposed Yellowstone-to-Yukon (Y2Y) "bioregion." (For the background on the Wildlands Project and Y2Y, see the article on page 17.)

"Already, transplanted wolves from [British Columbia's Muskwa-Kechika] region formed the foundation of Yellowstone's successful lobo transplantation program," reported the Christian Science Monitor. "Thriving Canadian lynx and wolverine populations could also be tapped for augmentation. And [last] November, the US Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], in conjunction with a plan by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation, announced that in 2002 Canadian grizzly bears will be relocated to the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness of Montana and Idaho."

Animals like the grizzly, lynx, and wolf are what Wildlands co-architect Reed Noss calls "flagships" - "charismatic species that serve as popular symbols for conservation." Wildlands propaganda abounds in poignant pleas on behalf of threatened "flagship" species and invocations of the duty to preserve such animals "for our children." Such media-friendly mantras are used to conceal the vicious misanthropy that animates the Wildlands Project. As Wildlands activist John Davis stresses, "in the long run all lands and waters should be left to the whims of Nature, not to the selfish desires of one species which chose for itself the misnomer Homo Sapiens."

According to Wildlands-linked activists on the Canadian side of the Y2Y zone, human beings across most of the western half of North America may have to be shoved aside to make room for grizzlies. British Columbia's Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, which was published in 1995 and remains the basis for the province's protected areas policy, employs the "charismatic species" concept by insisting that "nothing is a better measure of our success in maintaining biodiversity than the survival of this species."

Apparently, "recovery" of the grizzlies will require ample Lebensraum, since "over its lifetime, a single grizzly bear will require a home range between 50 and 100 square kilometers, and - in some cases - up to thousands of square kilometers." Within "grizzly bear management areas," continues the document, human activities "that are not compatible with grizzly bears [will be] carefully controlled or not allowed."

The Wildlands Project mission statement speaks of a day in which "Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska...." British Columbia's provincial Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy reflects that same vision by describing the historical range of the North American grizzly as encompassing "the western half of North America from the Arctic to central Mexico" - thereby conjuring up the decidedly improbable image of grizzlies frolicking on the slopes of Popocatepetl (see map) [map not present in web version -AMPP Ed.].

"Zone of Imminent Danger"

The case of Montana rancher John Shuler, who was fined $7,000 by the FWS for killing a grizzly that had attacked his sheep and threatened his home, illustrates that in conflicts between humans and non-human predators within protected areas, it is the predator that will be given the benefit of the doubt. When Shuler appealed the FWS fine, a federal administrative law judge ruled that when he had sought to protect his property he had "purposefully place[d] himself in the zone of imminent danger of a bear attack" and fined the rancher an additional $4,000.

Wildlands activists seeking to recover large predators throughout the mountainous West are placing landowners across the region in the "zone of imminent danger" by design. According to one supporter of re-wilding Western lands, the introduction of large predators like grizzly bears and wolves is to "bring back another element that has been vanishing from the Western back country. That ingredient is fear. Wolves [and similar large predators] are killers.... People will think twice before traipsing into the back country."

According to Wildlands Project board president Harvey Locke, "helping large carnivores recolonize parts of their former range" is a major aim of the re-wilding process, since the effort would "preserve or restore species at the top of the food chain." This would come as news to those people in the areas slated for re-wilding, who may have assumed that humans are the "species at the top of the food chain." Difficult though it may be for rational people to understand, many biocentric radicals consider ecologically "unenlightened" humans to be little more than a source of protein for non-human predators.

In July 1997, a female cougar killed a 10-year-old in Colorado's Rocky Mountain Park. Rangers tracked the animal down and killed it, prompting voluble protests from several biocentric fanatics. "The female lion represented the future of her species, which I believe has an equal right to exist on this planet," wrote environmental activist Gary Lane in a letter to the editor of a local paper. "The lioness deserved better treatment from the rangers." The cougar's destruction also angered Sherrie Tippie of Wildlife 2000, a Denver-based biocentric group, who complained that "the only species we have too many of is the human one. I am very concerned about the influx of people into our state who are not educated about our wildlife."

In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 117, a measure banning the sport hunting of mountain lions. In predictable fashion, the cougar population exploded, ravaging food sources and driving the starving carnivores into human population centers in search of sustenance - with lethal consequences for both livestock and human beings.

After a cougar attacked a 10-year-old girl near Los Angeles in September 1993, two park rangers reluctantly dispatched the crazed predator. Other attacks resulted in physical injury to human beings. Finally, in April 1994, a woman named Barbara Schoener was attacked by an 82-pound female cougar. The cat crushed Schoener's skull, then dragged the hapless jogger 300 feet and devoured her face and most of her internal organs. Fish and Game officials hunted the cougar down and killed it, and in doing so provoked the wrath of local biocentrists.

In a letter to the Sacramento Bee, one eco-radical suggested that "this noble creature may well have been venting centuries of mountain-lion anger against the humans who have driven it from its land, destroyed its home, ruthlessly hunted it down, and, as the final indignity, debased it to an advertising device to sell cars." Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Humane Society, accused those who were outraged by the death of Barbara Schoener of using harmful stereotypes. "The HSUS accepts that individual animals judged to be a threat to people should be removed. But the injurious act of one animal should not provide a license to wreak vengeance on other members of an animal population.We are encroaching on their habitat, and we must respect that they should have a place to live as well." (Emphasis added.)

In late 1995, 56-year-old high school counselor Iris Kenna was attacked and mauled by a 140-pound cougar in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park near San Diego. Commenting on that and other cougar attacks, pollster Michael Manfredo told the January 8, 1996 issue of Newsweek: "There's a value shift about how people view wildlife, a high willingness to accept mountain lions on the urban fringe - even if they kill people." As the Wildlands Project unfolds, cougars, wolves, bears, and other predators will have ample opportunities to test that "value shift."

Some eco-radicals have candidly admitted that one purpose to be served by re-colonizing predators in or near populated areas is to drive recalcitrant humans off the land. Few biocentric radicals have expressed this militant misanthropy as candidly as David Garber, a research biologist with the National Park Service:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature, but that isn't true.... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

 


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)



from Nature, 2001-May-31 (N.411 P.509)

http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Nature_PeopleandPredation062005.htm (http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Nature_PeopleandPredation062005.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 09, 2014, 10:28:12 PM
BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch

BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhFm80Phqk#ws)

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/)

https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy (https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy)

Cliven Bundy Hannity. Bundy Ranch Standoff Against The U.S. Government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 09, 2014, 10:47:21 PM
Sad that so many public resources are being wasted on such a tool.  Arrest the guy and throw 'em in the slammer for 10-20...if he is going to be a leach on taxpayers at least he can do some good by making license plates or something.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 07:27:22 AM
There are animals which should go extinct (gasp from the crowd). Some would do so without the help of man and will eventually anyway. Whether they have an inability to adapt to changing natural conditions, such as the dusky Canada goose, or because there were just discovered in the middle of Tacoma yesterday and there are 4 of a certain toad remaining, there has to be some reason in making decisions which affect our society. Currently, I see little reason being used with regards to animals included in the ESA.

Where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, what if something changed and land owners' practices meant losing elk forever? I think it's a lot easier to make your comment if nothing you're interested in is affected.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 10, 2014, 07:43:08 AM
There are animals which should go extinct (gasp from the crowd). Some would do so without the help of man and will eventually anyway. Whether they have an inability to adapt to changing natural conditions, such as the dusky Canada goose, or because there were just discovered in the middle of Tacoma yesterday and there are 4 of a certain toad remaining, there has to be some reason in making decisions which affect our society. Currently, I see little reason being used with regards to animals included in the ESA.

Where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, what if something changed and land owners' practices meant losing elk forever? I think it's a lot easier to make your comment if nothing you're interested in is affected.

Does that go for the landowner, as well? You seem to have a pretty easy time of saying that everything protected by the ESA is sacred and screw the landowner. The landowner who can't build is affected. Do you even care about private property rights?

I don't know where to draw the line. I do know that people use the ESA to stop private landowners from developing their own land. They're not doing it because they want the animals protected. They do it because they don't want the landowner to do what he wants with his property. It's obvious to anyone who wants to see it that from the two examples I gave, that I don't think we should be purposely trying to make species go extinct. And, with or without our help, some will.

I would be more in favor of stopping the taxpayer paid litigation that enviro-wacko groups use to sue the government. When they have to actually pay for the court system, I think they'd be less apt to use it frivolously, as they do now. I also feel that animals which are going extinct through no fault of man should not be used to tie the hands of private landowners. The Canada dusky goose is a prime example of this. Farmers in SW WA and NW OR should have relief from the millions of birds who winter here. But, they're not getting it because of one bird, one that very closely resembles 6 other sub species of Canada goose, that can't adapt to natural changes affecting its breeding grounds and has few instincts to avoid hunters, as all the other Canada geese do.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on April 10, 2014, 07:49:56 AM
Pman is right, If we could take away the free money, and make it so the screwballs had to spend their own monies, this would come to a screamin halt.

I am sick of whackos..........to include our system that accommodates them.   :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 10, 2014, 08:08:54 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 08:37:31 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 10, 2014, 08:38:36 AM
I wonder why the BLM didn't get a hold of the USFWS and have them turn a bunch of their Canadian wolves loose in Nevada? To obvious?

Scott Fitkin told one rancher who lost a calf to wolves, if they would have sold their land to WDFW they wouldn't be having any wolf problems. The BLM and their endangered tortis aren't looking to shiny right now.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 10, 2014, 09:06:00 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)

Utah Counties File Lawsuit Over BLM Wilderness Policy
By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire

A new Interior Department wilderness policy fails to allow coordination with local counties, breaks the terms of a 2003 settlement and threatens the continued production of oil and natural gas on public lands, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by Utah counties against the federal government.
More News From Greenwire

Congress' Failure to Pass Spending Bill Creates Chaos in Agencies
Supreme Court Decides -- Narrowly -- Against Hearing Enviro Search Case
Former NRC Member Says Renaissance Is Dead, for Now
Marines Trying to Get Afghan Farmers Hooked on Energy Crops
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats
The legal attack is the first, but likely not the last, to challenge a secretarial "wild lands" order finalized last month that requires the Bureau of Land Management to take stock of wilderness-quality lands and consider barring activities that would impair sensitive habitats, archaeological resources or natural solitude.

John Swallow, Utah's chief deputy attorney general, yesterday told Greenwire that the state intends to file its own lawsuit challenging the BLM policy in the next couple of weeks.

Yesterday's complaint from Uintah County and the Utah Association of Counties claims Interior is exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

The 97-page complaint (pdf) accuses Interior of breaking the terms of a settlement reached in 2003 between then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), which ordered BLM to abandon a wilderness inventory initiated under the Clinton administration.

The lawsuit also alleges that top Interior officials had instructed regional BLM managers to reject nominations from oil and gas firms to lease lands that conservationists have proposed for protections under the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act."

The Red Rock bill, which is opposed by the Utah delegation, seeks to designate as wilderness 9.4 million acres of federal land, including parts of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and areas adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Lastly, the complaint charges Interior for using the wild lands order to subvert several resource management plans completed under the George W. Bush administration, which took several years to complete and involved broad input from the state and counties.

A BLM spokesman last night declined to comment on the complaint.

"The counties with BLM lands that are affected by this order have all gone to careful lengths to devise a plan for managing these lands," said Mark Ward, an attorney for Utah counties.

Ward said the wild lands policy flouts provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directing BLM to manage its lands consistent with local plans. Instead, BLM has implemented "de facto" bans on oil and gas drilling and other multiple uses in areas proposed for wilderness protection, plaintiffs contend.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar over the past months has repeatedly pointed to separate provisions of FLPMA and a ruling by a federal appeals court that require the agency to keep a working inventory of wilderness lands and to manage some of those lands in their "natural state."

The lawsuit also takes a swipe at a set of oil and gas leasing plans recently completed as part of energy reforms BLM finalized last May that seek to head off future conflicts over public lands.

In January, BLM Director Bob Abbey approved six so-called "master leasing plans" covering 3.9 million acres in Utah that conservation groups say will ensure continued development but also safeguard hunting, fishing and other important uses of public lands.

But while the Utah leasing programs were finalized in early February, the BLM state director did not notify the counties until Monday afternoon this week, a day before the plaintiffs' amended complaint was due, the lawsuit contends.

"That was the result of secret negotiations by groups that sued BLM, under the cloak of settling [a separate] lawsuit," Ward said. "They proceeded to force these master leasing plans," which conform less with the existing resource management plans and more with the Red Rock bill, Ward said.

The lawsuit comes amid heated criticism from mostly Western Republican members of Congress, three Western governors, grazing groups and other public lands users.

That criticism has been countered by strong support from most Democratic lawmakers, several dozen local elected officials in Western states, conservation groups, hunters and outfitters.

Flawed arguments?

Conservation groups that support the wild lands policy said the counties' claims fall on shaky legal grounds.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 09:16:20 AM
Does that go for the landowner, as well? You seem to have a pretty easy time of saying that everything protected by the ESA is sacred and screw the landowner. The landowner who can't build is affected. Do you even care about private property rights?

Do you hold the land owner above elk? Seriously, just because you don't hold one set of species at the same level as others does not make you anymore right than someone who does. I'm guessing if land owners were causing serious elk declines you would be out there howling at the world.

The truth is we live in a country, private property is not a nation within a nation unless you are a Native American. The government can, and has, scooped up private property for all sorts of reasons from road building, to defense, to animals under the ESA. Arguably people don't like that drilling off the coast could affect fish runs if a spill were to occur and some would like to see every single dam on the Columbia blown, but the government thinks otherwise on that too.

The Canada dusky goose is a prime example of this. Farmers in SW WA and NW OR should have relief from the millions of birds who winter here. But, they're not getting it because of one bird, one that very closely resembles 6 other sub species of Canada goose, that can't adapt to natural changes affecting its breeding grounds and has few instincts to avoid hunters, as all the other Canada geese do.

Of all the waterfowlers I know in southwest Washington, not one hunts on private land. Perhaps the farmers should do a little more to let people know they want the help and where to go. You also seem oblivious to the reality that hunter numbers in this state are tiny and goose hunters represent an even smaller subset and they can only shoot so many limits of geese.

This is like the argument that hunters could have taken care of bloated ungulate populations just as well as wolves. While there is a shred of truth to that, it completely overlooks the fact that there are many land owners who allow no hunting on their land whatsoever and thereby contribute to the problem...and there are more and more of them as time goes by as land gets bought up by people who don't want hunters on their land or sell the rights to for prices well beyond most peoples' reach.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 09:19:22 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)

Utah Counties File Lawsuit Over BLM Wilderness Policy
By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire

A new Interior Department wilderness policy fails to allow coordination with local counties, breaks the terms of a 2003 settlement and threatens the continued production of oil and natural gas on public lands, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by Utah counties against the federal government.
More News From Greenwire

Congress' Failure to Pass Spending Bill Creates Chaos in Agencies
Supreme Court Decides -- Narrowly -- Against Hearing Enviro Search Case
Former NRC Member Says Renaissance Is Dead, for Now
Marines Trying to Get Afghan Farmers Hooked on Energy Crops
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats
The legal attack is the first, but likely not the last, to challenge a secretarial "wild lands" order finalized last month that requires the Bureau of Land Management to take stock of wilderness-quality lands and consider barring activities that would impair sensitive habitats, archaeological resources or natural solitude.

John Swallow, Utah's chief deputy attorney general, yesterday told Greenwire that the state intends to file its own lawsuit challenging the BLM policy in the next couple of weeks.

Yesterday's complaint from Uintah County and the Utah Association of Counties claims Interior is exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

The 97-page complaint (pdf) accuses Interior of breaking the terms of a settlement reached in 2003 between then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), which ordered BLM to abandon a wilderness inventory initiated under the Clinton administration.

The lawsuit also alleges that top Interior officials had instructed regional BLM managers to reject nominations from oil and gas firms to lease lands that conservationists have proposed for protections under the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act."

The Red Rock bill, which is opposed by the Utah delegation, seeks to designate as wilderness 9.4 million acres of federal land, including parts of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and areas adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Lastly, the complaint charges Interior for using the wild lands order to subvert several resource management plans completed under the George W. Bush administration, which took several years to complete and involved broad input from the state and counties.

A BLM spokesman last night declined to comment on the complaint.

"The counties with BLM lands that are affected by this order have all gone to careful lengths to devise a plan for managing these lands," said Mark Ward, an attorney for Utah counties.

Ward said the wild lands policy flouts provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directing BLM to manage its lands consistent with local plans. Instead, BLM has implemented "de facto" bans on oil and gas drilling and other multiple uses in areas proposed for wilderness protection, plaintiffs contend.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar over the past months has repeatedly pointed to separate provisions of FLPMA and a ruling by a federal appeals court that require the agency to keep a working inventory of wilderness lands and to manage some of those lands in their "natural state."

The lawsuit also takes a swipe at a set of oil and gas leasing plans recently completed as part of energy reforms BLM finalized last May that seek to head off future conflicts over public lands.

In January, BLM Director Bob Abbey approved six so-called "master leasing plans" covering 3.9 million acres in Utah that conservation groups say will ensure continued development but also safeguard hunting, fishing and other important uses of public lands.

But while the Utah leasing programs were finalized in early February, the BLM state director did not notify the counties until Monday afternoon this week, a day before the plaintiffs' amended complaint was due, the lawsuit contends.

"That was the result of secret negotiations by groups that sued BLM, under the cloak of settling [a separate] lawsuit," Ward said. "They proceeded to force these master leasing plans," which conform less with the existing resource management plans and more with the Red Rock bill, Ward said.

The lawsuit comes amid heated criticism from mostly Western Republican members of Congress, three Western governors, grazing groups and other public lands users.

That criticism has been countered by strong support from most Democratic lawmakers, several dozen local elected officials in Western states, conservation groups, hunters and outfitters.

Flawed arguments?

Conservation groups that support the wild lands policy said the counties' claims fall on shaky legal grounds.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/23/23greenwire-utah-counties-file-lawsuit-over-blm-wilderness-60695.html)

Thank you for continuing to prove my point that you are only worried about hunting as it relates to trying to gain support for your cattle and land cause. I'm sure if it came down to elk versus cattle and land we'd know where you stand.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 10, 2014, 09:24:49 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 09:44:50 AM
Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.
I see you are as ignorant of zoning laws as you are the Endangered Species Act.  :tup:

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 09:49:45 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)
Laws have changed since 1887.  I hope they arrest the entire family of squatters and take their ranch and bankrupt them.  I have little patience for people who steal from the public...whether its a corrupt politician or a corrupt rancher...hang em all.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 10, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.
I see you are as ignorant of zoning laws as you are the Endangered Species Act.  :tup:
I only expected as much from you.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 09:52:15 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I'll ask you your position on elk versus property rights in another way since you refuse to answer the question. If it were found that hoof rot in Roosevelt elk is caused by chemicals that weyerhaeuser uses and they were asked to stop using them and in turn told hunters to take a hike you would think that was okay right? I mean, it's their land right?

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 09:53:15 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Have you ever been in Vancouver, WA? Your answer lies there.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 10, 2014, 10:20:32 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I'll ask you your position on elk versus property rights in another way since you refuse to answer the question. If it were found that hoof rot in Roosevelt elk is caused by chemicals that weyerhaeuser uses and they were asked to stop using them and in turn told hunters to take a hike you would think that was okay right? I mean, it's their land right?

No, and I've stated so previously in this thread. I didn't refuse to answer any question. Elk are not included in the ESA. This thread is about abusing the ESA to forward eco-wacko goals. Poisoning the forests with sprayed chemicals, if that's what is indeed happening (you seem to already have the definitive answer for that question), would be something which affects wildlife adversely and shouldn't be tolerated. However, using the ESA to purposely prevent a private landowner from development of their property for no purpose other than to forward an organizations agenda is wrong. In addition, the law which allows people to sue the government with taxpayer money should also be abolished. It's ridiculous and causes frivolous lawsuits. Like I said before, it's obvious that you and Idahohuntr bow to the ESA and all of the great things you can do to manipulate society with it. I'm sure you'd have no problem using taxpayer money to sue the government, either. Discussing any of this further with either of you is pointless. Buh-bye.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 10:27:06 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)
Laws have changed since 1887.  I hope they arrest the entire family of squatters and take their ranch and bankrupt them.  I have little patience for people who steal from the public...whether its a corrupt politician or a corrupt rancher...hang em all.

What a disgusting school of thought. I bet you would have fit right in as a government agent at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Definitely this mentality is a big part of what is wrong with America.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 10:33:30 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)
Laws have changed since 1887.  I hope they arrest the entire family of squatters and take their ranch and bankrupt them.  I have little patience for people who steal from the public...whether its a corrupt politician or a corrupt rancher...hang em all.
Definitely this mentality is a big part of what is wrong with America.  :twocents:
Oh I completely agree...the sense of entitlement and associated entitlement programs will ruin this country.  This notion that the government (that is us taxpayers) owe you something...whether it is food stamps or free grazing lands is beyond disgusting. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
If the government disallows a private landowner to develop his own land for whatever reason, then the only difference between that and the government actually seizing the private land is the piece of paper saying he owns it. He may own it, but without the ability to change it, it might as well be public land. There is one glaring difference: he still gets to pay the taxes to the same government which disallowed him to change it.
So are you opposed to zoning laws too? Or just when ESA law impedes development?

Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.

I'll ask you your position on elk versus property rights in another way since you refuse to answer the question. If it were found that hoof rot in Roosevelt elk is caused by chemicals that weyerhaeuser uses and they were asked to stop using them and in turn told hunters to take a hike you would think that was okay right? I mean, it's their land right?

No, and I've stated so previously in this thread. I didn't refuse to answer any question. Elk are not included in the ESA. This thread is about abusing the ESA to forward eco-wacko goals. Poisoning the forests with sprayed chemicals, if that's what is indeed happening (you seem to already have the definitive answer for that question), would be something which affects wildlife adversely and shouldn't be tolerated. However, using the ESA to purposely prevent a private landowner from development of their property for no purpose other than to forward an organizations agenda is wrong. In addition, the law which allows people to sue the government with taxpayer money should also be abolished. It's ridiculous and causes frivolous lawsuits. Like I said before, it's obvious that you and Idahohuntr bow to the ESA and all of the great things you can do to manipulate society with it. I'm sure you'd have no problem using taxpayer money to sue the government, either. Discussing any of this further with either of you is pointless. Buh-bye.

The question wasn't about whether elk are on the ESA or not, it was whether you value elk more than property rights and you won't answer that question. There were plenty of guys who liked to hunt sharp tails and sage grouse, but those aren't elk, so property rights were above them as far you were concerned then. Correct?

So in other words as long as the animals you care about aren't affected by land owners' decisions you think people should be able to do what they want and the heck with rest. Got it, thanks.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 11:00:35 AM
BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhFm80Phqk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhFm80Phqk)

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/)

https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy (https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy)

Cliven Bundy Hannity. Bundy Ranch Standoff Against The U.S. Government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE)

BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhFm80Phqk#ws)

Thanks for the information wolfbait. This is definitely very similar to the Ruby Ridge/Waco affairs. I think the guy in the video stated it very well, the BLM is the Bureau of Land Management, they don't own the land, they are supposed to manage it for the rest of us. Groups furthering the removal of ranchers from grazing on public lands are most likely behind this whole affair, thus the reason 52 ranchers have been eliminated and Bundy is the last rancher.

In the end I hope these federal agents are prosecuted for cattle rustling. If a firefight breaks out due to the ranchers trying to protect their private property and anyone is killed I would also hope any agent killing a civilian faces murder charges.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 11:10:15 AM
EXCLUSIVE! THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!
April 9, 2014
“Sorry this is long but applicable here. By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/ (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/09/exclusive-the-bundy-daughter-speaks-out-on-government-terrorism-against-her-family/)
Laws have changed since 1887.  I hope they arrest the entire family of squatters and take their ranch and bankrupt them.  I have little patience for people who steal from the public...whether its a corrupt politician or a corrupt rancher...hang em all.
Definitely this mentality is a big part of what is wrong with America.  :twocents:
Oh I completely agree...the sense of entitlement and associated entitlement programs will ruin this country.  This notion that the government (that is us taxpayers) owe you something...whether it is food stamps or free grazing lands is beyond disgusting.

Obviously neither you or I know all the details so perhaps neither of us can speak correctly about this matter. I do completely agree that entitlements are draining this country, so are the actions of agenda driven groups using government agencies via lawsuits to stop ranching, mining, logging, manufacturing, and industry in this country.  :twocents:

The ranchers have said they are willing to pay the fee to the state and that they only refused to pay it to the BLM because the BLM is in turn is using the money paid for grazing to remove other ranchers and other Americans from using the land altogether. Since 52 other ranchers have been eliminated and Bundy is the last rancher it appears Bundy is telling the truth.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 10, 2014, 11:17:26 AM
BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch

BREAKING: Feds prep for Waco style raid of Bundy Ranch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhFm80Phqk#ws)

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/)

https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy (https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy)

Cliven Bundy Hannity. Bundy Ranch Standoff Against The U.S. Government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE)

Thanks for the information wolfbait. This is definitely very similar to the Ruby Ridge/Waco affairs. I think the guy in the video stated it very well, the BLM is the Bureau of Land Management, they don't own the land, they are supposed to manage it for the rest of us. Groups furthering the removal of ranchers from grazing on public lands are most likely behind this whole affair, thus the reason 52 ranchers have been eliminated and Bundy is the last rancher.

In the end I hope these federal agents are prosecuted for cattle rustling. If a firefight breaks out due to the ranchers trying to protect their private property and anyone is killed I would also hope any agent killing a civilian faces murder charges.  :twocents:

It's a good example of using the ESA to further the Wildland Project etc.. I'm sure the BLM and environmentalists now realize they are starting to wallow around in their own excrement. Unfortunately for them this has turned into more then they wanted the public to see. Too bad what the wolves are doing to the lower 48 doesn't get the same exposure.

Check this out: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=815242345172404&set=vb.269838976379413&type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=815242345172404&set=vb.269838976379413&type=2&theater)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
The arguments made by the ranchers daughter would be akin to me arguing that because my family has hunted central Idaho since the early 1900's, when there was no fee for elk tags, no season, and no limit that I should be entitled to hunt in central Idaho whenever I want with no limit in any unit I want. The fact that the government is now regulating elk harvest does not apply to me.  IDFG is there to manage the game for sportsmen right? I'm a sportsman so they should do their job and stay out of my way when I want to shoot 3 or 4 bulls in September with a rifle...like this Bundy guy I may even offer Idaho County $2 for an elk tag if the State won't accept my payment...or whatever they cost when they first started selling them...since I'm such a nice guy.  Same logic.  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:  :bash: 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: iusmc2002 on April 10, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
The arguments made by the ranchers daughter would be akin to me arguing that because my family has hunted central Idaho since the early 1900's, when there was no fee for elk tags, no season, and no limit that I should be entitled to hunt in central Idaho whenever I want with no limit in any unit I want. The fact that the government is now regulating elk harvest does not apply to me.  IDFG is there to manage the game for sportsmen right? I'm a sportsman so they should do their job and stay out of my way when I want to shoot 3 or 4 bulls in September with a rifle...like this Bundy guy I may even offer Idaho County $2 for an elk tag if the State won't accept my payment...or whatever they cost when they first started selling them...since I'm such a nice guy.  Same logic.  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:

If your hunting in Idaho for the last hundred years or so was your livelihood, and the government decided to change things on you for arbitrary reasons, I would certainly stand beside you.  But that wasn't what this is about.  You can only twist it so many ways before even YOU realize you're losing this fight....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
According to this article...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/)

...he owes 1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees to the Fed. Most banks would foreclose over that as well.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 11:32:08 AM
The rancher has said he would pay. You guys want him foreclosed on (cattle stolen by BLM) because you don't like grazing, that's not right.

I think BLM should immediately be pulled out and there should be a congressional investigation of this entire matter of groups using agencies to further their agenda. If found unconstitutional or at fault by law whomever authorized millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent to remove the cattle should be fired and held financially accountable for the waste of taxpayer dollars.

If one cow is taken, whomever was involved should face cattle rustling charges.

Congress should appoint a negotiator to meet with the rancher, BLM, state, and county to work out details for a renewed grazing lease.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/government-plans-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-desert-tortoises-after-budget-cuts-to-refuge/)
Quote
The result? Center administrators are planning to close the 220-acre facility in 2014 and euthanize about half of the 1400 tortoises under their protection, the AP reports. No more than 100,000 of the desert tortoises are believed to exist in the wild. Most of the tortoises there are former pets returned to their habitat once the government classified the species as threatened — one step short of endangered. And most are too feeble to be returned to the wild, the AP reports.

Congress should have an investigation into the reasons these tortoises are being euthanized rather than released when they are claimed to be endangered and the basis for stopping ranching in Nevada.

This whole affair stinks just like the spotted owl affair. After destroying the logging industry it's since been proven spotted owls live in logged areas.  :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 11:35:45 AM
The rancher has said he would pay.

No, he has not. He has said he would pay the county, not the BLM.

I'd like to pay my wife the money I owe on my car, but the bank won't look kindly on that either.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 11:51:40 AM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 11:55:16 AM
The arguments made by the ranchers daughter would be akin to me arguing that because my family has hunted central Idaho since the early 1900's, when there was no fee for elk tags, no season, and no limit that I should be entitled to hunt in central Idaho whenever I want with no limit in any unit I want. The fact that the government is now regulating elk harvest does not apply to me.  IDFG is there to manage the game for sportsmen right? I'm a sportsman so they should do their job and stay out of my way when I want to shoot 3 or 4 bulls in September with a rifle...like this Bundy guy I may even offer Idaho County $2 for an elk tag if the State won't accept my payment...or whatever they cost when they first started selling them...since I'm such a nice guy.  Same logic.  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:

I see quite a difference in the scenario you mention. Idaho is asking for a tag fee but they are not stopping all hunting.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 10, 2014, 11:56:49 AM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA doesn't it?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 11:58:06 AM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

I agree with the part of your comment that is in bold. But based on what I'm reading the guy sounds like a deadbeat who hasn't paid his bills. What did he expect would happen? That the Fed would just turn a blind eye?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: j_h_nimrod on April 10, 2014, 12:20:47 PM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

The Fed does not own the land, we do and allow them to administer it. At least that is the way it is supposed to be, though more and more people have been convinced that the Govt is a person, own the land, and allows us to use it if, and only if, they want to.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM
Yes the guy owes the public some grazing fees, he should pay something. Negotiate some terms for a continuing lease provided he pays a negotiated settlement. Then let's talk about the other 52 ranchers that have been eliminated.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 12:49:21 PM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.


There would be a difference, the other 52 ranchers would still be operating, but since the tortoise is involved nobody will be allowed to ranch.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 10, 2014, 12:50:23 PM
How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid. 


Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 12:56:27 PM
The arguments made by the ranchers daughter would be akin to me arguing that because my family has hunted central Idaho since the early 1900's, when there was no fee for elk tags, no season, and no limit that I should be entitled to hunt in central Idaho whenever I want with no limit in any unit I want. The fact that the government is now regulating elk harvest does not apply to me.  IDFG is there to manage the game for sportsmen right? I'm a sportsman so they should do their job and stay out of my way when I want to shoot 3 or 4 bulls in September with a rifle...like this Bundy guy I may even offer Idaho County $2 for an elk tag if the State won't accept my payment...or whatever they cost when they first started selling them...since I'm such a nice guy.  Same logic.  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:  :bash:

I see quite a difference in the scenario you mention. Idaho is asking for a tag fee but they are not stopping all hunting.  :twocents:
BLM still allows grazing on millions of acres of public land too. 

If your hunting in Idaho for the last hundred years or so was your livelihood, and the government decided to change things on you for arbitrary reasons, I would certainly stand beside you.  But that wasn't what this is about.  You can only twist it so many ways before even YOU realize you're losing this fight....
BLM land management decisions are not arbitrary...much like elk seasons, BLM lands are regulated to protect a resource for public use...including grazing when and where appropriate.  Furthermore, I don't subscribe to your asanine belief that commercial activity should be given preferential access to the public's resources...its ok for a corporation to access the blm land to make a profit but I am less deserving because I'm just a low income hunter...  :bash:  :bash:   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 10, 2014, 01:21:03 PM
It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   :dunno:

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced. :chuckle:

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

The Fed does not own the land, we do and allow them to administer it.

Correct, and he is stealing from us per the rules set down by the government that we elected to administer things.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 01:26:01 PM
How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2014, 01:27:17 PM
It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting.

What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forever on public land for free?  ???   Idiot!    :bash:   :bash:

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 01:29:25 PM
If you guys think the grazing fees are too low then lobby for higher grazing fees, I might even agree with and support that if in fact the guy WACoyote mentioned is only paying $600.

But the reality is that the greeners are using it as an excuse to end grazing. That is the issue...  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 10, 2014, 01:34:17 PM
How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.
I disagree and have a pile of data to support my claim that cattle are destructive to native ecosystems.  I surveyed most of those streams and had to move cattle out of the way while I worked.  They sit in a riparian area and eat the shoreline vegetation, then trample the banks, then crap in the water... how can that possibly be good for fish and wildlife?

Cattle move weeds, eat the grasses and short trees/shrubs, and displace wildlife.  Come over to Leclerc Cr when the cattle are in the meadows and tell me that they are good for the habitat... crazy.

I support ranching, farming, logging, mining, ect... as long as the people making the profit pay the true cost.  As a tax payer, rate payer, ect... I should not have to subsidize the destruction of wildlife habitat.

If they want to graze- great!  Fix and maintain fences, treat weeds, move cattle, and pay the cost involved. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 01:36:48 PM
It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting. What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forver on public land for free?  ???   Idiot!    :bash:   :bash:

I agree he needs to pay something... This doesn't make a lot of sense to me spending millions because of 1 million in overdue fees. Make a settlement with the guy and save the taxpayers some money.  :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 10, 2014, 01:39:44 PM
It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting.

What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forever on public land for free?  ???   Idiot!    :bash:   :bash:


The tortoise is a scape goat in this argument.... he quit paying his fees FIVE years before any of the area was even designated critical habitat.  Mr. Bundy was a deadbeat before the tortoise or ESA was on the scene.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 01:43:05 PM
How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.
I disagree and have a pile of data to support my claim that cattle are destructive to native ecosystems.  I surveyed most of those streams and had to move cattle out of the way while I worked.  They sit in a riparian area and eat the shoreline vegetation, then trample the banks, then crap in the water... how can that possibly be good for fish and wildlife?

Cattle move weeds, eat the grasses and short trees/shrubs, and displace wildlife.  Come over to Leclerc Cr when the cattle are in the meadows and tell me that they are good for the habitat... crazy.

I support ranching, farming, logging, mining, ect... as long as the people making the profit pay the true cost.  As a tax payer, rate payer, ect... I should not have to subsidize the destruction of wildlife habitat.

If they want to graze- great!  Fix and maintain fences, treat weeds, move cattle, and pay the cost involved.

I don't completely disagree, the grazer should take some ownership. However, I would suggest it is not only the cows spreading weeds, all wildlife spreads weeds equally as much as cattle. Has anyone asked the rancher to fence the creek to keep his lease or was it easier to just try and force the rancher out since you obviously dislike grazing?

I would rather see us work toward solutions to problems rather than simply ending another local resident's livelihood.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 10, 2014, 01:44:24 PM
It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting. What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forver on public land for free?  ???   Idiot!    :bash:   :bash:

I agree he needs to pay something... This doesn't make a lot of sense to me spending millions because of 1 million in overdue fees. Make a settlement with the guy and save the taxpayers some money.  :bash:
I agree.  The feds are a tangled bureaucracy and suck to deal with.  They can make a mess of pretty simple things like leases. 

Their disorganization for the last 2 decades, coupled with his victim mentality caused this mess.  He needs to expect change and deal with it, the Gov needs to make change reasonable and thoughtful.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on April 10, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
This like most things can be viewed from opposite ends of the spectrum.  Each year I see free range cattle in areas with seemingly no damage.  I also see beautiful creek bottoms reduced to crap and muck holes that no other wildlife use.  They can virtually destroy creek bottoms and overgraze riparian areas.  Cows have a much higher impact on natural areas than do deer, elk, and moose combined.

Just what I see........

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 02:04:59 PM
This like most things can be viewed from opposite ends of the spectrum.  Each year I see free range cattle in areas with seemingly no damage.  I also see beautiful creek bottoms reduced to crap and muck holes that no other wildlife use.  They can virtually destroy creek bottoms and overgraze riparian areas.  Cows have a much higher impact on natural areas than do deer, elk, and moose combined.

Just what I see........

I agree over grazing can get ugly just as anything can that is not done within reason. Grazers on public land should be monitored just as logging operations or oil gas drillers are monitored. But I don't like the idea of saying all grazing should be stopped because of a few bad apples abusing the system.

It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting. What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forver on public land for free?  ???   Idiot!    :bash:   :bash:

I agree he needs to pay something... This doesn't make a lot of sense to me spending millions because of 1 million in overdue fees. Make a settlement with the guy and save the taxpayers some money.  :bash:
I agree.  The feds are a tangled bureaucracy and suck to deal with.  They can make a mess of pretty simple things like leases. 

Their disorganization for the last 2 decades, coupled with his victim mentality caused this mess.  He needs to expect change and deal with it, the Gov needs to make change reasonable and thoughtful.

 :yeah: completely agree
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 10, 2014, 02:12:01 PM
I agree.  The feds are a tangled bureaucracy and suck to deal with.  They can make a mess of pretty simple things like leases. 

Their disorganization for the last 2 decades, coupled with his victim mentality caused this mess.  He needs to expect change and deal with it, the Gov needs to make change reasonable and thoughtful.
They are very hamstrung when it comes to dealing with contentious issues like this...they can't just solve it like you or I would with private land. 

I occassionaly allow grazing on my land...I would not tolerate 20 years of no payment before I took action...thats partly why I am surprised folks feel the feds are being heavy handed...seems to me like they have been exceptionally tolerant...to a fault. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2014, 02:22:32 PM
I agree.  The feds are a tangled bureaucracy and suck to deal with.  They can make a mess of pretty simple things like leases. 

Their disorganization for the last 2 decades, coupled with his victim mentality caused this mess.  He needs to expect change and deal with it, the Gov needs to make change reasonable and thoughtful.
They are very hamstrung when it comes to dealing with contentious issues like this...they can't just solve it like you or I would with private land. 

I occassionaly allow grazing on my land...I would not tolerate 20 years of no payment before I took action...thats partly why I am surprised folks feel the feds are being heavy handed...seems to me like they have been exceptionally tolerant...to a fault.

Not to be argumentative but to explain....

If I had someone who didn't pay for grazing on my land I would contact the owner to come get his cows and tell him I was going to herd the cows off my land at a certain time if he didn't remove them himself so be there to get them. I would not be flying Blackhawk helicopters and posting snipers or hauling his cattle to auction.

However, this is not private land, this is public land where grazing and other activities are needed to support local economies. So this brings us back to my main question in this matter, what happened with the other 52 ranchers who have been eliminated? That is really the bigger issue, this seems to be an elimination of grazing altogether.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 10, 2014, 08:05:24 PM
BLM, USFWS, USFS and WDF&Wolves pick out a few pictures of what cows have done, these could be pictures on private land outside of a barnyard it really doesn't matter to them.  They use these pictures to push and agenda, "Cows are Bad" Wolves balance the ecosystem. Not that simple but most of you can get the idea.

The ESA Tortis

The Pride and Joy of the ESA
Breaking: Feds Allow Calves To Starve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYHqsfF-j0&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYHqsfF-j0&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

Like the Canadian Wolves it is fraud and corruption on the American people!
I would be willing to bet, the people who thought or were brain-washed are getting a new look at the ESA and government control.

How many people now realized they were told lies for years by environmentalist? How many people really think Defenders of Wildlife care about wildlife? or any life at all? The ESA is not about life, it is about driving people off their property using the ESA or regulations.

It's too bad the Bundy family has to go through the fraud and corruption of what use to be a great country, a country that many people died for to defend what is happening today.

In another light, it is a good thing because it shows what is really happening through the ESA, it shines a light on the fraud and corruption of many ESA listed animals, animals used to control water rights, land, and destroy property rights.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 11, 2014, 07:09:13 AM
Zoning laws apply to everyone equally and are something you're aware of when you purchase land. That's completely different from someone looking for something on someone's private land with which to stop them from doing what they want on it. I realize nothing's going to satisfy you, Aspen, either in this or any of the wolf conversations. I have little doubt you're a card-carrying member of one of the groups which use public taxpayer funds to sue the government. Is it the Defenders to which you belong? Sure sounds like it. A lot.
I see you are as ignorant of zoning laws as you are the Endangered Species Act.  :tup:

:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: may god bless you with  mazama pocket gophers. how many alters could humanure have?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2014, 09:45:46 AM
“It is not about turtles it is about water"
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2014/04/breaking-militia-arrives-at-bundy-ranch-2452284.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2014/04/breaking-militia-arrives-at-bundy-ranch-2452284.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Northway on April 11, 2014, 09:56:40 AM
BLM, USFWS, USFS and WDF&Wolves pick out a few pictures of what cows have done, these could be pictures on private land outside of a barnyard it really doesn't matter to them.  They use these pictures to push and agenda, "Cows are Bad" Wolves balance the ecosystem. Not that simple but most of you can get the idea.

The ESA Tortis

The Pride and Joy of the ESA
Breaking: Feds Allow Calves To Starve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYHqsfF-j0&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYHqsfF-j0&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

Like the Canadian Wolves it is fraud and corruption on the American people!
I would be willing to bet, the people who thought or were brain-washed are getting a new look at the ESA and government control.

How many people now realized they were told lies for years by environmentalist? How many people really think Defenders of Wildlife care about wildlife? or any life at all? The ESA is not about life, it is about driving people off their property using the ESA or regulations.

It's too bad the Bundy family has to go through the fraud and corruption of what use to be a great country, a country that many people died for to defend what is happening today.

In another light, it is a good thing because it shows what is really happening through the ESA, it shines a light on the fraud and corruption of many ESA listed animals, animals used to control water rights, land, and destroy property rights.

Fraud, corruption, conspiracy..........

Wolfbait, I wonder who the real Americans are in your mind? Based on your criteria, the list would be short. You could make a couple of sweeping statements about individual liberty, patriotism, or the constitution; but ultimately I don't believe that's what you stand for.

How well did a paranoid mindset dominated by thoughts of conspiracy & corruption work out for your friend who ran for governor of Montana? What did he stand for? I heard that by the end of the campaign, not only had they alienated themselves from the vast majority of their own party, they even turned on each other.

What if it were true that the ESA was a Act created to protect some stuff by some thoughtful politicians, and now in some cases the act is being used to push its reach beyond what was originally intended and that some changes should be considered. Would that be too boring for you?

When I'm in a foul mood and feel ready to condemn my neighbor for any number of differences of opinion, I try to reel myself back in and think about a quote I was turned on to by a Hemingway book. I'm no social justice warrior and don't look at it from that angle, but from a standpoint that we all live and vote together, and nothing good can result from writing off everyone around me:

"No man is an island,  entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were;  any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2014, 10:14:09 AM
What part is it that you don't like? Is it the ESA being exposed for what it really is? The dishonesty of the "environmentalists" being exposed? The fact that the wolves that were released into the lower 48, were not released because they were endangered? The fact that what is happening now in Nevada is not about a turtle? Maybe everyone who has a problem with being lied to should just be quiet and let smarter people like you explain everything to them.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2014, 11:28:47 AM
Interesting read.

Militarized Siege Of Bundy Ranch IS All About Oil Fracking Deals
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html)


BLM fracking racket exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Northway on April 11, 2014, 11:40:58 AM
What part is it that you don't like? Is it the ESA being exposed for what it really is? The dishonesty of the "environmentalists" being exposed? The fact that the wolves that were released into the lower 48, were not released because they were endangered? The fact that what is happening now in Nevada is not about a turtle? Maybe everyone who has a problem with being lied to should just be quiet and let smarter people like you explain everything to them.

No one is telling you to be quiet. Before you go accusing me of thinking I'm smarter, be aware that I graduated high school with a 1.9 GPA.

What you call dishonesty I call a difference of opinion about what is an isn't endangered species. Is a species that could be classified as "endangered" in the US, really endangered if it exists in a healthy population in another country? What if there is a healthy population in another state? Those are just a couple of the many good questions that deserve to be addressed moving forward outside of litigation. The ESA has been around long enough that we should be able to reflect on some of the accomplishments & failures of the act.

It's fear that the act will be entirely scrapped or made even more intrusive that will prevent a real discussion from taking place.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2014, 12:05:13 PM
What part is it that you don't like? Is it the ESA being exposed for what it really is? The dishonesty of the "environmentalists" being exposed? The fact that the wolves that were released into the lower 48, were not released because they were endangered? The fact that what is happening now in Nevada is not about a turtle? Maybe everyone who has a problem with being lied to should just be quiet and let smarter people like you explain everything to them.

No one is telling you to be quiet. Before you go accusing me of thinking I'm smarter, be aware that I graduated high school with a 1.9 GPA.

What you call dishonesty I call a difference of opinion about what is an isn't endangered species. Is a species that could be classified as "endangered" in the US, really endangered if it exists in a healthy population in another country? What if there is a healthy population in another state? Those are just a couple of the many good questions that deserve to be addressed moving forward outside of litigation. The ESA has been around long enough that we should be able to reflect on some of the accomplishments & failures of the act.

It's fear that the act will be entirely scrapped or made even more intrusive that will prevent a real discussion from taking place.

Thanks for the clarification NW! Sorry if you thought I thought you were smarter :chuckle: How the powers that be could make the ESA worse is hard to imagine, but then with the feds and environmentalists involved it's sure possible.

I think what we are doing hear is sharing opinions, and info. and debating the issue.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 11, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
Interesting read.

Militarized Siege Of Bundy Ranch IS All About Oil Fracking Deals
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html)


BLM fracking racket exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html)

Dr. Wapiti could probably comment if that is even possible.  I'm not sure exactly where the Bundy Ranch is, but it sure seems like it's mostly granitoid basement in that area, and if true, these posts are inflammatory untruths. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 11, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Before you go accusing me of thinking I'm smarter, be aware that I graduated high school with a 1.9 GPA.


Rubbing it the nose of all the 1.8'ers :chuckle:
I call a difference of opinion about what is an isn't endangered species. Is a species that could be classified as "endangered" in the US, really endangered if it exists in a healthy population in another country? What if there is a healthy population in another state? Those are just a couple of the many good questions that deserve to be addressed moving forward outside of litigation. The ESA has been around long enough that we should be able to reflect on some of the accomplishments & failures of the act.

It's fear that the act will be entirely scrapped or made even more intrusive that will prevent a real discussion from taking place.

Very good points
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2014, 12:56:07 PM
Interesting read.

Militarized Siege Of Bundy Ranch IS All About Oil Fracking Deals
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/militarized-siege-of-bundy-ranch-is-all-about-oil-fracking-deals-2935768.html)


BLM fracking racket exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html)

Dr. Wapiti could probably comment if that is even possible.  I'm not sure exactly where the Bundy Ranch is, but it sure seems like it's mostly granitoid basement in that area, and if true, these posts are inflammatory untruths.

You do have a choice as to how emotional you decide to become don't you N-rocks? As far as being untruths maybe you could call the BLM ands ask them about it. Or post facts that refute the story.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 11, 2014, 03:22:51 PM
There is an expert on the geology of that area here on this board.  I'm waiting for him to tell us whether the area has a petroleum potential or not, or if it's entirely hard rock.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 11, 2014, 05:33:22 PM
There is an expert on the geology of that area here on this board.  I'm waiting for him to tell us whether the area has a petroleum potential or not, or if it's entirely hard rock.

FYI - Hard rock does not mean there isn't oil. I worked on a rig in Utah drilling through granite to get to oil.  :twocents:

More about oil in granite: http://www.wnd.com/2005/12/33676/ (http://www.wnd.com/2005/12/33676/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 12, 2014, 12:10:19 AM
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html# (http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html#)

This would hardly be worth lining a bird cage with if it were printed on paper. 

Since when did the BLM begin getting bonuses?  Or pay raises based on income?  If that was the case, I think they would have increased the $1.35/AUM rate quite a while ago.

I fail to see how a fracking lease would require cattle to be removed. 

I love how this is painted as a "save a tortoise" operation, when in reality it's blatant contempt of court order and has been upheld in two different courts.  So much for the theory that the BLM hasn't tried to work this out.

How many folks would try to "settle" with a deadbeat tenant?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 12:27:42 AM
It's hard to say what the real reason is now. We do know the wolf introduction was and is fraud an corruption driven by environmentalists and crooked officials, and I'm sure that sooner or later we will all know the real reason for another fake endangered species.

The one thing WE can count on now is that the fraud of the ESA is being exposed for all to see. :tup: :tup: :tup:


Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 12, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html# (http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html#)

This would hardly be worth lining a bird cage with if it were printed on paper. 

Since when did the BLM begin getting bonuses?  Or pay raises based on income?  If that was the case, I think they would have increased the $1.35/AUM rate quite a while ago.

I fail to see how a fracking lease would require cattle to be removed. 

I love how this is painted as a "save a tortoise" operation, when in reality it's blatant contempt of court order and has been upheld in two different courts.  So much for the theory that the BLM hasn't tried to work this out.

How many folks would try to "settle" with a deadbeat tenant?

The fracking argument is a joke. Most of the new energy development in this country has been on private land. Republicans have whacked Obama on that for years since he touts new energy development but most has not been done on public land. At least that was the tune a few years ago.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 12, 2014, 09:20:16 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150323.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150323.0.html)
 Agenda 21 not real?  :chuckle:green scam is Red to the core!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on April 12, 2014, 09:37:39 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150323.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150323.0.html)
 Agenda 21 not real?  :chuckle:green scam is Red to the core!

        :yeah:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
ABC news is reporting that the Bundy family has "won Range War".  Do not bet on that.  The feds have left, and will remain gone until the protesters disperse.  Then they will return in force.  We've all watched this scenario play out too many times.
 
Lynn Stuter
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610)

A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.

The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.

"It's not about cows, it's about freedom," Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.

A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.

"We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard," said Cliven Bundy's sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.

But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.

As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.

Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy's family and supporters say the government's actions are threatening ranchers' freedoms.

"It's about the freedom of America," said another of Bundy's sisters, Margaret Houston. "We have to stand up and fight."

ABC News' Alan Farnham contributed to this report.

 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
 
 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 12, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
Are they giving him the cattle back that they've already rounded up?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 11:01:48 AM
BLM has blinked. Stopped the round-up.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 01:31:09 PM
So much for the fake endangered turtle.

UPDATE: Armed Bundy family leaders meet with BLM officers
LAS VEGAS --  Armed Bundy family leaders are meeting with BLM officers to discuss what will become of the cattle that the feds removed from BLM land, over the past week.

Tensions are running high and I-15 is closed in both directions, about seven miles south of Mesquite, because protesters have blocked the freeway, according to Nevada Highway Patrol.

The protesters have gathered in support of rancher Cliven Bundy, who has been locked in a legal battle over grazing rights with the federal government.

Nearly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit are on scene.

NHP is advising people to not even try to go to Mesquite from Las Vegas. Troopers have tried to get cars through the area but they are not having much luck.

There have been no overt threats of violence from the protesters.

Follow 8 News NOW on Twitter for real-time updates

The BLM law enforcement officers are in Mesquite as they wait to leave the area. Police are there to help them do that safely.

It was announced Saturday morning that Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Bundy and the BLM were able to reach an agreement over the cattle the BLM has already removed from the federal property.

The BLM has offered to pay Bundy for the cattle already confiscated, sources say. The protesters say the cattle should be returned to Bundy.

This is a developing story. Please refresh this page for updates.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25231502/breaking-news-protesters-gather-on-i15-causing-traffic-delays-cliven-bundy-blm (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25231502/breaking-news-protesters-gather-on-i15-causing-traffic-delays-cliven-bundy-blm)

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 01:49:43 PM
Live feed of the crooked BLM tucking tail.
http://www.ustream.tv/AlexJonesLive (http://www.ustream.tv/AlexJonesLive)

The BLM, like the USFWS are not very well liked by anyone who understands what they are doing to people through their fake endangered species BS.

BREAKING: Feds Back Down In New Bundy Standoff, Agree to Release Cattle
UPDATE (3 PM CST): According to Infowars reporter David Knight, who is on location, the BLM is standing down and will be releasing Cliven Bundy’s cattle shortly. This comes after reports stating that the feds were ready to fire on protesters if they attempted to seize the rancher’s cattle.
Read More @ http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/ (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/)

The BLM killed 138 cows running them with helicopters, they also shot 2 bulls.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: snowpack on April 12, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
strange that the gov sends in that much force for grazing, but in Benghazi.........
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2014, 07:53:25 PM
Federal Land Grab In Nevada To Benefit Chinese Solar Farm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jampV1pa0dk#t=381 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jampV1pa0dk#t=381)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 12, 2014, 09:02:36 PM
Wait. First you said it was fracking. Now you say it's solar energy. Which is it?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 13, 2014, 07:16:01 AM
BLM's fake endangered turtle is about a land grab for Harry Reid and the Chinese. The USFWS, WDFW's fake endangered wolf will ruin cattle ranching, hunting etc..



REID SMELLING ANYTHING BUT ROSY IN RANCH FIGHT
Desert showdown blows lid off long-standing plans with the Chinese

NEW YORK – When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to take his cattle off land the federal government demanded for the habitat of an endangered desert tortoise, it focused the nation’s attention on an arena Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have preferred to be kept quiet.



An investigative report published last week by Infowars.com drew a connection between Senate Majority Leader Reid’s involvement with Chinese energy giant ENN, Chinese efforts to build massive solar facilities in the Nevada desert and the showdown between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.

It wasn’t the first report to notice curious dealings involving the Chinese and America’s top Democrats.

On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.

The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.

China grabs oil interests in USA

The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.

By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from a $18.4-billion dollar deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.

China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100-percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.

On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.

Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal.
Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal.
On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”

Harry Reid and Chinese solar investments in Nevada

On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of Chinese energy giant ENN Group, had teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value.

Bloomberg reported ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees.

Bloomberg further documented ENN had contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles.

Subsequently, on Sept. 4, 2012, Breitbart.com reported lawyer Rory Reid, the son of Sen. Reid, had been appointed the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, fronting the bid by the Chinese company to build a $5-billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughton, Nevada.

A Reuters report published on Aug. 31, 2012, documented that Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States.

The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67-year-old rancher,” blogger Dana Loesch wrote last week. “They want his land.”

Loesch pointed out that Reid has been accused by ranchers in Nevada of using the BLM to control Nevada land, over 84 percent of which is already owned by the federal government, and to pay back special interests, including his top donor, Harry Whittemore, who first urged Reid to have the habitat of the desert tortoise moved before he was convicted of violating federal election laws by illegally funneling $150,000 to Reid’s 2007 reelection campaign.

Confirmed by a 71-28 Senate vote on April 9, BLM chief Neil Kornze served as a former senior adviser to Reid before he joined BLM in 2011, serving for the past year as the agency’s principal deputy director, according to a CBS local television news report broadcast in Carson City, Nevada.

In 2012, BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published a “Final Pragmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” that Inforwars.com charged established the basis for allowing the endangered desert tortoise to migrate habitats, paving the way to put solar energy development projects on acreage that includes public land at dispute in the Bundy standoff over grazing rights.

Loesch’s analysis of the BLM’s actions was echoed at the Moapa Valley Town board meeting last Wednesday when one of the local citizens rose to give a stirring defense of Cliven Bundy and issue a warning to the BLM.

“They can throw an army of men around there … with sniper rifles on people just like you are, men, women and children … out there, who believe they have a right to be there,” he said.

“Maybe you believe in some other place that you believe you can be. Someday they’re gonna throw that army of men around you. And then somehow they feel like they got the right … they can drop a damn tripod in the ground and set a sniper rifle on it, so if you cross a line, they can put a bullet in you. Who the hell is the man behind that trigger? I wanna know … which one of you guys gives that guy the authority to throw that rifle down? And when he does, which one of us is he going to shoot?”

“Good God, didn’t he grow up in this country? Are we gonna give it up? This is a helluva lot bigger than Clive Bundy.”

The audience erupted in applause as the man concluded his speech.

“And when Clive decides to go back in there after his cows, and they’ve got orders to shoot anyone who goes in there, I’m gonna be with him.”

Someone in the crowd piped up, “Carrying a gun I hope.”

“No, no,” he said, “because them son of a bitches will fire the next shot heard around the world … and we will fire the rest!”

The full speech can be viewed, below.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/#W89tfyQRcgJMLEAP.99 (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/#W89tfyQRcgJMLEAP.99)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 13, 2014, 07:19:49 AM
From Special T-

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Notes from HJL:

The Bundy Ranch continues to spiral with the BLM not backing down, and the militias are beginning to show up. This escalation of the conflict is not good and will result in bloodshed, unless the federal government backs down. For those who are not sure about what rights are being violated, I've broken it down into several sections here:
First Amendment rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Make no mistake, the entire land in question is public land, managed by the BLM. The BLM violates the rights of the U.S. citizens when it tries to create “no free speech zones” by cordoning off sections of the land for people to express their First Amendment rights. Not only the highway but also the the land itself (managed by the BLM) is public. As stated yesterday, there already exists a zone for people to express their First Amendment rights– it's called the United States of America. It is completely repugnant for the BLM to attempt to restrict those rights, and it suggests that the true intent of their actions and possibly the actions themselves are shameful. Today, we have unconfirmed reports that the cell towers that serve the Bundy's ranch have been shut down, suggesting that the law enforcement are intent on hiding their own actions. We have already seen the near riot that ensued when BLM officers with dogs, drawn tasers and slung AR-15s/M16s were confronted by protestors armed only with wagging fingers and cell phone cameras. The BLM engaged with escalated violence first, and then reported to the mainstream media that their dog was kicked and the protestors had to be tased to be controlled. Watch yesterday's video again and see for yourself if their claims hold true. The dog was clearly released on the person who then kicked it. The officers tased a person who was only armed with a wagging finger. For this reason, they want a communications blackout to perpetuate their skewed and false narrative.
Prior usage rights.
The southwest states of the United States of America have a long tradition of recognizing “prior usage rights”. There are land grants that trace their history clear back to the 1600s. Water rights are similarly recognized based upon when the water was first used for agricultural usage. Cliven Bundy's family's grazing rights can be traced back 150 years to the formation and recognition of the State of Nevada in 1864. The BLM was formed in 1946. It is clear that the Bundys have prior usage rights that predate even the formation of the BLM. If you include the predecessor of the BLM– The General Land Office (GLO), which was formed in 1812, their formation could be considered to predate the Bundy's usage, but the fact that the land was continually grazed for over 150 years shows that the GLO and the subsequent BLM not only allowed but agreed to the land usage by the Bundy family. The courts have erred in their rulings over these usage rights and have either set a dangerous precedent or followed in the footsteps of decisions that overstep moral and ethical boundaries regarding eminent domain. This dangerous trend is becoming the powder keg that we see being worked out in this case. The fact that multiple branches of the federal government have ruled against what should be standard law simply shows that they are either colluding or ignorant. The rulings by the judges are a prime example of progressive judges creating law, rather than interpreting law.
Open range laws.
Under open range laws, if you don't want cattle grazing on your land, it is your responsibility to fence them out. By requiring the rancher to fence his own cattle out of the BLM land, they are placing unfair, unprecedented, and unlawful burden on the rancher. It is the responsibility of the BLM to erect fences around property they don't want grazed.
Moral and ethical issues.
Morals are what we do; ethics are what we ought to do. In this case, the Bundys have chosen to press for their rights rather than knuckle under the heavy-handed tactics of the federal government. No tortoise nor any cow is worth the loss of human life, yet that is where this is headed if the federal government does not back down. There is suspicion that the contractors who have been brought in to remove the cows are killing many of them (whether by accident or design). There is suspicion that some wearing the BLM uniform are not duly sworn law enforcement officers.
Escalation of conflict.
So far, the conflict has been between the Bundy ranch, neighbors, a few friends and the BLM. As this drags on, the conflict will escalate with militia and others from across the country getting involved. The emotions will run higher. The thin line between anger and action will be narrowed, and at some point either a law enforcement officer who feels threatened or a protester who is being unfairly attacked will pull their firearm, and it will escalate into bloodshed. The longer the conflict runs, the greater the chance of this escalation occurring. The governor has already weighed in verbally in support of the Bundys. Where is Harry Reid?
http://www.survivalblog.com (http://www.survivalblog.com)

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 13, 2014, 07:27:16 AM
This is a strange argument coming from the same folks on here that vehemently oppose food stamps and welfare. 
I guess we should only give ranchers something for nothing....  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 13, 2014, 07:41:15 AM
This is a strange argument coming from the same folks on here that vehemently oppose food stamps and welfare. 
I guess we should only give ranchers something for nothing....  :rolleyes:

I can't speak for the others but my opposition to the BLM actions is based on refusing ranchers to graze, livlihoods depend on grazing, what happened to all the other Nevada ranchers pushed out of business? Bundy has tried to pay the county, who apparently now owns grazing rights, it's not like he is a deadbeat, he has offered to pay, the county refused the money.

I think it's a good thing this happened so that agency policies get a much closer look.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on April 13, 2014, 07:57:32 AM
This is a strange argument coming from the same folks on here that vehemently oppose food stamps and welfare. 
I guess we should only give ranchers something for nothing....  :rolleyes:

If you think this is the same as sitting on your fat butt collecting welfare and food stamps, then you should spend a few days on a ranch participating in the chores..............

Its about way more than the Bundy part of the story.......connect the dots.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 13, 2014, 08:08:58 AM
Bundy has tried to pay the county, who apparently now owns grazing rights, it's not like he is a deadbeat, he has offered to pay, the county refused the money.

I don't think Clark County has anything to do with the grazing rights, it is still all the BLM.  Clark county refused to insert themselves into this for anything more than sound bites by their politicians. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on April 13, 2014, 08:54:17 AM
Bundy has tried to pay the county, who apparently now owns grazing rights, it's not like he is a deadbeat, he has offered to pay, the county refused the money.

I don't think Clark County has anything to do with the grazing rights, it is still all the BLM.  Clark county refused to insert themselves into this for anything more than sound bites by their politicians.

There are conflicting reports, another reason this whole affair needs thorough investigation. On one hand we can't allow deadbeats to cheat the system, on another hand there seems to be more to this story.

A supposedly endangered tortoise used as the reason to get rid of grazing yet oil drilling and wind farms are planned. 52 other ranchers eliminated from business. Reports of offers made to buy out Bundy for the resources on his ranch. Yes, there certainly seems to be more to this story.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on April 13, 2014, 01:46:37 PM


A supposedly endangered tortoise used as the reason to get rid of grazing yet oil drilling and wind farms are planned. 52 other ranchers eliminated from business. Reports of offers made to buy out Bundy for the resources on his ranch. Yes, there certainly seems to be more to this story.



I agree. This raises alot of questions!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 13, 2014, 08:25:28 PM


A supposedly endangered tortoise used as the reason to get rid of grazing yet oil drilling and wind farms are planned. 52 other ranchers eliminated from business. Reports of offers made to buy out Bundy for the resources on his ranch. Yes, there certainly seems to be more to this story.



I agree. This raises alot of questions!

Kind of like the USFWS releasing wolves into the lower 48 and claiming they were endangered, when they were not, at least not the wolves they released. Then each states that their wolves show up in have to have so many wolves. Yep it does raise a few questions.

Look at WDFW and their thirty year ESA plan, and wonder what WA's wildlife will look like in another ten years? Let alone thirty with their management practices of protecting predators.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: snowpack on April 13, 2014, 08:28:50 PM


A supposedly endangered tortoise used as the reason to get rid of grazing yet oil drilling and wind farms are planned. 52 other ranchers eliminated from business. Reports of offers made to buy out Bundy for the resources on his ranch. Yes, there certainly seems to be more to this story.



I agree. This raises alot of questions!

Kind of like the USFWS releasing wolves into the lower 48 and claiming they were endangered, when they were not, at least not the wolves they released. Then each states that their wolves show up in have to have so many wolves. Yep it does raise a few questions.

Look at WDFW and their thirty year ESA plan, and wonder what WA's wildlife will look like in another ten years? Let alone thirty with their management practices of protecting predators.
Ten years of wolves and they'll have lots of other endangered species.   :yike:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 14, 2014, 11:17:00 AM
Federal Land Grab In Nevada To Benefit Chinese Solar Farm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jampV1pa0dk#t=381 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jampV1pa0dk#t=381)

Of note...

"Reid and his son, Rory, were both deeply involved in a deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Laughlin, Nevada. But that is roughly 177 miles away from Bundy’s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the federally owned Gold Butte area where Bundy ‘s cattle graze, according to Google Maps.

It’s worth noting that Rory Reid is the former chair of the Clark County commission (Clark County is located near the Gold Butte area). He left in 2011 to work for a Las Vega law firm representing ENN.

But despite the Reids’ best attempts to secure the land for ENN, and despite the Bureau of Land Management expressing concerns that “trespass cattle” could complicate plans to use land in the Gold Butte area for “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development,” it was all in vain: The Chinese company eventually shelved the project in June 2013 when it failed to find a customer. The deal is over and the proposed construction will not happen."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 14, 2014, 08:17:40 PM
The Fish in California,Spotted Owl in WA and OR, the USFWS wolves that weren't endanger either and now the fake endangered turtle in Nevada.

Really A-Bud!

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 14, 2014, 09:26:23 PM
Don't forget the Salmon!! :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2014, 12:11:48 PM
BREAKING: Harry Reid & China Behind Nevada Land Grab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHL_n1s8QA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHL_n1s8QA4)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2014, 12:47:15 PM
This is very interesting if it's true. We've always known that Harry Reid a huge windbag. Hopefully, he can be caught in a scheme tied to this incident. I hope it's not just the ravings of some idiots.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2014, 01:00:03 PM
I see more people are investigating Reid and his tie to this, and they did find where the BLM tried to hide some damning facts they had posted on there web site. I guess we will have to wait and see.

As far as the Bundy's having the water, grazing etc. rights, I believe that is also true. I know of other ranchers that have had the same. One thing that is for sure, this was never about an endangered turtle. Just like the wolf introduction was never about endangered wolves, and still isn't.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2014, 02:24:35 PM
Bundy Ranch Federal Land Grab Motive Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE)

BLM Destroyed Water Tanks, Shot Bulls, Ran Over Tortoise Dens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY)

Why are environmental groups, Feds and WDFW buying up so much land in WA?

At the rate wolves expand and decimate game herds what will all of this land be used for?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on April 17, 2014, 07:26:27 AM
Quote
At the rate wolves expand and decimate game herds what will all of this land be used for?

Wildfires - from all the grass and brush that grew up tall because it didn't get eaten down.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2014, 08:55:22 AM

Why are environmental groups, Feds and WDFW buying up so much land in WA?


If you're so worried about it work out arrangements with the land owners selling and buy the land yourself. Problem solved.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 17, 2014, 09:08:34 AM
"Why are environmental groups, Feds and WDFW buying up so much land in WA?"

Because the common man doesn't have millions of $$$$$ for 950 acres :bash: and has more brains(common man) then to turn down 1800+ acres for the SAME AMOUNT!! :dunno:

Been there, done that!!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 17, 2014, 06:30:25 PM
The Cliven Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/wounded-knee-ii/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/wounded-knee-ii/)


We took away their country and their means of support, broke up their mode of living, their habits of life, introduced disease and decay among them, and it was for this and against this they made war. Could anyone expect less? – General Philip Sheridan, who presided over the expropriation of the Plains Indians, in the 1878 Annual Report of the General of the U.S. Army

Following the War Between the States, as the formerly independent South was being re-assimilated into the Soyuz, the US military took up the task of driving the Plains Indians off of land that had been promised to them through solemn treaty obligations – but was now coveted by the corporatist railroad combine.

In 1867, William Sherman wrote a letter to General Grant insisting that “we are not going to let thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress” of the railroad. About a year earlier, Sherman had urged Grant to “act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children.” Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo points out that Sherman set out to make the Sioux “feel the superior power of the Government,” even if “the final solution to the Indian problem” required that they be physically annihilated.

Writing in Smithsonian magazine, historian Gilbert King observes that the post-war US military wasn’t adequate to carry out that ambitious campaign. General Philip Sheridan, who succeeded Sherman as Commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi, complained that he had only 14,000 troops with which to carry out “the reduction of these wild tribes and occupation of their country.”

Note that Sheridan didn’t equivocate in describing his army’s role as the occupier of a “country” that belonged, by right, to other people. He had no moral scruples against being an occupier; his objections were limited to practical concerns.

The Plains Indians were canny, elusive, and motivated. However, their dependence on the buffalo provided the aggressors with an exploitable vulnerability. Hunting the Indians was difficult and risky; slaughtering buffalo was neither.

The railroads, acting as a military force multiplier, began ferrying tourists to the West for the specific purpose of “sport-hunting” buffalo.

Unlike the Indians, who never threatened to hunt the buffalo to extinction, or Bill Cody, who was restrained in his efforts to harvest them to feed construction crews for the Kansas Pacific Railroad, the Eastern tourists had no property interest in the continued existence of the species, and didn’t have to pay any price for the profligate destruction they wrought.

“Massive hunting parties began to arrive in the West by train, with thousands of men packing .50 caliber rifles, and leaving a trail of buffalo carnage in their wake,” recalls King. “Hunters began killing buffalo by the hundreds of thousands,” leaving their ravaged bodies to bloat and fester.

When legislatures in some states attempted to enact measures to conserve the buffalo, their objections were overruled by the Feds. The higher “national purpose” required a “total war” strategy that included the destruction of the buffalo in order to break the resistance of the Plains Indians.

“These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years,” wrote General Sheridan with satisfaction. “They are destroying the Indians’ commissary. And it is a well-known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them [the private buffalo hunters] powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle.”

Cattle became the successor to buffalo in the late 1860s and early 1870s. That was the era when the ancestors of Cliven Bundy settled in what was to become the State of Nevada, and began to graze cattle in what would later be called the Bunkerville Grazing Allotment. The Bundy family made peaceful and productive use of that allotment for more than 120 years, mixing their labor with the land to create original wealth.

Unfortunately, the Bundy family — like the American Indians – had been living on a reservation: They were never allowed to exercise ownership of their grazing “allotment,” in much the same way that Indians were not permitted to have clear title to their lands. The land on which the Bundy family raised cattle was “owned” by the government, and the Bundys were required to pay rent – in the form of grazing fees – for the “privilege” of making productive use of it. The public-land grazing system has been described as “the nation’s most conspicuous and extensive flirtation with socialism” – except, perhaps, for the Indian Reservation System.

Indians whose lands were supposedly protected through treaties invariably discovered that the phrase “in perpetuity” means “pending the discovery of something valuable on the land that is desired by a politically favored constituency.” The desired commodity could be gold – as the Nez Perce learned after their homeland in the luxuriant Wallowa Valley, having been reduced to a tiny, barren tract, was seized from them by General O.O. Howard.  It could be fertile farm lands on the banks of the Niobrara River, as the Poncas discovered when they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma.

Similar “adjustments” were made to practically every Indian band or tribe that signed a treaty in good faith with Washington – only to find themselves reduced to destitution when Washington withheld promised annuities and rations, and then evicted from their lands when it suited Leviathan’s interests. The high and holy purpose of Manifest Destiny nullified the property rights of Indians and any treaty obligations that would inhibit Washington’s drive for continental expansion.

In 1993, the same federal Leviathan State that unilaterally “modified” binding treaty agreements with Indian tribes and bands decided to “modify” the terms of the Bundy family’s grazing permit. This was done in the service of a doctrine even more insidious than Manifest Destiny: A new religion in which all human property rights – including, some adherents insist, the right to live itself – are to be sacrificed on the altar of “biocentrism.” The central tenet of that religion is that “Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things.”

However, there are certain superior specimens within the ranks of humanity who possess a gift of seership that permits them to discern the true needs of nature. On occasion, these infinitely wise and limitlessly benevolent beings – most of whom have found a niche in some foundation-funded eco-radical lobby – will identify “endangered” or “threatened” species whose supposed claim to a “habitat” outweighs property rights and all human needs.

Since none of those non-human creatures can speak on their own behalf, we should consider ourselves extravagantly blessed by the presence of eco-seers capable of discerning their needs, bureaucrats willing to harken to their inspired counsel, and judges who dutifully ratify bureaucratic decisions without being unduly burdened by respect for property rights.

In 1993, acting on an infallible ecocentric pronouncement, the Bureau of Land Management decreed that the land on which Cliven Bundy and his neighbors had long grazed their cattle was actually the “habitat” of the desert tortoise.

Although the BLM – like other agencies involved in administering Washington’s illegal colonial occupation of western lands – has been influenced by biocentrism, it’s not likely that its upper echelons are filled with True Believers in anything other than the Bureaucratic Prime Directive: “Maintain what we have, and expand where we can.”

The BLM’s revisions were imposed during the reign of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who in a letter two years earlier (written while he was head of the League of Conservation Voters) declared: “We must identify our enemies and drive them into oblivion.” Babbitt and his comrades have acted with what Sherman described as “vindictive earnestness” in pursuing that objective: In the past twenty years they have all but eradicated cattle ranching in the southwestern United States.

In his book War on the West, William Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation observes that “the enormous might of the federal government has always meant that the life of the West was in the hands of strangers living thousands of miles away. Like the weather that can sweep down upon Westerners and change their lives in an instant, the federal government has always loomed as a distant threat.” During Babbitt’s tenure at the Department of the Interior, the federal eco-jihad specifically targeted “the most enduring symbol of the American West – the cowboy – seeking to price and regulate the rancher off federal grazing lands and out of business, destroying the economy of rural areas.” One of the first initiatives undertaken by Secretary Babbitt in pursuit of his vision of a “New West” was to seek a 230 percent increase in grazing fees charged to ranchers on federally administered lands. Although the proposed fee increase was thwarted by a Senate filibuster, the effort to destroy the ranching industry continued. After the fee increase was proposed, an Interior Department memo surfaced which revealed that Babbitt wanted “to use price increases as a straw man to draw attention from management issues.” While ranchers fought the grazing fee increase, Babbitt and company created “Range Reform ’94,” a cluster of proposed federal land use and environmental regulations which Pendley describes as “A Thousand and One Ways to Get Ranchers off Federal Land.”During the late 1990s – a period in which Babbitt, appropriately, was mired in a scandal involving decades of federal fraud, embezzlement, and graft in the Indian Trust Fund System – ranchers rallied to hold off the federal assault. But like the Plains Indians, the ranchers were facing an implacable enemy unburdened with respect for the law and blessed with access to limitless resources. Of the 52 ranchers in his section of Nevada, Cliven Bundy is the only one who has refused to go back to the reservation. So the heirs to Sherman and Sheridan have mobilized an army to protect hired thieves who have come to steal the Bundy family’s cattle with the ultimate purpose of driving him from the land.

Their objective is not to protect the desert tortoise, but to punish a defiant property owner and entrepreneur. This potentially murderous aggression is being celebrated by Progressives as a worthy effort to make dangerous radicals “feel the superior power of the Government.”

For more than two decades, Bundy has defied the federal land management bureaucracy, and his continued resistance could catalyze a general revolt against their designs for the western United States.

Their intent, as described by Pendley, is to transform the West into “a land nearly devoid of people and economic activity, a land devoted almost entirely to the preservation of scenery and wildlife habitat. In their vision, everything from the 100th meridian to the Cascade Range becomes a vast park through which they might drive, drinking their Perrier and munching their organic chips, staying occasionally in the bed-and-breakfast operations into which the homes of Westerners have been turned, with those Westerners who remain fluffing duvets and pouring cappuccino.”

The high priests of biocentrism and their bureaucratic allies aren’t going to let a handful of ragged but resolute ranchers “check and stop the progress” of Manifest Destiny.

In 1875, amid an entirely contrived Indian Scare in Corrine, Utah, Indian Agent William H. Danilson sent a telegram to Washington complaining about the dangerous “extremism” that had seized the restive Shoshones. “They are taught to hate the government, and look with distrust upon their Agents,” complained the bureaucrat. The Indians impudently maintained that “Bear River Valley belonged to them” and were preparing to resist efforts to evict them from their property.

“Their whole teachings [are] fraught with evil,” concluded Danilson, scandalized that Indians would believe in the sanctity of property, and thus expected the federal government to keep its promises.

Historian Brigham D. Madsen records that an Army investigation of that 1875 Indian Scare found that the Shoshones – who were, as usual, starving because of the government’s failure to deliver promised rations – posed no threat. Nonetheless, the military “issued an ultimatum that all reservation Indians were to return to their reservations at once or [the local commander] would use military force to compel them to do so.”

It didn’t matter that the Indians had done nothing wrong, and that the government had acted illegally: The cause of “law and order” meant that the government simply had to prevail. That was the central theme in Washington’s dealings with the Indians – and in its conduct toward western landowners as well.

Fifteen years after the Corinne Indian Scare, the final flickers of Indian resistance were extinguished by Leviathan in the bloody snows of Wounded Knee. Our rulers clearly intend to use the standoff in Clark County to suffocate remaining resistance to the western states land grab. The only matter left unresolved is the question of how much violence they are willing to employ to accomplish that end.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 17, 2014, 06:43:29 PM
The Cliven Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?

Hey Leonard, watch your AIM
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 18, 2014, 11:14:15 AM
Bundy Ranch Federal Land Grab Motive Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE)

BLM Destroyed Water Tanks, Shot Bulls, Ran Over Tortoise Dens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY)

Why are environmental groups, Feds and WDFW buying up so much land in WA?

At the rate wolves expand and decimate game herds what will all of this land be used for?

The all too frequent demise of private land hunting...

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=150778.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=150778.0)

Side note, people have wondered what they will do to control ungulate numbers on the tree farms as this will likely mean fewer people will hunt their land. Remember what I said about wolves and timber companies...
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2014, 09:11:27 PM
Bundy Ranch Federal Land Grab Motive Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE)

BLM Destroyed Water Tanks, Shot Bulls, Ran Over Tortoise Dens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY)

Why are environmental groups, Feds and WDFW buying up so much land in WA?

At the rate wolves expand and decimate game herds what will all of this land be used for?

The all too frequent demise of private land hunting...

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=150778.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=150778.0)

Side note, people have wondered what they will do to control ungulate numbers on the tree farms as this will likely mean fewer people will hunt their land. Remember what I said about wolves and timber companies...

It really doesn't matter when it comes to wolves, especially when they are not controlled, the end results are exactly what Reid and crew are doing to the Bundy ranch. WDFW are doing the same thing to WA one piece at a time. How much $$$ do the environmentalists get from the feds for being the "middle man" buying land, easements etc..???
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on April 19, 2014, 07:31:13 AM
There is a BOAT load of $ being made from conservation groups acquiring land then selling to the US gov.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 19, 2014, 07:41:00 AM
Do you have any evidence that they sell at a profit?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 19, 2014, 01:27:30 PM
Wayne Hage's War
How the Monitor Valley
Adjudication Came to Be

by Diane Alden

The problem and the scary thing is the lack of understanding of the American people as a whole, notes rancher Wayne Hage: " I look at my country today and say if they just understood it...our grandparents understood ... that if the government takes, they have to pay."

Hage’s heartfelt belief is that if the American people understood what has happened to him over the last 20 years at the hands of the federal government they would be outraged.

His experiences with federal agencies, their bureaucrats and allies is not unique in American history. Hage’s War has consisted of a long, disheartening struggle with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and powerful and politically influential environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resource Defense Council.

Up until the late 1970’s life on Hage’s Pine Creek Ranch had been uneventful except for the usual problems associated with ranching. Hage’s property adjoins the federally administered Toiyabe and Humbolt National forests and Monitor Valley. The care of the land had always been a cherished responsibility to the Hage family. Along with ownership of the ranch came vested water and grazing rights passed down to him in a line of succession since the mid-1800s. These vested rights were on federal lands and—in common law and according to various acts of Congress—were considered a private property right subject to taxation by the IRS. Traditionally, the law and the government of the United States had accepted this situation until certain agencies of the government and its allies in the environmental movement decided to reinterpret federal land management— as well as property law and water rights and their adjudication. Decisions made in distant Washington, D.C. were about to drastically impact the Hage family and change their lives forever.

DECLARATION OF WAR

On a beautiful Nevada day in 1979 the battle lines for Hage’s war were drawn. His first inkling that another "range war" was imminent came when he and his crew were riding in the mountains, rounding up cattle on his government allotment. Coming down the trail towards them were several men from the Forest Service. Hage did not recognize the usual familiar faces he knew from the Tonopah office. These men were strangers and said they were from the Austin office. When Hage questioned them about what they were doing, the agents explained they were making a survey for water and that the Forest Service was filing a claim on all the water in the Monitor Valley. Hage was astounded because he had operated for years with the understanding that his water rights were vested and part of the ownership of his ranch. Why would the Forest Service be filing on his water rights, he asked. "Because," the agent responded, "that is what we were ordered to do."

Trying to stay within the law, Hage contacted Nevada’s State Engineer who confirmed that the Forest Service and BLM had filed a claim—including claims on about 160 vested water rights of Hage and Pine Creek Ranch. Hage’s only recourse was to petition the State Engineer requesting a determination of who had what rights in the Monitor Valley. This petition was filed on October 15, 1981. Adjudication which should have taken months stretched out to 10 years because the Forest Service used one delaying tactic after another. In this way, it gained time to solidify its power over federal lands and condition people to accepting the new order and the reinterpretation of law in its favor. After years of waiting, Hage found himself on the brink of financial collapse and his operation of the ranch was becoming untenable.

By filing a "takings claim" in the Federal Court of Claims in 1991 Hage sought justice and compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Under this Amendment, the government may not take property without compensation and Hage and others had always believed that their grazing permits and water rights were private property rights. In the suit against the government Hage proposed that there had been a taking of private land, water rights, an irrigation ditch right of way, forage rights, rangeland improvements and cattle by the federal government. Much had happened to Wayne Hage and his family before filing the "takings claim" that changed their lives forever.

CONCERTED ATTACK

The first shots fired in the new range war were pictures taken by the Forest Service which it claimed showed over-grazing on Hage’s allotment. Pictures taken in November at the end of the growing season at a high altitude showed very little grass and plenty of bare ground. Using the pictures as ammunition, the Forest Service canceled Hage’s grazing and water permits for five years, effectively shutting him down. Range regulations say that permits are transferred to the next claimant if they are not used for five years.

The next claimant, of course, was the federal government, specifically the Forest Service. When Forest Service permits are canceled, BLM permits are also terminated. Between a rock and the federal government Hage decided to fight back and filed his complaint.

After Hage’s permits were canceled government documents show that District Forest Ranger David Grider sent a copy of the cancellation notice to the attorney for the National Federation of Wildlife, Roy Elcker, and thanked him for NFW’s lobbying efforts in Congress on behalf of an increased Forest Service budget. NFW’s policy has always been aimed at ending all grazing and agricultural water use on "public land." During a lecture before other environmentalists Elcker declared, "How you win is one at a time, he (the rancher) goes out of business, he dies, you wait him out—but you win." The Forest Service and the environmentalists were past masters in the art of "making it so expensive to operate and make so many changes for him...to run his cattle on public lands...he goes broke....". That is exactly what happened to Wayne Hage.

The spring of 1991, Hage went out to the area which the Forest Service said had been overgrazed. Something wonderful had happened as it does every spring in the Monitor Valley: the grass came back. Hage called the District Ranger to come see the area and took a picture of him standing in knee high lush grass. The Ranger responded, "But it’s the wrong kind of grass." The "wrong kind" of grass had been coming up there for decades.

Subsequently the Forest Service began a propaganda barrage and mail-in campaign targeting sympathetic members of Congress like Bruce Vento and Mike Synar. Assisted by environmental groups, they painted Hage as a violent extremist who should be dealt with in an extreme manner. The stage was being set for confrontation.

CONFRONTATION

That same summer of 1991, not long before the Senate vote on the question of raising grazing fees, Hage received a call from an official of the nearby Toiyabe National Forest telling him some of his cattle were trespassing on government land. In the process of moving 2,000 head of cattle from winter to summer pasture through an area of unfenced boundaries, it is not unusual for cattle to stray.

Hage drove to the site to survey what needed to be done and found himself surrounded by 20 to 30 federal agents armed with semi-automatic weapons and garbed in flak jackets. Some of them were stationed on high points expecting a confrontation. Hage got out of his vehicle, reached under his jacket and pulled out a 35 mm camera, pointed it at some of the Forest Service swat team and told them, "Smile pretty, boys." To the chagrin of the agents, there was no violent confrontation. The only "violence" was in the heart and mind of Hage who wondered at the lengths his government would go to get what it wanted—namely property rights which belonged to him.

On two later occasions heavily armed agents came out to his former allotment and prevented Hage’s employees from moving cattle off the closed allotment. During these intrusions by federal agents 104 cattle were confiscated and subsequently sold at auction with the profits remaining with the Forest Service. Twisting the knife in Hage a little deeper, agents sent him a bill for the costs of confiscating the cattle. The cattle didn’t recognize they had over-stepped their boundaries—and apparently the federal government didn’t recognize that Uncle Sam had overstepped some boundaries as well.

THE BEST DEFENSE IS A COUNTER- OFFENSE

On September 26, 1991 Hage filed his "takings claim" against the Forest Service in the U.S. Court of Claims. The suit alleged that the United States had taken Hage’s livestock, grazing rights and stock water rights on range lands. The government countered by charging Hage and wood cutter Lloyd Seamans with a felony for taking government property by cutting and removing brush from an irrigation ditch. In the government suit against Hage all felony charges were thrown out of court and the U.S. Attorney who brought the charges was nearly sanctioned for filing the charge at all.

Immediately after Hage filed his suit with the claims court, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed for status as "intervenors," saying that ranchers should receive no compensation for losing their water and grazing permits on federal land. Jumping on the litigation bandwagon was one of the strangest participants of all—Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa. According to Nevada law and an 1866 Act of Congress, Nevada owned all the water and delegated its use to individuals. Curiously, Del Papa hired a staff lawyer from the National Wildlife Federation to argue in favor of the legitimacy of federal authority over Nevada’s water and against Hage’s "takings claim." The U.S. Claims Court denied both the environmental groups’ and Del Papa’s motions to intervene.

Active in environmental circles for years, Del Papa was, at the time, an advisory board member of the Trust for Public Lands which is associated with the Sierra Club. The tangled web of government connections with the powerful environmental movement becomes frighteningly clear. Litigation over rights previously decided by common sense and a century-old covenant established between the government and ranchers and farmers, is part of the campaign to change the law by using regulations and political allies to make land "cow free" as soon as possible.

WHAT COMES NEXT

It ain’t over till the last bureaucrat sings—and the concert begins soon. In a landmark decision on March 8, 1996, Judge Loren Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims handed down a key ruling against the U.S. government which allowed Hage’s "takings claim" to proceed to trial.

The trial is set for September 28 and will decide if there was a property right involved in Hage’s case, whether or not property was taken by government regulations, and finally how much that property is worth. Regardless of the outcome, both sides expect the decision to be appealed and eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

Acclaimed legal scholar Phillip Howard observed in his book, The Death of Common Sense, "Coercion by government, the main fear of our founding fathers, is now a common attribute. But it was not imposed to advance some group’s selfish purpose...the idea of a rule detailing everything has had the effect of reversing the rule of law. We now have a government of laws against men."

The actions of the federal government through the U.S. Forest Service and allies in the environmental movement prove the validity of Howard’s observation. Soon the Monitor Valley will come alive with a thousand shades of color and the warm winds of spring will renew the spirit. Wayne Hage will enjoy the beauty of the land but he will miss the sight of his cattle grazing peacefully on the hillsides and the feeling of security he once enjoyed.

He appreciates the help of many friends, family, groups and others who have supported him through his ordeal, and he is hopeful that Cigna, his mortgage holder, will not foreclose on Pine Creek Ranch until he has his next day in court. Wayne Hage’s War cost him nearly everything important to him, both personally and financially. His war rages on in the name of principles he believes in.
http://nj.npri.org/nj98/04/hage.htm (http://nj.npri.org/nj98/04/hage.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 19, 2014, 05:04:59 PM

An American Original: Wayne Hage

Throughout American history, men of great character have risen to the cause
of liberty, sacrificing their personal safety to ensure liberty for
generations to come. After fighting a twelve year battle for his land with
the federal land management agencies and national environmental
organizations, Wayne Hage filed one of the most important cases of our time.
Few have had the courage of their convictions to place everything on the
line for our precious constitutional principles. Wayne Hage is such a man.
Liberty Matters recently met with Wayne for this personal interview.

LM: You have a long history fighting for property rights, what were some of
the first issues you worked on?

WH: When I was ranching in the state of California in the 60’s and 70’s, I
was quite heavily involved in the California State Chamber of Commerce. I
chaired a committee in the state chamber dealing with land use and taxation.
At that time we were just starting to see the environmental movement rise to
the forefront. I had the opportunity of sitting across the table with people
who later became active in the environmental movement.

One of the things that probably drove home where the environmental movement
was coming from, was Assembly Bill 10. AB 10 attempted to socialize all of
California agriculture. It was an effort to take away all private property
rights, put everything under the control of bureaucracy, and do away with
any type of mechanized agriculture putting people back to using horse and ox
power. We realized that behind this legislation was a very serious movement
that had international backing. Our own people in the California Chamber and
some of the conservative groups in California said that there was no way we
could stop this bill. We did defeat that bill, and the way we beat it was to
run another bill through the Senate which accomplished everything that the
assembly bill purported to accomplish, but we did it from a private property
perspective.

Dealing with that group in California more than 20 years ago gave me a taste
of what the nation was in for. The environmental movement has nothing to do
with the so-called protection of the environment, that was the window
dressing, that was the issue used to take private property without
compensation.

Read more @   http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Grazing/hageinterview1998.htm (http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Grazing/hageinterview1998.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on April 19, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
Even though the Hages have nothing to do with ESA, here is a good read on the lawsuit with a link to the actual court ruling document.

http://nevadajournal.com/2013/06/13/feds-war-western-ranchers-water-rights-takes-body-blow/ (http://nevadajournal.com/2013/06/13/feds-war-western-ranchers-water-rights-takes-body-blow/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 21, 2014, 09:31:24 PM
THE TRUTH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE)


CATTLE SHOT, BURIED ON BUNDY RANCH

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/cattle-shot-buried-on-bundy-ranch/ (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/cattle-shot-buried-on-bundy-ranch/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 27, 2014, 02:53:33 PM
BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/bundy-times-sting-worse-than-i-thought/ (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/bundy-times-sting-worse-than-i-thought/)


Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Dirty Harry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trjJg_Up8xM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trjJg_Up8xM)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 27, 2014, 06:41:44 PM
Yeah...

"Bundy was plainly a nutcase, and the right-wing pundits and politicians should have seen that. He should never have been portrayed as a hero or a victim or anything other than a lawbreaker, a freeloader, a moocher. A taker.

For two decades, he grazed his cattle on land that did not belong to him and refused to pay the landowner. Right-wingers, one would think, would hate that. He refused to respect law enforcement, in fact threatened to take up arms against the peace officers whom Republicans usually trip over themselves to honor. I thought conservatives believed in law and order.

What if, instead of being a right-wing rancher who flouted the law, Bundy was the leader of a left-wing group of college radicals who occupied a government building? Ronald Reagan notoriously said of Berkeley protestors, "If there is to be a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement!"

Or what if Bundy had been the leader of the New Black Panther Party? What if he and his followers had, for 20 years, brazenly stolen from the federal government, refused to obey court orders and threatened police with guns? Would Hannity have been duped into defending him? Fat chance.

Or, umm, what if Bundy had been a Muslim, declaring a tiny caliphate on that dusty piece of Nevada? Does anyone really think Fox News would have made a hero of him then? "


http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/opinion/begala-racist-rancher-conservatives/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/opinion/begala-racist-rancher-conservatives/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 27, 2014, 07:24:12 PM
Paul Begala

CNN  Clinton Network News :chuckle:

enough said!!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 28, 2014, 06:30:54 AM
Paul Begala

CNN  Clinton Network News :chuckle:

enough said!!

How about Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson then?   :chuckle:

http://theweek.com/article/index/259997/speedreads-glenn-beck-and-tucker-carlson-warn-conservatives-about-bundy-ranch-dispute (http://theweek.com/article/index/259997/speedreads-glenn-beck-and-tucker-carlson-warn-conservatives-about-bundy-ranch-dispute)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 28, 2014, 09:07:11 AM
From Backcountry Rebels....

Originally Posted by Grizzz View Post
Here in the neo-liberal West coast of Canada we have a eerily similar story playing out in the courts right now. The land in question had a usage ongoing for 20 yrs. before the land commission even existed. The old fella who was shut down by 29 govt. agents with various jurisdictions felt his rights under the constitution were breached. 3 yrs. later and 20 odd court visits and the judge scolded and rebuked the land commission so much they had to ask for a break to discuss how large a financial settlement was to be offered the old feller. Mind you our news media here is so liberal and tree hugger they have completely ignored this whole story. The provincial govt. is currently redrawing the whole ALC (Agricultural Land Commission) due to this court case. Not like any of our news guys (copy & paste, latte sucking, plagiarists) have even bothered to investigate. We used to envy the US constitution and the protection the rights of individual citizens were afforded under it. Now it seems we have gotten ours into exactly such a configuration while yours is being assailed at every turn by both the elected politicos and the judiciary. Good luck, you'll need it.

I hear ya. Down here we hear liberals only argument, "He broke the law!" And it seems to me they argue that we are a democracy and a nation of laws and the majority passed that law. What they fail to realize is that we are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic election process. We are not subject to a rule by the mob and are protected by the the Bill of Rights which protect the individual from the mob. Just because our society deems a law necessary does not mean it is ethical or right. Justice is what society deems is appropriate to what society allows as debated in Plato's Republic. Our forefathers were smart enough to see to the protection of all of us as individuals. But you watch, there are already liberals down here openly stating how the Bill of Rights is a dated document and irrelevant in today's era. They have never been so wrong.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on April 28, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
"How about Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson then?   :chuckle:"

I find the whole "racist" debate a joke now days.    Had Bundy used just a few different words nothing would have come from his comments.   He should have  used African Americans instead of Negro, the PC police would have left him alone.

Because of the reprisals of the leftist liberals ALL broadcasters HAD to come out against Bundy, even when it was found out his speech had been "edited" by the liberals as USUAL!! 

NOW we have the Clippers owner getting the same treatment!!

But then this thread is about the ESA and its use by a Over reaching government agency and Bundy is a good scapegoat! for distraction purposes!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 28, 2014, 10:37:09 AM
who brought up Bundy on this thread?????  :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

The guy is a bottom dweller and his comments were more inflammatory than just saying "Negro".  The whole message was ridiculous.

The tea partiers made a mistake championing him.  If they want to discuss the issue, go for it.  If they need a champion or hero, they should keep looking.




Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on April 28, 2014, 10:50:55 AM
"How about Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson then?   :chuckle:"

I find the whole "racist" debate a joke now days.    Had Bundy used just a few different words nothing would have come from his comments.   He should have  used African Americans instead of Negro, the PC police would have left him alone.

Because of the reprisals of the leftist liberals ALL broadcasters HAD to come out against Bundy, even when it was found out his speech had been "edited" by the liberals as USUAL!! 

NOW we have the Clippers owner getting the same treatment!!

But then this thread is about the ESA and its use by a Over reaching government agency and Bundy is a good scapegoat! for distraction purposes!

Now now, Beck and Carlson weren't talking about race. In fact I believe their comments were made before Bundy opened his freeloading mouth.    :chuckle:

I wonder how many of those "patriots" down there who have lost their jobs, or didn't have one to start with, are now drawing unemployment...     :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 28, 2014, 02:59:34 PM

I wonder how many of those "patriots" down there who have lost their jobs, or didn't have one to start with, are now drawing unemployment...     :chuckle:

yep...  The guy is a classic moron.  He bit the hand that fed him and I am anxious to see him change his ranch operations to fit the 160 acres that he actually owns. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 28, 2014, 07:10:09 PM

I wonder how many of those "patriots" down there who have lost their jobs, or didn't have one to start with, are now drawing unemployment...     :chuckle:

yep...  The guy is a classic moron.  He bit the hand that fed him and I am anxious to see him change his ranch operations to fit the 160 acres that he actually owns.

Actually Bundy refuse to sell his grazing, water, and surface rights to "Dirty Harry" and crew, next came the fake endangered turtle, and then the Shock and Aw followed when all else failed. I think what bothers you two so much is the real truth in stead of what dirty harry want everyone to believe came out. Just like the real wolf, not the fake wolf that the USFWS and WDFW promote.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 29, 2014, 12:03:37 PM

I wonder how many of those "patriots" down there who have lost their jobs, or didn't have one to start with, are now drawing unemployment...     :chuckle:

 I think what bothers you two so much is the real truth in stead of what dirty harry want everyone to believe came out. Just like the real wolf, not the fake wolf that the USFWS and WDFW promote.

What the He(( are you talking about?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 30, 2014, 07:24:38 AM
BLM Whistleblower: Reid Bunkerville and the Military Industrial Complex at Bundy Ranch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJXDuLkdI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJXDuLkdI)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 30, 2014, 08:37:33 AM
Wow.... groundbreaking.  A BLM VOLUNTEER blowing a whistle about research he did on the county's public database.  :rolleyes:

 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 01, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
THE LONG HISTORY OF BLM'S AGGRESSIVE CATTLE SEIZURES

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2FBig-Government%2F2014%2F04%2F29%2FThe-Long-History-Of-BLM-s-Aggressive-Cattle-Seizures&ei=AGRhU5yQCeHfsgfZh4HoCw&wsc=yh#.U2FkZesalXE.facebook (http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2FBig-Government%2F2014%2F04%2F29%2FThe-Long-History-Of-BLM-s-Aggressive-Cattle-Seizures&ei=AGRhU5yQCeHfsgfZh4HoCw&wsc=yh#.U2FkZesalXE.facebook)


The 1994 “Rangeland Reform” regulations included doubling the current fees charged to ranchers for public forage and further environmental rules to prevent “overgrazing.” Opponents noted that in the runup to the new regulations, the National Academy of Scientists – a preeminent scientific authority on which federal agencies rely for expert analysis – had issued a report concluding so little was known about the condition of U.S. range lands that the new standards were essentially a shot in the dark. But Babbit forged ahead anyway.

At the time, former-Sen. Pete Domenici ripped the plan, a version of which he had defeated in Congress when it was a legislative proposal the year before. "The last thing we should do is hurry decisions that have far-reaching effects on western states," he said.

Underlying the move to raise fees was BLM's view that the fees on public lands were too low – much lower than fees to graze on private land, for example.

But as Heather Smith Thomas, an Idaho rancher, noted in a 1994 article in Rangelands, a peer-reviewed academic journal, the private grazing fees were artificially high because the government owns so much land in the West.

“What many people do not understand is that the ‘low’ fee is just one small portion of the rancher's many costs in using public land. The total costs amount to much more than renting private pasture, yet the rancher is locked into this situation, totally dependent on the public range. He can't just walk away if the fee gets too high, and rent pasture elsewhere; there is not sufficient private pasture available,” Thomas wrote.

The new fees imposed upon ranchers in the 90’s were skewed, according to Thomas, because the fee was based on private land lease rates, but private lease rates were high due to the scarce availability of private land and the lack of regulations on private land compared to federally owned land.

Thomas noted the“BLM states that "land treatment solely oriented toward meeting livestock forage requirements will be discontinued". Additionally the reforms have less emphasis on grazing, “yet the BLM wants to charge the rancher more for something that is being made much more difficult to use.”

Before the Babbit rule, fees were based on a formula that reflected annual changes in the costs of production.

“All the legislative history involving FS and BLM fees show that grazing fees were intended to be based on the rancher's ability to pay, not on some arbitrary value of forage or budget needs of the administrative bureau,” Thomas said of the 1978 legislation.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 11:45:56 AM
Wow.... groundbreaking.  A BLM VOLUNTEER blowing a whistle about research he did on the county's public database.  :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised at what "the wind" took out of this video. What it failed to mention was the outlandish prices the BLM paid for some properties, which WDFW have been known to do, and the warning for people to get involved, dig in and find out the reason behind these land buys. It sure as hell isn't about habitat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 01, 2014, 12:06:59 PM
What it failed to mention was the outlandish prices the BLM paid for some properties, which WDFW have been known to do, and the warning for people to get involved, dig in and find out the reason behind these land buys. It sure as hell isn't about habitat.
Yea, I am sure all the hunters on this forum completely agree that we need to dig in and stop the expansion of public land.  I mean you look around everywhere and its like, hey, there are too many places to hunt and fish.  We have way too much access and game to hunt.  I think we can all appreciate how unfortunate it is when you get to a hunting spot and you're the only guy there...it's sad really.  Great point wolfbait...lets get a petition going to sell off public lands and end public hunting...really we shouldn't allow the riff-raff to hunt anyways.   :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 12:25:16 PM
What it failed to mention was the outlandish prices the BLM paid for some properties, which WDFW have been known to do, and the warning for people to get involved, dig in and find out the reason behind these land buys. It sure as hell isn't about habitat.
Yea, I am sure all the hunters on this forum completely agree that we need to dig in and stop the expansion of public land.  I mean you look around everywhere and its like, hey, there are too many places to hunt and fish.  We have way too much access and game to hunt.  I think we can all appreciate how unfortunate it is when you get to a hunting spot and you're the only guy there...it's sad really.  Great point wolfbait...lets get a petition going to sell off public lands and end public hunting...really we shouldn't allow the riff-raff to hunt anyways.   :tup:

We already have wind from WDFW and now more wind from DoW, I knew it wouldn't take too long. I kind of think hunters are starting to understand what protected predators do to their hunting, the more habitat lie just isn't making too many tracks anymore. But like the wind you just keep blowing.

What will the environmentalist and WDFW do with all the land they are buying when all hunting is shut down?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
Public agencies cannot pay more than fair market value.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 12:47:57 PM
Public agencies cannot pay more than fair market value.

Really? The "hippy girls" weren't suppose to release wolves either were they?   Could you do me a favor and ask Fitkin how the wolf relocating is coming along? Or maybe you could tell us? Perhaps you will just take the fifth? More then likely you will post your little tin foil hat pictures like you did in 09.  :rolleyes:

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 01, 2014, 01:18:23 PM
What will the environmentalist and WDFW do with all the land they are buying when all hunting is shut down?
:yeah: Exactly.  We all know hunting will end next year anyways.  Kind of interesting we haven't seen the 2015 regulations yet isn't it??  Its because there is obviously a secret government plan to end ALL hunting.  I haven't even seen 2015 regs for Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, the list could go on...coincidence?? I think not!  It is a good thing guys like you and me are on to these horrible conspiracies.  Obviously once the hunting is shut down the government will use the land to import foreign citizens and the United Nations to build large warehouses to keep all the guns they confiscate from us when Obama is elected to a 3rd term.  Of course all rural living and ranching will be ended so the people have no means of living without government assistance.  Then, with complete control the UN will ship us to feedlots like cattle where we will be continuously monitored and controlled.  :tup:   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 01:27:27 PM
 :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 01, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
Public agencies cannot pay more than fair market value.

Along these lines...

If I were WDFW I would be buying as much land as possible for habitat while they can. It's not a big reach to think that developers will come in and start buying the land at inflated prices in coming years. Especially if high tech wants cheap land near cheap hydro power (you don't see those companies rushing to coal powered states). The weather east of the mountains is a lot more attractive than rain and that isn't going unnoticed either.

Don't believe it? Take a drive down to Bend, OR and see what's happening down there some time and while you're at it compare property prices with those of 3-4 years ago.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 02, 2014, 06:55:09 PM
:chuckle:

Yep thats what I figured, you would just a soon let DoW pack water for you.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 03, 2014, 11:08:01 PM
:chuckle:

Yep thats what I figured, you would just a soon let DoW pack water for you.

Just curious, do you think private land or public land offers the best opportunity for the most hunters?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 04, 2014, 08:10:53 AM
:chuckle:

Yep thats what I figured, you would just a soon let DoW pack water for you.

Just curious, do you think private land or public land offers the best opportunity for the most hunters?

Do you think it matters to wolves? After all throwing the wolves in on top of the rest of WDFW's protected predators is the main problem. When WDFW's prize predators finish up it won't matter whose land it is, they will all be equally bad hunting, if there is hunting at all.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 04, 2014, 07:26:31 PM
So why are you whining so much about the wdfw buying ground, protecting it from development, and opening it to hunting?   Why?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 04, 2014, 10:48:40 PM
So why are you whining so much about the wdfw buying ground, protecting it from development, and opening it to hunting?   Why?

WDFW buying up land has nothing to do with hunting or habitat, which you probably already know. So why do you promote the wolves over hunting? Have you read the book: The Real Wolf, by Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 05, 2014, 12:47:52 AM
So why are you whining so much about the wdfw buying ground, protecting it from development, and opening it to hunting?   Why?

WDFW buying up land has nothing to do with hunting or habitat, which you probably already know. So why do you promote the wolves over hunting? Have you read the book: The Real Wolf, by Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves?

Myself, I've never had a wolf stop me from hunting yet. But I have lost access to hunting from private property owners.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 05, 2014, 06:50:56 AM
Public agencies cannot pay more than fair market value.

Really? The "hippy girls" weren't suppose to release wolves either were they?   Could you do me a favor and ask Fitkin how the wolf relocating is coming along? Or maybe you could tell us? Perhaps you will just take the fifth? More then likely you will post your little tin foil hat pictures like you did in 09.  :rolleyes:


Show me some evidence.  "Hippy Girls" .....  Were those the people that were dumping them from the Schwans truck???? 

How is that big lawsuit coming along?  You were really going after that a while back... what ever came of that?  :)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 05, 2014, 06:54:02 AM
So why are you whining so much about the wdfw buying ground, protecting it from development, and opening it to hunting?   Why?

WDFW buying up land has nothing to do with hunting or habitat, which you probably already know. So why do you promote the wolves over hunting? Have you read the book: The Real Wolf, by Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves?

How does it have nothing to do with hunting or habitat?  They buy land, protect it from development (habitat) then open it to recreation (hunting)... I think it has everything to do with hunting and habitat.  Wolves are pretty rangy animals.  Do you really think the WDFW is trying to buy up wolf habitat??  Where are you going with this argument...please just hurry up and get to your point.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 06, 2014, 08:05:25 AM
So why are you whining so much about the wdfw buying ground, protecting it from development, and opening it to hunting?   Why?

WDFW buying up land has nothing to do with hunting or habitat, which you probably already know. So why do you promote the wolves over hunting? Have you read the book: The Real Wolf, by Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves?

How does it have nothing to do with hunting or habitat?  They buy land, protect it from development (habitat) then open it to recreation (hunting)... I think it has everything to do with hunting and habitat.  Wolves are pretty rangy animals.  Do you really think the WDFW is trying to buy up wolf habitat??  Where are you going with this argument...please just hurry up and get to your point.

Lets look at the evidence, WDFW protect the predators and add another, the Canadian wolves, while having liberal hunting seasons on their prey. WDFW are refusing so far to acknowledge the impacts on the game herds, so as the predator prey base dwindles there is More habitat. WDFW claim they are buying all this land for habitat<Habitat for what? When hunting seasons are finally cut back because of too much pressure from uncontrolled predators, and hunting falls by the way side, what then will WDFW use their purchased lands for?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 06, 2014, 04:41:04 PM
ok- I think I see where you're going with this.  I guess my argument would be that more habitat protected from development and opened to hunting/recreation is a good thing, even if prey species are taking a beating (from hunters and wolves, as stated in your own argument).  The deer/elk have virtually 0% chance of making a living if their habitat is destroyed.  At least, with the habitat protected, they have some opportunity to scratch out a living. 

I do not believe that wolves are going to kill ALL the prey animals.  Wolves are somewhat efficient  predators, but they're not good enough to kill everything.  As prey populations start to decrease, wolf populations will stabilize- see the Druid pack in YS.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 06, 2014, 05:13:39 PM

Lets look at the evidence, WDFW protect the predators and add another, the Canadian wolves, while having liberal hunting seasons on their prey. WDFW are refusing so far to acknowledge the impacts on the game herds, so as the predator prey base dwindles there is More habitat. WDFW claim they are buying all this land for habitat<Habitat for what? When hunting seasons are finally cut back because of too much pressure from uncontrolled predators, and hunting falls by the way side, what then will WDFW use their purchased lands for?
:stup:
Are you seriously on a hunting forum full of mostly DIY public land hunters advocating that public land is a bad thing?  That WDFW or other agencies should not use our sportsmen dollars to purchase land and open it to public hunting?  And your rationale is WDFW must have some unknown secret conspiracy up their sleeve???? 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 06, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
ok- I think I see where you're going with this.  I guess my argument would be that more habitat protected from development and opened to hunting/recreation is a good thing, even if prey species are taking a beating (from hunters and wolves, as stated in your own argument).  The deer/elk have virtually 0% chance of making a living if their habitat is destroyed.  At least, with the habitat protected, they have some opportunity to scratch out a living. 

I do not believe that wolves are going to kill ALL the prey animals.  Wolves are somewhat efficient  predators, but they're not good enough to kill everything.  As prey populations start to decrease, wolf populations will stabilize- see the Druid pack in YS.

Even though you say you have a signed copy of The Real Wolf, my guess is you haven't read any of it, as it would go against everything that Scott Fitkin and DoW proclaim.

So your argument is WDFW should buy up all the land they can to stop people from living on it, ranching, developing it? What will WDFW do with all of this land when there is nothing left to hunt?

You say you don't believe wolves will have a major impact on the game herds but yet, you said that when wolves kill off their prey base they will kill cattle and then move on.

Lets leave the wolves out for a minute and think about the cougars that are out of control, and the bears> How many deer per year does a cougar take? And then bring in wolves that drive them off their kills so they have to make another kill. What is the impact of bears at fawning time? And still the frauds at WDFW claim each dear season is a success for the amount of hunters that showed up>

Read your Signed Copy of The Real Wolf Wacoyote, and tell you friends at WDFW, DoW and CNW to take a flying leap into a pile of fresh wolf scat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 06, 2014, 09:42:42 PM
Easy there wolfbate.  I have read the book and know the argument the authors make.  That doesn't mean I have to believe all of it.

I am as critical of the WDFW as anyone, but I don't think there is any kind of conspiracy going on to lock up land and let all of the wildlife die. Actually, that is kind of a *censored* idea.  I'm not sure how it has taken root.

there are a lot of bears and cougars, but I don't necessarily think they are over populated. Actually, I think the deer and elk are under populated do to habitat constraints.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 09, 2014, 08:06:33 PM
Easy there wolfbate.  I have read the book and know the argument the authors make.  That doesn't mean I have to believe all of it.

I am as critical of the WDFW as anyone, but I don't think there is any kind of conspiracy going on to lock up land and let all of the wildlife die. Actually, that is kind of a *censored* idea.  I'm not sure how it has taken root.

there are a lot of bears and cougars, but I don't necessarily think they are over populated. Actually, I think the deer and elk are under populated do to habitat constraints.

You Critical of WDFW? Funny I have never seen that side of you. You don't think there is plan to let the predators kill off the game herds? Why then does WDFW protect wolves above the USFWS, when after 18 years of the Canadian wolves, everyone knows what wolves do?

You say you don't think cougars are over populated? Are you referring to your area or all of WA? Because we know for a fact that WDFW had 60+ collared cougars in the Methow Valley last winter, and like last year many of the cats that were shot, were not collared.

Each year the cougar problems get worse, so tell me WAcoyote what do you consider an over population of cougars. Is it when the cougars are eating people instead of deer, and dogs etc..

I highly doubt you got past the first page on The Real Wolf, mostly because it does not fit the wolf plan of WDFW.

What will the environmentalist and WDFW do with all the land they are buying when there is not any hunting in those areas? AFter all Wacoyote, you said that when the wolves kill off their prey they will kill cows and then move on.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on May 09, 2014, 08:08:17 PM
They'll build golf courses and condos to fund pay raises.  :)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 09, 2014, 08:22:09 PM
They'll build golf courses and condos to fund pay raises.  :)

Thats about what we would expect from your line of thinking in the past. ;) Hang in there Hoss, just like Hillary, it will come to you some day.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on May 09, 2014, 09:27:23 PM
They'll build golf courses and condos to fund pay raises.  :)

Thats about what we would expect from your line of thinking in the past. ;) Hang in there Hoss, just like Hillary, it will come to you some day.

For you to even comment on someone else's line of thinking is absolutely hilarious, not to mention you obviously don't understand sarcasm and satire.  :)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 10, 2014, 09:36:57 AM
he doesn't understand much, he was run of this forum one other time for personal attacks and all of his conspiracy crap, hopefully it happens again. Sooner rather than later I hope
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 10, 2014, 12:14:42 PM
he doesn't understand much, he was run of this forum one other time for personal attacks and all of his conspiracy crap, hopefully it happens again. Sooner rather than later I hope

I think I have learned my lessons, don't call the agenda driven pro-wolfers names! Even though the pro-wolfers can call those who tell the truth any, and everything they wish. Funny how that works.

With 19 plus years of lies by the environmentalists, USFWS and now WDFW, there really isn't much that isn't known about the fraud and corruption of the Canadian wolf introduction, but just like Benghazi we have people who claim everything is just conspiracies. Yep Wacoyote you are a true winner for WDFW and the environmentalists, you cling to their original lies just like the USFWS, the problem is you were too late in 09 and now in 2014 you are way late. But you just keep beating that :beatdeadhorse: of more habitat, and wolves won't impact the game herds to the point of no hunting> not to many people believe you anymore, but you look good in WDFW's eyes and thats what counts eh.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 10, 2014, 02:04:21 PM
he doesn't understand much, he was run of this forum one other time for personal attacks and all of his conspiracy crap, hopefully it happens again. Sooner rather than later I hope
:chuckle: He does strike me as rather sad and pathetic with all the conspiracy garbage.  I think he realizes that Idaho, Montana, Wyoming have had wolves for 20+years (and only the last 4 with any hunting season on the wolves) yet elk hunting is still superb in most areas of all those states...so "crying wolf" in Washington just doesn't add up...might be some impacted areas but most of our deer and elk herds will do fine...not even a blip on the radar of hunting opportunity...especially if we compare wolves to issues like access!!!!  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigmacc on May 10, 2014, 09:08:55 PM
WOW! How much kool-aid have you drank idahohunter? Not sticken up for wolfbait but you could be close to the edge on your wolf impact theories,i,ve been a little out of touch with the "goin-ons" here but really! You ok? :dunno:....If wolfbait is "sad and pathetic"(as you say) on one side of the coin,some could say the same of you on the flipside ;)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 11, 2014, 02:16:52 PM
WOW! How much kool-aid have you drank idahohunter? Not sticken up for wolfbait but you could be close to the edge on your wolf impact theories,i,ve been a little out of touch with the "goin-ons" here but really! You ok? :dunno:....If wolfbait is "sad and pathetic"(as you say) on one side of the coin,some could say the same of you on the flipside ;)
Yes bigmac, you are correct that you are out of touch if you don't see how vastly different I am from wolfbait.  While folks may disagree with some of my assessments of how wolves have and have not impacted elk in Idaho and other states, my assessments are based on my own personal observations from decades of hunting and are well matched with statements and data provided by professional wildlife managers in Idaho and elsewhere.

With wolfy...you've got black helicopter conspiracies and secret government agents that manage our wildlife as a way to inflict harm upon the general population...so NO, we are not two people on opposite sides of the coin.   :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigmacc on May 11, 2014, 07:01:10 PM
WOW! How much kool-aid have you drank idahohunter? Not sticken up for wolfbait but you could be close to the edge on your wolf impact theories,i,ve been a little out of touch with the "goin-ons" here but really! You ok? :dunno:....If wolfbait is "sad and pathetic"(as you say) on one side of the coin,some could say the same of you on the flipside ;)
Yes bigmac, you are correct that you are out of touch if you don't see how vastly different I am from wolfbait.  While folks may disagree with some of my assessments of how wolves have and have not impacted elk in Idaho and other states, my assessments are based on my own personal observations from decades of hunting and are well matched with statements and data provided by professional wildlife managers in Idaho and elsewhere.

With wolfy...you've got black helicopter conspiracies and secret government agents that manage our wildlife as a way to inflict harm upon the general population...so NO, we are not two people on opposite sides of the coin.   :tup:

Your opinion idahohunter and i respect that.I think you misread my statement and for that i,m sorry for stating it incorrectly.What i meant was i,ve been away from THE SITE for awhile and you as well as wolfbait have some polar opposite views.I,m not out of touch with my observations or reality.Like you and your heritage with Idaho, myself and family have that same heritage here in Washington state,100 years.Ive seen a drastic decline in game  specificly in the areas we hunt and concentrate on,the decline has been noticed the most with mule deer over the last 10 years(because mulies are what we know,hunt and keep journals on),having said that, thru the years (specifically the last 5 to 7 yrs)looking back at journals,scouting trips etc i can tell you predator numbers are up,deer numbers are down in the areas we concentrate on.I am not blaming the decline on wolves specifically but without a doubt they are a part of the equation that were not a part 15 to 20 years ago.I,ve seen the ebb and flow of deer numbers and head counts after harsh winters,the effects of fires and human settlement over the years and the herd always manages to bounce back in time.The overabundance and growing predator numbers that so far are going unchecked and not seriously being addressed i fear will be a foe and circumstance that will be the one curveball the herd wont be able to hit. During 3 spring scouting trips this year we observed 5 cougars(and those 5 were during just one of the trips!)We seen numerous bear and although we did not SEE a wolf we did see sign of them.I will tell you our family has documented these scouting trips for years going back to the 1920,s.We have many bear sightings(but not as many as we,ve had in the last 10 years) and the 2 observations that stick out the most are 5 cougar observations in a 4 day period(going back 40 years we had a total of eight) and the most wolf sign we,ve seen to date! Deer numbers have continued to decline,especially over the last 10 years.I,m no rocket scientist and dont claim to be one,i know mule deer,thats it.You are on one side of the coin and wolfbait is on the other. I do agree with wolfbaits concerns of predators that are out of control because i see the impact also.From one hunter to another,with all due respect....Shoot straight and good luck in the field.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 11, 2014, 09:42:13 PM
I'm not sure why you are describing your predator sightings???  You seem to have this notion that I haven't observed predators causing declines or that I have ever suggested predators can't cause declines in deer and elk...otherwise I'm not really sure why in the heck you just described all of your family sightings  :dunno: I would also add that where I live in Washington I have seen exponentially more cougars and bears than anywhere I hunted in Idaho...I also see exponentially more deer and elk too.    :yike:

If all wolfy did was raise concerns about predator numbers that would be one thing...but he advocates against public lands, against science based wildlife management, against pretty much every and any government regulation or agency, and he does it all with twisted conspiracies and made up bs.  If you and your family have hunted public lands in Washington (maybe not, maybe you are fortunate and your family has hundreds of thousands of acres of private land  :dunno: ) then people with views like wolfys should terrify the hell out of you. I mean seriously, who in their right mind thinks we have too much access and land to hunt in Washington?????   :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 11, 2014, 09:52:03 PM
I'm not sure why you are describing your predator sightings???  You seem to have this notion that I haven't observed predators causing declines or that I have ever suggested predators can't cause declines in deer and elk...otherwise I'm not really sure why in the heck you just described all of your family sightings  :dunno: I would also add that where I live in Washington I have seen exponentially more cougars and bears than anywhere I hunted in Idaho...I also see exponentially more deer and elk too.    :yike:

If all wolfy did was raise concerns about predator numbers that would be one thing...but he advocates against public lands, against science based wildlife management, against pretty much every and any government regulation or agency, and he does it all with twisted conspiracies and made up bs.  If you and your family have hunted public lands in Washington (maybe not, maybe you are fortunate and your family has hundreds of thousands of acres of private land  :dunno: ) then people with views like wolfys should terrify the hell out of you. I mean seriously, who in their right mind thinks we have too much access and land to hunt in Washington?????   :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Did you write this by yourself ID? :chuckle: :chuckle: What will WDFW and the environmentalists do with all the land they are buying once hunting is curtailed? Wildlife Corridors?  Is that a fake mad you have going on, or do you really care about hunting? Because if you cared about hunting you wouldn't try to claim the wolves won't ruin hunting in WA. and that everything will be fine. Compare Idaho to the size of WA, compare the human population and what Idaho had in game herds before the wolf introduction.  Then look at WDFW's wolf plan, and the fact that WA has no trapping, and no hound hunting for controlling cougars or bears. Then look at WDFW's efforts so far with confirming wolf packs and wolf predation on livestock.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 11, 2014, 10:02:08 PM
Well, as long as we continue to keep crackpots like you far away from any control or influence on the management of wildlife I do not see hunting being "curtailed" so I guess hunters like me will just continue to hunt deer and elk on public land.

But you keep up that sad and pathetic line about how having more public land to hunt is bad for public land hunters...it fits you well  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 11, 2014, 10:10:21 PM
Well, as long as we continue to keep crackpots like you far away from any control or influence on the management of wildlife I do not see hunting being "curtailed" so I guess hunters like me will just continue to hunt deer and elk on public land.

But you keep up that sad and pathetic line about how having more public land to hunt is bad for public land hunters...it fits you well  :tup:

I have never said having public lands for hunting is bad, thats all you. ;) My guess is you don't like the questions of why so much land is being bought up by environmentalists and WDFW, when wolves and other predators are making more habitat by killing off the game herds. The habitat argument does not fly too well anymore.

You should just pick out a name you want to call me and stick to it, you seem like you are sort of rattled when you jump around from one name to another so much. :chuckle: Maybe you should get out and go for a walk, work some of that anger off?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 11, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
Its real simple...you advocate against public lands.  That is not conducive to public land hunters like myself.  You try to couch public lands in a negative light by implying that government agencies will use them for some unstated, but negative reason. 

I can tell you one thing...predators in some areas  reduce the prey numbers and make hunting more challenging to some.  But when a private owner locks the gates and puts up no trespassing signs it doesn't really matter how much game is on the land now does it wolfy  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 11, 2014, 10:48:30 PM
Because if you cared about hunting you wouldn't try to claim the wolves won't ruin hunting in WA. and that everything will be fine. Compare Idaho to the size of WA, compare the human population and what Idaho had in game herds before the wolf introduction.  Then look at WDFW's wolf plan, and the fact that WA has no trapping, and no hound hunting for controlling cougars or bears. Then look at WDFW's efforts so far with confirming wolf packs and wolf predation on livestock.
oh wolfy, tell me again how there is no elk hunting in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming nearly 20 years after wolves were introduced?  Just like those states, there will be areas in Washington that may experience reductions, but there will not be some wholesale end to hunting as you like to preach about.  Given that you only hunt rattlesnakes and gophers I can see why you are so clueless.  :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: How did you do on your rattlesnake/gopher combo hunt btw...were you able to bag some big ones??? Go get 'em little buddy.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 05:31:06 AM
Since the beginning of the wolf issue on W-H, the agenda driven pro-wolfers have touted more habitat is needed, my question is, why haven't they ever been for better predator control and more hunting to control game herds. Why is there such a push for more habitat? And now I wonder why they are pushing back so hard on questions concerning the use of public lands when hunting petters out?

ID do you think there will ever be public trapping or public hunting with hounds to control cougars/bears in WA? Idaho uses all three methods to control predators. Maybe you could explain to me why you think WA won't see a huge impact on its game herds with out of control predators? Wacoyote doesn't seem to think WA has a cougar problem yet either, even though some counties are showing increasing cougar problems each year. Do you think it has to do with wolves driving the cats down, or is it because there are just too many cougars. Maybe not enough game for the amount of predators WA now has.

How long will it take for WDFW to recognize the predator problems, will WA end up looking like the Lolo elk herd? Will WDFW suddenly leap to their feet with amazement and claim it's climate change?

In addition to reducing wolf predation, Fish and Game offers extra tags and longer seasons for black bears and mountain lions - other predators affecting the Middle Fork elk population.  http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153067.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153067.0.html)

Can you see the difference between IDFG and WDFW wildlife management practices ID?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2014, 06:29:43 AM
Since the beginning of the wolf issue on W-H, the agenda driven pro-wolfers have touted more habitat is needed, my question is, why haven't they ever been for better predator control and more hunting to control game herds. Why is there such a push for more habitat? And now I wonder why they are pushing back so hard on questions concerning the use of public lands when hunting petters out?

ID do you think there will ever be public trapping or public hunting with hounds to control cougars/bears in WA? Idaho uses all three methods to control predators. Maybe you could explain to me why you think WA won't see a huge impact on its game herds with out of control predators? Wacoyote doesn't seem to think WA has a cougar problem yet either, even though some counties are showing increasing cougar problem each year. Do you think it has to do with wolves driving the cats down, or is it because there are just too many cougars. Maybe not enough game for the amount of predators WA now has.

How long will it take for WDFW to recognize the predator problems, will WA end up looking like the Lolo elk herd? Will WDFW suddenly leap to their feet with amazement and claim it's climate change?

Again, you can't expect WDFW to do bring back trapping and hound hunting when the people at the ballot box made it illegal. The people of Idaho never did that.

You need to depart your small world and convince the general public and not just people on hunting forums. You also need to stop with the conspiracy theories, the people who matter aren't buying it and in fact you're arguably hurting the predator management cause with it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 06:39:00 AM
Since the beginning of the wolf issue on W-H, the agenda driven pro-wolfers have touted more habitat is needed, my question is, why haven't they ever been for better predator control and more hunting to control game herds. Why is there such a push for more habitat? And now I wonder why they are pushing back so hard on questions concerning the use of public lands when hunting petters out?

ID do you think there will ever be public trapping or public hunting with hounds to control cougars/bears in WA? Idaho uses all three methods to control predators. Maybe you could explain to me why you think WA won't see a huge impact on its game herds with out of control predators? Wacoyote doesn't seem to think WA has a cougar problem yet either, even though some counties are showing increasing cougar problem each year. Do you think it has to do with wolves driving the cats down, or is it because there are just too many cougars. Maybe not enough game for the amount of predators WA now has.

How long will it take for WDFW to recognize the predator problems, will WA end up looking like the Lolo elk herd? Will WDFW suddenly leap to their feet with amazement and claim it's climate change?

Again, you can't expect WDFW to do bring back trapping and hound hunting when the people at the ballot box made it illegal. The people of Idaho never did that.

You need to depart your small world and convince the general public and not just people on hunting forums. You also need to stop with the conspiracy theories, the people who matter aren't buying it and in fact you're arguably hurting the predator management cause with it.

I'm sure if WDFW really wanted to "manage" predators more efficiently they could. You say I am hurting the predator management cause, do I have that much pull with WDFW? :chuckle:

What conspiracy theories? I ask what will WDFW and the environmentalists do with all the land they are buying when uncontrolled predators curtail hunting. It's a question, A-bud. ;)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 12, 2014, 07:55:18 AM
I generally pull my weight as far as predator management goes.  When wolf hunting is allowed I'll be the first to go after them (I already do in ID).  I agree that WDFW has taken a really conservative approach for predator management.  The cougar management is total nonsense, and bears are probably plentiful enough for a general spring season. 

I'm still a little confused why wildlife corridors or public lands for habitat are a bad thing?  Wildlife needs habitat just like hunters need habitat, what is the conspiracy all about?

The WDFW isn't closing down the ground they purchase.  You keep talking about "ALL THE LAND THEY BUY".... how much is it?  How many acres have they purchased in the last few years?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on May 12, 2014, 08:02:23 AM
There's tons of areas in National Forests and Wilderness areas for animals to escape human activity.....those are their corridors...........large blocks of land with that being part of the original concept.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on May 12, 2014, 08:04:37 AM
All the summer range in the world is useless without unfragmented migration corridors and winter range.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 12, 2014, 08:11:51 AM
wolfy I'm not against predator management.  I am against anybody or anyone that advocates against public lands.  Just like Id, Mt, Wy...Washington- even without wolf trapping/hunting will not see some statewide decimation of deer and elk.  There have been wolves down in SE wa for years, yet there are still large deer and elk herds.  Even if wolf numbers increase there will still be lots of deer and elk hunting...in fact, down in SE where public land is very limited its not running out of game that concerns me...its running out of places to hunt that will cause the demise of hunting!   

Aspen is spot on...not you individually wolfy, but the many folks like you running around with your conspiracy theories and crazy talk is the most detrimental thing to hunting in washington.  You just don't understand the politics of washington.  If guys like aspen and wacoyote and jls were who all those west siders saw/heard when they went to the ballot box we probably would still have hound hunting/baiting in WA...sadly its always the crazies who get the press and so its wolfy type folks who those non-hunting voters see and hear before they vote  :yike: 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on May 12, 2014, 08:30:41 AM
All the summer range in the world is useless without unfragmented migration corridors and winter range.

Thats it in a nutshell......go with Agenda 21 and move everyone out of rural areas....almost all of historic winter range is full of ranches and homes.....and worse.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on May 12, 2014, 08:33:13 AM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I certainly don't see it as Agenda 21.  I don't see any push to move people out of these areas.  Rather, I see an attempt to maintain at least some of the integrity of these wintering areas. 

The tactics of WDFW are no different than those of Montana FWP, Idaho F&G, Wyoming G&F, and the RMEF.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 12, 2014, 08:35:41 AM
Good grief...  :rolleyes:
 

Thats it in a nutshell......go with Agenda 21 and move everyone out of rural areas....almost all of historic winter range is full of ranches and homes.....and worse.

Is that what you think the WDFW buying a piece of winter habitat is about???  Did they kick the families off of it (no..) did they claim imminent domain??  (no...)

At some point, hunters are going to have to decide how important their sport (lifestyle) is to them.  If they are "anti habitat protection" they are putting themselves and the rest of us out of business.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2014, 08:56:09 AM
Since the beginning of the wolf issue on W-H, the agenda driven pro-wolfers have touted more habitat is needed, my question is, why haven't they ever been for better predator control and more hunting to control game herds. Why is there such a push for more habitat? And now I wonder why they are pushing back so hard on questions concerning the use of public lands when hunting petters out?

ID do you think there will ever be public trapping or public hunting with hounds to control cougars/bears in WA? Idaho uses all three methods to control predators. Maybe you could explain to me why you think WA won't see a huge impact on its game herds with out of control predators? Wacoyote doesn't seem to think WA has a cougar problem yet either, even though some counties are showing increasing cougar problem each year. Do you think it has to do with wolves driving the cats down, or is it because there are just too many cougars. Maybe not enough game for the amount of predators WA now has.

How long will it take for WDFW to recognize the predator problems, will WA end up looking like the Lolo elk herd? Will WDFW suddenly leap to their feet with amazement and claim it's climate change?

Again, you can't expect WDFW to do bring back trapping and hound hunting when the people at the ballot box made it illegal. The people of Idaho never did that.

You need to depart your small world and convince the general public and not just people on hunting forums. You also need to stop with the conspiracy theories, the people who matter aren't buying it and in fact you're arguably hurting the predator management cause with it.

I'm sure if WDFW really wanted to "manage" predators more efficiently they could. You say I am hurting the predator management cause, do I have that much pull with WDFW? :chuckle:

What conspiracy theories? I ask what will WDFW and the environmentalists do with all the land they are buying when uncontrolled predators curtail hunting. It's a question, A-bud. ;)

I'm pretty sure the people of Washington tied the state's hands on trapping and the use of hounds at the ballot box. If you want that changed, bring it back to the ballot box for repeal. You might have success. Things would change real quick if it passed.

As for land acquisitions, would you rather it be land developers who put in subdivisions? If you think you'll have no hunting with WDFW acquisitions I can assure you that you'll have even less opportunity once developers are done with it, no wolves necessary, just some bulldozers and concrete.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2014, 08:58:29 AM
All the summer range in the world is useless without unfragmented migration corridors and winter range.

Thats it in a nutshell......go with Agenda 21 and move everyone out of rural areas....almost all of historic winter range is full of ranches and homes.....and worse.

And new developments and ranchets go in every year, that trend will increase as the population of this country grows.

Agenda 21 = cuckoo conspiracy theory
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Jrzbullelk on May 12, 2014, 09:17:16 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.

What I see here is a double standard. You go railing against wolves and belly ache about how it is supposed end to all hunting and then turn around and effectively say "the hell with upland birds if it messes with my land or grazing rights." Upland bird hunters talk about hunting sage grouse and prairie chickens because they don't know how much longer they'll be able to. Why? Because their habitat is disappearing thanks to development and the grazing practices of some ranchers on leases further degrades what's there. To be fair, a number of ranchers have gotten religion and started working with people trying to save the birds, but for anyone to single out these birds, birds that people like to hunt, because it interferes with their property rights just tells me that they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.

Well, there's no double-standard in this thread that I can see. No one's talking about upland birds except for you, so that's way out of left field. And, since it sounds like you don't know the facts, I'll give one to you; licensed hunters have NEVER caused the extinction of an animal in the US, ever. So, have your rant that has nothing to do with anyone at all. We'll go back to talking about greenies who are using the ESA to forward their extreme agendas.
Passanger Pigeon maybe  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2014, 09:37:37 AM

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.


Like I said Wolfbait, where were you before the wolf? You don't give one hoot about "the end of hunting" unless it applies to the animals you like to hunt.

Actually Aspenbud, I didn't know too much about the ESA until the wolves, since then I have learned quite a bit as have several others. I guess the fraud of the wolf introduction has alerted several about the ESA, EPA, DOE and the crooks that run them.

What we are seeing here on W-H are those who support crooks also support the wolves that were Illegally introduced. My guess is you know right from wrong, but the agenda and $$$$ means more.

What I see here is a double standard. You go railing against wolves and belly ache about how it is supposed end to all hunting and then turn around and effectively say "the hell with upland birds if it messes with my land or grazing rights." Upland bird hunters talk about hunting sage grouse and prairie chickens because they don't know how much longer they'll be able to. Why? Because their habitat is disappearing thanks to development and the grazing practices of some ranchers on leases further degrades what's there. To be fair, a number of ranchers have gotten religion and started working with people trying to save the birds, but for anyone to single out these birds, birds that people like to hunt, because it interferes with their property rights just tells me that they don't really care about what happens to hunting. They care about their pocket book or political ideology.

Well, there's no double-standard in this thread that I can see. No one's talking about upland birds except for you, so that's way out of left field. And, since it sounds like you don't know the facts, I'll give one to you; licensed hunters have NEVER caused the extinction of an animal in the US, ever. So, have your rant that has nothing to do with anyone at all. We'll go back to talking about greenies who are using the ESA to forward their extreme agendas.
Passanger Pigeon maybe  :dunno:

While hunting certainly played a role in their demise, so did habitat destruction and it's important to remember that most, if not all, of the damage from hunting was done back when market hunting was allowed, licenses weren't sold, and seasons didn't really exist.

I believe what P-man is referring to is that since hunting seasons were put in place, as well as bag limits and requiring the purchase of licenses, no animal has been led to extinction in the US as a result of hunting.

If anything the American system of game management with regards to hunting is one of the most successful on the planet.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
wolfy I'm not against predator management.  I am against anybody or anyone that advocates against public lands.  Just like Id, Mt, Wy...Washington- even without wolf trapping/hunting will not see some statewide decimation of deer and elk.  There have been wolves down in SE wa for years, yet there are still large deer and elk herds.  Even if wolf numbers increase there will still be lots of deer and elk hunting...in fact, down in SE where public land is very limited its not running out of game that concerns me...its running out of places to hunt that will cause the demise of hunting!   

Aspen is spot on...not you individually wolfy, but the many folks like you running around with your conspiracy theories and crazy talk is the most detrimental thing to hunting in washington.  You just don't understand the politics of washington.  If guys like aspen and wacoyote and jls were who all those west siders saw/heard when they went to the ballot box we probably would still have hound hunting/baiting in WA...sadly its always the crazies who get the press and so its wolfy type folks who those non-hunting voters see and hear before they vote  :yike:

What happened to the sad and pathetic crackpot? It's kind of entertaining watching you three twist in the wind. :tup: Keep it up, it makes everything easier for me.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: buckfvr on May 12, 2014, 11:42:08 AM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I certainly don't see it as Agenda 21.  I don't see any push to move people out of these areas.  Rather, I see an attempt to maintain at least some of the integrity of these wintering areas. 

The tactics of WDFW are no different than those of Montana FWP, Idaho F&G, Wyoming G&F, and the RMEF.

No....Im agreeing with habitat loss being a very serious problem with far reaching effects, now and in the future. 

The reference to agenda 21 was to promote thought about how some think it can be turned around by forcing folks to move out of the rural areas.  Yes its whacko.....as is much of the other stuff about this agenda and that. 

Like it or not, head way is being made in the pursuit of the green agenda, which overlaps a lot of other so called conspiracy theories. 

Just sayin...its always prudent to listen/read what others have to say or think.....Then dismiss it..... :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 12:07:49 PM
WA does not need any corridors, WDFW needs to manage predators like they do the game herds, have liberal hunting seasons on them with multiple tags-IDFG-now realize they don't have a habitat problem they have a predator problem.

My guess is when the predators put the game herds in a predator pit the environmentalists-WDFW will insist that it is because there are no corridors. Which is total BS, because WA now has more habitat then it did before WDFW started the protection of predators. After seeing WDFW's wolf plan anyone should be able to see the connection.

I'm sure ID, and his followers will jump on this as more conspiracy theories. It does not surprise me at all, as I have seen them do the same when anyone mentions the USFWS and WDFW planting wolves.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 12, 2014, 12:36:44 PM
WA does not need any corridors, WDFW needs to manage predators like they do the game herds, have liberal hunting seasons on them with multiple tags-IDFG-now realize they don't have a habitat problem they have a predator problem.

My guess is when the predators put the game herds in a predator pit the environmentalists-WDFW will insist that it is because there are no corridors. Which is total BS, because WA now has more habitat then it did before WDFW started protection predators. After seeing WDFW's wolf plan anyone should be able to see the connection.

I'm sure ID, and his followers will jump on this as more conspiracy theories. It does not surprise me at all, as I have seen them do the same when anyone mentions the USFWS and WDFW planting wolves.
wolfy-go read bearpaws link on IDFG elk management plan regarding the lolo herd.  they state they have predator AND habitat problems very clearly.  If you don't think there are habitat issues in the lolo you are clueless.

And yes, wolfy, you are spouting more conspiracy bs.  WDFW has never transplanted wolves.  They migrated in naturally from Idaho and neighboring states.  This is just another one of your perpetual lies for which you can only explain through massive cover-up and conspiracy because there is not one shred of evidence that wdfw transplanted any wolves.  It didn't happen...get over it and go back to figuring out where they are hiding the aliens at area 51 or whatever it is you do when your not on this forum lying about wolves.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 03:49:31 PM
WA does not need any corridors, WDFW needs to manage predators like they do the game herds, have liberal hunting seasons on them with multiple tags-IDFG-now realize they don't have a habitat problem they have a predator problem.

My guess is when the predators put the game herds in a predator pit the environmentalists-WDFW will insist that it is because there are no corridors. Which is total BS, because WA now has more habitat then it did before WDFW started protection predators. After seeing WDFW's wolf plan anyone should be able to see the connection.

I'm sure ID, and his followers will jump on this as more conspiracy theories. It does not surprise me at all, as I have seen them do the same when anyone mentions the USFWS and WDFW planting wolves.
wolfy-go read bearpaws link on IDFG elk management plan regarding the lolo herd.  they state they have predator AND habitat problems very clearly.  If you don't think there are habitat issues in the lolo you are clueless.

And yes, wolfy, you are spouting more conspiracy bs.  WDFW has never transplanted wolves.  They migrated in naturally from Idaho and neighboring states.  This is just another one of your perpetual lies for which you can only explain through massive cover-up and conspiracy because there is not one shred of evidence that wdfw transplanted any wolves.  It didn't happen...get over it and go back to figuring out where they are hiding the aliens at area 51 or whatever it is you do when your not on this forum lying about wolves.

19000 head of elk in the Yellowstone before the wolf introduction, slaughtered down to 4000 by 2010. Was it habitat or wolves? or climate change?  I would think even someone as quick as you are can figure out what the changed was.

And as you and WDFW claim all the wolves migrated into WA, trotted through several miles of prime elk country to settle a few miles out of Twisp WA. Yep, Yep, Yep. Nothing slow about you at all.  :chuckle: :chuckle: all day long.


So it is corridors that WDFW and the environmentalists have planned for WA?  Are they buying up special chunks to connect others with?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2014, 03:55:18 PM
WA does not need any corridors, WDFW needs to manage predators like they do the game herds, have liberal hunting seasons on them with multiple tags-IDFG-now realize they don't have a habitat problem they have a predator problem.

My guess is when the predators put the game herds in a predator pit the environmentalists-WDFW will insist that it is because there are no corridors. Which is total BS, because WA now has more habitat then it did before WDFW started protection predators. After seeing WDFW's wolf plan anyone should be able to see the connection.

I'm sure ID, and his followers will jump on this as more conspiracy theories. It does not surprise me at all, as I have seen them do the same when anyone mentions the USFWS and WDFW planting wolves.
wolfy-go read bearpaws link on IDFG elk management plan regarding the lolo herd.  they state they have predator AND habitat problems very clearly.  If you don't think there are habitat issues in the lolo you are clueless.

And yes, wolfy, you are spouting more conspiracy bs.  WDFW has never transplanted wolves.  They migrated in naturally from Idaho and neighboring states.  This is just another one of your perpetual lies for which you can only explain through massive cover-up and conspiracy because there is not one shred of evidence that wdfw transplanted any wolves.  It didn't happen...get over it and go back to figuring out where they are hiding the aliens at area 51 or whatever it is you do when your not on this forum lying about wolves.

19000 head of elk in the Yellowstone before the wolf introduction, slaughtered down to 4000 by 2010. Was it habitat or wolves? or climate change?  I would think even someone as quick as you are can figure out what the changed was.

And as you and WDFW claim all the wolves migrated into WA, trotted through several miles of prime elk country to settle a few miles out of Twisp WA. Yep, Yep, Yep. Nothing slow about you at all.  :chuckle: :chuckle: all day long.

Those elk in Yellowstone were going to die one way or another be it by expanded hunting or by wolves. That was always intended and never a secret.

You like to post up this article and that article quite frequently about how far wolves travel and how quickly they reproduce and yet you want to act surprised that they are in Twisp? That people just had to drop them off? Give me a break.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2014, 04:03:37 PM
WA does not need any corridors, WDFW needs to manage predators like they do the game herds, have liberal hunting seasons on them with multiple tags-IDFG-now realize they don't have a habitat problem they have a predator problem.

My guess is when the predators put the game herds in a predator pit the environmentalists-WDFW will insist that it is because there are no corridors. Which is total BS, because WA now has more habitat then it did before WDFW started protection predators. After seeing WDFW's wolf plan anyone should be able to see the connection.

I'm sure ID, and his followers will jump on this as more conspiracy theories. It does not surprise me at all, as I have seen them do the same when anyone mentions the USFWS and WDFW planting wolves.
wolfy-go read bearpaws link on IDFG elk management plan regarding the lolo herd.  they state they have predator AND habitat problems very clearly.  If you don't think there are habitat issues in the lolo you are clueless.

And yes, wolfy, you are spouting more conspiracy bs.  WDFW has never transplanted wolves.  They migrated in naturally from Idaho and neighboring states.  This is just another one of your perpetual lies for which you can only explain through massive cover-up and conspiracy because there is not one shred of evidence that wdfw transplanted any wolves.  It didn't happen...get over it and go back to figuring out where they are hiding the aliens at area 51 or whatever it is you do when your not on this forum lying about wolves.

19000 head of elk in the Yellowstone before the wolf introduction, slaughtered down to 4000 by 2010. Was it habitat or wolves? or climate change?  I would think even someone as quick as you are can figure out what the changed was.

And as you and WDFW claim all the wolves migrated into WA, trotted through several miles of prime elk country to settle a few miles out of Twisp WA. Yep, Yep, Yep. Nothing slow about you at all.  :chuckle: :chuckle: all day long.

Those elk in Yellowstone were going to die one way or another be it by expanded hunting or by wolves. That was always intended and never a secret.

You like to post up this article and that article quite frequently about how far wolves travel and how quickly they reproduce and yet you want to act surprised that they are in Twisp? That people just had to drop them off? Give me a break.

Release and Discover.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on May 12, 2014, 08:52:30 PM
"WDFW has never transplanted wolves." :yike:

Call me a skeptic, but after living and working in the Methow for 30+ years and knowing some of the "goings on" I would disagree with the above quote.

I'll say this,  Its nice to know "people" who work and live in the "outdoors" NOT just on a 9 to 5 , Monday thru Friday routine!!  and have eye's and ear's :chuckle:   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 12, 2014, 09:11:26 PM
perfect, all we need is one of those people to come forward with any shred of actual evidence having to do with a wolf release in Washington.

strangely that has not happened yet
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigmacc on May 12, 2014, 09:25:47 PM
"WDFW has never transplanted wolves." :yike:

Call me a skeptic, but after living and working in the Methow for 30+ years and knowing some of the "goings on" I would disagree with the above quote.

I'll say this,  Its nice to know "people" who work and live in the "outdoors" NOT just on a 9 to 5 , Monday thru Friday routine!!  and have eye's and ear's :chuckle:   

I tend to kind of agree with the "call me a skeptic" part of this post.We have known alot of good fish and game guys thru the years and most were good game guys and good stewards of our fish and game and a few were not(INMHO).Most are retired now and there are some good ones still doing as best job they can.The "skeptical" part for me comes from one simple event that hapened in 1972 or 73?...My dad and i were over at Roses lake on a very cold december wkend doing some ice fishing when we decided to take a drive and look for deer,we drove as far up the swakane as we could in a 72 ford bronco and when we decided to go no farther,ahead of us about 2 to 3 city blocks we seen 3 vehicles parked with one of them being a box truck,while we were stopped my dad put the binos on the congregation of rigs just as about 7 or 8 bighorns spilled and scattered out of the box truck.We were noticed by the group of biologists and game guys and they were on us pretty quickly.In a nutshell we were basically told "we didnt see anything".So i guess thats where some of my skeptisism comes from when the questions arise of how the wolf got here.Maybe planted? maybe migrated? or possibly a little of both :dunno:.All i know is they are here and there needs to be a plan thats fair and balanced for all concerned :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 12, 2014, 09:51:41 PM
"WDFW has never transplanted wolves." :yike:

Call me a skeptic, but after living and working in the Methow for 30+ years and knowing some of the "goings on" I would disagree with the above quote.

I'll say this,  Its nice to know "people" who work and live in the "outdoors" NOT just on a 9 to 5 , Monday thru Friday routine!!  and have eye's and ear's :chuckle:   
You have got to be a special kind of stupid to think wdfw planted wolves.  Why doesn't somebody provide one shred of credible evidence to support this?  Oh thats right...none exists.   :mor: :stup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2014, 05:24:40 AM
"WDFW has never transplanted wolves." :yike:

Call me a skeptic, but after living and working in the Methow for 30+ years and knowing some of the "goings on" I would disagree with the above quote.

I'll say this,  Its nice to know "people" who work and live in the "outdoors" NOT just on a 9 to 5 , Monday thru Friday routine!!  and have eye's and ear's :chuckle:   

I tend to kind of agree with the "call me a skeptic" part of this post.We have known alot of good fish and game guys thru the years and most were good game guys and good stewards of our fish and game and a few were not(INMHO).Most are retired now and there are some good ones still doing as best job they can.The "skeptical" part for me comes from one simple event that hapened in 1972 or 73?...My dad and i were over at Roses lake on a very cold december wkend doing some ice fishing when we decided to take a drive and look for deer,we drove as far up the swakane as we could in a 72 ford bronco and when we decided to go no farther,ahead of us about 2 to 3 city blocks we seen 3 vehicles parked with one of them being a box truck,while we were stopped my dad put the binos on the congregation of rigs just as about 7 or 8 bighorns spilled and scattered out of the box truck.We were noticed by the group of biologists and game guys and they were on us pretty quickly.In a nutshell we were basically told "we didnt see anything".So i guess thats where some of my skeptisism comes from when the questions arise of how the wolf got here.Maybe planted? maybe migrated? or possibly a little of both :dunno:.All i know is they are here and there needs to be a plan thats fair and balanced for all concerned :twocents:

In 2009 a UPS driver watched a wolf release in the Methow Valley by the USFWS-WDFW, he said a USFWS agent came up to him and shook his finger at him and told him you didn't see what you thought you saw. The UPS driver said BS. A week later this driver was transferred to a new route.

Just like the rest of the fraud in the wolf introduction that has surfaced, the releases by the USFWS and state game agencies will also at some point become public knowledge, and like the rest of the fraud no one will ever be held accountable. Ed Bangs planted wolves in parts of Idaho they weren't suppose to be, when he was caught he said they had to plant them there. I wonder if WDFW will offer up the same excuse when their releases become public knowledge.

Sounds kind of like WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up land for connective corridors, makes sense. Looking at their "ESA" wild lands plan, they don't say anything about hunting thirty years down the road.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 13, 2014, 05:46:06 AM
So the way you figure it, the WDFW is trying to stop hunting? Considering that is their primary revenue source, what would be their motivation? 

I don't believe the state, or the feds are organized enough to pull off an introduction without everyone knowing.
 Furthermore, I believe if they had introduced they would have Been pounding their chest about it because more people are in favor of wolves than oppose them.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 13, 2014, 06:05:31 AM

In 2009 a UPS driver watched a wolf release in the Methow Valley by the USFWS-WDFW, he said a USFWS agent came up to him and shook his finger at him and told him you didn't see what you thought you saw. The UPS driver said BS. A week later this driver was transferred to a new route.

 :lol4:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2014, 08:05:15 AM

In 2009 a UPS driver watched a wolf release in the Methow Valley by the USFWS-WDFW, he said a USFWS agent came up to him and shook his finger at him and told him you didn't see what you thought you saw. The UPS driver said BS. A week later this driver was transferred to a new route.

 :lol4:
So now UPS and WDFW are in cahoots on wolf transplants eh?   :chuckle:  Just when I thought we had hit rock bottom it gets better.  Gosh, I just saw a fed ex truck by my house last night...I wonder if he was delivering a pack of wolves for wdfw??   :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2014, 08:28:04 AM
In 2009 a UPS driver watched a wolf release in the Methow Valley by the USFWS-WDFW, he said a USFWS agent came up to him and shook his finger at him and told him you didn't see what you thought you saw. The UPS driver said BS. A week later this driver was transferred to a new route.

But wait, wolves are supposed to be breeding at an out of control rate and the states not even know how many of them are running around out there, hunting can't hold them back, and every animal in nature, and I mean every animal, is getting eaten up....now you're telling me they needed to release them when they were plainly in Idaho already and breeding like bunnies?    :lol4:

Are you on meds?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on May 13, 2014, 09:40:57 AM
I've always assumed the wolves I saw in 1992 came down from Canada.  What are the chances they were transplants?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on May 13, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
"Why doesn't somebody provide one shred of credible evidence to support this? "

I could supply the fellas name, but he wants to retire first and there is no "Whistle blowers" protection to TRUST!!

Get over it!

Who drives dark green state pickups and wears uniforms??? :IBCOOL:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2014, 03:08:20 PM
I've always assumed the wolves I saw in 1992 came down from Canada.  What are the chances they were transplants?


In the early 1990's I was cruising timber for the USFS, we started seeing wolves and they said it was a hush deal as the wolves were planted. I think they told Bone the same thing.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2014, 03:22:28 PM
"Why doesn't somebody provide one shred of credible evidence to support this? "

I could supply the fellas name, but he wants to retire first and there is no "Whistle blowers" protection to TRUST!!

Get over it!

Who drives dark green state pickups and wears uniforms??? :IBCOOL:

I agree, thats why I have no doubt that the USFWS and WDFW's wolf releases will become public at some point in the future.  I talk to a county Commissioner a few years ago and told him of wolf releases I knew about in the Methow and he told me about some he knew of, he also said without photos or video it would be a very hard deal in court. There have been several sightings of wolves being released by WDFW in WA in the last ten years, and of course WDFW laugh it off, and others try to discredit everyone who brings it up. At this point I don't suppose it really matters anymore, what matters is getting control of an out of control wolf population before WA ends up in worse shape then the Yellowstone elk herds.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2014, 03:31:07 PM
So the way you figure it, the WDFW is trying to stop hunting? Considering that is their primary revenue source, what would be their motivation? 

I don't believe the state, or the feds are organized enough to pull off an introduction without everyone knowing.
 Furthermore, I believe if they had introduced they would have Been pounding their chest about it because more people are in favor of wolves than oppose them.

WDFWD are protecting predators instead of controlling them, it seems that if they were worried about their "funding" they would be controlling predators. If you read back in this thread WC I think you will find where environmentalists and WDFW are pushing for federal spending to fund WDFW in the future, you know their "ESA" wild lands project, where they protect wolves over the USFWS.

"I don't believe the state, or the feds are organized enough to pull off an introduction without everyone knowing".


There are several who know what has happened WC, don't kid yourself.

 "I believe if they had introduced they would have Been pounding their chest"

That would kind of ruin their "migration" lie wouldn't? I'm not worried about the truth coming out in the future WC, just like the rest of the lies that have been told by agenda driven wolf promoters in the last 19 plus years, this to will be exposed. How could the USFWS say that a mating pair of wolves traveled hundreds of miles through the best elk etc. habitat to set up camp a few miles from Twisp, if everyone knew they were planted. How could they also claim the same for many other states where wolves mysteriously appear. The USFWS have to keep their migration lie going as long as they can.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 14, 2014, 06:13:20 AM

 I'm not worried about the truth coming out in the future WC, just like the rest of the lies that have been told by agenda driven wolf promoters in the last 19 plus years, this to will be exposed. How could the USFWS say that a mating pair of wolves traveled hundreds of miles through the best elk etc. habitat to set up camp a few miles from Twisp, if everyone knew they were planted.

OK- I'm not going to argue about whether or not a reintroduction occurred.  So far, there I no evidence to that ever happening.  If some new evidence comes up, I will gladly eat my words.  I remember a BS post on here from your friend Rockholm that was a "release" photo.... what a joke this whole argument has become.

I'm going hunting.  Cheers.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 14, 2014, 06:43:27 AM
Hunting for conservation dollars
http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.8/hunting-for-conservation-dollars?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email (http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.8/hunting-for-conservation-dollars?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email)

Wyoming's Game and Fish Department needs to get with WDFW, and find out where the funds come from.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: KFhunter on May 14, 2014, 11:12:10 AM
I've already posted in here somewhere official statements from USFWS documenting wolf releases all over the United States.


Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 14, 2014, 11:42:30 AM
I've already posted in here somewhere official statements from USFWS documenting wolf releases all over the United States.
So USFWS acknowledges/publicizes wolf releases in other parts of the country, like Idaho and Wyoming, but they decided to keep it secret in the much more liberal state of Washington??  Even to you wolf nutjobs you have to see the fallacy in your logic.  But please, tell me more about the UPS driver and a guy in a green truck  :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: KFhunter on May 14, 2014, 11:51:00 AM
I've already posted in here somewhere official statements from USFWS documenting wolf releases all over the United States.
So USFWS acknowledges/publicizes wolf releases in other parts of the country, like Idaho and Wyoming, but they decided to keep it secret in the much more liberal state of Washington??  Even to you wolf nutjobs you have to see the fallacy in your logic.  But please, tell me more about the UPS driver and a guy in a green truck  :chuckle: :chuckle:

............and the Carolina's, Georgia, SW desert region and in the NE as well.

Washington wasn't specifically listed,  it was all inclusive in the PNW region - which was documented.

but like I've said numerous times it's pointless to argue where they come from.  I don't have much interest in the past, only the future.


Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on May 14, 2014, 04:30:03 PM
"guy in a green truck"

FYI for out of staters,  dark green pickups,trucks with "exempt" plates, 9 out of 10 are WDFW rigs. :chuckle:

Light green and white, USFS.   Red is DNR    Tan with spot lite and antennas WDFW LEO! :hello: 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 14, 2014, 04:35:16 PM
What about the black helicopters? Who are they?  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: KFhunter on May 14, 2014, 04:38:16 PM
What about the black helicopters? Who are they?  :chuckle:

Did someone see them chopper in wolves and drop them in a remote location?   I don't doubt it  >:(
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: hardrichard on May 14, 2014, 08:11:34 PM
I knew it!!!!!! :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on May 15, 2014, 01:19:49 PM
Somehow I suspect people in western Washington see people pushing these conspiracy theories along these lines...

Fresh from the Idaho primary debate...

THE GREAT IDAHO DEBATE SUPERCUT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJJ4-AUyYg#ws)

 :lol4:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on May 16, 2014, 09:49:31 AM
Whats even funnier, those two clowns could probably do a better job then the two in three piece suits and be more trustworthy! :yike:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 16, 2014, 11:25:55 AM
No need for trucks of any color
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
Somehow I suspect people in western Washington see people pushing these conspiracy theories along these lines...

Fresh from the Idaho primary debate...


I wondered why wolfy and kf weren't on the forum much lately  :chuckle:  :sry:

Brilliant political move by Otter though  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 17, 2014, 08:37:53 PM
1/2 Jim Beers | The Danger of Wolves / Endangered Species Act 1/2 Jim Beers | The Danger of Wolves / Endangered Species Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Lxp1Vxesc#)
 
2/2 Jim Beers | The Danger of Wolves / Endangered Species Act 2/2 Jim Beers | The Danger of Wolves / Endangered Species Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX15ua_BHXo#)
 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2014, 10:35:37 AM
BAMBOOZLING AMERICA

1/24/12, Wolves

(by Jim Beers, retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.)

From wolves to hunting licenses, things are not as they appear in America today.

As I write this the Minnesota Legislature has just convened and Minnesotans are watching their wallets as politicians promise to build a football stadium and a Minor League baseball stadium while simultaneously cutting state spending and maintaining state services at current tax levels. Contained within this seemingly impossible legislative agenda, is an apparently straight-forward proposal to increase state hunting and fishing license fees.

Though most Minnesotans consider the state license fee increases a cut-and-dried matter and the spend/cut/tax illusions as a maelstrom of lies and hidden agendas; there is no difference between the hidden agendas and destructive forces driving both the fee increases and the rest of these “something for nothing” political promises. It is these very slight-of-hand fantasies that are bankrupting Europe and that ultimately will destroy this nation. These fantasies depend on our gullibility and our silent acceptance of patently absurd claims by those in charge.

For instance:

- Worried about current government drives to expand abortion by publicly funding it and eliminating institutions that oppose it? Not to worry, a recent UN “Report” informs us that abortion is “less safe” in countries that prohibit it. The fact that half of those coming through the doors for an abortion die; is of no matter and does not enter into our calculations about “safety”.

- Worried about future energy prices and availability? Not to worry, “electric” cars will free us from “oil dependence”. The fact that the “electricity” must be generated by burning coal is conveniently overlooked.

- Worried about the mounting cost of lost energy and irrigation water as dams are destroyed, Canadian fuel pipelines are denied US entry, Chinese oil rigs drill in the Straits of Florida, and Chinese oil tankers prepare to receive Billions of barrels of Canadian crude oil from a proposed pipeline to a British Columbian port? Not to worry, America will soon “lead the world in renewable (solar and wind) energy”. The fact that such energy is, and forever will be so far as anyone knows, just a pittance of the energy available from non-renewables (coal, oil, gas and nuclear) that will be available for centuries is simply an inconvenient truth to be jeered whenever mentioned.

State hunting and fishing license fees are becoming less and less adequate to fund fish and wildlife programs every year. Whether we call them DNR’s as in Minnesota or FWP’s as in Montana, these state agencies preside over less and less successful hunting and fishing programs that result in fewer and fewer hunters and fishermen. Their strong dependence on hunting and fishing license revenue is viewed as something that will inevitably disappear as we become more environmentally “sensitive” and submit to “equality” (animal “rights”) with animals in the eyes of government. Thus we have the situation wherein fewer and fewer hunters and fishermen are charged more and more to pursue fewer and fewer hunting and fishing opportunities. This further destroys hunting and fishing as costs become prohibitive and other factors such as unmanaged and inaccessible public lands, method restrictions, current federal laws like the Endangered Species Act replacing state authority with federal and national radical group values, and proposed federal laws like federal Invasive Species authority and Native Ecosystem Restoration Programs grow or are enacted. The hope in state fish and wildlife agencies is that eventually state general tax funds and federal appropriated funds disbursed through federal agencies for federal mandates will be made available to fund these agencies in perpetuity. That this is believed merely confirms the gullibility of radical activists and government bureaucrats as well as the inability of hunters, fishermen and their support groups to grasp the reality of their situation.

Wolves are now present in approximately half of the Lower 48 States as a result of federal Endangered Species authority, federal introductions, and federal protection. Wolves have and are increasingly killing livestock and dogs. Wolves have killed and eaten a Canadian college student and an Alaskan school teacher in the last six years. How many people attacked or killed per year will be tolerable to maintain government wolves? Two kids at a bus stop per year(?); four old ladies that were checking their mailbox every two years (?); one teenager cleaning a deer each hunting season? Believe me; we are going to find out.

Elk and moose hunting have been decimated where wolves have become ubiquitous and killed adults, young, and fetuses. Attacks on humans become more likely as wolf numbers increase and wolves become habituated to human presence. An accurate and particularly powerful example of what wolves have done and are doing to state fish and wildlife agencies titled “FWP Flunks Econ 101; Looks for Bailout” by Gary Marbut, president Montana Shooting Sports Association details the situation currently facing Montana residents and “their” state fish and wildlife agency. I have attached it at the end of this article.

As in Montana and Alaska, wolves have been and are decimating big game herds and hunting from deer to moose in Minnesota. As in Montana, Idaho, and other states where wolves are becoming established and habituated, state fish and wildlife agencies lie to and bamboozle the public from hunters and fishermen to ranchers, retirees, and rural families with kids and dogs. The disappearance of Minnesota moose is concurrent with the increase in numbers of wolves in moose country but the blame is placed on global “warming” and public meetings about moose are not open to discussion of wolves since state experts “know” that “depredation is not a problem”. Declining deer harvest, by numerous and enthusiastic Minnesota deer hunters, is blamed on “windy opening day weather” in northern counties bursting with wolves.

Last year citizen cries in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming where wolves were increasingly wreaking human, livestock, domestic animal, and rural “Tranquility” havoc resulted in an Act of Congress that specifically “returned” authority over wolves to state government in those states. Hunting and trapping have been ongoing with only a few hundred wolves taken out of several thousand. When an annual harvest of 70% of the wolves for a decade or more is needed to get their numbers to tolerable levels and restore human safety, big game herds, and domestic “tranquility”; actual harvests of less than 20% were attained in this initial hunt and smaller harvests are sure as wolves learn to modify their behavior to avoid human harassment. Aerial hunting on snow (the only sure and effective harvest method as Alaskans and Asians living with wolves know all too well) faces lawsuits, private property issues, federal land prohibitions, and a lack of funds.

Minnesota and Wisconsin recently were informed that the federal government will “return” management of wolves to state government. As with the aforementioned states, federal overseers will “monitor” wolf management forever and will intervene whenever in their judgment the moment right in the future. Since there is no finite description of the conditions that will trigger such federal intervention it is truly at the mercy of future political and bureaucratic opportunism.

So, as we are told “why” state fish and wildlife agencies (in my case the Minnesota DNR) “need” higher license revenue, try to cut through the fog. As their lips move regarding how they can no longer manage state lands for pheasants or census deer for special seasons or enforce all those “slot limits” and hook restrictions on this or that lake or enforce all those waterfowl rest areas; remember how you can tell when a lawyer or politician is lying. Mr Marbut of Montana describes this same situation in Montana very well and everyone reading this, especially Minnesotans today, needs to think about how your hunting and fishing money (licenses, excise taxes, permits, stamps, etc.) has been spent and is about to be spent.

To paraphrase Henny Youngman, take wolves (please!). When state fish and wildlife agencies are “given” authority (limited though it may be) over wolves, they face new expenditures for:

- Counting wolves with enough accuracy to withstand lawsuits and prove their worthiness to federal overseers.

- Setting (hearings, drafting, reviewing, comment documentation, etc.) wolf regulations annually.

- Finding, documenting, and killing problem (livestock, kids, dogs, hunters, etc.) wolves.

- Enforcing (patrol, investigating, prosecuting, etc.) wolf law/regulations violations.

- Documenting harvests with seals, stamps, reports, etc.

- Responding to wolf complaints, violation reports, sightings, etc.

- Writing and publishing Reports about everything from recent statistics to citizen responsibilities and rights.

- Advising hunters and dog owners of recent situations and providing advice.

- Responding (providing data, on-staff lawyers, staff experts, Universities on retainer, etc.) to lawsuits.

- Managing methods of take (rifles, shotguns, traps, snares, dogs (killers like wolfhounds), planes, gunner qualifications, classes, poisons, etc.) and limits and reporting/record-keeping requirement enforcement.

- Licensing and checking taxidermists and tanners for reports, seals, tags, etc.

- Depredation/attack documentation for livestock, dogs, and human encounters.

- Depredation reimbursement for livestock/dog losses.

- Public relations in the media, schools, rural groups, etc.

- Vehicles, travel costs for all the increased activity.

- Coordination with and “training” from federal overseers.

- University “research” to defend current responses to serious current issues as they develop.

- Emergency reaction response capability to emergencies like attacks on kids and old folks.

- Coordinating with other states to stay current with what works (biologically, socially, bureaucratically, etc.) with the public, politicians, federal overseers, and wolf lovers that lose dogs, etc.

- Development and maintenance of a public story that maintains the “wolves are wonderful” image and that refutes any and all claims of wolves being dangerous or destructive of rural Americans or the American way of life. (There may have been one or two things I missed in this list.)

Where will the money for all this come from? If you said from the state hunting and fishing money and redirected state personnel - go to the head of the class! If you answered from “The General Fund” you need to listen to the news and read the newspapers especially about fleeing legislators, state debts, government salaries and benefits, Governor Recalls, and Tea Parties.

Yes, wolves are and will increasingly be expensive for the same state agencies that “need” increased revenue to decimate the goose laying the golden revenue egg. Like Lenin’s observation about capitalists (whom he held in contempt just as the state and federal fish and wildlife agencies have contempt for their former clients) selling him the rope by which he would hang them, we hunters and fishermen will give the state agencies the revenue by which they will hang us as they spend it more and more on the wolves they allowed the feds to foist on us. Thank you urban America and thank all you environmental and animal rights outfits that are killing this country.

So I will dutifully believe and be thankful as Minnesota politicians tell me they will build stadiums, cut spending, maintain services, and not increase taxes. So too will I call for support of “my” DNR and whatever license fee increase they want in order to “save” hunting and fishing. I was hopeful that the “special” state income tax increase of almost one percent earmarked for them that they got three years ago was “enough” but evidently it wasn’t. Shucks, doesn’t everything go “up” all the time and doesn’t “everyone” get increases all the time? I hope you have read this tale and decide to send “my” DNR money for wolves and when your turn comes I will try and do the same for you.

Our “sweet land of liberty” has become our rulers’ “sweet land of humbuggery”.

Jim Beers – 24 January 2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWP Flunks Econ 101; Looks for Bailout

Editorial by Gary Marbut, president Montana Shooting Sports Association

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is reported to be running out of money because of decreased hunting license purchases, and is considering asking the Legislature for license fee increases. This is the first obvious symptom of something known as agency "death spiral" for FWP.

Over the past two decades, FWP has come to focus on wildlife and biology, when it should have been focused on fish and game. This includes FWP's shocking tolerance and support for large predators. FWP's total, willing, even eager cooperation with fostering excessive populations of large predator has long been predicted to end in a financial crash for the agency, as word unavoidably spreads that there is no game left to hunt so there is no reason to buy a license.

For too long, FWP leaders have leaned on the scales of public policy by making excuses for the devastation wrought upon game herds by large predators, by fudging game counts and census numbers, and by blaming any game population declines that could not be covered up on climate change, sunspots, lazy hunters, or aliens - anything but the truth. This coverup culture has been fostered by senior staff, always near retirement, who knew they'd be long gone from the hot seat when the FWP financial bus blundered off a cliff.

If the overall FWP attitude had not been so Hell-bent on "ecosystem management," "biological diversity," "natural balance" and other similar catchy but terminal "green" ideas destined to end hunting, FWP managers would have predicted the current agency financial crisis years ago. Nobody at FWP noticed or cared several years ago when the editor of the NRA's nationwide American Hunter magazine published a feature article about his fruitless elk hunting trip to southwest Montana, a trip where the only tracks he saw were wolf tracks. Nobody at FWP noticed or cared about the other hundreds of warnings from Montana citizens. Worse, those warnings were even ridiculed by FWP in mad pursuit of its own elite agenda.

The stock mantra from FWP managers has been: We're the professionals. We know best. The outcome that concerned citizens predict will never come to pass. The "evidence" of crashing game herds citizens offer is just "campfire stories" and is without merit because it doesn't come from paid FWP "professionals."

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, tell that FWP-tolerated wolves are turning the Montana landscape into a "biological desert," FWP dismisses such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself. As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won't quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, "We've been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years. Now we need the general public to pay the bills." FWP has so fouled its nest by wasting the Montana hunting resource on predators and inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will now go to the Legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won't pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, asking for tax increases on the general taxpayer seeking a bailout from the results of its bad decisions.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the Legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, MSSA and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say "Absolutely no way." FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them. Also ignoring a state law requiring it to control large predators to protect game herds, FWP has bulled its way down a path surrounded with warning signs.

What FWP needs is not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture. Until that happens, let FWP starve! It is not serving Montana.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

 

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

 

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

 
 

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/beers/bamboozlingAmericaWolves012412.htm (http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/beers/bamboozlingAmericaWolves012412.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 10:15:34 PM
Quote
The stock mantra from FWP managers has been: We're the professionals. We know best. The outcome that concerned citizens predict will never come to pass. The "evidence" of crashing game herds citizens offer is just "campfire stories" and is without merit because it doesn't come from paid FWP "professionals."

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, tell that FWP-tolerated wolves are turning the Montana landscape into a "biological desert," FWP dismisses such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself. As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won't quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, "We've been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years. Now we need the general public to pay the bills." FWP has so fouled its nest by wasting the Montana hunting resource on predators and inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will now go to the Legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won't pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, asking for tax increases on the general taxpayer seeking a bailout from the results of its bad decisions.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the Legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, MSSA and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say "Absolutely no way." FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them. Also ignoring a state law requiring it to control large predators to protect game herds, FWP has bulled its way down a path surrounded with warning signs.

What FWP needs is not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture. Until that happens, let FWP starve! It is not serving Montana.

good post wolfbait....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: KFhunter on May 18, 2014, 10:17:30 PM
Yes it is.


Political science.



same as global warming deal.  Politics/money drive "science"
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:06:38 PM
Hey KF, have you noticed this same scenario in other states?  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2014, 09:34:59 PM
"If I wanted America to fail"  "If I wanted America to fail" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc#ws)
 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2014, 05:50:03 PM
Conservation Easements: Locking Up LittleTown, Part 4
http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2014, 08:18:40 PM
On this side of the mountains if you own property and want a building permit or some thing they strongarm you into giving a conservation easement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2014, 08:57:41 PM
Conservation Easements: Locking Up LittleTown, Part 4
http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/)
a couple of things to consider:
1) the source... a blog written by a North Idaho Agenda 21 fanatic.  Not trustworthy IMO
2) The message- "conservation easements trick people into giving away "dominant" interest in their land".  Seriously- what kind of moron signs something like that without understanding the meaning
3) the lies- if they are so bad why aren't you crumbing on RMEF for all their easements?  The lady that wrote this doesn't know what she's talking about...but she continues talking because she has an audience. 

thanks for sharing.  I don't think it has much utility, but maybe someone else will.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:53:42 PM
Conservation Easements: Locking Up LittleTown, Part 4
http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/)
a couple of things to consider:
1) the source... a blog written by a North Idaho Agenda 21 fanatic.  Not trustworthy IMO
2) The message- "conservation easements trick people into giving away "dominant" interest in their land".  Seriously- what kind of moron signs something like that without understanding the meaning
3) the lies- if they are so bad why aren't you crumbing on RMEF for all their easements?  The lady that wrote this doesn't know what she's talking about...but she continues talking because she has an audience. 

thanks for sharing.  I don't think it has much utility, but maybe someone else will.
:chuckle: wolfbait thinks public land is bad for public land hunters...so it is not at all a surprise that conservation easements, a big tool for RMEF conservation efforts, is viewed by him and his "buddies" as a bad thing.  Basically anything good for wildlife is bad in wolfy's views.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2014, 11:59:04 PM
Conservation Easements: Locking Up LittleTown, Part 4
http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/)
a couple of things to consider:
1) the source... a blog written by a North Idaho Agenda 21 fanatic.  Not trustworthy IMO
2) The message- "conservation easements trick people into giving away "dominant" interest in their land".  Seriously- what kind of moron signs something like that without understanding the meaning
3) the lies- if they are so bad why aren't you crumbing on RMEF for all their easements?  The lady that wrote this doesn't know what she's talking about...but she continues talking because she has an audience. 

thanks for sharing.  I don't think it has much utility, but maybe someone else will.

The kind of moron that had land in thier family for a LONG time and then tried to build on it. In order to get the permit for Well, septic, house has to provide an easement.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 06:39:01 AM
Conservation Easements: Locking Up LittleTown, Part 4
http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/conservation-easements-locking-littletown-part-4/)
a couple of things to consider:
1) the source... a blog written by a North Idaho Agenda 21 fanatic.  Not trustworthy IMO
2) The message- "conservation easements trick people into giving away "dominant" interest in their land".  Seriously- what kind of moron signs something like that without understanding the meaning
3) the lies- if they are so bad why aren't you crumbing on RMEF for all their easements?  The lady that wrote this doesn't know what she's talking about...but she continues talking because she has an audience. 

thanks for sharing.  I don't think it has much utility, but maybe someone else will.

The kind of moron that had land in thier family for a LONG time and then tried to build on it. In order to get the permit for Well, septic, house has to provide an easement.

So, some other moron signed an unreasonable easement on their land????  Conservation easements are no different than right of way easements, egress easements, stumpage easements.... it's all about the language and what you sign up for.  Landowners can tailor an easement for any purpose and Wolfbates example here is misleading, at best.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2014, 07:43:23 AM
If i want to actually use my land then i have to give some up to the state.... Not exactly giving an easement freely with the state strong arming you.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 08:06:43 AM
If i want to actually use my land then i have to give some up to the state.... Not exactly giving an easement freely with the state strong arming you.
I'm not following...the state used eminent domain?  Why exactly did they want a conservation easement?   

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2014, 11:11:33 AM
If you own a "large" piece of property that has ANY kind of water seasonl or otherwisen the state/county will require a conservation easement in order to give you a building permitt. A buddy of mine in Sno county built a barn for his cows on his 15 acres. He had to put 7 in a conservation easement plant native plants and put up a fence to keep his cows out. His pice didnt even have any water on it.

Growth Management Act has had a HUGE effect on property rights on this side of the mountains.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
If you own a "large" piece of property that has ANY kind of water seasonl or otherwisen the state/county will require a conservation easement in order to give you a building permitt. A buddy of mine in Sno county built a barn for his cows on his 15 acres. He had to put 7 in a conservation easement plant native plants and put up a fence to keep his cows out. His pice didnt even have any water on it.

Growth Management Act has had a HUGE effect on property rights on this side of the mountains.
I can't speak to that.  If that is the case (and I have no reason not to believe you) then the growth management act would be a tough pill to swallow.  That would be entirely different than a conservation easement and it doesn't sound like it had anything to do with ESA. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2014, 01:01:36 PM
IF you want something that requires a permit then the GMA forces you into a conservation easement.  Now you dont Have to give the easement if your  not interested in making any improvements.

While this MAY not be specifically ESA related is IS a large movement to reduce the ability of individuals to use thier own property. I mostly point it out because There is a HINT of choice, but the rality is you are forced/coherced....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2014, 06:22:04 AM
Potential FEMA Regulations Affecting Wallowa County Property Owners and Wolf Report
http://kwvrradio.net/main/potential-fema-regulations-affecting-wallowa-county-property-owners/ (http://kwvrradio.net/main/potential-fema-regulations-affecting-wallowa-county-property-owners/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 28, 2014, 09:36:57 AM

USFWS Withdraws Proposal To List North American Wolverine As Threatened Under ESA
Posted on Friday, August 22, 2014 (PST)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced last week that it is withdrawing a proposal to list the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
 
The wolverine, a large member of the weasel family found in the Mountain West, has made a steady recovery in the past half century after hunting, trapping and poisoning nearly extirpated the species from the lower 48 states in the early 1900s.
 
Wolverine populations currently occur within the contiguous United States in the north Cascades Range in Washington and the northern Rockies of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and a small portion of Oregon (Wallowa Range). Populations once existed in the Sierra Nevada of California and the southern Rocky Mountains in the states of Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico.
 
While it is clear that the climate is warming, after carefully considering the best available science, the Service said it has determined that the effects of climate change are not likely to place the wolverine in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
 
As a result, the wolverine does not meet the statutory definition of either a “threatened species” or an “endangered species” and does not warrant protection under the ESA.
 
Service Director Dan Ashe’s decision to withdraw the listing proposal was informed by the consensus recommendation of the agency’s three regional directors for the regions encompassing the wolverine’s known range in the contiguous United States -- the Mountain Prairie, Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest regions.
 
The three directors made the recommendation based on a synthesis of the entire body of scientific evidence, according to the agency.
 
On Feb. 4, 2013, the Service proposed to list the wolverine as a threatened species under the ESA. On Dec. 17, 2013, the Service extended the deadline for its final decision by the maximum six-month period allowed under the ESA due to substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination. Among the issues disputed was the potential impact of climate change on wolverine populations.
 
“Climate change is a reality, the consequences of which the Service deals with on a daily basis. While impacts to many species are clear and measurable, for others the consequences of a warming planet are less certain. This is particularly true in the Mountain West, where differences in elevation and topography make fine-scale prediction of climate impacts ambiguous,” said Ashe.
 
“In this case, based on all the information available, we simply do not know enough about the ecology of the wolverine and when or how it will be affected by a changing climate to conclude at this time that it is likely to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.”
 
The Service initially proposed to list the wolverine based on climate-change-model forecasts showing overall loss of spring snow across the range of the species. However, upon conducting a more thorough review and gathering additional information, the Service found that climate change models are unable to reliably predict snowfall amounts and snow-cover persistence in wolverine denning locations.
 
ESA processes, and legal arguments, regarding the animal’s potential listing have been ongoing since the early 1990s.
 
Conservation groups that have long pressed the USFWS to cement a wolverine ESA listing say the fight will continue.
 
The USFWS decision announced this week “ignores the best available science, including advice from the Service’s own wildlife experts, conservation groups stated,” according to an Earthjustice press release. “In response to the decision, a coalition of nine groups will file notice of intention to sue the Service for refusal to protect the species under the Endangered Species Act.”
 
The groups represented by Earthjustice say politics, not sound science, drove the decision.
 
“The Service in February 2013 proposed to list the wolverine under the Endangered Species Act, but state wildlife officials in the Northern Rockies region opposed the proposed listing,” the press release says.
 
The groups signing on to the letter are the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Clearwater, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Rocky Mountain Wild.
 
 
"The Obama administration's short-sighted decision to reject the conclusions of their own scientists and withdraw endangered species protections for these iconic animals is part of a disturbing anti-conservation trend," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity.
 
"Blatantly ignoring extensive science showing wolverines are in real trouble in order to bow to political pressure from states is precisely the kind of recipe for extinction that prompted passage of the Endangered Species Act in the first place," Greenwald said.
 
“The best available science shows climate change will significantly reduce available wolverine habitat over the next century, and imperil the species,” said Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance’s Siva Sundaresan.
 
“As an agency responsible for protecting our wildlife, FWS should not ignore science and should make their decisions based on facts and data.”
 
“Places like the Clearwater Basin in Idaho are particularly important for wolverines as they use the area as both a residence and migration route,” said Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater. “The Clearwater Basin is also threatened due to the lower elevations of the mountains in this part of the Rockies.”
 
According to the conservation groups, no more than 300 wolverines remain in the mountains of the western United States. They say the species is at direct risk from climate change because wolverines depend on areas that maintain deep snow through late spring. That is when pregnant females dig their dens into the snowpack to birth and raise their young.
 
The agency says evidence suggests that wolverine populations grew and expanded in the second half of the last century and may continue to expand into suitable, unoccupied habitat. For example, wolverine sightings outside formerly known habitat occurred in the Sierra Nevada range in California in 2008 and in Colorado in 2012.
 
And in April 2014, a wolverine was seen in the Uinta Range of Utah -- the first confirmed sighting of the species in that state in some 30 years
 
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that wolverine habitat impacts due to the effects of climate change will affect the population in the foreseeable future, according to the federal agency.
 
“While we concluded that the wolverine does not merit Endangered Species Act protection at this time, this does not end our involvement in wolverine conservation,” said Ashe. “We will continue to work with our state partners as they manage for healthy and secure wolverine populations and monitor their status. If new information emerges that suggests we should take another look at listing, we will not hesitate to do that.”
 
Simultaneous with the withdrawal of the listing proposal, the Service is withdrawing a proposed special rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA that would have tailored protections to those needed for the conservation of the species, and a proposed nonessential-experimental-population designation for the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming.

http://www.cbbulletin.com/431823.aspx (http://www.cbbulletin.com/431823.aspx)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

I bet that was a no brainer, since they discovered wolves were killing wolverine.


Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 28, 2014, 09:53:26 AM
Another environmental cash crop, think of the studies, and the grants. Land and hunting closures, I bet DoW, CNW and WDFW are clicking their heels together, $$$$$$$$

National Park Service considers moving grizzly bears into Washington's North Cascades

SEATTLE — The National Park Service said Thursday it will consider moving grizzly bears into the North Cascade Mountains of Washington state to aid their recovery.

The agency is launching a three-year process to study a variety of options for helping their population. Director Jonathan B. Jarvis stressed that the process is required under federal law but no decision had been made.

Native American tribes and conservation groups have pressed for years for the federal government to do more to bring back the bears.

"It marks the potential turning point in the decades-long decline of the last grizzly bears remaining on the U.S. West Coast," Joe Scott, international conservation director of Conservation Northwest, said in a written statement. "Without recovery efforts, these bears may soon be gone forever."

Numerous grizzly bears roamed north-central Washington state in the past, but early settlers and trappers killed thousands for fur in the mid-19th century. The region's booming population has also encroached on their habitat.

The tribes have cited their cultural connection to the bears in urging their preservation.

Federal authorities listed the grizzly bear as threatened in the lower 48 states in 1975 and ultimately designated five areas in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to focus on boosting the population.

A small population of grizzlies exists in Washington's Selkirk Mountains, and the park service says the animals have been seen recently in the Cascades north of the Canadian border. But they haven't been seen in the Washington Cascades in years.

Officials have been looking hard, too. In the past three years, they've set up "hair-snare" traps — basically bait surrounded by stretches of barbed wire that snag samples of a bear's hair — in about one-third of the North Cascades region. The traps have produced many samples of black bear hair, as confirmed by DNA tests, but no grizzly hair, said Bob Everitt, northwest Washington regional director of the state Fish and Wildlife Department.

"It doesn't mean there aren't grizzly bears, but it sure suggests they're pretty rare," Everitt said.

In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added a chapter on the North Cascades to its grizzly bear recovery plan. The document said that within five years, authorities should evaluate options for recovering bears in the region, which covers a 9,800-square-mile swath of north-central Washington state, including the eastern and western slopes of the Cascades, North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

It suggested that a sustainable grizzly population in the North Cascades might be about 200 to 400 bears.

Since that chapter was added, some work has been done to improve conditions for grizzlies in the North Cascades that mainly involved securing garbage to keep bears away from humans, Everitt said.

"There's only so much you can do when you don't have any bears," he added.

A Washington Farm Bureau spokesman sounded a note of caution.

"Grizzly bears are incredible, wonderful animals," Tom Davis, Farm Bureau director of government relations, told The Seattle Times. "I just wouldn't want them living next door to me, and I think that's how farmers and ranchers ... feel."

Even though recovery efforts will occur primarily on federal lands, nearby private landowners are likely to be affected, said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association.

Ranchers in the northeastern part of the state are already dealing with livestock losses caused by the return of wolf packs, Field told The Times.

Lawmakers made clear in the mid-1990s that they didn't want bears introduced in the state. A law passed at the time directs the Fish and Wildlife Department to work to encourage the natural recovery of grizzly populations but says: "Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. "

The park service said it would work with the U.S. Forest Service, the state and the public in making any decisions, including about whether to bring grizzlies into the area.

"Grizzly bears are controversial," Everitt said. "We want to make sure everyone is heard on this issue before it gets concluded."


http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8f309f099f2c4f09921663addd4ddc57/WA--Grizzly-Bear-Reintroduction (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8f309f099f2c4f09921663addd4ddc57/WA--Grizzly-Bear-Reintroduction)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

More @ http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,159317.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,159317.0.html)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on August 28, 2014, 10:29:11 AM
"The park service said it would work with the U.S. Forest Service, the state and the public in making any decisions, including about whether to bring grizzlies into the area.

"Grizzly bears are controversial," Everitt said. "We want to make sure everyone is heard on this issue before it gets concluded."

 :yike: There is your LAUGH for the day! :o

Been there, Done that!!  It will be the SAME(and worse) as when the "Public" was heard(NOT) when the salmon and spotted owl made the new whipping listing(tool) by said groups above!!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on August 28, 2014, 09:57:53 PM
You 2 guys crack me up...I'm glad you are on this forum.  I really mean that...I don't agree with nearly anything you say, but you both have so damn many one-liners that you add here and there I can't help but crack a smile  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 29, 2014, 07:50:04 AM
You 2 guys crack me up...I'm glad you are on this forum.  I really mean that...I don't agree with nearly anything you say, but you both have so damn many one-liners that you add here and there I can't help but crack a smile  :tup:

Shoot I-hunter, you not agreeing with us is actually a compliment, :tup: The rest of what you said is your usual jibber-jabber when you can't formulate a response.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on August 29, 2014, 03:39:42 PM
This is just double speak on the WDFW part. Bears have been seen here in WA and some of which have tags. I know 1 person who lived in canada around grizz, and reported to WDFW AT THE TRAIL HEAD that there was a grizz and its specific location. Are there as many Grizz as the state may like? NO! They ARE here in the N cascades of WASHINGTON! Just like wolves were NEVER completely irradicated from washington.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 31, 2014, 11:59:53 AM
The Nature Conservancy=TNC

In 2000, the tax-exempt TNC received $786 million in revenue, as much as its six nearest rivals combined, with assets of $2.8 billion, and it claims to have 92 million acres under its control. It claims to be a “private-sector, free-market” organization whose mission is saving environmentally sensitive land. In fact, much of its income is derived from taxpayer “grants”, income from securities and lucrative “flips” of purchased land to government agencies. In 1989, the Bureau of Land Management paid TNC $1.4 million for land it had simultaneously purchased for $1.26 million. Ken Smith, of The Washington Times, reports TNC bought the land with a $100 purchase option. “Wall Street investors in jail for insider trading never got a $140,000 return on a $100 investment.” Shades of Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures deal?

In 1992, the US Department of Interior’s Inspector General investigated land trust deals made by groups such as TNC and found that Interior had spent $7.1 million more than necessary between 1986 and 1991. In 1991, Missouri state auditors found the state had “paid $500,000 more than necessary on six land purchases from the Conservancy”. The auditors claimed there was a conspiracy to jack up the sales prices in violation of state financial regulations. In Texas, the Attorney General, Dan Morales, stripped TNC of its tax-exempt status because of similar activities.

Recently, the California chapter of TNC paid $35 million for the purchase of the 9,200 acre Staten Island, a privately owned corporate farm in the Sacramento area which is under intensive cultivation for crops and vegetables. TNC calls it a “demonstration farm” of little environmental significance, and will continue normal, for-profit commercial farming operations. CalFed, a state/federal agency, is putting up taxpayer’s dollars for the purchase. There will be little or no public access. Critics, including other environmental groups, question if there will be any public benefit. In fact, such taxpayer funded purchases are closer to fascist/socialistic exploitation of the land at the expense of truly private, free-market landowners. http://www.vlrc.org/articles/45.html (http://www.vlrc.org/articles/45.html)

Reselling parcels of land to federal agencies. "On June 30, 1990 TNC showed it held $53.5 million in land 'for resale' to the government. By 1992, TNC ledgers showed the organization had received $90,693,000 for sale of land to government agencies". http://www.4x4wire.com/access/education/nm_twp/nm_twp_pt8.htm (http://www.4x4wire.com/access/education/nm_twp/nm_twp_pt8.htm)

Are nonprofit land trusts taking advantage of the public's trust? http://www.vlrc.org/articles/8.html (http://www.vlrc.org/articles/8.html)


Land Trusts or Land Agents? http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents (http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents)


Losing its Mission:

The Nature Conservancy considers itself to be “the world's best conservation science organization,”[9] and it claims to have 550 professional scientists on its staff.[10] However, some Nature Conservancy scientists have complained that the organization has failed to keep its commitment to the “best available science.”[11] According to the Washington Post, in an internal 2001 Conservancy study, one TNC scientist wrote: “Science is not understood or supported by senior managers and state directors. [The] entire focus is on land deals.”[12]

Land Deals:

According to R.J. Smith, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Nature Conservancy bullies private citizens from their land in order to sell that land to the federal government. Smith explains:[13]
The Nature Conservancy is one of the most feared environmental groups throughout rural America … While promoting itself as a ‘private’ conservation group, small landowners, family farmers, ranchers and tree farmers know it as a strong-arm real estate agent for the federal government. It acquires land at fire-sale prices from landowners bankrupted by environmental regulations, then turns around and sells most of it to the federal government at inflated prices. The last thing America needs is more range and forest land for the federal government to mismanage and burn down.

Ties with Corporate America:

In 2002, the Capital Research Center named the Nature Conservancy one of the top ten non-profit recipients of corporate contributions.[14] Corporate donations to the Nature Conservancy increased from $1.8 million in 1993 to $225 million by 2002.[15] In 2003, the Nature Conservancy had over 1,900 corporate sponsors.[16] The Nature Conservancy has received funding from oil companies such as British Petroleum, Phillips Alaska and Exxon Mobil.[17] General Motors has also been a major donor.[18]

In 2003, the Washington Post reported that Nature Conservancy had sold or rented its logo to be used for goods manufactured by its corporate donors.[19] For example, General Mills has used the Nature Conservancy logo on its Nature Valley granola bars.[20]

David Morine, the former head of TNC’s land acquisition program and, according to the Washington Post, one of the TNC executives who helped the group develop corporate ties, told the Post in 2003 that “t was the wrong decision to get so close to industry. Business got in under the tent, and we (TNC) are the ones who invited them in.”[21] Morine added, “[t]hese corporate executives are carnivorous. You bring them in, and they just take over.”[22]

Land Development:

Many environmentalists oppose commercial and residential land development.[23] The Nature Conservancy, however, has had close ties with Centex Corp., a large residential construction firm.[24] Centex has provided free Nature Conservancy memberships to thousands of its homebuyers.[25] This arrangement has yielded more than a million dollars for the Nature Conservancy.[26]

In the past, the Nature Conservancy has also been close with two of the nation’s biggest tree consumers, the Georgia-Pacific Corp. and International Paper Co.[27] Georgia-Pacific, then a public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,[28] donated $3 million to TNC in 2000.[29] In 1998, International Paper Co. sold 185,000 acres of Maine forest to TNC for $35 million.[30] Shortly after the exchange, TNC logged 136,000 of the original 185,000 acres in order “to help offset costs.”[31]

Interconnected Dealings:

A 2003 Washington Post report uncovered interconnected deals between the Nature Conservancy and its leadership. The report stated:[32]
The charity engages in numerous financial transactions with members of the Conservancy family -- governing board members and their companies, state and regional trustees, longtime supporters. The nonprofit organization has bought land and services from board members’ companies, and it has declined to release property appraisals from the deals. It has sold choice Conservancy land to past and present trustees through its “conservation buyers” program, which offers steep discounts in exchange for development restrictions. It has lent cash to its executives, including $1.55 million to its president.

A month after the Washington Post uncovered the Nature Conservancy’s dealings, TNC’s board “said it would end the practice of buying or selling land along with board members, trustees and employees, to avoid any conflict of interest.”[33]

Oil, Gas and Pigs:

In 1999, the Nature Conservancy drilled for oil and natural gas on a wildlife preserve in Texas City, Texas.[34] Some endangered birds on the preserve were killed.[35] Mobil had given TNC the land with the expectation that TNC would protect the wildlife.[36] Immediately after the incident was disclosed, TNC suspended what it called its “resource extraction activities.”[37]

In 2005, the Nature Conservancy supported an initiative to eradicate wild pigs living on Santa Cruz Island off the southern coast of California.[38] The slaughtering of pigs was done to protect an endangered fox species.[39] The situation angered animal rights groups and “forced the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy, which co-own the land, to explain why groups dedicated to protecting animals instead paid $5 million to kill them.”[40] The Nature Conservancy’s project director Lotus Vermeer explained, “t’s not just about killing pigs, it’s about saving a native species… What we’re choosing to do here is save biodiversity.”[41]


Funding

According to Discover the Networks, “etween 2001 and 2004, TNC received more than 1,200 grants from scores of liberal charitable foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the ChevronTexaco Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Prospect Hill Foundation, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Simons Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the Turner Foundation.”[42]
http://www.groupsnoop.org/The+Nature+Conservancy (http://www.groupsnoop.org/The+Nature+Conservancy)

Over time, however, as numerous land trusts have grown in size and number, so have their association - and influence - with government.  This has been the case particularly with the large, national organizations that obtain enormous sums from federal funding. For many of these land trusts, what used to be a close working relationship with private landowners has been replaced by a closer relationship with government agencies.  Increasingly too, the mission has evolved from protecting open lands through private stewardship to aiding government agencies in acquiring private lands. In these troubling arrangements, land trusts have operated more like government agents, acquiring easements from private landowners, only to turn around and quietly sell them - sometimes for a profit - to state or federal governments.  These methods certainly are not practiced by all land trusts, but nor are they isolated cases.

Given the rapid growth in land trusts and the rising use of conservation easements over the past decade, along with increasing involvement with government in the arrangements, easements could become a far-reaching means for public land acquisition.  That is, easements, absent reforms, could evolve into the prevailing method for government to shift lands unobtrusively from private to public control under a pretense of private stewardship.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html)

Conservation Easement: The Primary Tool for the Government Acquisition of Rural Lands  http://www.agenda21course.com/conservation-easement-the-primary-tool-for-the-government-acquisition-of-rural-lands/?print=1 (http://www.agenda21course.com/conservation-easement-the-primary-tool-for-the-government-acquisition-of-rural-lands/?print=1)


How The Nature Conservancy Secures Government Land Grabs
Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/04/how-the-nature-conservancy-secures-government-land-grabs/#ixzz3BzntkScv (http://netrightdaily.com/2011/04/how-the-nature-conservancy-secures-government-land-grabs/#ixzz3BzntkScv)


The NATURE CONSERVANCY (TNC)  http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7221 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7221)

The Nature Conservancy

Then there’s the real estate. TNC say it owns or has under conservation easement 1,177,000 acres in its private preserve system. Good. TNC also says it has protected 10.5 million acres in the United States. Good. If they own only 1.17 million of that 10.5 million, what happened to the other 9.3 million acres?

They sold a lot of it to the government.

Whoa.

The Nature Conservancy bought private land from private owners who thought it would remain in private hands and sold it to the government?

Yep.

Isn’t that illegal?

Nope.

The government asks them to do it some of the time.

A letter from the Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the Nature Conservancy dated August 30, 1985, reveals a long-standing government agreement for TNC to buy private land: "We are appreciative of The Nature Conservancy’s continuing effort to assist the Service in the acquisition of lands for the Connecticut Coastal National Wildlife Refuge."

In this and numerous other letters, the government clearly agrees to pay TNC "in excess of the approved appraisal value."

Similar agreements for the federal government to buy TNC property at top-dollar prices exist all over the nation.

One federal officer who conducted such excess-cost purchases, Robert Miller, a chief of the realty division of the USFWS, was later hired by TNC at a high salary.

The Nature Conservancy is a conduit for the nationalization of private property. Nearly ten million acres so far.

Is it still going on?

According to the most recent figures available, in 1996 TNC received $37,853,205, or 11% of its total income, from sale of private land to federal, state, and local governments for use as parks, recreational areas, and nature preserves. Such land goes off the local tax rolls.

On top of that, The Nature Conservancy gets government grants and contracts worth millions each year. Green welfare. In 1996 they got $33,297,707, or 10% of their total income, from government contracts.

So Nature’s real estate agent, which asks you to join up for 25, 35 or 50 bucks, was already in your taxpaying pockets to the tune of $71,150,912 in 1996.

Read more @ http://www.undueinfluence.com/nature_conservancy.htm (http://www.undueinfluence.com/nature_conservancy.htm)


SENATE POISED TO VOTE ON HUGE LAND GRAB  In truth, The Nature Conservancy buys private land from owners (usually at drastically reduced, land-grab prices) who think it will remain in private hands and then sells it to the government! In fact, TNC has sold more than 9 million acres to the government at a nice profit.  http://www.newswithviews.com/your_govt/your_government52.htm (http://www.newswithviews.com/your_govt/your_government52.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on August 31, 2014, 04:38:33 PM
one liners are used so the slow to learn can understand easier :chuckle:

We learned that from the "Public" meeting with all the "learned" government flunkies.

We talked but were never HEARD,  and YOU will never be,  meetings are done just to fill a "requirement" by LAW.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 01, 2014, 08:16:05 AM
Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/environment.htm#.VASJflawjfs (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/environment.htm#.VASJflawjfs)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 02, 2014, 07:21:59 AM
"The Nature Conservancy

Then there’s the real estate. TNC say it owns or has under conservation easement 1,177,000 acres in its private preserve system. Good. TNC also says it has protected 10.5 million acres in the United States. Good. If they own only 1.17 million of that 10.5 million, what happened to the other 9.3 million acres?

They sold a lot of it to the government.

Whoa.

The Nature Conservancy bought private land from private owners who thought it would remain in private hands and sold it to the government?

Yep.

Isn’t that illegal?

Nope.

The government asks them to do it some of the time.

A letter from the Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the Nature Conservancy dated August 30, 1985, reveals a long-standing government agreement for TNC to buy private land: "We are appreciative of The Nature Conservancy’s continuing effort to assist the Service in the acquisition of lands for the Connecticut Coastal National Wildlife Refuge."

In this and numerous other letters, the government clearly agrees to pay TNC "in excess of the approved appraisal value."

Similar agreements for the federal government to buy TNC property at top-dollar prices exist all over the nation.

One federal officer who conducted such excess-cost purchases, Robert Miller, a chief of the realty division of the USFWS, was later hired by TNC at a high salary.

The Nature Conservancy is a conduit for the nationalization of private property. Nearly ten million acres so far."

So.... you're complaining that TNC is helping the feds pick up land that hunters can access???  I'm not sure why this is a problem.  The feds suck at real estate transfers and get bogged down in a hurry.  Having a conduit to transfer land into larger protected, connected pieces of habitat is helpful.

This is more copy and paste crap from some other wood tick board that you clog up and it bogs down HuntWa... it's all you do.

Public land is good for hunters.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 07:34:01 AM
"The Nature Conservancy

Then there’s the real estate. TNC say it owns or has under conservation easement 1,177,000 acres in its private preserve system. Good. TNC also says it has protected 10.5 million acres in the United States. Good. If they own only 1.17 million of that 10.5 million, what happened to the other 9.3 million acres?

They sold a lot of it to the government.

Whoa.

The Nature Conservancy bought private land from private owners who thought it would remain in private hands and sold it to the government?

Yep.

Isn’t that illegal?

Nope.

The government asks them to do it some of the time.

A letter from the Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the Nature Conservancy dated August 30, 1985, reveals a long-standing government agreement for TNC to buy private land: "We are appreciative of The Nature Conservancy’s continuing effort to assist the Service in the acquisition of lands for the Connecticut Coastal National Wildlife Refuge."

In this and numerous other letters, the government clearly agrees to pay TNC "in excess of the approved appraisal value."

Similar agreements for the federal government to buy TNC property at top-dollar prices exist all over the nation.

One federal officer who conducted such excess-cost purchases, Robert Miller, a chief of the realty division of the USFWS, was later hired by TNC at a high salary.

The Nature Conservancy is a conduit for the nationalization of private property. Nearly ten million acres so far."

So.... you're complaining that TNC is helping the feds pick up land that hunters can access???  I'm not sure why this is a problem.  The feds suck at real estate transfers and get bogged down in a hurry.  Having a conduit to transfer land into larger protected, connected pieces of habitat is helpful.

This is more copy and paste crap from some other wood tick board that you clog up and it bogs down HuntWa... it's all you do.

Public land is good for hunters.


Did you wake up on the wong side of the bed agin Wayote? So you think that the feds and WDFW are buying up all this land just for us hunters?  That's sooo nice of them to think of us isn't it? Is that little chunk of cut n' paste all you read in that piece?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 02, 2014, 09:51:42 AM
No- I think the feds and states buying ground is to protect habitat from development.  Hunting and access to public lands are a benefit of that purchase, so is having wildlife to hunt and enjoy. 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 10:12:50 AM
No- I think the feds and states buying ground is to protect habitat from development.  Hunting and access to public lands are a benefit of that purchase, so is having wildlife to hunt and enjoy.

Even the smartest people have been fooled by the government and environmentalists, Wayote. Changing USFWS, WDFW's etc. diapers every day has to be kind of a stinky job, I sure wouldn't want it.

TNC is the richest, largest and most politically powerful of all the radical environmental groups. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the welfare of the people and institutions of Bath County will be seriously jeopardized if TNC acquires title to the 9000 acres. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bath County, Highland County and many of the surrounding counties in Virginia and West Virginia, in this region of the Allegheny Mountains, are specifically targeted by the radical environmentalists because of the low population, wealth of natural resources and scenic beauty; and, the lack of political clout when fighting to maintain viable independent county governments and local economies.

This all ties in with what is known as “The Wildlands Project”, and I strongly suggest if you have never heard of this plan, that you study the maps and documents pertaining to this United Nations supported scheme to “rewild” 50% of America, putting the land off-limits to man, (unless, of course, you are one of the privileged elite); to reintroduce wolves, grizzlies, and other “endangered species”; to close and rip out most roads; and to relocate rural populations to urban areas. This project is not some far-out, whacko fantasy. It is being carried out all across America, particularly in the rural West, by federal and state agencies and their environmentalist allies. Major “charitable foundations”, such as the Turner Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and W. Alton Jones Foundation, are providing grant monies. The radical greens, including The Nature Conservancy, have been deeply involved in the implementation of this project, and this region is in their sights.

In 2000, the tax-exempt TNC received $786 million in revenue, as much as its six nearest rivals combined, with assets of $2.8 billion, and it claims to have 92 million acres under its control. It claims to be a “private-sector, free-market” organization whose mission is saving environmentally sensitive land. In fact, much of its income is derived from taxpayer “grants”, income from securities and lucrative “flips” of purchased land to government agencies. In 1989, the Bureau of Land Management paid TNC $1.4 million for land it had simultaneously purchased for $1.26 million. Ken Smith, of The Washington Times, reports TNC bought the land with a $100 purchase option. “Wall Street investors in jail for insider trading never got a $140,000 return on a $100 investment.” Shades of Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures deal?

In 1992, the US Department of Interior’s Inspector General investigated land trust deals made by groups such as TNC and found that Interior had spent $7.1 million more than necessary between 1986 and 1991. In 1991, Missouri state auditors found the state had “paid $500,000 more than necessary on six land purchases from the Conservancy”. The auditors claimed there was a conspiracy to jack up the sales prices in violation of state financial regulations. In Texas, the Attorney General, Dan Morales, stripped TNC of its tax-exempt status because of similar activities.

Recently, the California chapter of TNC paid $35 million for the purchase of the 9,200 acre Staten Island, a privately owned corporate farm in the Sacramento area which is under intensive cultivation for crops and vegetables. TNC calls it a “demonstration farm” of little environmental significance, and will continue normal, for-profit commercial farming operations. CalFed, a state/federal agency, is putting up taxpayer’s dollars for the purchase. There will be little or no public access. Critics, including other environmental groups, question if there will be any public benefit. In fact, such taxpayer funded purchases are closer to fascist/socialistic exploitation of the land at the expense of truly private, free-market landowners.

The examples of this type of activity would fill many pages: using tax dollars to lobby local government in Florida, $1 million from the US Army to purchase “Conservation Easements” in Arizona, covert collusion in Nevada with USFWS and Del Webb Corporation of Arizona, the huge real estate developer, to acquire water rights from farmers. Food for thought…

Before moving on, there is one other incident deserving your attention. In 1994, TNC was found guilty by a federal judge of undue influence over a dying man. Dr. Frederic Gibbs, the developer of the electroencephalograph, willed a 95 acre farm to TNC. Apparently TNC helped Gibbs change his will after he became a mental incompetent.

Included in the literature are copies of just some of the Memoranda of Cooperation with US and international agencies. Note that the purpose of these agreements includes classification and inventory systems for plants, animals, resources, wetlands, watersheds, etc., and directly ties into the scandals which have extinguished tens of thousands of jobs, and decimated rural communities and economies based on agriculture, timbering and mining. The bio-fraud scandal involving the Canadian Lynx now has Washington, D.C. in an uproar; the fraud, involving falsified data, perpetrated against the Klamath Basin farmers in Oregon; the lies and deceptions employed by USFWS using horse meat to attract grizzly bears during bear counts; and evidence of cheating in spotted-owl studies in Oregon and Washington.

People are beginning to understand that much of the environmental assessment data being used to shut down rural America is junk-science and is being supported and promoted by groups such as TNC. But one of the saddest chapters in the recent history of “protecting the endangered species” involved last year’s forest fires in the Northern Cascade Range. Most Americans have not heard the story because of the massive cover-up by the Forest Service and black-out by the establishment news media. Four young firefighters died because the “endangered species people” argued, for over 8 hours, about allowing helicopters to dip water out of a river because some “endangered fish” might be dipped-up and dumped on the fire. The original 25 acre fire exploded to 2500 acres during that time. The deaths were a direct result of “environmental insanity”. You will find more details in the article, Blood on their Hands.

Read more @ http://www.vlrc.org/articles/45.html (http://www.vlrc.org/articles/45.html)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on September 02, 2014, 10:27:49 AM
No- I think the feds and states buying ground is to protect habitat from development.  Hunting and access to public lands are a benefit of that purchase, so is having wildlife to hunt and enjoy.
:yeah:
It is absurd to me that someone on a hunting forum full of a lot of public land hunters would be posting drivel about how fish and wildlife agencies buying land to protect hunting access and wildlife habitat is a bad thing. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on September 02, 2014, 11:21:31 AM
The Nature Conservancy is not a "radical" environmental group. They do a lot to protect critical wildlife habitat from development.  Much of the land they purchase ends up being transferred to public ownership, and that's a great benefit to hunters. The Nature Conservancy even allows hunting on some of their properties. So they are not the "radical" group you think they are. Do some more research.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 12:12:51 PM
The Nature Conservancy is not a "radical" environmental group. They do a lot to protect critical wildlife habitat from development.  Much of the land they purchase ends up being transferred to public ownership, and that's a great benefit to hunters. The Nature Conservancy even allows hunting on some of their properties. So they are not the "radical" group you think they are. Do some more research.

There's plenty of information posted above that gives anyone a good idea of how the TNC and other environmentalist groups got started and what they represent.

Are you too lazy to read them Bobcat?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 02, 2014, 01:35:03 PM
No- I think the feds and states buying ground is to protect habitat from development.  Hunting and access to public lands are a benefit of that purchase, so is having wildlife to hunt and enjoy.
:yeah:
It is absurd to me that someone on a hunting forum full of a lot of public land hunters would be posting drivel about how fish and wildlife agencies buying land to protect hunting access and wildlife habitat is a bad thing.

 :yeah:

Maybe he has an extra $150.00 on top of licenses, tags, and fees to spend on private property hunting rights.    :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 01:45:27 PM
Globalized Grizzlies

The FWS tapped Louisa Willcox, a founder of the eco-terrorist group Earth First! and project coordinator for Wild Forever, to preside over the meeting's speaker agenda. In a coordinated fashion, environmental groups asked that roadless areas be kept roadless, that roaded public lands be reduced below one mile of road per square mile, that grizzly bear recovery zones be doubled in size to over 50,000 square miles, that grizzly bear habitat be connected with corridors, and that grizzly bear food sources and habitat be protected from human disturbance.

While eco-terrorists and their allies were treated with respectful attention by the FWS, the original agenda of the meeting was intended to prevent property owners and resource industry spokesmen from testifying. It was only through the persistence of Joe Beardsley, a private citizen, that the FWS was shamed into giving him and a few other local citizens about 30 minutes for spontaneous testimony 3⁄4 a token concession at best, given the well-orchestrated five-hour tag-team effort by the radical environmentalists.

Read more @ www.epi-us.com/globalize.pdf (http://www.epi-us.com/globalize.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 02, 2014, 02:14:18 PM
Hey, let's go hunting....

http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html)

http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw (http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw)

https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx (https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx)

Now say you want to hunt more than one of those areas, the costs go up exponentially. Us "city folk" who don't live a sheltered life in the sticks are rapidly running out of hunting options close to home and you wanna complain about more public land? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 02:44:22 PM
Hey, let's go hunting....

http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html)

http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw (http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw)

https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx (https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx)

Now say you want to hunt more than one of those areas, the costs go up exponentially. Us "city folk" who don't live a sheltered life in the sticks are rapidly running out of hunting options close to home and you wanna complain about more public land? Good luck with that.

Imagine what it will be like when the USFWS etc. start shutting down all this land that use to be private for wildlife corridors. Now that's really going to suck. Imagine the cost to hunt in the areas you just list will be then?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 03:04:36 PM
THEY'RE STILL STEALING OUR LAND!

http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/fall98/still_stealing.htm (http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/fall98/still_stealing.htm)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 02, 2014, 03:14:52 PM
Hey, let's go hunting....

http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/rayonier-selling-permits-to-hunt-on-its-land/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html)

http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw (http://property.rayonierhunting.com/Permits/PermitsHome.aspx?gclid=CJ2yg5-2w8ACFURgfgod9L0ANw)

https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx (https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/Permits/PropertyPage_Longview.aspx)

Now say you want to hunt more than one of those areas, the costs go up exponentially. Us "city folk" who don't live a sheltered life in the sticks are rapidly running out of hunting options close to home and you wanna complain about more public land? Good luck with that.

Imagine what it will be like when the USFWS etc. start shutting down all this land that use to be private for wildlife corridors. Now that's really going to suck. Imagine the cost to hunt in the areas you just list will be then?

Shut down land...oh you mean like how WeyCo and their fellow timber companies gated off their land? Like how ranchers whose land surrounds public land balk at giving public access because they don't want roads "blazing" through their land?

Give me a break. There are a lot of landowners who don't give two toots about hunting access and many who don't want hunters on their land period. Or do you think people buying up land to make ranchets are hunter friendly?

This is not 1950, much of what was open to the public is gone, sold by land owners to be used for anything but hunting or flat out closed off. Win lose or draw public land is the future of hunting and it will live or die on it. Particularly if the population of this state continues to grow.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 02, 2014, 03:23:14 PM
The Nature Conservancy is not a "radical" environmental group. They do a lot to protect critical wildlife habitat from development.  Much of the land they purchase ends up being transferred to public ownership, and that's a great benefit to hunters. The Nature Conservancy even allows hunting on some of their properties. So they are not the "radical" group you think they are. Do some more research.
They are a real estate group.  They are usually approached by enviros to buy land that gets locked up due to enviro regs and devalued.  Then they sell it to the government, usually for a profit.  They are all about money, and they have a good angle for their dealings.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on September 02, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
50 years of the Wilderness Act: A legacy for Idaho and 'boy wonder'
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1)

 :tup:

I read this article and thought...thank goodness we had folks like Frank Church willing to fight the good fight oh so many years ago.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 02, 2014, 04:26:24 PM
I wonder what Frank would think of the wolves that were introduced to slaughter the game herds etc.?

Infiltration of LittleTown, U.S.A., Part 3: the Wildlands Project and Agenda 21 in Idaho
http://www.thedailyherb.com/infiltration-littletown-u-s-a-wildlands-project-agenda-21-idaho/ (http://www.thedailyherb.com/infiltration-littletown-u-s-a-wildlands-project-agenda-21-idaho/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 03, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
50 years of the Wilderness Act: A legacy for Idaho and 'boy wonder'
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1)

 :tup:

I read this article and thought...thank goodness we had folks like Frank Church willing to fight the good fight oh so many years ago.
I will be in there this fall for 16 days.  I can't wait to see that country! 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on September 03, 2014, 11:26:53 AM
50 years of the Wilderness Act: A legacy for Idaho and 'boy wonder'
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/08/30/3348721_a-legacy-for-idaho-and-boy-wonder.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1)

 :tup:

I read this article and thought...thank goodness we had folks like Frank Church willing to fight the good fight oh so many years ago.
I will be in there this fall for 16 days.  I can't wait to see that country! 
:tup: You will love it in there.  If you are going to be down by any sort of tributary you might want to consider bringing in a fly rod...even if you don't fish much...September can be some AMAZING cutthroat fishing...and over 16 days in that rugged country you might have a day or two where you want to take it easy!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on September 03, 2014, 08:54:22 PM
No- I think the feds and states buying ground is to protect habitat from development.  Hunting and access to public lands are a benefit of that purchase, so is having wildlife to hunt and enjoy.
:yeah:
It is absurd to me that someone on a hunting forum full of a lot of public land hunters would be posting drivel about how fish and wildlife agencies buying land to protect hunting access and wildlife habitat is a bad thing.

I'll meet you at the Big Valley Ranch in the Methow, and I'll show you personally the "absurd" WDFW purchase first hand.

The Public has access to maybe 100 acre's of 950 acre's purchased at the 2000(whole Ranch) acre's price.   The rest of the ranch(WDFW didn't want), which was winter habit for mule deer, was not even up fore consideration and the owner kept it and sold it off to others who POSTED it all.  Almost a 1000 acres of prime habit.  And the owner also was able to keep 300 acres of Wet lands!  go figure!

YEP the land purchases need to continue!

Public land is needed no dought, but be careful how you approach the subject of WDFW purchases!!   Some of us have first hand knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors.

   
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 15, 2014, 10:25:43 AM
Did Obama's Interior hobble the Endangered Species Act?
A new policy sets the law back a half-century, conservationists say.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/has-obamas-interior-hobbled-the-endangered-species-act?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email (http://www.hcn.org/articles/has-obamas-interior-hobbled-the-endangered-species-act?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 15, 2014, 09:13:13 PM
Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations

FWS prepared a recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 1987.47 However, the 1987 recovery goal was later deemed insufficient. It was modified through scientific inquiry and peer review in 1994 and reaffirmed in 2002.48 The Northern Rocky Mountain recovery goal is a connected three-state wolf population that never goes below 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. Connectivity is a key part of population recovery, as it ensures adequate genetic exchange for the long-term viability of the species. When wolves are delisted and state management fully replaces federal management, FWS has determined that the recovery goal is being maintained when each state (Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) maintains at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Gray%20Wolf%20DPS.pdf (http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Gray%20Wolf%20DPS.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 05:13:19 AM
So wolves are not endangered in a significant portion of its range than does this mean they will be delisted? 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 08, 2014, 05:35:15 PM
‘International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’ behind pocket gopher hoax
Posted on OCTOBER 28, 2014 Written by MELISSA GENSON, WATCHDOGWIRE.COM
http://agenda21news.com/2014/10/part-five-international-commission-zoological-nomenclature-behind-pocket-gopher-hoax/ (http://agenda21news.com/2014/10/part-five-international-commission-zoological-nomenclature-behind-pocket-gopher-hoax/)

Secret Gopher Map Reveals Washington Agency’s Power
Posted on OCTOBER 29, 2014 Written by MELISSA GENSON, WATCHDOGWIRE.COM
HTTP://AGENDA21NEWS.COM/2014/10/SECRET-GOPHER-MAP-REVEALS-WASHINGTON-AGENCYS-POWER/ (http://HTTP://AGENDA21NEWS.COM/2014/10/SECRET-GOPHER-MAP-REVEALS-WASHINGTON-AGENCYS-POWER/)

Government claims about pocket gopher protection remain flawed
Posted on NOVEMBER 6, 2014 Written by MELISSA GENSON, HTTP://WATCHDOGWIRE.COM (http://HTTP://WATCHDOGWIRE.COM)
HTTP://AGENDA21NEWS.COM/2014/11/GOVERNMENT-CLAIMS-POCKET-GOPHER-PROTECTION-REMAIN-FLAWED/ (http://HTTP://AGENDA21NEWS.COM/2014/11/GOVERNMENT-CLAIMS-POCKET-GOPHER-PROTECTION-REMAIN-FLAWED/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 08, 2014, 05:36:39 PM
Court smacks fed claim rodents impact 'interstate commerce'

A federal judge has rejected Washington’s claim that prairie dogs have a “substantial” impact on “interstate commerce,” throwing out a special rule protecting their burrows on private land in Utah and thus allowing property owners there to resume use of their own lands.



The decision was praised by officials with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which argued the case against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, on behalf of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners.

“This ruling frees the people of Cedar City from unconstitutional regulations that made it impossible for them to build their dream homes, defend their airport, and protect the sanctity of their loved ones’ final resting places,” said PLF staff attorney Jonathan Wood.

“Now, these property owners, and the local governments, needn’t fear the heavy hand of the federal government when they use and maintain their property, and do what most of us take for granted,” he said in a statement released Thursday.

The issue was that federal bureaucrats had designated the Utah prairie dog, a rodent that lives only in Utah but has a population there of tens of thousands of animals, as protected.

That meant that nothing could be done that could “harm” the rodents without special federal permission, such as removing their burrows from cemeteries or airport runways, or building homes where they occupied the land.

Specifically the lawsuit challenged the federal action in applying the Endangered Species Act’s anti-”take” rules to the Utah prairie dog in most areas and circumstances where the species is found. “Take” is defined broadly to include: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a member of a protected species.

Fines and prison time are the penalties.

The result was that landowners were prevented from building homes they planned, groups was prevented from doing maintenance on cemeteries, and local governments were even prevented from doing repairs and making other changes to local airports, because of the potential “harm” that could befall an individual Utah prairie dog.

U.S. District Judge Dee Benson, however, threw out the federal agency’s claims that it could impose its rules and restrictions on private land.

“Although the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to do many things, it does not authorize Congress to regulate takes of a purely intrastate species that has no substantial effect on interstate commerce. Congress similarly lacks authority through the Necessary and Proper Clause because the regulation of takes of Utah prairie dogs is not essential or necessary to the [Endangered Species Act's] economic scheme,” the judge wrote.

“The federal government may take whatever measures it likes on its own property, in order to protect the prairie dog,” Wood continued. “But it can’t violate the U.S. Constitution by taking away the property rights of private citizens or local governments.”

Pacific Legal explained the Utah prairie dog is one of five prairie dog species in North America. Found only in Utah, it feeds on plants and insects, lives in colonies, and digs burrows and networks of tunnels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates its population at more than 40,000. Nevertheless, the agency lists it as “threatened” on the Endangered Species Act list.

The judge warned of the consequences of deciding any other way.

“If Congress could use the Commerce Clause to regulate anything that might affect the ecosystem (to say nothing about its effect on commerce), there would be no logical stopping point to congressional power under the Commerce Clause.”

The federal government argued there is an impact on interstate commerce – the fact that the animal was protected actually prevented economic development. And the government said the Utah prairie dog “has biological and commercial value” since they “contribute to the ecosystem” and, in fact, are food for eagles and bobcats.

And, the federal government asserted, the prairie dog attracts some interstate tourism.

But the judge said the Supreme Court has limited Commerce Clause arguments to only a few scenarios, none of which was present in this case.

“It is clear that the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to regulate takes of Utah prairie dogs on non-federal land,” the judge said.

And, the judge said, claims “purporting to establish a link between Utah prairie dog takes and a substantial effect on interstate commerce are attenuated.”

“The fact that scientific research has been conducted and books have been published about the Utah prairie dog is similarly too attenuated to establish a substantial relation between the take of the Utah prairie dog and interstate commerce,” the judge wrote. “After all, scientific research has also been conducted and books have also been published about both guns and women.

“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that federal regulation of gun possession and violence against women is beyond Congress’ Commerce Clause power.”

And the judge said government arguments that the rule is authorized under the Necessary and Proper Clause also failed.

“Takes of Utah prairie dogs on non-federal land – even to the point of extinction – would not substantially affect the national market for any commodity regulated by the ESA. The only evidence that suggests that the prairie dog’s extinction would substantially affect such a national market is defendants’ assertion that golden eagles, hawks, and bobcats are ‘known to prey on prairie dogs.’

“However, defendants do not claim that the Utah prairie dog is a major food source for those animals, and those animals are known to prey on many other rodents, birds, and fish,” the judge wrote.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-smacks-fed-claim-rodents-impact-interstate-commerce/#SpA5RzeMkfMIvFJL.99 (http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-smacks-fed-claim-rodents-impact-interstate-commerce/#SpA5RzeMkfMIvFJL.99)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 10, 2014, 06:22:51 PM
EPA’s Secret & Costly “Sue & Settle” Collusion With Environmental Organizations

“Sue and Settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein  court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors.

Noting that this ESA-based Sue and Settle ruling presents a problem for private landowners throughout the country, Senator Vitter is also encouraging the inclusion of USWFS (which was not originally included) in the multi-state AG FOIA collusion investigation. Recognizing that the path forward towards obtaining disclosure will be difficult, Vitter added that he was: “Warily confident that both EPA and USFWS will shun all efforts to open the doors on these practices, the negotiations, and the communications between agency staff and outside groups regarding Sue and Settle agreements.”

Read more @

http://westernminingalliance.org/2014/01/26/epas-secret-costly-sue-settle-collusion-with-environmental-organizations/ (http://westernminingalliance.org/2014/01/26/epas-secret-costly-sue-settle-collusion-with-environmental-organizations/)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 24, 2014, 04:59:22 AM
Job Creators Sue Federal Government
Marita Noon | Mar 23, 2014

For years environmentalists have usurped individual private property rights and thwarted economic development. Now, thanks to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, it appears that the job creators may have finally learned something from the extreme tactics of groups, like the Wild Earth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which have been using the courts to their advantage by filing lawsuits against the federal government.

On Monday, March 17, on behalf of the state of Oklahoma and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), Pruitt filed a lawsuit against the federal government, specifically the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The lawsuit alleges the “FWS engaged in ‘sue and settle’ tactics when the agency agreed to settle a lawsuit with a national environmental group over the [Endangered Species Act] listing status of several animal species, including the Lesser Prairie Chicken.”

The Lesser Prairie Chicken (LPC) is especially important, as the FWS is required—based on the conditions set forth in the settlement of a 2010 lawsuit—to make a determination, explicitly, on the LPC by March 31, 2014. A “threatened” listing would restrict the land use in the bird’s 40-million-acre, five-state habitat: Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas. The affected area includes private, state, and federal lands—lands rich in energy resources, ranch and farm land—plus, municipal infrastructure, such as water pipelines and electric transmission.

Understanding the negative impact a listing would have, industry (oil and gas, electric transmission and distribution, pipelines, agriculture and wind energy), states, and the FWS have collaborated to develop a historic range-wide plan (RWP) to demonstrate that the LPC and its prairie habitat can be protected without needing to list it. The RWP includes habitat management goals and conservation practices to be applied throughout the LPC’s range. According to a press release about the Oklahoma law suit, the cooperative effort has spent $26 million dollars on the voluntary conservation plan—which would be more than enough to protect restore LPC habitat, as well as to develop an elaborate state-of-the-art LPC hatchery. RWP enrollees are optimistic the FWS can cite the conservation commitment as justification for a decision not to list the LPC as a threatened species.

A DEPA spokesman states: “this designation could disrupt drilling and exploration on hundreds of thousands of very promising oil and gas lands in this part of the country.” The CBD has made no secret of their disdain for oil and gas extraction and has filed many successful lawsuits specifically to block development.

Pruitt says: “the sue-and-settle timelines force the FWS to make determinations without a thorough review of the science. This violates the original statute requiring sound science before listing species.”

Stephen Moore, formerly with the Wall Street Journal, explains: “Under the Obama administration, the feds have entered into a consent agreement with the environmentalists to rush forward a judgment on an unprecedented number of species. A 2012 Chamber of Commerce study found record numbers of such ‘sue and settle’ cases under Obama.” Pruitt adds: “Under President Obama, we have had sue and settle on steroids.”

Political impacts

The “rush” as Moore calls it, is being driven by the desire to get the decisions made under the friendly Obama Administration—which may appease the environmental base while, unwittingly, hurting Democrats in the 2014 elections and handing the Senate to Republicans.

The LPC decision impacts five western states, from which even Democrat Senators, aware of the potential economic impact, sent a letter to the FWS asking to delay listing the LPC as threatened. The next big listing is the Greater Sage Grouse (GSG) with a habitat covering eleven western states. If the LPC is listed, after the groundbreaking efforts to preserve its habitat, there will be no similar cooperation on the GSG. The GSG will surely be listed—triggering a modern Sage Brush Rebellion and costing Democrats the Senate (and some House seats, too).

The Democrats are in a bind. The rushed listings are being forced by the environmental base, which is myopically focused on the anti-fossil-fuel (job-killing) agenda of restricting oil-and-gas development on western lands and isn’t looking at the bigger political consequences.

It appears the decision has been made. Sources tell me that Dan Ashe, Director of the FWS, has called a meeting on Capitol Hill to brief the stakeholders prior to Thursday’s announcement. If he decides to list the LPC, Pruitt’s lawsuit could be just the first shot that ignites the new rebellion pushing states to take control of the lands within their borders.

Kent Holsinger, a Colorado-based attorney specializing in Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues, told me: “State wildlife management is much more efficient and effective than federal listings. Oklahoma and DEPA should be commended for pushing back on these issues.”

The environmentalists are looking at the end, but not the political means.

Power Shift

For CBD, it isn’t even about the science. Its staff page boasts three times as many attorneys as biologists.

In a High Country News interview with CBD co-founder Kieran Suckling, he explains how their strategy was developed through their first “major victory” over the Mexican wolf.

Previously environmental groups had no leverage with the government, other than saying “pretty please.” In the case of the wolf, groups proposed introducing it onto New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range. The general in charge of the range had no interest. Suckling reports: “The strategy of the wolf coalition was to wait for the general to retire. We decided, let’s just sue instead. It got settled with the Service agreeing to do a wolf study, which led to reintroduction. That was the moment when we looked at it and said, ‘Wow.’ The environmental movement spent a decade going to meetings and demanding action and getting nothing done. They were asking powerful people for something from a position of no power. We realized that we can bypass the officials and sue, and that we can get things done in court.”

Suckling called lawsuits: “one tool in a larger campaign.” He explained: “we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species. That plays out on many levels. At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.”

When asked if his lack of a degree in science was a hindrance, he answered: “No” and pointed out that “the professionalization of the environmental movement has injured it greatly.” He added: “I’m more interested in hiring philosophers, linguists and poets. The core talent of a successful environmental activist is not science and law. It’s campaigning instinct.” They operate on emotion, not science.

Sue and Settle

It is these tactics, along with a friendly Obama government, that has led to the “sue and settle” procedure that Pruitt’s lawsuit is hoping to end. The lawsuit is seeking “declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the ESA.” Moore reports: “The relief is intended to overturn designations of dozens of species added to the threatened or endangered list through the ‘sue and settle’ process.”

The Oklahoma lawsuit asserts: “the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by agreeing in its settlement with Wild Earth Guardians to not consider the statutorily-created ‘warranted but precluded’ category when determining the listing status of the 251 candidate species.” Additionally, the lawsuit states: “the FWS violated the law by agreeing to a truncated timeline to the decision-making process on the listing status of the 251 candidate species, essentially sidestepping the rule making process.”

Pruitt believes that: “because these settlements are taking place without public input, attorneys general are unable to represent the respective interests of their states, businesses, and citizens.” Forbes Contributor Larry Bell agrees: “While the environmental group is given a seat at the table, outsiders who are most impacted are excluded, with no opportunity to object to the settlements.”

Bell describes the “sue and settle” practice—sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”—this way:

Cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.

In a succinct soliloquy about the LPC and GSG, Fox Business’ Stuart Varney says: “I’ve always been amazed at the ability of a very small, but well-funded, group to get their way using the court system. But, that is what really is happening. The Sage Grouse and the Lesser Prairie Chicken interests are obviously far more important than America’s interest in energy independence.”

Gratefully, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has stepped up to the plate and used the environmentalists’ tactics and filed a lawsuit against the federal government. It will not delay the March 31 deadline for the FWS decision on the LPC, but it could “overturn designations of dozens of species added to the threatened or endangered list through the ‘sue and settle’ process.” It could prevent the unnecessary listing of thousands of other flora and fauna—allowing companies to continue providing the jobs, producing the oil, natural gas, and other commodities such as timber and critical minerals that are so important to America and our energy freedom.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.


http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2014/03/23/job-creators-sue-federal-government-n1813160/page/full (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2014/03/23/job-creators-sue-federal-government-n1813160/page/full)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)


"When asked if his lack of a degree in science was a hindrance, he answered: “No” and pointed out that “the professionalization of the environmental movement has injured it greatly.” He added: “I’m more interested in hiring philosophers, linguists and poets. The core talent of a successful environmental activist is not science and law. It’s campaigning instinct.” They operate on emotion, not science."
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 24, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Dept of Interior Plays Hide-n-Sneak with Congress
Dept of Interior Plays Hide-n-Sneak with Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZStV4kgb-1A#ws)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 07:18:29 AM
BATTERED COMMUNITIES 

http://www.undueinfluence.com/Battered%20Communities.pdf (http://www.undueinfluence.com/Battered%20Communities.pdf)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2015, 06:53:12 PM
Prairie dog case challenges ESA
http://www.hcn.org/articles/prairie-dog-case-bites-back-at-endangered-species-act?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 11, 2015, 11:52:09 AM
Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 14, 2015, 06:49:09 AM
Feds: Sage-grouse populations threatened by wildfires

Originally published September 13, 2015 at 6:30 pm
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/feds-sage-grouse-populations-threatened-by-wildfires/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2015, 07:36:47 AM
If you've paid attention at all to all the "fire" websites over the past years, There was a new phrase added to this years reports/briefings!

"Sage Grouse habitat threatened"

EVEN where there were fires and Sage Grouse DON'T exist  :bash: let the propaganda continue :rolleyes:

Keep wearing the tinfoil and drinking the kool-aid BOYS

Title: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on September 29, 2015, 07:47:05 AM
Come on, it's not a stretch to believe that sage brush burning up is not beneficial to sage grouse and can negatively affect sage grouse populations.

Here's a tip for ya:  Not EVERYTHING that a government agency says is a lie.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Bean Counter on September 29, 2015, 07:56:59 AM
Hang on guys, I'm reading about how a steak dinner is is a 'middle finger at the planet.' The low lying countries are going to flood because I eat protein and as our Dear Leader explained, global warming is the cause of ISIS :chuckle:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees/index.html

But eating beef, as I'll explain, has come to be seen, rightly, in certain enviro circles, as the new SUV -- a hopelessly selfish, American indulgence; a middle finger to the planet. It's not the main driver of global warming -- that's burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation -- but it does contribute significantly.

Globally, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role -- 65% -- comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 29, 2015, 09:38:50 AM
Isn't that why the 'food pyramid' was recently revised?  Cut beef consumption to cool off the planet. :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: magnanimous_j on September 29, 2015, 09:47:47 AM
Hang on guys, I'm reading about how a steak dinner is is a 'middle finger at the planet.' The low lying countries are going to flood because I eat protein and as our Dear Leader explained, global warming is the cause of ISIS :chuckle:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees/index.html

But eating beef, as I'll explain, has come to be seen, rightly, in certain enviro circles, as the new SUV -- a hopelessly selfish, American indulgence; a middle finger to the planet. It's not the main driver of global warming -- that's burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation -- but it does contribute significantly.

Globally, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role -- 65% -- comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.


That's a bunch of crap. All mammals create greenhouse gases. As populations of wild animals decrease due to human encroachment, domesticated animals are of course going to become a more significant source. Even if it is just a bunch of cows, increased biomass of animals is a good thing for the planet.

If we just phased out coal alone, we would more than offset any greenhouse emissions from animals. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: JLS on September 29, 2015, 09:58:43 AM
If you've paid attention at all to all the "fire" websites over the past years, There was a new phrase added to this years reports/briefings!

"Sage Grouse habitat threatened"

EVEN where there were fires and Sage Grouse DON'T exist  :bash: let the propaganda continue :rolleyes:

Keep wearing the tinfoil and drinking the kool-aid BOYS

It doesn't take much cerebral activity to realize two things:

1)  Hot fires that nuke mature sagebrush stands allow cheatgrass to invade (look anywhere in the Great Basin), which is bad for sage grouse.

2)  Elimination of sage grouse habitat, occupied or not, is detrimental to the long term health of the population.  If the habitat is gone, it cannot be colonized if sage grouse populations stabilize and/or expand.

I'm sure it's all propaganda, after all the sage grouse got listed, right.  Oh wait........

......it didn't.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2015, 01:52:26 PM
If you've paid attention at all to all the "fire" websites over the past years, There was a new phrase added to this years reports/briefings!

"Sage Grouse habitat threatened"


EVEN where there were fires and Sage Grouse DON'T exist  :bash: let the propaganda continue :rolleyes:

Keep wearing the tinfoil and drinking the kool-aid BOYS

That's not a new phrase.

http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/ (http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/)

But of course, if it isn't elk or deer who cares, right? 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 29, 2015, 04:49:03 PM
If you've paid attention at all to all the "fire" websites over the past years, There was a new phrase added to this years reports/briefings!

"Sage Grouse habitat threatened"


EVEN where there were fires and Sage Grouse DON'T exist  :bash: let the propaganda continue :rolleyes:

Keep wearing the tinfoil and drinking the kool-aid BOYS

That's not a new phrase.

http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/ (http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/)

But of course, if it isn't elk or deer who cares, right?

No sage grouse, no wolves, no problem there is always catch and release.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2015, 05:41:55 PM
 :chuckle: I see some don't read the reports :chuckle:,  but hey, not everyone concerns themselves with what goes on around them.

IT is a new phrase in our "area" reports.

Yes Sage Grouse need habitat that is theirs,  but you don't find them in dense TIMBER.

So ask yourself this question, WHY would you add a statement into a report if it has NOTHING to do with the area being BURNED up??? pssssst, its called $$$$$$$$$$ trains
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on September 29, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
The sage grouse is the next spotted owl    The only people on this earth that actually care about sage grouse are hunters. But ESA will use them to close lands and accesses.  Once again agenda 21 comes to mind
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Bean Counter on September 29, 2015, 10:59:46 PM
Hang on guys, I'm reading about how a steak dinner is is a 'middle finger at the planet.' The low lying countries are going to flood because I eat protein and as our Dear Leader explained, global warming is the cause of ISIS :chuckle:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees/index.html

But eating beef, as I'll explain, has come to be seen, rightly, in certain enviro circles, as the new SUV -- a hopelessly selfish, American indulgence; a middle finger to the planet. It's not the main driver of global warming -- that's burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation -- but it does contribute significantly.

Globally, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role -- 65% -- comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.


That's a bunch of crap. All mammals create greenhouse gases. As populations of wild animals decrease due to human encroachment, domesticated animals are of course going to become a more significant source. Even if it is just a bunch of cows, increased biomass of animals is a good thing for the planet.

If we just phased out coal alone, we would more than offset any greenhouse emissions from animals.

I think the point is that because of increased consumer demand that cattle are commercially pumped out in a breeding factory which artificially inflates their numbers on the range. They state that the manure runoff from large cattle operations devastates waterways and all that other jazz. Plus that animals are overgrazing grasslands. We should just do like the North Koreans and be grazing grass ourselves, I guess  :o
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 30, 2015, 07:01:18 AM
:chuckle: I see some don't read the reports :chuckle:,  but hey, not everyone concerns themselves with what goes on around them.

IT is a new phrase in our "area" reports.

Yes Sage Grouse need habitat that is theirs,  but you don't find them in dense TIMBER.

So ask yourself this question, WHY would you add a statement into a report if it has NOTHING to do with the area being BURNED up??? pssssst, its called $$$$$$$$$$ trains

Yeah, lots of forest...

http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/08152015-ChelanFire_04-300x192.jpg (http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/08152015-ChelanFire_04-300x192.jpg)

Not everything that burned was timber.

I doubt the sage grouse will ever be listed Federally. Too many economic interests at play that would be negatively impacted. At the state level...that's another story. Though in Washington it would probably be too little too late and it has been for years. Development and less thoughtful agricultural practices have ensured that.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Stein on September 30, 2015, 07:16:17 AM
Randy Newberg just did a podcast on the grouse, interesting information on the decline and ESA issues.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: westsidehntr on September 30, 2015, 07:20:38 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on September 30, 2015, 07:27:10 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on September 30, 2015, 07:33:21 AM
Quick question, has anyone seen a "sage grouse" in or around Chelan, Okanogan area?

I've seen lots of Blues and Ruffs,  in Douglas county I've hunted and seen "sage hens" and Sharptails.

Never seen a Sage Grouse(Prairie Chicken) that the Feds are trying to get listed.  Except in pictures, haven't traveled much in this country, too much a home body!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on September 30, 2015, 07:42:39 AM
I've seen sage grouse in Douglas county.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: westsidehntr on September 30, 2015, 07:44:42 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?

 :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: magnanimous_j on September 30, 2015, 07:47:49 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?

If it turns out that westsidehntr doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed, I will feel like the biggest idiot on the planet for having wasted so much time arguing with this guy.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: westsidehntr on September 30, 2015, 07:50:22 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?

If it turns out that westsidehntr doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed, I will feel like the biggest idiot on the planet for having wasted so much time arguing with this guy.

 :chuckle: The evidence is pretty hard to deny. As for the bold part of your statement, that's still up for debate.  :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 30, 2015, 07:50:50 AM
Another question to always ask, is how long ago did the dinosaurs exist?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: westsidehntr on September 30, 2015, 07:52:22 AM
Sorry for derailing the thread onto Trex.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 30, 2015, 07:55:03 AM
Sorry for derailing the thread onto Trex.
http://www.trex.com/products/decking/?gclid=CjwKEAjwkK6wBRCcoK_tiOT-zFASJAC7RAri9YpKM7ACIhpPZGeAySTcNYDCOA8AtYpwnnw9o86BmxoCvk7w_wcB
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: westsidehntr on September 30, 2015, 07:57:54 AM
Sorry for derailing the thread onto Trex.
http://www.trex.com/products/decking/?gclid=CjwKEAjwkK6wBRCcoK_tiOT-zFASJAC7RAri9YpKM7ACIhpPZGeAySTcNYDCOA8AtYpwnnw9o86BmxoCvk7w_wcB

Did trex start because timber is an endangered species??
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 30, 2015, 08:20:37 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?

If it turns out that westsidehntr doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed, I will feel like the biggest idiot on the planet for having wasted so much time arguing with this guy
Quick question, has anyone seen a "sage grouse" in or around Chelan, Okanogan area?

I've seen lots of Blues and Ruffs,  in Douglas county I've hunted and seen "sage hens" and Sharptails.

Never seen a Sage Grouse(Prairie Chicken) that the Feds are trying to get listed.  Except in pictures, haven't traveled much in this country, too much a home body!
Not sure how much of a HomeBody, buy they are like 30 miles from where you live.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
I've seen sage grouse in Douglas county.

And there were fires there this year.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 30, 2015, 09:08:22 AM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?
Wait a minute. Do you question that dinosaur's existed?

 :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 30, 2015, 09:18:18 AM
I've seen sage grouse in Douglas county.

And there were fires there this year.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 30, 2015, 10:02:24 AM
I've seen sage grouse in Douglas county.

And there were fires there this year.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/wildfires/2015/07/11/douglas-county-fires-grow-threaten-homes/30021269/ (http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/wildfires/2015/07/11/douglas-county-fires-grow-threaten-homes/30021269/)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 30, 2015, 10:05:20 AM
I don't think those fires will impact the grouse too much, they tend to be up around leahy
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on September 30, 2015, 10:06:47 AM
Timberfaller, wouldn't you think it is a good thing that they are paying attention to sage grouse habitat.  Maybe prior to paying attention they might just let some sage brush burn, but if they know about sage grouse living there, maybe they would be more likely to not let it burn up.  I would think you'd be for that....... :dunno:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 30, 2015, 11:57:25 AM
Timberfaller, wouldn't you think it is a good thing that they are paying attention to sage grouse habitat.  Maybe prior to paying attention they might just let some sage brush burn, but if they know about sage grouse living there, maybe they would be more likely to not let it burn up.  I would think you'd be for that....... :dunno:

Spotted owl, wolves, grizzly bears, fish, protecting these critters is not about their habitat, it is about Who is in control of the water and land etc., taking private property rights away etc..

Taking Liberty, How Private Property is being Abolished in America

http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Stein on September 30, 2015, 12:06:25 PM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?

Yes, it does.  Even if you don't care about that bird, you probably care about two other animals that inhabit the same areas - mule deer and antelope.  I'm not saying listing them is the right thing, but taking care of the habitat is.  The decline is pretty spooky.

We know how to conserve animals - deer, elk, salmon, and others are at fantastic numbers now.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AspenBud on September 30, 2015, 12:12:19 PM
As the world changes, it is inevitable that some populations of animals will die off. See wooly mammoth (anyone want those around still), dinosaurs (if they ever existed), tons of smaller species, etc... Why get your panties in a wad over one little bird going extinct? Does it make any difference in the big picture?

Yes, it does.  Even if you don't care about that bird, you probably care about two other animals that inhabit the same areas - mule deer and antelope.  I'm not saying listing them is the right thing, but taking care of the habitat is.  The decline is pretty spooky.

We know how to conserve animals - deer, elk, salmon, and others are at fantastic numbers now.

Elk like sage grouse habitat as well. It serves as winter range and calving ground for them in a lot of places.

Title: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bobcat on September 30, 2015, 12:20:29 PM
:yeah:

Deer, elk, and antelope ALL benefit from sagebrush. So if you don't care about a bird, maybe you do care about those big game animals. (If you're a hunter) Wolfbait we know you're not so it makes sense that you don't care about protecting wildlife habitat.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 30, 2015, 12:28:14 PM
Bwahhahahahahahaa best thread I have read all day!!! 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on September 30, 2015, 12:42:11 PM
Curly,  I've always been FOR saving Wildlife's habitats!!  Burning(let it burn :o)it at times is beneficial, BUT wildfires do more damage then controlled burns and any evil logger ever did!!

There are better ways of "lowering fuel loads" then just controlled burns too.   BUT people in powerful  places don't listen to common sense or "species" needs.

Case in point, back when the Methow Ranger district started into the program of "controlled burns" would NOT listen to those about Grouse nesting practices.  WE tried to convince them other wise but their "biologist" trumped common sense.  IF you know forest grouse nesting habits you'll understand.

AND most of the "controlled" burns turned into full blown wild fires :bash:  We had a name for them in the Methow, "Luecheon's Pollutions"

Destroyed lots of nests over a period of just a few years,  and some wonder where oh where did all the grouse go??
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 03, 2015, 01:54:55 PM
:yeah:

Deer, elk, and antelope ALL benefit from sagebrush. So if you don't care about a bird, maybe you do care about those big game animals. (If you're a hunter) Wolfbait we know you're not so it makes sense that you don't care about protecting wildlife habitat.

Bobcat are you trying to say that people who are not hunters don't care about wildlife habitat? Or was that just another one of your silly little side comments that has no credibility?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2016, 08:12:27 AM
Wolverines need quick help against climate change, court says
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/apr/04/wolverines-need-quick-help-against-climate-change-court-says/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 11, 2016, 08:21:54 AM
JFC! what do they think the wolverine does during the summer, die off?  Some places in AK where they are thriving get to be almost 100deg in the summer, I don't think they will have a problem with climate change. JMHO
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2016, 10:14:23 AM
JFC! what do they think the wolverine does during the summer, die off?  Some places in AK where they are thriving get to be almost 100deg in the summer, I don't think they will have a problem with climate change. JMHO
:yeah: :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 11, 2016, 11:31:19 AM
They den in snow.  If the snow is gone, they fail.

That's why there are no wolverines in Texas....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on April 11, 2016, 11:47:58 AM
 :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2016, 12:40:50 PM
They do not "need" snow to den.  That's as funny as climate change or global warming.  food plays a much larger part of reprodutiction.

"Mating season is in the summer, but the actual implantation of the embryo (blastocyst) in the uterus is stayed until early winter, delaying the development of the fetus. Females will often not produce young if food is scarce. The gestation period is 30–50 days, and litters of typically two or three young ("kits") are born in the spring. Kits develop rapidly, reaching adult size within the first year of a lifespan that may reach anywhere from five to (in exceptional individuals) 13 Years"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 11, 2016, 01:23:57 PM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225840689_Nonlinear_responses_of_wolverine_populations_to_declining_winter_snowpack

What do they need then??  Here's a link to some actual research.... Not wiki
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2016, 03:30:59 PM
Suit: US grouse protections driven by politics, not science

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/suit-us-grouse-protections-driven-by-politics-not-science/article_e3506a00-cad9-59b5-86b5-c61d0625f07e.html#utm_source=trib.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail-updates%2Fbreaking%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read%20more
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 11, 2016, 03:59:06 PM
Ok... A newspaper article about a recently filed lawsuit isn't exactly a smoking gun.  If they win the suit it would be meaningful.

Also, grouse are not an endangered species.  Industry and conservation got together and made deals to keep them off the list... A win/win hopefully.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on April 11, 2016, 04:58:14 PM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225840689_Nonlinear_responses_of_wolverine_populations_to_declining_winter_snowpack

What do they need then??  Here's a link to some actual research.... Not wiki

when you realize "climate change" is fake your "actual research" seems guilded.

This guy is annoying but he has the facts straight
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5nSGJ7EMMiI

I'm not saying I don't think that wolverines aren't on a decline but " climate change" is not the cause.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 11, 2016, 06:21:45 PM
Start measuring snow pack and get back to me. Weather or not it's climate change, snowpack that wolverines count on has decreased and continues to. 

I am leary of listing a species due to a future as well.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: AKBowman on April 27, 2016, 10:33:29 PM
One of my big pet peeves with the anti-wolf crowd is a lot of them like to try and draw in hunters by trying to establish there is a threat to the activity. Often those same people talk out both sides of their mouth. They scare everyone into thinking the end of hunting is coming while effectively not giving a rip about non-big game species.

They don't like wolves because they eat livestock and they don't like sage grouse because their decline represents a threat to how they use the land.

They don't care at all about hunting, it's just a convenient side story they try and use to manipulate hunters.


It's not the wolves that bother most of us it's the fact that they cannot be managed by the professionals that have biology degrees to manage wildlife.  We don't like the De-listing plan nor the ESA's agenda ($) and personal impact on the de-listing plan.

Look at the condition of our national forests in Western WA since the lack of logging. You don't think that has negatively impacted many species? It is bothersome when the real reason for spotted owl population decline had nothing to do with environment and everything to do with competition. Yet, our national forests continue to suffer because the paid professionals are not allowed to manage the forest as they see fit. Look at the huge chunks of land near Lake Cle Elum that were purchased by an environmental group. Forest Service land that is now completely off limits to access.

Why would you care if people are trying to sway hunters anyhow? We're 3% of the population.

Your agenda is obvious here. I am one that believes these environmental groups need a HUGE check of balance before they dig our country into such a hole it won't matter to anyone whether the 3% of the population decides to hunt. Thanks to them we will have MUCH bigger national issues to spend thought and money on.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: csaaphill on April 28, 2016, 10:52:41 PM
I wonder how quickly this would of cleared out if it had an agenda 21 title to it? :yike:
But the agenda is the same regardless.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 11, 2016, 03:06:06 PM
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Increases Civil Penalties

http://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/2016/06/articles/fish-wildlife-service/u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-increases-civil-penalties/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: predatorpro on July 11, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
They den in snow.  If the snow is gone, they fail.

That's why there are no wolverines in Texas....
there is still snow on the colockum....they will be fine...
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
U.S House Votes Today on Proposals to Weaken Endangered Species Act

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-07-13/endangered-species-and-wildlife/u-s-house-votes-today-on-proposals-to-weaken-endangered-species-act/a52925-1
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: jasnt on July 18, 2016, 07:03:08 PM
Anyone heard how the vote went?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 25, 2016, 02:27:14 PM
Counties in Crisis


If you have not watched this 27 minute video, please take the time to do so: you will not be disappointed no matter where you live.
 
After you have done so, consider a similar video that could be made about:
 
-                      US Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges.
-                      US Fish and Wildlife Service introduction, protection and spread of Endangered Species, especially deadly and destructive large predators like wolves and grizzly bears.
-                      National Park Service Parks, Monuments and Historic Sites.
-                      Wilderness and Sanctuary Declaration Areas.
-                      Critical Habitat Areas.
-                      Federal land purchases, federal land easements and federally-subsidized land easements and purchases by “ghost” partners like The Nature Conservancy.
-                      No longer-constrained use of Executive Orders by Presidents seeking to please large voting blocs pleased, but unaffected, by land use closures based on fracking fears, climate change and other red herring issues.
 
Rural America is in crisis and the crisis is perpetrated by the very entity we charged first and foremost in our Constitution to “Insure domestic Tranquility”, “promote the general Welfare”, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
 
After watching this video I think you will agree that the federal government is doing the exact opposite of what they were and are charged to do.  If you are not affected by what you see here; if you doubt that soon you will be treated like these rural communities: have no doubt that you or your children will surely one day mimic that infamous statement in Germany under Nazi rule that “when they came for me, no one was there”!
 
Jim Beers


Counties in Crisis

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 28, 2016, 02:50:44 PM
The Humane Society of the United States - UN Agenda 21 Connection

http://freedomoutpost.com/humane-society-of-the-united-states-un-agenda-21/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: kellama2001 on July 28, 2016, 07:18:31 PM
tag
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 10, 2016, 04:57:13 PM
Endangered Species & Eugenics as “Science”


http://landandwaterusa.blogspot.com/2016/08/endangered-species-eugenics-as-science.html?spref=fb
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
 

When a Few Good Men Stand Firm –

  Wolves, the Endangered Species Act, and Corrupt Bureaucracy

 

Please take a few moments to read the following article about what rural Americans can do to oppose the unjust imposition of wolves under an illegitimate federal law (the Endangered Species Act) by a corrupt federal agency (the US Fish & Wildlife Service).

 

North Carolina has been beset by the federal coyote/wolf/dog hybrid called the “endangered” “red” wolf for several decades.  Needless to say all rural Americans similarly beset with federally-imposed wildlife and all the harms (property-taking, destruction of local economies, loss of local government revenue and power, loss of livestock, loss of dogs, loss of hunting, loss of all manner of local culture and traditions, etc.)  associated with such federal power dictates disguised as “environmental” improvements should read  this carefully and then go to the following links and their website for more background about this fearless campaign by a few determined men:

http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2015/04/more-north-carolina-red-wolf-news.html#links


http://www.postandcourier.com/20160912/160919829/red-wolf-reintroduction-program-halted-

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/12/wild-red-wolves-territory-curtailed-under-new-federal-plan.html

 

Without taking you too far into the weeds here, let me just say that these North Carolina men have not only stopped federal bureaucrats by exposing their myriad lies and collusion with radical groups, they have set a precedent and model for similar GI wolf and grizzly bear impositions: they have given all of us a blueprint for future encounters with federal bureaucrats utilizing this “Prohibition-Like” Act to harm Americans by pretending to help everything from flies to darters.

 

PLEASE NOTE:

Mark next Wednesday, 21 September 2016 on your calendar.

At 0900 and 1000 Eastern time, FOX NEWS out of New York will (if Hillary doesn’t swoon and Trump doesn’t retract his birther denunciation) run a short news report on what is taking place in North Carolina and its connection to the following Hearing before the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources that afternoon at 1400 (2PM) Eastern Time on Wednesday 21 September 2016.

Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Status of the Federal Government's Management of Wolves
2:00 PM | 1334 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Host: Committee on Natural Resources |   I am unable to ascertain if C-Span will cover or record this at this time.
 
I know there is a lot here but I guarantee you will not be disappointed.  Please share this far and wide and try to catch the news and the Hearing this Wednesday.  We all owe these men and newspapers like The County Compass a great debt of gratitude.
 
Jim Beers
17 September 2016
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Cuernos1 on October 02, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
We did it to ourselves..we elected conservatives who weren't men but who were politicians. They had no plan they were gonna make $. The progressives had a huge plan starting w/ education. They've educated 3 generations to think Bambi not reality. Now those kids are politicians who believe what the politician education produced. No more Elmer Fudd n Bugs fighting over rabbit season or daffy n duck season. Hell no guns..everything is focused on nice..which is why we are the biggest country with the most pussies per 1000 of all else.then we as conservatives never team up till it's too late..even now we see the I'm not voting for Trump cause he's not a real conservative. Guess what there's not enough of us left to win. Just take Washington which is politically controlled by king county n Oregon controlled by multnomuh. Do the math 2 countries team vote n control all others. Expand that to USA n La, NY,NJ, etc control us all...there's no home runs any more. Pinch hits grab a base drive home 1 win at a time.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on December 14, 2016, 10:30:08 AM
SEND ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOCRITES BACK TO THE STONE AGE

http://newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron280.htm
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: nwwanderer on December 14, 2016, 07:07:05 PM
Thanks Wolfbait, look at a county by county map of our past election results to understand where the problem originates.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on December 18, 2016, 11:17:25 AM


 

 

Good Riddance (and don’t let the door hit you in the…)

 
Two years ago I wasted quite a bit of time opposing the Minnesota DNR decree to impose a ban on using any lead ammunition on State Wildlife Areas.  During this thorough waste of time (it was a simple government decree in a decree-friendly state based on nonsense with no possibility of any change from the get-go) I trekked to downtown St. Paul to the DNR Headquarters for a “Hearing” and a chance to “testify”.

What a circus. The 40 or 50 attendees were divided by sex and costumes.  On “my” half sat males over 50 sitting in groups of friends all decked out in wool shirts; they were the opposition.  On the other half sat a gaggle of females under 50 that probably thought that a gunstock was something listed on the Stock Exchange: they were obviously all acquainted with each other and each was decked out in “professional” clothes suitable for CEO-level executives recently departed from their offices or some expensive urban watering hole for this important meeting; they were the supporters of the ban.

 
There were a few anomalies in the female supporters group.  First there was the DNR “chief” that obviously knew each lady and wandered amongst them like a movie star.  Then there was the old man dressed in impeccable Orvis duds that looked real “outdoorsy” as he self-identified as a “hunter”.

Last but not least was an older lady in fairly grubby clothes that identified herself and her plea as an “Eagle Rescue biologist”.  Her emotional “testimony”, that was allowed to exceed the time limit unlike the rest of us, was full of tales of Bald eagles injured by “hunters” and brought to her Rescue venue located on a heavily used wintering eagle stretch of the Mississippi.  She even shared X-rays of eagles showing “lead” pellets that were “killing them”.  She received an ovation at her conclusion.

 
What she failed to mention was that the fact of lead or some other pellet metal was immaterial; lead pellets or bullets imbedded in muscle or other non-organ tissue is benign.  You or I or an eagle or a loon or a duck for that matter so afflicted may live a long life or die soon depending on the wound, not the presence of lead, since lead is not absorbed into the organs and blood (where accumulations can be fatal) when it is simply lodged in muscle or other non-organ tissue.  The lead ammunition bugaboo is based on waterfowl hyperbole and over estimation where ducks and geese, et al have CROPS full of GRIT (pebbles, shot and other small round and hard items they must constantly replenish) that they use to grind their hard plant food like seeds for digestion.  Lead shot (less than claimed) is often ground up and passes through the digestive system with the seeds and if absorbed over a long period can prove fatal.  This “climate-change”-like anecdotal over-estimation successfully justified banning lead for any waterfowl hunting over two decades ago.

Then the same folks used it to justify banning lead fishing tackle because loons were dying from “lead poisoning”.  When I tried to explain to a couple of Minnesota fishermen asking for others to turn in all their lead tackle a few years ago that the miniscule number of loons documented to have toxic lead levels ALSO had digestive systems plugged with fishing TACKLE (hooks, leaders, line) and were in fact starving to death thanks to the plugged digestive system and NOT LEAD, they got irate and told me to get lost.  You see loons HAVE NO CROP AND THEREFORE NO LEAD GRIT because they are fish eaters with digestive systems more like ours than their seed-eating cousins.  When a loon finds a bait minnow on a broken line (with tackle attached) on a snag, it swallows the minnow and the attached tackle that eventually knots up in the digestive system and starves the bird to death as its digestive juices flow freely and absorb as much of the lead as possible.

So let us return to the meeting about lead ammunition on MN State Wildlife Areas and the ladies emotional appeal on behalf of eagles.  Eagles don’t have, nor need, crops.  Eagles don’t need nor gather grit.  Eagles eat fish and meat.  So, all the eagle and lead-pellet X-rays that brought tears to our eyes that winter evening were simple deceptions.  Eagles that die from or are maimed by lead (or any other shot or bullet for that matter) either die from the wound; are disabled by the wound; or recover to stir all MN progressive’s patriotism as they soar above our waterways.

I remembered that little old lady recently and wondered where she is now as I read the following newspaper article titled, “Wind-turbine rule would allow for eagle deaths”.

Having been sensitized to the “fact” that no sacrifice (like ammunition cost and effectiveness or traditional family-heirloom weapon use) is too much to ask to “save” one, much less multiple eagles, from death or wounding I was shocked by the title.  Seeing men and kids investigated, prosecuted, fined, jailed (and prohibited from future voting and gun ownership unlike current prisoners incarcerated for “non-violent” drug crimes being released to vote and bloat growing recidivism statistics) and otherwise marginalized for shooting, mounting or possessing a Bald or Golden Eagle - all at great government expense – I read the article that upset me far more evidently than all the little old ladies or urban professional ladies or the old guys and bureaucrats that hang around them.

Here are the relevant parts of the article with my comments italicized in parentheses.

Wind-turbine rule would allow for eagle deaths

The Obama administration on Wednesday (14 December 2016) finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years -- even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

(THOUSANDS??  30 YEARS??  Those wind “farms” have been killing millions of “Protected” birds every spring and fall for 30 years already with nary a scream from all these do-gooders.  Not only were federal bureaucrats paid handsomely to “Protect” them, the bureaucrats of USFWS, the State bureaucrats, the “conservation” organizations, the bird outfits, the radical environmentalists and even the little old Eagle Rescue lady were all AWOL as they lied about lead to discourage hunting and fishing and treated their fellow citizens and their cherished pursuits far worse than government treats terrorists or incarcerated drug smugglers, sellers and perverters of America’s youth.)
 

    Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.
(How come ranchers weren’t offered a silly “out” by these “concerned” bureaucrats like putting out eagle food or working at an eagle “rescue” center when they killed A golden eagle killing a lamb or a calf or a dog?  Maybe they could attach an electrical shocker to their dog or a lamb or a calf or a kid and let a golden eagle swoop in and get shocked when it grabs them?  It doesn’t work with wolves but then we could “test” it for years until the ranchers are gone. Just below you will see that the government won’t discuss or release eagle deaths data; so how do we know 4,200 is “four times” the current limit?)
 
 
 
    The new rule will conserve eagles while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.
(Pollution-free”??  4200 dead Bald eagles and an untold number of golden eagles minced up and lying about is a certain level of accumulated tissue and genes that is hardly describable as “pollution-free”.  The next time some jerk or jerkette bullies you or your children into a “come to Gaia” moment to deny any doubts about global warming, remember this bit of national disgrace because this bureaucrat justifies a magnitude of eagle killing unknown since federal ”protection” of eagles became a federal duty as a good because it eases “global warming.  As a nod to public information, this bureaucrat “Director” was a radical political staff Director in the US House and lost his job when Newt and the Republicans took control of the House 2 years into the reign of Clinton.  He was quickly picked up by USFWS in a top job and given charge of the federal Pittman Robertson Excise Taxes on arms and ammunition intended for state wildlife agencies and their wildlife programs.  Over the next two years $45 to 60 Million went missing, and per a General Accounting Office Audit was used to insert wolves into the Upper Rockies and open an office in California, both of which the Congress had refused to fund or authorize.  This effete environmentalist spent the Bush years in a non-job post and was then made Director under Obama.  The money was never replaced, state governments went AWOL, and no one was charged after Two Congressional hearings just before a Presidential election.  Yes, such a person is no surprise in the middle of this debacle.)
 
 

    "No animal says America like the bald eagle," Ashe said in a statement, calling recovery of the bald eagle "one of our greatest national conservation achievements." The new rule attempts to build on that success, Ashe said, adding that the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to balance energy development with eagle conservation.
(If this isn’t straight out of George Orwell’s description of Newspeak, i.e. meaningless babble that cannot be challenged or understood, then I don’t know what is.)

 

   Wind power has increased significantly since Obama took office, and wind turbines as tall as 30-story buildings are rising across the country. The wind towers have spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan, and blades reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

The birds are not endangered species but are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs without a permit.
(“30-story buildings”; “passenger jet’s wingspan”; “170 mph blades”: all built in enormous acreages EXACTLY where birds migrate and soar because that is where the best and most persistent winds have occurred for centuries.  Who knew such a situation was or even could be harming birds?  No wonder NO media or environmentalists or professors said anything.  Luckily we have the likes of the USFWS enforcing these bird protection laws and state DNR’s to do thing like manipulate “Rescue” ladies to regale us with why we should stop using economical and efficient ammunition for hunting because we might kill an eagle unknowingly. Al Capone had nothing on these guys.)
 
 

    It's unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings.
    Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.
(Raise your hand if you are surprised that the Administration that gave us the Hillary/ATF/Gun Smuggling/UN Small Arms Treaty Attempt/ Fast & Furious scandal; the Lois Lerner/IRS record destruction scandal; Private computer servers in basements; and just recently refused to explain computer hacking by Russia to Congress and magically disagreement between 17 government intelligence agencies disappeared while the President says he knows all about in a press conference as he scoots out to a 17-day vacation in Hawaii – also gives us:
“It's unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations.”
“Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings”.  This latter is a lie.  If there was anything near this USFWS would have been screaming to Congress for more employees and budget and the “Establishment” would have granted it immediately for fear of being called “anti- America’s symbol”.
Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information. These guys must have taken public information classes in Moscow.  They should be fired for such illegal public employee arrogance to cover up…??)
 

    The new rule is set to take effect in mid-January, days before Obama leaves office. President-elect Donald Trump could change the rule or scrap it, but the process would likely takes months or years.
(Wow, can you imagine what things would be like if President Obama hadn’t promised President-elect Trump an honest and friendly transition of power?)
 
 
    Ashe declined to be interviewed, but he said in a blog entry Wednesday the total number of eagles killed per year is likely to be in the hundreds, not thousands.
(How does a “public” “servant” decline” to tell the public about public business that has NO security (other than the tushes of the said bureaucrats) implications?  This swamp not only needs to be “drained”; it needs to be tiled and planted for the benefit of those paying for it!)

    Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy said Wednesday that his group has "some serious concerns" that the new rule will not do not enough to sustain populations of threatened eagles.
(The “conservation” organizations are full of these guys.  They are like draft dodgers telling little kids what they did “in the war”.  I include here all those urban “useful idiots” that harm their rural fellow citizens for their own selfish imaginings and even the sincere little old ladies that babble on and are never challenged like some minority spouting nonsense or a terrorist-looking man or women stranger that shows up in some public gathering wearing heavy clothing and a backpack.  All of them intend to force the rest of us to submit to th+++eir vision of a society they run and we either submit or lose our rights or worse.

 

Yesterday I received an email telling me I was accusing Obama and his Administration unjustly of doing bad things as they went out the door.  The writer inferred that I must be a racist to be so anti-Obama.  Well, make your own decision here but I, for one, am glad to be done with them.  And as I said in the title, “don’t let the door hit you in the &$$ on the way out!”

 
Jim Beers

17 December 2016
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: nwwanderer on December 19, 2016, 08:21:42 AM
Thank you wolfbait, I have attended the same meeting with the same dynamics but the subject was Washington wolves not lead poisoning.  Please continue
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2017, 03:45:41 PM
USFWS provides taxpayer-funded government grants to extremists, to sue us for living.

http://www.whatcomexcavator.org/the-dredge/barred-owls-and-property-owners-vsusfws


Pay to Play - US Fish and Wildlife Style


http://usfspayettenationalforest.blogspot.com/2016/11/pay-to-play-us-fish-and-wildlife-style_3.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2017, 08:00:39 AM
Nevada Republican seeks to rewrite Endangered Species Act

http://www.therepublic.com/2017/04/29/nv-endangered-species-heller-reforms/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2017, 09:58:41 AM
"Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller wants to rewrite the Endangered Species Act to ban any new listings without specific approval from Congress and the governors of states where the fish or wildlife live.

The measure he and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky reintroduced in the Senate this week also would automatically remove a species from the protected list after five years unless Congress voted to keep it there. In cases where a listed species is found only in one state, that governor would be in charge of implementing any protections."

How is this a good thing? 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on May 01, 2017, 10:21:44 AM
"Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller wants to rewrite the Endangered Species Act to ban any new listings without specific approval from Congress and the governors of states where the fish or wildlife live.

The measure he and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky reintroduced in the Senate this week also would automatically remove a species from the protected list after five years unless Congress voted to keep it there. In cases where a listed species is found only in one state, that governor would be in charge of implementing any protections."

How is this a good thing?
It's a good thing because the beurocracy  is in control. Part of this is because Congress has delegated too much authority, and part of this is because  agencies have adjendas that don't line up with the citizenry. This is an attempt to reign in some control.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2017, 10:25:11 AM
To give the control to politicians is the advantage?  That sounds like the exact wrong thing to do if we actually care whether or not a species/population recovers. 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on May 01, 2017, 11:14:42 AM
If we look at the discussion of several species you will find that once on the ESA it is near impossible to get them off. When actually done because they are not in danger of disappearing control measures  are fought at every step. If Congress takes action. Then there are not as many legal issues.  Cornmerants, sea lions, and wolves have zero possibility of disappearing. They have recovered and are in need of management that the beurocracy apparently cannot provide.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2017, 11:18:25 AM
If that would help get the stupid pocket gopher off of the list, then I'm all for the proposal.  (I don't know what effect it would have on the pocket gopher).  They're damn moles anyway.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on May 01, 2017, 11:28:29 AM
Many people forget our history. Why Congress should not lend it's authority to the beurocracy,  and why our constitution and bill of rights discouraged it.

In large part it is in responce to the English Beurocracy  interpreting the Kings law, and in order to seek relief you had to petition the king.

Having Congress reaffirm their believe that a species should be protected every 5 years isn't a bad thing. I think it makes people prove a better case to infringe upon personal property rights. Like the spotted owl issue or the gophers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2017, 07:57:38 AM
To give the control to politicians is the advantage?  That sounds like the exact wrong thing to do if we actually care whether or not a species/population recovers.

The ESA isn't being used for species/population recovery,  it is used as a tool to take private property rights away, shut down jobs, and close public lands.

The ESA needs a law like this one, either that or gutted entirely.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 18, 2017, 02:45:29 PM
To give the control to politicians is the advantage?  That sounds like the exact wrong thing to do if we actually care whether or not a species/population recovers.

The ESA isn't being used for species/population recovery,  it is used as a tool to take private property rights away, shut down jobs, and close public lands.

The ESA needs a law like this one, either that or gutted entirely.

The ESA is absolutely being used to recover populations (eagles, peregrine falcon....) .  It's also being misused by the environmentalists, but that can be fixed without screwing the ESA and what it stands for.  If you actually care about wildlife species, you would recognize the value of the ESA despite its shortcomings. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on May 18, 2017, 03:06:50 PM
"Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller wants to rewrite the Endangered Species Act to ban any new listings without specific approval from Congress and the governors of states where the fish or wildlife live.

The measure he and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky reintroduced in the Senate this week also would automatically remove a species from the protected list after five years unless Congress voted to keep it there. In cases where a listed species is found only in one state, that governor would be in charge of implementing any protections."

How is this a good thing?
It's not. Last time I checked Congressmen aren't biologists.

Hey how about we have the WA Legislature set our hunting and fishing seasons, I'm sure that wont hunters or fisherman at all!  :bash:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on May 18, 2017, 03:17:59 PM
If that would help get the stupid pocket gopher off of the list, then I'm all for the proposal.  (I don't know what effect it would have on the pocket gopher).  They're damn moles anyway.
Even if they're removed under the ESA they still have the highest level of protection under state law.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on May 18, 2017, 03:50:03 PM
If that would help get the stupid pocket gopher off of the list, then I'm all for the proposal.  (I don't know what effect it would have on the pocket gopher).  They're damn moles anyway.
Even if they're removed under the ESA they still have the highest level of protection under state law.

Yes, but if they were removed from Federal protection would it not be easier to convince the State to lessen the protection?  :dunno:  (BTW- did I mention that I hate the damned moles?)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on May 18, 2017, 04:10:16 PM
If that would help get the stupid pocket gopher off of the list, then I'm all for the proposal.  (I don't know what effect it would have on the pocket gopher).  They're damn moles anyway.
Even if they're removed under the ESA they still have the highest level of protection under state law.
Yes, but if they were removed from Federal protection would it not be easier to convince the State to lessen the protection?  :dunno:  (BTW- did I mention that I hate the damned moles?)
In order for the state to lessen their protection the rebound would have to be extremely significant. There are several species which are protected at the highest level under state law but aren't protected by the ESA federally.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2017, 04:16:34 PM
To give the control to politicians is the advantage?  That sounds like the exact wrong thing to do if we actually care whether or not a species/population recovers.

The ESA isn't being used for species/population recovery,  it is used as a tool to take private property rights away, shut down jobs, and close public lands.

The ESA needs a law like this one, either that or gutted entirely.

The ESA is absolutely being used to recover populations (eagles, peregrine falcon....) .  It's also being misused by the environmentalists, but that can be fixed without screwing the ESA and what it stands for.  If you actually care about wildlife species, you would recognize the value of the ESA despite its shortcomings.

“A law intended to conserve species and habitat has brought about the recovery of only a fraction—less than 2%–of the approximately 2,100 species listed as endangered or threatened since 1973.

Meanwhile, the law has endangered the economic health of many communities—which creating a cottage industry of litigation that does more to enrich environmental activist groups than benefit the environment.

“One reason the Endangered Species Act has spun out of control is that the federal agencies that decide whether to list a species—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—no longer based decisions on what the law calls for: data. Instead they invent squishy standards like ‘best professional judgment.”

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-green-scam-of-endangered-species/


Court smacks fed claim rodents impact 'interstate commerce’

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-smacks-fed-claim-rodents-impact-interstate-commerce/#WSSqPdBljeCa7rmh.99
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 19, 2017, 06:25:47 AM
What do you suppose "best professional judgement" would be based on??  DATA.  It's really clear that you have absolutely no actual experience with anything ESA, other than reading and adhering to blogs and websites that spin the story. 

If you want to learn a little about it get involved in a more meaningful way.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on May 19, 2017, 10:08:42 AM
The ESA has a horrible track record for "saving" species something like 3% of those listed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2017, 10:39:35 AM
What do you suppose "best professional judgement" would be based on??  DATA.  It's really clear that you have absolutely no actual experience with anything ESA, other than reading and adhering to blogs and websites that spin the story. 

If you want to learn a little about it get involved in a more meaningful way.

Look at the illegal wolf introduction as an example of the ESA, look at the fraud and corruption which is still going on in every state wolves are released in. State after state doing their own studies of the same study done time and time again, as if wolves change when they are hauled across state lines.

What's clear is you are defending a corrupt system, or did you forget the title to this thread?

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on May 19, 2017, 10:50:17 AM
I don't think it's right for a stupid gopher to hold up or stop construction when there is plenty of the little critters.  A large population exists on JBLM property and I hear there's a bunch on the Olympia airport property.

http://mynorthwest.com/554485/mazama-pocket-gopher-thurston-county/

The environmentalists are using the gopher as a tool to stop development.


Quote
Thurston County has a big problem caused by one small critter: the Mazama Pocket Gopher.

Unlike in other areas of the country where the rodent is considered a nuisance, Thurston County’s frustrations have nothing to do with cratered lawns or earthen eruptions on putting greens. Instead, all land development in Thurston County has ground to a halt since the Mazama Pocket Gopher is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Federal Department of Fish and Wildlife, which oversees ESA status, has proposed a Habitat Conservation Plan for the gopher that will cost Thurston County taxpayers $150 million. Until that conservation plan is agreed upon or rejected by Thurston County Commissioners, every new construction project requires a gopher inspection. All projects are wait-listed for approval, sometimes for years, pending those gopher inspections.

It doesn’t matter if the project is a new home, a road, or even a simple shed, as one of Thurston County Commissioner Gary Edwards’ constituents learned.

Edwards says it ultimately took four inspections to approve and, “they made this citizen jump through so many hoops, he was held up for over a year just to build a shed on his own property.”

Quote
Thurston County has a big problem caused by one small critter: the Mazama Pocket Gopher.

Unlike in other areas of the country where the rodent is considered a nuisance, Thurston County’s frustrations have nothing to do with cratered lawns or earthen eruptions on putting greens. Instead, all land development in Thurston County has ground to a halt since the Mazama Pocket Gopher is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Federal Department of Fish and Wildlife, which oversees ESA status, has proposed a Habitat Conservation Plan for the gopher that will cost Thurston County taxpayers $150 million. Until that conservation plan is agreed upon or rejected by Thurston County Commissioners, every new construction project requires a gopher inspection. All projects are wait-listed for approval, sometimes for years, pending those gopher inspections.

It doesn’t matter if the project is a new home, a road, or even a simple shed, as one of Thurston County Commissioner Gary Edwards’ constituents learned.

Edwards says it ultimately took four inspections to approve and, “they made this citizen jump through so many hoops, he was held up for over a year just to build a shed on his own property.”
Mazama Pocket Gopher vs. private property

Part of the reason why the inspection process takes so long is the Mazama Pocket Gopher’s hibernation cycle. Since the varmints are dormant from October through June, none of the federally required inspections can take place during that time.

There are so many folks waiting on inspections that anyone who hasn’t applied for one yet will likely have to wait until June of 2018 to have their property assessed.

As it stands today, should a Thurston County resident’s house burn down, even if they had insurance money in-hand, they would not be able to build.

According to Commissioner Edwards, the gopher regulations have become, “so restrictive it’s killed our economic engine. We’ve had many businesses leave the county. Those that were intending on coming to the County went elsewhere. Our economic engine has basically been stifled.”

Getting on the inspection list may be the least of property owners’ concerns: should the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan be approved, the fees for developing any land in the county will skyrocket.

The Habitat Conservation Plan will function like a carbon offset tax; property owners and developers are free to develop their land so long as they pay a huge fee into a fund that would be used to purchase land for gopher habitat elsewhere.

Under the plan, any landowner or developer planning to build a single family home with a gopher on the property would be forced to pay $42,000 in habitat offset fees.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2017, 10:58:35 AM
Secret Gopher Map Reveals Washington Agency’s Power

http://agenda21news.com/2014/10/SECRET-GOPHER-MAP-REVEALS-WASHINGTON-AGENCYS-POWER/


‘International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’ behind pocket gopher hoax

http://agenda21news.com/2014/10/part-five-international-commission-zoological-nomenclature-behind-pocket-gopher-hoax/



Government claims about pocket gopher protection remain flawed

http://agenda21news.com/2014/11/GOVERNMENT-CLAIMS-POCKET-GOPHER-PROTECTION-REMAIN-FLAWED/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Curly on May 19, 2017, 11:05:06 AM
Old news about the Cross Base Hwy (stopped by groups named below):

 Oct 21, 2010
SEATTLE, WA – This week, US District Court Judge Benjamin H. Settle signed an agreement worked out by parties in a lawsuit challenging Pierce County’s proposed Cross-Base Highway (SR-704). Tahoma Audubon Society, Conservation Northwest, Woodbrook Hunt Club, and the American Lake Gardens Equestrian Alliance filed the lawsuit challenging the inadequate environmental review of the proposed highway in early August 2010.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/cross-base-highway-lawsuit-put-on-hold

“If any federal, state, or local funding materializes for this project, we’ll head back to court to protect this rare remnant prairie and prairie wildlife,” said Jen Watkins of Conservation Northwest.

The lawsuit was filed to protect one of the region's largest remaining tracts of oak-woodland prairie remaining in Washington State. The Puget Sound prairies once covered more than 150,000 acres, but today only about 3% remains. The area is considered by the County’s Biodiversity Network Assessment to be one of the "most biologically and ecologically rich areas remaining in the lower elevations of Pierce County,” containing old-growth Oregon white oak, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine interspersed among prairie and wetlands. The prairie provides essential habitat for 19 plants and animals facing extinction, including streaked horned lark, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, western gray squirrel, Mazama pocket gopher, and water howellia.

"The road proponents failed to take into account the disastrous and irreversible environmental impacts in its rush to build the Cross-Base Highway," said Bryan Flint, executive director of Tahoma Audubon Society, "This four lane highway rips through pristine and endangered habitat." Rather than consider alternative routes, the Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation, and Pierce County proposed a brand new six-mile-long, four-lane Cross-Base Highway across rare prairie habitat on Joint Base Lewis-McChord at a cost likely to approach half a billion dollars.

The prairie is also key to the operations of the historic Woodbrook Hunt Club. "Our members have been riding in this area for nearly 100 years; we are the oldest hunt club west of the Mississippi,” said Jennifer Hansen, member of the Woodbrook Hunt Club. "This road is unnecessary, too expensive, and would harm the economic and historical value of the hunt club and surrounding equestrian businesses.”

The organizations filing the suit are represented by David Bricklin of Bricklin & Newman, LLP, and Susan Jane Brown of the Western Environmental Law Center.__________________________________________________________________________________

Sounds like this horse riding club has been trespassing for over 100 years and wish to keep riding the property and they joined the lawsuit to stop construction.

The article site's lack of funding for the highway as to why it wasn't constructed, but I heard that it was successfully stopped because of a threatened butterfly, the mazama pocket gopher, and the western gray squirrel. 

I've also heard that construction may finally start this summer.  So, it's probably going to happen eventually; it just is going to cost a lot more because of the law suit with lawyer fees and such.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: BDildine on May 19, 2017, 11:50:40 AM
always wondered why they just "stopped" when they got to spanaway loop. Yeah, i feel the same about the horse jockeys. While i don't necessarily want to see old growth oak (if that part is true) cut down, there are tons of other spots (like out off 8th) that theres grass lands for people to go ride..
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 20, 2017, 11:22:42 AM
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/Permitting/gopher-reviews/index.html

So how many people have had to pay that 42k? 

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 22, 2017, 09:22:19 PM
Endangered species budget cuts could impact jobs

Trump’s budget appears to eliminate funding for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which create links between agencies, landowners and organizations for large-scale projects like sage grouse recovery and grizzly bear delisting. Read More @

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jun/21/endangered-species-budget-cuts-could-impact-jobs/


Zinke moving dozens of senior Interior Department officials in shake-up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/zinke-moving-dozens-of-senior-interior-officials-in-shake-up/2017/06/16/11801d3a-5295-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
Wolf, grouse riders fly with budget bill

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/jackson_hole_daily/local/wolf-grouse-riders-fly-with-budget-bill/article_3a6cb499-92c4-55c9-829b-d7c21a14da4a.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2017, 06:34:37 PM
The ESA is a bloated out of control bureaucracy that is nothing but a special interest tool of the greenies. I wished Trump would dump it completely and start over with something new that people can live with. Congress most definitely needs to have oversight, experience shows us the corruptness that has occurred without oversight.  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2017, 06:36:09 PM
Wolfbait, thanks for posting this video, everyone should watch this!

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2017, 06:44:09 PM
I wished Trump would dump it completely and start over with something new that people can live with.
Trump can't do it, Congress has to do it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2017, 06:47:05 PM
I wished Trump would dump it completely and start over with something new that people can live with.
Trump can't do it, Congress has to do it.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out, hopefully Trump will press them to make even bigger changes. The ESA is a scourge on rural areas!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: reality22 on July 19, 2017, 08:25:35 PM
Environmentalist have wasted huge amounts of money on the wolf.....the thing is the wolf really isn't as disgusting as these animals that use it to further their "donate now" button and suck EAJA dollars out of the Federal Government. There is a list of JUST four of the countless lawsuits and EAJA dollars rich welfare environmental lawyers pocketed .....

*Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall USFWS,  1:08-cv-56 (D. Mont.) - $263,099.66 Wolf Challenge against the USFWS's 2008 decision to delist the northern Rockies.

*Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep of Int, 1:03-cv-1348 (D. Ore.) - $272,710.54 Down listing" of the gray wolf from endangered to threatened status.

*National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340 (D. Vt.) - $255,500 Wolf argument over Distinct population segments

*Humane Society of the U S v. Kempthorne USFWS, 1:07-cv-0677 (D.D.C.) - $280,000 Western Great lakes delisting

The million dollars listed above is only a small percentage of what the cottage industry has made in the process weakening the Endangered Species Act...and does not include the cost of defending the suit OR court costs. YOU see, these social leaches know that they can sue for an animal like the wolf knowing that it will never be able to be put back into "the majority of their former range” without doing irreparable harm to wolves.   Clearly they have done this 30 Northern WI co boards have passed resolution against the wolf and any changes to the current WI wolf management plan.  The 3000 domestic animals (documented and not the total) killed by wolves are a testament to how well they live with people.   Also, before hunting states like MN had to kill trouble making wolves BY THE HUNDREDS per year all on the government’s dime.   YUP, MN was killing OVER 200 per year for over half a decade AND almost hit 300 the year before the first hunt. 

Support congresswoman Cheney (R) and Franken (D) and their efforts at reforming this highly abused law. 
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 02, 2017, 06:25:48 PM
Lawmakers, Including Steve Pearce, Seek Overhaul of Endangered Species Act to Ease Harm to Farmers, Ranchers

https://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2017/08/lawmakers-including-steve-pearce-seek.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 24, 2017, 07:06:48 AM
Analysts: Litigation Reform Needed to Curb Lawsuits Undermining Conservation

http://freebeacon.com/issues/litigation-reform-needed-curb-lawsuits-undermining-conservation/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=432a0e3a21-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-432a0e3a21-46032653


WDF&Wolves-WAG
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 20, 2017, 03:40:37 PM
House Committee Passes 5 Bills To Amend The Endangered Species Act

http://www.protectamericansnow.org/House-Committee-Passes-5-Bills-Amend-Endangered-Species/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on October 20, 2017, 04:35:09 PM
House Committee Passes 5 Bills To Amend The Endangered Species Act

Http://Www.protectamericansnow.org/House-Committee-Passes-5-Bills-Amend-Endangered-Species/
Linky no worky

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 20, 2017, 05:08:53 PM
House Committee Passes 5 Bills To Amend The Endangered Species Act

Http://Www.protectamericansnow.org/House-Committee-Passes-5-Bills-Amend-Endangered-Species/
Linky no worky

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

http://www.protectamericansnow.org/House-Committee-Passes-5-Bills-Amend-Endangered-Species/


Fixed it, sorry for the delay........  :)
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 20, 2017, 05:15:32 PM

Really, that's what you read into this conversation WAcoyote, we're all about killing panda bears and peregrine falcons? This thread isn't about opposing the saving or protection of endangered species. This discussion is about how extreme greenies use it to forward extreme greenie agendas. Wolves need management and the game departments of WY, ID, and MT have decided on management plans. Greenies are using the ESA to oppose them because they don't want any killed under any circumstances. Do you agree with them or do you agree with the game departments who are experiencing wolf problems?

On the flip side of the extremist environmentalists you have people like Wolf Bait who think the number of wolves in the lower 48 should be zero. They make up scare stories to try to win people over to their side of the argument.  Remember the hydatid scare? Supposedly these big bad tapeworms were going to be the scourge of any area that had a couple wolves in spite of the fact that any canine including dogs and 10s of thousands of coyotes were already part of the life cycle of tapeworms. Kids were going to be eaten waiting for their school buses. "Predator pits" were going to evaporate the game populations in any state with wolves . 

No, it's not just the extreme envios that are more than willing to make up stories and spread them to try to garner support for their side.

I'd be the first one to say if you want to have balance that all animals need to be managed. I also believe that people should be able to protect their animals and families and other property. By taking that option away, the authorities have fed the frustration and fired up the opposition to predators.  Wolves aren't dumb animals, if they get shot at they will learn fear of men and learn where they are not wanted.  And it would cost a hell of a lot less money than mobilizing a helicopter team to officially go after them.  I'll even go so far as to say that the Feds go too far when it comes to not recognizing when a population no longer needs protection and needs to be managed. I have seen it with marine mammal protection first hand.  I know they have no idea how many sea otters, seals and sea lions exist in the gulf of Alaska because they don't bother counting them any more. And when humans can't use facilities they build like the east mooring basin in Astoria because sea lions or seals have taken over and they are protected, then there is a real problem with management. And not addressing it only creates frustration, anger and resentment.  Things like allowing voters to vote out perfectly good management tools such as trapping and hunting with dogs also creates huge problems and all that adds up to mistrust by certain user groups for anything new.

But you'll never convince me that a couple hundred wolves will be the end of wildlife and hunting in this state. There are way more important issues facing hunters than a few wolves. The biggest being access.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 23, 2017, 10:06:04 AM
EPA chief issues new directive to end abusive ‘sue and settle’ deals


http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/10/17/epa-chief-issues-new-directive-to-end-abusive-sue-and-settle-deals/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on December 17, 2017, 04:47:16 PM
Era of federal ‘sue and settle’ deals is over, and the greens are freaked

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/12/13/era-of-federal-sue-and-settle-deals-is-over-and-the-greens-are-freaked/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 01, 2018, 07:21:36 PM
Trump Appoints Endangered Species Foe to Oversee Protection of America's Most Imperiled Wildlife    :tup:


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/susan-combs-03-30-2018.php


"More than 70 conservation organizations (Fake environmental groups) sent a letter to the Senate opposing her nomination."
         

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on April 01, 2018, 07:45:53 PM
Trump Appoints Endangered Species Foe to Oversee Protection of America's Most Imperiled Wildlife    :tup:


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/susan-combs-03-30-2018.php


"More than 70 conservation organizations (Fake environmental groups) sent a letter to the Senate opposing her nomination."
       
She was appointed to an acting position since the Senate failed to confirm her appointment to the position she was appointed for in 2017.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 25, 2018, 05:14:58 PM
New Heritage Foundation report highlights failures of Endangered Species Act

http://www.cfact.org/2018/05/22/new-heritage-foundation-report-highlights-failures-of-endangered-species-act/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2018, 03:03:26 PM
Endangered species funding benefits bureaucrats, but animals, not so much

http://www.freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/06/16/endangered-species-funding-benefits-bureaucrats-but-animals-not-so-much/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 07, 2018, 07:39:36 AM
Congress is overhauling a law that sacrifices Americans’ livelihoods for endangered animals

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/07/07/congress-is-overhauling-a-law-that-sacrifices-americans-livelihoods-for-endangered-animals-651955?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 13, 2018, 07:56:44 AM
Trump Endangered Species revisions a step in the right direction :tup: :tup:

http://www.freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/09/05/trump-endangered-species-revisions-a-step-in-the-right-direction/



Wildlife has little to show for staggering cost of Endangered Species Act

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/402912-wildlife-has-little-to-show-for-staggering-cost-of-endangered
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2018, 12:03:06 PM
Interior’s Sue and Settle Order Exposes Secret Settlements with Activists

https://www.fb.org/newsroom/interiors-sue-and-settle-order-exposes-secret-settlements-with-activists?utm_source=Farm+Bureau+Executive+Newswatch%2FAgri-Pulse+Daily+Harvest&utm_campaign=46c9435987-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_17_08_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f2ef2d487-46c9435987-48753937
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on September 20, 2018, 07:48:00 AM
Arizona Lawmaker Calls For Investigation Of USFWS, Center For Biological Diversity

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2016/12/23/arizona-lawmaker-calls-for-investigation-of-usfws-center-for-biological-diversity/

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on September 23, 2018, 10:47:55 PM

Really, that's what you read into this conversation WAcoyote, we're all about killing panda bears and peregrine falcons? This thread isn't about opposing the saving or protection of endangered species. This discussion is about how extreme greenies use it to forward extreme greenie agendas. Wolves need management and the game departments of WY, ID, and MT have decided on management plans. Greenies are using the ESA to oppose them because they don't want any killed under any circumstances. Do you agree with them or do you agree with the game departments who are experiencing wolf problems?

On the flip side of the extremist environmentalists you have people like Wolf Bait who think the number of wolves in the lower 48 should be zero. They make up scare stories to try to win people over to their side of the argument.  Remember the hydatid scare? Supposedly these big bad tapeworms were going to be the scourge of any area that had a couple wolves in spite of the fact that any canine including dogs and 10s of thousands of coyotes were already part of the life cycle of tapeworms. Kids were going to be eaten waiting for their school buses. "Predator pits" were going to evaporate the game populations in any state with wolves . 

No, it's not just the extreme envios that are more than willing to make up stories and spread them to try to garner support for their side.

I'd be the first one to say if you want to have balance that all animals need to be managed. I also believe that people should be able to protect their animals and families and other property. By taking that option away, the authorities have fed the frustration and fired up the opposition to predators.  Wolves aren't dumb animals, if they get shot at they will learn fear of men and learn where they are not wanted.  And it would cost a hell of a lot less money than mobilizing a helicopter team to officially go after them.  I'll even go so far as to say that the Feds go too far when it comes to not recognizing when a population no longer needs protection and needs to be managed. I have seen it with marine mammal protection first hand.  I know they have no idea how many sea otters, seals and sea lions exist in the gulf of Alaska because they don't bother counting them any more. And when humans can't use facilities they build like the east mooring basin in Astoria because sea lions or seals have taken over and they are protected, then there is a real problem with management. And not addressing it only creates frustration, anger and resentment.  Things like allowing voters to vote out perfectly good management tools such as trapping and hunting with dogs also creates huge problems and all that adds up to mistrust by certain user groups for anything new.

But you'll never convince me that a couple hundred wolves will be the end of wildlife and hunting in this state. There are way more important issues facing hunters than a few wolves. The biggest being access.

You make a personal attack on wolfbait and accuse him of making up stories. If I remember correctly wolfbait had links to news stories to back up his hydatid stories, some other states which are no longer protecting wolves are finally warning people to be careful handling wolves. Your hot air accusations denying any dangers exist are patently false. Please post up your evidence that wolfbait was making up the stories regarding hydatid disease. Your comments regarding these worms expose your significant lack of knowledge of the issue and this info from the state of Idaho indicates you are the one telling stories. Yes, I am calling a spade a spade!


Stae of Idaho
https://idfg.idaho.gov/conservation/wildlife-health/hydatid-disease

About Hydatid Disease
Hydatids are the immature form of a tapeworm called Echinococcus granulosus. Echinococcus granulosus is a very small (3-5 m) tapeworm that requires two different animal species, a canid and an ungulate, to complete its lifecycle.
Commonly Affected Species:
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Elk (Cervus canadensis)
White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Moose (Alces americanus)
Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus)
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Signs Of Disease
The adult tapeworm occurs in the intestines of wolves, coyotes and foxes but they are generally asymptomatic. The larval form or hydatid cyst occurs in moose, elk and deer, and can occur in humans. In moose, deer, and elk, the cysts have thick walls and are filled with a clear watery liquid. The cysts are usually found in the lungs but can also occur in the liver or other organs. Cysts can vary in size from ľ to 4 inches in diameter and contain hundreds of juvenile tapeworms. The presence of hydatids in herbivores usually does not cause clinical signs unless the cyst obstructs normal body function. If cysts rupture, illness can be severe.

Where is Disease Found?
Hydatid disease is found around the world including North America where it exists in two forms – a domestic form involving domestic dogs and domestic sheep and a sylvatic form involving wolves or coyotes and ungulates. The most common form of E. granulosus is found in domestic dogs and sheep, and is found worldwide, including the western USA. The form in domestic dogs and domestic sheep is the most common source of the disease in humans. There are numerous strains of E .granulosus worldwide that occur in various host species systems e. g. wolves and wild ungulates in temperate North America, dingos and kangaroos in Australia, and jackels and domestic cattle in Africa. Hydatid cysts have been found in cattle and domestic sheep, deer, elk,. moose and mountain goats in Idaho. Adult tapeworms have been found in wolves and coyotes in Idaho.

How Can I Protect Myself?
Humans can be infected from inadvertently consuming tapeworm eggs found in the droppings of wolves, coyotes, foxes, and dogs. Wear gloves and do not eat, drink or smoke when handling scat from wolves, coyotes or foxes. Contact with or consumption of the hydatid cysts in the lungs or liver of moose, deer, and elk, deer or elk does not result in human infections, but can be a source of infection to domestic dogs. Do not allow domestic dogs or cats to feed on dead wild ruminants or feed them trimmings or offal from wild ruminants. If pets are infected, they can harbor adult tapeworms, which could shed the eggs in the home environment and be a source of infection to humans. Keep dog kennels clean and dispose of dog feces properly to minimize human exposure to parasite eggs. Practice good hygiene- washing hands and washing contaminated clothes, especially after handling animals or feces.

Samples to Collect
The adult tapeworms from the small intestine of infected wolves and coyotes can be collected for identification. Samples of intestinal contents should be refrigerated or preserved in 10% alcohol. The eggs of most tapeworms are indistinguishable on fecal flotation. The hydatids in lungs or liver of ungulates can be identified grossly and histologically. Hydatids can be collected whole and refrigerated or placed in 10% formalin but not frozen. Samples can be delivered a conservation officer or an Idaho Department of Fish and Game Regional Office.

Can I Eat The Meat?
Meat from infected animals is suitable for human consumption. Trim and discard the affected tissues. Tissues or organs containing cysts should be disposed of in a manner to avoid consumption by domestic or wild canids. Do not feed carcass parts containing hydatid cysts, to pet dogs or cats.
What is IDFG doing to help manage this disease?:
Since 1998, IDFG has conducted disease surveillance in wildlife including ungulates and wolves. No evidence of this tapeworm, eggs, or larva was discovered until 2006

In 2006, hydatid cysts were found in the lungs of a mountain goat from Atlanta, ID. The adult tapeworm was also first found in the intestines of wolves in 2006

From 2006 to the present, hydatid cysts have been found in the lungs of numerous deer and elk from central Idaho; and a little over half (62%) of wolves tested were infected with the tapeworm

Currently IDFG is doing the following:

Continuing its surveillance and investigations of this parasite
Providing public education about this parasite
How do I learn more about this disease?
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/echinococcus.cfm
http://rliv.com/wolf/Echinococcus%20granulosus%20brought%20in%20by%20wolves.pdf
http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/Echinococcosis.htm
http://www.avma.org/public_health/zoonotic_risks/hunters_precautions.asp
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12150_12220-117400--,00.html
http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&...
http://www.stanford.edu/group/parasites/ParaSites2006/Echinococcus/main.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatid_disease
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bearpaw on September 23, 2018, 11:12:28 PM

Really, that's what you read into this conversation WAcoyote, we're all about killing panda bears and peregrine falcons? This thread isn't about opposing the saving or protection of endangered species. This discussion is about how extreme greenies use it to forward extreme greenie agendas. Wolves need management and the game departments of WY, ID, and MT have decided on management plans. Greenies are using the ESA to oppose them because they don't want any killed under any circumstances. Do you agree with them or do you agree with the game departments who are experiencing wolf problems?

On the flip side of the extremist environmentalists you have people like Wolf Bait who think the number of wolves in the lower 48 should be zero. They make up scare stories to try to win people over to their side of the argument.  Remember the hydatid scare? Supposedly these big bad tapeworms were going to be the scourge of any area that had a couple wolves in spite of the fact that any canine including dogs and 10s of thousands of coyotes were already part of the life cycle of tapeworms. Kids were going to be eaten waiting for their school buses. "Predator pits" were going to evaporate the game populations in any state with wolves . 

No, it's not just the extreme envios that are more than willing to make up stories and spread them to try to garner support for their side.

I'd be the first one to say if you want to have balance that all animals need to be managed. I also believe that people should be able to protect their animals and families and other property. By taking that option away, the authorities have fed the frustration and fired up the opposition to predators.  Wolves aren't dumb animals, if they get shot at they will learn fear of men and learn where they are not wanted.  And it would cost a hell of a lot less money than mobilizing a helicopter team to officially go after them.  I'll even go so far as to say that the Feds go too far when it comes to not recognizing when a population no longer needs protection and needs to be managed. I have seen it with marine mammal protection first hand.  I know they have no idea how many sea otters, seals and sea lions exist in the gulf of Alaska because they don't bother counting them any more. And when humans can't use facilities they build like the east mooring basin in Astoria because sea lions or seals have taken over and they are protected, then there is a real problem with management. And not addressing it only creates frustration, anger and resentment.  Things like allowing voters to vote out perfectly good management tools such as trapping and hunting with dogs also creates huge problems and all that adds up to mistrust by certain user groups for anything new.

But you'll never convince me that a couple hundred wolves will be the end of wildlife and hunting in this state. There are way more important issues facing hunters than a few wolves. The biggest being access.


If a person reads the state of Idaho F&G info I posted you will learn that there was no record of wolf worms in Idaho until after wolves were planted by USFWS. I would say that's pretty compelling evidence, wolves in Idaho have 62% infection rate but the disease was unknown in Idaho until after wolves were planted. Yeah right, wolfbait is certainly the one telling stories about Hydatid Disease!  :chuckle:

Today you can hunt 5 wolves and trap 5 wolves per year in Idaho. We can use leg hold traps or snares. Still it is a balancing act to try and bring elk back into the areas where wolves decimated them in Idaho. The impacted areas are documented by IDFG, I will gladly provide links to that IDFG info if you want to call me a story teller too?  :twocents:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: konradcountry on September 25, 2018, 05:20:39 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on September 25, 2018, 05:53:32 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Bob33 on September 25, 2018, 06:30:32 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on September 25, 2018, 06:37:11 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Bob33 on September 25, 2018, 06:38:16 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.
:tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: konradcountry on September 25, 2018, 07:22:13 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.

No my post boils down to the point that the environmental lobby deceives the public into believing that an endangered species is one that is endangered of becoming extinct. I didn't share my own opinion on whether or not there should be protections.

I guarantee that there would be far more support for wolf hunting in Idaho if the environmental lobby described their efforts as bringing the wolf back to Idaho even though it isn't at risk of becoming extinct due to the fact that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

I actually support some protection for wolves in the US and Idaho. I don't think they should be called endangered because there isn't an Idaho subspecies. The wolves they brought in were from Canada.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 21, 2018, 05:54:07 PM
Trump cuts regulations between western states and water supply: ‘I hope you’ll enjoy the water you’ll have’     :tup:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/10/21/trump-cuts-regulations-between-western-states-and-water-supply-i-hope-youll-enjoy-the-water-youll-have-685578?utm_source=Push%20Notifications&utm_medium=BPR
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 22, 2018, 05:04:33 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.

According to this, (https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs%5Fcaribou%5Fboreal%5Fcaribou%5F0912%5Fe1%2Epdf) there are 34,000 woodland caribou in Canada It also states that 300 are needed to sustain a local population so without an influx, the Selkirk herd is probably doomed. By the reasoning that because there are plenty of wolves in Canada, there doesn't need to be wolves in the lower 48, there apparently doesn't need to be woodland caribou either.

"Based on the best available information, the current overall number of boreal caribou in Canada
is estimated to be approximately 34,000 individuals (Environment Canada, 2011b). This number
is based on mean local population size estimates as provided by the provincial and territorial
jurisdictions. (Environment Canada, 2011b)."
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 22, 2018, 05:12:38 PM
Trump cuts regulations between western states and water supply: ‘I hope you’ll enjoy the water you’ll have’     :tup:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/10/21/trump-cuts-regulations-between-western-states-and-water-supply-i-hope-youll-enjoy-the-water-youll-have-685578?utm_source=Push%20Notifications&utm_medium=BPR

So this is what you want for the Northwest?  Maybe you'd like to pump Northwest water to California to help out? Do you care if more water is used by industry at the cost to salmon and other fish? What if it means less water for farmers?
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Special T on October 23, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.

A large part of my issue with Wolves and the ESA Per say is the fact that Sub species  are protected in many other animals like the woodland caribou. The argument that wolves from the Mackezie valley are the same kind as were down here is ignored.  If the subspecies argument is ignored on wolves and at the same time hyped, IE mexican Red/grey wolves then im more inclined to say the ESA is a scam.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 29, 2018, 10:03:14 AM
Victory: Activists’ effort to worsen overcriminalization ends with a whimper

https://pacificlegal.org/victory-activists-effort-to-worsen-overcriminalization-ends-with-a-whimper/?fbclid=IwAR3ioVCy6fYFzCVxj-feyiB5Imx1xTfQwcvEzJ2dzjTY9h5hHg26JlLxmj8
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on October 29, 2018, 11:25:58 AM
Victory: Activists’ effort to worsen overcriminalization ends with a whimper

https://pacificlegal.org/victory-activists-effort-to-worsen-overcriminalization-ends-with-a-whimper/?fbclid=IwAR3ioVCy6fYFzCVxj-feyiB5Imx1xTfQwcvEzJ2dzjTY9h5hHg26JlLxmj8
This puts the Clinton Era McKittrick Policy back into effect. Note that the 9th Circuit didn't say McKittrick was legal/illegal, it just say the group that sued DOJ over it didn't have legal standing.

I posted about the McKittrick Policy last year and many on here were actually against it. Under McKittrick the government has to prove you knew what you shot. So if you shot a woodland caribou and you told officers "oh I thought it was an elk" unless the government can prove otherwise (texts, statements to others, etc.) you cant be prosecuted under the federal ESA. It simply created an "out" and for those "in the know" all they had to do was lie. In this example the government would have to prove you knew what you shot was a caribou. So if you see a bunch of wolves and know they are wolves and decide to pull the trigger but tell officials you thought they were coyotes you can't be prosecuted.

State endangered species laws do not have a "knowingly" aspect and simply have to prove you killed the species.

https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214888.0.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 29, 2018, 11:44:09 AM
Interesting
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 02:24:02 PM
The Green Scam is telling people that the wolf is endangered but not mentioning that there are 60 thousand of them in Canada.

Of course environmentalists will respond that *their* definition of endangered includes the location. But they won't mention this to the public and will make it sound like the last wolf pack is in Idaho.
I don't think the majority of the public thought the last wolf pack in the world or N. America was in Idaho. The ESA is America's law it doesn't matter if the species is doing well in other countries.

A lot of guys on here care about the Selkirk Caribou, should they not be protected under the ESA because hey there's a lot of caribou in Alaska and Canada?
The Selkirk caribou are Woodland caribou. There are 27 in existence. Quite a differences from wolves of which there are easily ten times more than that in Washington state alone.
I'm not saying that wolves should be listed under the ESA. But KC's post essentially boiled down to wolves shouldn't be protected in the US because there's lots of them in Canada.

According to this, (https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs%5Fcaribou%5Fboreal%5Fcaribou%5F0912%5Fe1%2Epdf) there are 34,000 woodland caribou in Canada It also states that 300 are needed to sustain a local population so without an influx, the Selkirk herd is probably doomed. By the reasoning that because there are plenty of wolves in Canada, there doesn't need to be wolves in the lower 48, there apparently doesn't need to be woodland caribou either.

You can argue for caribou or wolf protections in the US without making it sound like the species itself is threatened by extinction. This is what environmentalists have done and it is deceptive and dishonest.

But environmentalists know that it's much harder to argue against wolf hunting if the public knows that there are 60 thousand of them on the other side of the border.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 27, 2018, 05:05:09 PM
LANDOWNERS HAIL PROPERTY RIGHTS VICTORY AT SUPREME COURT IN FROG HABITAT DISPUTE

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/27/supreme-court-dusky-gopher-frog/?utm_medium=email
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on January 08, 2019, 11:19:28 AM
BLM uses Nature Conservancy deals to gobble up private lands

http://freerangereport.com/blm-uses-nature-conservancy-deals-to-gobble-up-private-lands/



Arizona extremist group wants three-quarters of a million acres for garter snake “critical habitat”

http://freerangereport.com/arizona-extremist-group-wants-three-quarters-of-a-million-acres-for-garter-snake-critical-habitat/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2019, 02:51:43 PM
BLM uses Nature Conservancy deals to gobble up private lands

http://freerangereport.com/blm-uses-nature-conservancy-deals-to-gobble-up-private-lands/
@wolfbait - would you be willing to explain to all the hunters and anglers on this forum why they should oppose the land and water conservation fund (LWCF), which has been a pillar of outdoor recreation in this country for several decades, as is suggested in the article you posted?  I'm just dying to know why public land is so bad and evil that all us hunters need to make sure we get rid of it all.

I'll leave these here for you...a couple guys named Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella have a far different take on LWCF - watch and maybe you will learn something.

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Platensek-po on January 08, 2019, 04:26:46 PM
Public land is socialism.we should just allow ranchers to buy it all and prohibit access to all. Hell let them go back to poisoning predators and shooting all the large ungulates on their property too. Thank conservation groups for your being able to still hunt elk, sheep and bears in the lower 48. Not to mention turkeys and other game animals. I can understand being upset with how some game animals, especially predators, are being managed. I do not understand advocating against conservation and or the eradication of predator groups from a landscape.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: bigtex on January 08, 2019, 07:31:10 PM
BLM uses Nature Conservancy deals to gobble up private lands

http://freerangereport.com/blm-uses-nature-conservancy-deals-to-gobble-up-private-lands/
Wolfbait - would you be willing to explain to all the hunters and anglers on this forum why they should oppose the land and water conservation fund (LWCF), which has been a pillar of outdoor recreation in this country for several decades, as is suggested in the article you posted?  I'm just dying to know why public land is so bad and evil that all us hunters need to make sure we get rid of it all.

I'll leave these here for you...a couple guys named Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella have a far different take on LWCF - watch and maybe you will learn something.

:yeah:
Good on TNC
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 08, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
Yup, good on TNC.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on January 09, 2019, 07:06:09 AM
Interesting point:

"The $1.025 million transaction also sheds light on the threat to traditional rural Western communities posed by one of Capitol Hill’s most insidious slush funds, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Created in 1964, the LWCF was originally supposed to help states develop planning for recreation areas and related facilities. But over the decades the LWCF has morphed into a piggy-bank in which deep-pocketed environmental groups collaborate with wealthy, and often, out-of-state landowners flip land to the federal government."

Seem's like the fake environmentalist have their hands in just about everything that use to be for sportsman etc..

The fake environmentalist have never had the benefits of hunters in their forefront, they are lawyers pushing agenda's for agencies like the USFWS, WDFW etc..

I bet it would be much easier to implement the Wildlands project etc. if the feds already owned large chunks of land throughout.

Look at all the land that WDFW bought in the Methow for the sportsman, hunters etc., but do to wolves and other uncontrolled predators there will soon be nothing left to hunt.


I guess it would help the likes of Hillary if she wanted to sell uranium to Russia, she wouldn't have to send the BLM, USFWS etc. after the folks that owned the land.


"the LWCF was originally supposed to help states develop planning for recreation areas and related facilities"

WDFW use to be about ALL Wildlife management, but now they act just like another fake environmental group, protecting predators instead of managing the ungulates for hunting.


It looks like, a program that was designed for the good of the people that has morphed into a land grab tool by the feds through fake environmentalists.

But, but, them bad ole ranchers....
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on January 19, 2019, 01:04:25 PM
GOING AFTER OUR FOOD SUPPLY


https://americanpolicy.org/2019/01/04/going-after-our-food-supply/?fbclid=IwAR1lpHGoTNACOVAw6t2aP7aSA6tomAiLhz6VuQqMBtxWsEuF0w2hvgMF0O0
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 04, 2019, 07:05:26 PM
Network For Landscape Conservation Works Across Borders To Help Implement NGO Agendas With Feds Against The People

https://freedomoutpost.com/network-for-landscape-conservation-works-across-borders-to-help-implement-ngo-agendas-with-feds-against-the-people/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 27, 2019, 08:29:38 PM
Judge rejects anti-grazing lawsuit


https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/judge-rejects-anti-grazing-lawsuit/article_aabd3e66-5021-11e9-8bda-8370bfd8d35f.html?utm_source=Capital+Press&utm_campaign=29e72535ae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_27_05_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bfe2c1612-29e72535ae-244950629
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 17, 2019, 11:47:35 AM
Agenda 21 Wildlands Project: What you need to know

http://rangefire.us/2019/03/09/agenda-21-wildlands-project-what-you-need-to-know/?fbclid=IwAR0_UdlTVZyhHD3WAtEfqH1WJv6crw9t78n3xLxr6qJvxjVj3ix_BA45zws
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: cb1989 on April 17, 2019, 04:31:03 PM
Lot of deep thought going into this propaganda thread here.

Animals I don't like are bad. Saving owls is bad.
Animals I do like are good. Saving deer is good.

Things I don't like are sneaky agendas. Protecting the small pieces of unspoiled land we still have, that's a sneaky agenda.
Things I do like are "what's right." Doing whatever we want whenever we want for personal gain, that's "what's right."

Forget what the other 325 million people in this country might want. If they want to see land that's not f'd up they must be idiots. If they have opinions or views different than yours they are wrong. Simple as that. No further thought needed. Keep on keepin on. It's your world, we're all just living in it.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2019, 11:21:50 AM
Lot of deep thought going into this propaganda thread here.

Animals I don't like are bad. Saving owls is bad.
Animals I do like are good. Saving deer is good.

Things I don't like are sneaky agendas. Protecting the small pieces of unspoiled land we still have, that's a sneaky agenda.
Things I do like are "what's right." Doing whatever we want whenever we want for personal gain, that's "what's right."

Forget what the other 325 million people in this country might want. If they want to see land that's not f'd up they must be idiots. If they have opinions or views different than yours they are wrong. Simple as that. No further thought needed. Keep on keepin on. It's your world, we're all just living in it.


 :cryriver:

This thread probably isn't a good place for people who don't have the strength to pull their head out of the sand...

Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 20, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
Lawsuit renews attack on grazing in Oregon national forest

https://www.capitalpress.com/state/oregon/lawsuit-renews-attack-on-grazing-in-oregon-national-forest/article_d7a1105a-616b-11e9-b276-670e55b4529b.html?utm_source=Capital+Press&utm_campaign=d9b13b201a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_18_03_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bfe2c1612-d9b13b201a-244950629
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2019, 06:32:17 PM
Commentary: Western communities lose as environmental groups reap millions

https://www.capitalpress.com/opinion/columns/commentary-western-communities-lose-as-environmental-groups-reap-millions/article_b41f2324-5590-11e9-8d20-837dcf81fb12.html?fbclid=IwAR1BRAaz-SFHyRtSOKefZcEagoq4_vNiz_4-myahx7ZWSydQsdX3nj6i9vo
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2019, 07:50:19 PM
Trump Administration to ‘Shed Light’ on Secretive Practice That Costs Taxpayers Millions


https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/16/trump-admin-will-shed-light-on-a-secretive-practice-that-costs-taxpayers-millions-of-dollars/?fbclid=IwAR3a0HTmHWix9_k0YRRqKf0TPzp_G9RqPYuV0iNsDqygsfxUC6mKBDfoobQ


Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and WildEarth Guardians file suit to remove Hammond cattle from range

https://www.tsln.com/news/anti-grazing-groups-file-suit-to-remove-hammond-cattle-from-range/?fbclid=IwAR1v8zA37zxPElqIDQWBLKTSDq_lKXKFxP2kWah5yL8u5dAM-XmetiWUCuo
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2019, 06:24:12 AM
CLAW MARKS ON YOUR DOOR: The Naked Truth about REWILDING


https://oldmanoftheski.com/2018/03/19/claw-marks-on-your-door-the-naked-truth-about-rewilding/?fbclid=IwAR1qvO8bXVlA19HaRk_8XV_nXWjBEIf1qrp-C5IOosEKHwUIiazWAFQG15M
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Axle on June 23, 2019, 07:42:49 AM
Wow! Thanks for that Wolfbait. I just read it but the other articles also caught my attention. I've bookmarked it and will be doing more reading on that site.
 
I talked to a woman who lives a few miles south of me. We got on the subject of bears. She said they had numerous bears around and they were getting bold. One of them chased her cat into the house. The door was shut and the cat went in the small cat/dog door. The black bear tried to break the door down. When it could not get past the door, it stuck its paw in the little door and raked the inside of the door gouging claw marks all over it. They stood there and watched it just a few feet away. This was several years ago but the numbers have not changed.
More predators is just a  :bdid:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 12, 2019, 07:19:19 PM
Trump Administration Improves the Implementing Regulations of the Endangered Species Act

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/endangered-species-act?fbclid=IwAR2AGXpzgGyfJ7iA39T4lvLjhCq5Ue5JdwmpeKafU3W_SZ5gZSxNV0KkKKM

Or

Conservationists erupt after White House adjusts ‘endangers species’ policies

https://freedomoutpost.com/conservationists-erupt-after-white-house-adjusts-endangers-species-policies/


"Fake Environmentalists Erupt after White House Adjust ‘Endangered Species’ Policies..
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 21, 2019, 01:14:29 PM
Endangered Species revisions put science before political activism

http://freerangereport.com/endangered-species-revisions-put-science-before-political-activism/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on August 25, 2019, 07:46:31 AM
Extinction Crisis Looms as Trump Attacks Endangered Species Act

https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-august/endangered-species-act-trump-attacks-extinction-drew-caputo?utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=newsletter&utm_campaign=190825_ForTheRecord_August2019_resend&utm_content=esa_ReadMoreButton&curation=newsletter


"For decades, Earthjustice has used the Endangered Species Act to protect wildlife like grizzles, wolves, and salmon. We’ve secured and defended endangered species protections for countless plants and animals”

CNW, Earthjustice, DoW etc. and the rest of the $$$Fake environmental groups don’t care about species they can't destroy another species with, shut down logging etc., lock up public lands, or suck money out of their brainwashed ignorant followers. The Selkirk Caribou are a good example!!


https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,240071.0.html




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on November 23, 2019, 06:53:11 AM
RANCHING FAMILIES ADVANCE EFFORT TO APPEAL GRIZZLY RULING


https://www.northernag.net/ranching-families-advance-effort-to-appeal-grizzly-ruling/?fbclid=IwAR0Rg8Fr8IXtH04lZPWab9UK_vcKALmpBE0nwjsl_Ih3zikXtRnMJKhGsz4
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on January 13, 2020, 08:55:34 AM
GREEN NEW DEAL REVEALS THE NAKED TRUTH OF AGENDA 21

https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 09, 2020, 12:32:02 PM
Department of Interior ditches plan to bring grizzlies to the North Cascades :tup: :tup:


https://www.610kona.com/department-of-interior-ditches-plan-to-bring-grizzlies-to-the-north-cascades/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 21, 2020, 01:51:55 PM
Wildlife Advocates Shocked After The U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Denies Protection For The 300 Wolverines Left In The U.S.

https://worldanimalnews.com/wildlife-advocates-shocked-after-the-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-denies-protection-for-the-300-wolverines-left-in-the-u-s/


 :tup: :tup: Rural America Keeps on Winning!

See some of WDF&Wolves partners whining about losing their cash cow...
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on December 03, 2020, 07:32:00 AM


“WELFARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS”: THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY


https://protecttheharvest.com/news/welfare-environmentalists-the-center-for-biological-diversity/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on February 12, 2021, 06:44:41 AM

Environmental groups call out Bill Gates for insanely dangerous global terraforming scheme

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-02-11-situation-update-feb-11th-environmental-bill-gates-terraforming.html
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Hydrophilic on February 12, 2021, 09:26:28 AM
This has got to be one of the most backwards threads I have ever seen on a hunting forum.
Entertaining though.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Lucky1 on February 12, 2021, 11:30:42 AM
This has got to be one of the most backwards threads I have ever seen on a hunting forum.
Entertaining though.
This might be one of the most enlightening thoughtful posts I have seen on here. Entertaining also.  :tup:
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on March 27, 2023, 09:20:30 AM
Hageman, state officials tout circumventing Endangered Species Act

https://wyofile.com/hageman-state-officials-tout-circumventing-endangered-species-act/?utm_source=WyoFile&utm_campaign=9e7cfcff5b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2_25_2022_12_31_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_611470c970-9e7cfcff5b-446111846&mc_cid=9e7cfcff5b&mc_eid=f56187a9a8
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: timberfaller on March 27, 2023, 09:27:40 AM
ESA,  the most creative "whipping post" ever devised by the FEDS!!!

Just another one of "those" political science hit jobs!
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2023, 10:38:33 PM
Is There an Ulterior Motive Behind the Fed’s Proposal to Reintroduce Grizzlies in Washington State?

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/north-cascades-grizzly-bear-reintroduction/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: MeepDog on July 18, 2023, 08:56:05 AM
I'll be honest, this is a 46 page thread and I haven't read all of it. That being said, this is far more nuanced than just ESA good or ESA bad. I think it's of utmost importance that we protect native species of all kinds not just limited to game animals. For some strange reason, the American dream involves bulldozing land and planting turf grasses that require daily watering and weekly mowing. I would always rather see a diverse landscape with native species than a golf course with carp in the ponds, starlings in the trees, and a monoculture of high maintenance grass. It's un-American to tell someone what to do with their land, but for America to remain beautiful we need to protect and enhance our native wildlife habitat as best as we can. If a native species is in danger of extinction, yes we need to protect it and preserve it's environment. This is one of the reasons I can't stand organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity or the humane society because they says their focus os on these issues, when in practice they blow all their money on lawsuits  to end hunting of species that are not even close to endangered. They could be spending money on increasing biodiversity, but instead they line the pockets of lawyers and politicians and gridlock the hunting of species that they think are cute.

Sorry for the rant. Kill your lawn and plant natives.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 18, 2023, 09:07:55 AM
I'll be honest, this is a 46 page thread and I haven't read all of it. That being said, this is far more nuanced than just ESA good or ESA bad. I think it's of utmost importance that we protect native species of all kinds not just limited to game animals. For some strange reason, the American dream involves bulldozing land and planting turf grasses that require daily watering and weekly mowing. I would always rather see a diverse landscape with native species than a golf course with carp in the ponds, starlings in the trees, and a monoculture of high maintenance grass. It's un-American to tell someone what to do with their land, but for America to remain beautiful we need to protect and enhance our native wildlife habitat as best as we can. If a native species is in danger of extinction, yes we need to protect it and preserve it's environment. This is one of the reasons I can't stand organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity or the humane society because they says their focus os on these issues, when in practice they blow all their money on lawsuits  to end hunting of species that are not even close to endangered. They could be spending money on increasing biodiversity, but instead they line the pockets of lawyers and politicians and gridlock the hunting of species that they think are cute.

Sorry for the rant. Kill your lawn and plant natives.

Organizations like those you mentioned don't care about anything but ending hunting. They don't care about the wolves or the grizzlies, the elk, the deer, etc. They'd like to see ungulate populations plummet to further their goals.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: Fidelk on July 18, 2023, 12:47:26 PM

She said they had numerous bears around and they were getting bold. One of them chased her cat into the house. The door was shut and the cat went in the small cat/dog door. The black bear tried to break the door down. When it could not get past the door, it stuck its paw in the little door and raked the inside of the door gouging claw marks all over it. They stood there and watched it just a few feet away.

That was a problem screaming for a solution in the form of a large meat cleaver.
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on October 07, 2023, 03:17:18 AM
https://expose-news.com/2023/10/07/wind-farms-are-destroying-wildlife/
Title: Re: The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”
Post by: wolfbait on December 28, 2023, 12:03:53 AM
This Landmark Conservation Bill Has Been An Abject Failure For Fifty Years

https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/22/opinion-this-landmark-conservation-bill-has-been-an-abject-failure-for-fifty-years-bonner-cohen/
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal