Guest Opinion: George Wuerthner's On the Range
Killing Wolves Violates Public Trust
By George Wuerthner, 9-16-07
 | |
|
As part of its proposal to delist wolves in the northern Rockies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is planning to allow states to kill wolves that create “unacceptable” losses to big game herds. The FWS recently released a report suggesting that killing wolves to reduce predation on big game herds would have little impact on overall wolf recovery. The FWS bases its conclusions upon the high reproductive capability of wolves. It suggests that occasional predator control will have no long lasting effects upon wolf populations.
But reproductive capacity isn’t the only issue here. In fact, the FWS is being very narrow in its interpretation of consequences. First, wolves are social animals. They have a social structure that affects overall predation rates and behavior. When wolves are indiscriminately killed whether as reprisal for livestock depredation or to reduce wolf predation on wild ungulates, it can affect future human-wolf relations. Removal of wolves from a region can enhance survival of remaining young growing pups which in turn increases the demand for more meat. Also indiscriminate predator control skews populations towards younger animals—which on the whole are inexperienced and more likely to kill livestock. Thus even killing wolves to enhance wild ungulate populations can increase wolf predation on livestock and ungulates that will likely increase demands for even more wolf control.
However, the issue for me and many other wolf supporters isn’t about slaughtering wolves in retaliation for killing livestock or elk, but a matter of ethics and perhaps even legal concerns. Fortunately for all of us, wildlife in the United States is considered a public resource—like clean air or clean water. It is not something that can be privatized. Yet I would argue killing wolves merely to enhance deer, elk, and other ungulate populations is essentially a privatization of public wildlife for the benefit of a chosen few (hunters) at the expense of the majority of Americans who favor protection of wolves.
By law wildlife agencies are responsible for managing wildlife within state borders. With the exception of endangered species and some migratory wildlife like waterfowl, most state wildlife agencies have a public trust obligation to protect all wildlife. However, due to the bias in our state wildlife agencies, most wildlife is ignored or even hurt by state management priorities which favor a select few species that hunters and anglers desire. Nearly all wildlife management is focused on enhancing populations of deer, elk, moose, and other “game” species. In practice this means that agencies generally ignore the needs of other so called “non” game wildlife.
I don’t deny that some things done in the name of promoting huntable populations of species like elk or deer such as creating wildlife refuges and wildlife management areas protects wildlife habitat for many non-target species as well. Nevertheless, I could list many practices that state agencies promote that are detrimental to native wildlife and plant communities, including the stocking and introduction of exotic species, killing of predators, habitat management designed to enhance game species that might hurt non-game species, even many hunting practices themselves. In fact, I could make a pretty good case that if we looked at the majority wildlife species, most might be better off if state fish and wildlife agencies ceased to exist.
At present state agencies spend the majority of their funding on promoting a handful of species that hunters and anglers desire to kill or capture. Through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses wildlife is essentially privatized, particularly if there is a limited drawing as with some hunting tags. When a hunter shoots an elk or deer, that animal is no longer available to anyone else, including the majority of Americans who just like to watch wildlife. It has essentially been privatized.
This takes me back to the issue of state wildlife agencies killing wolves merely to enhance hunter opportunity. The majority of Americans, including most westerners, favors protection of wolves and wants more wolves than exist even at presence. To shoot wolves merely to increase the number of elk or deer so state wildlife tag selling agencies can privatize these animals by selling hunting licenses to hunters to kill ungulates is a violation of this public trust obligation. Of course, this pattern is part of a larger problem whereby state wildlife agencies typically ignore the needs of non-huntable wildlife species. It is also symptomatic of a world view that seeks to manage for production, and treats nature as it were a factory that can and should produce an even flow of “goods” in this case elk or deer to be consumed.
Some hunters are apt to respond to my comments by observing that hunters and anglers currently pay the bills for most state agencies operations through the sale of licenses and tags, therefore, they argue it is only right that agencies respond to the desires of those who pay the bills. Though license sales do fund most agencies, it does not give agencies a legal right to ignore its public trust obligations, any more than Congress should enact laws favoring those who give the largest campaign contributions.
I would like to see general funding for wildlife departments so as to break this connection between consumption (i.e. hunting) and wildlife protection. Hopefully that will come eventually. But in the meantime, agencies have an obligation to manage for all wildlife, not just favorite species. The issue is more than whether wolves exist in sufficient numbers to survive as a species. Wolves have many influences upon ungulates including how deer and elk in turn affect plant community structure and composition. By promoting predator control, agencies are ignoring or minimizing these influences—whose long term consequences for ecosystem health and integrity we are only beginning to understand.
No one should interpret my comments as opposition to hunting. I hunt myself. And all things being equal, I would like to have large herds of elk, deer, and other large ungulates. Nevertheless, I believe hunter desires should take a backseat to ecosystem needs. The majority of Americans desire more wolves. They want our public lands to be managed in a manner that promotes long term sustainability and ecosystem processes. Sometimes that means elk and deer numbers may be reduced and suppressed by harsh winters, disease, or in some instances, due to predators. State agencies have a public trust obligation to promote that goal, not hinder it just to benefit hunters.
George Wuerthner is a former Montana hunting guide, a founding member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and ecologist who worked on wolf recovery in Montana and Wyoming. He lives part of the year in Montana and travels extensively in the West. He can be reached at 541-255-6039.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Let me be first to call B.S. on your whole piece here. How about some hard data to back up your assertions, particularly this point: "The majority of Americans, including most westerners, favors protection of wolves and wants more wolves than exist even at presence."
I could go on and on, but let's just say I don't agree with anything you wrote.
I can see why you are a former hunting guide. I cannot imagine your clients would have been content to listen to your liberal rants.
Amen to that. State agencies should manage wildlife and ecosystems for the benefit of the species, the land, and the citizens. State agencies should not advocate for hunting, trapping, and fishing. Why? Because if it's the latter, management decisions are driven by economics and politics, not by science.
One need only look at the bison debacle in Montana to see the worst case scenario. MT FWP doesn't even have management jurisdiction over the wild bison in the Yellowstone ecosystem--those unfortunate animals are mismanaged by the MT Dept. of Livestock in a disgusting political agreement based on the economics of greed. But FWP is there to rake in the bison hunt fees while not only NOT managing the animals, but not even providing them with any designated habitat. And yes, hunters are always quick to point out that they pay for habitat conservation, but they are mostly silent on the bison issue. Do they truly understand the enormous and unsporting disadvantage under which bison labor, or do they just not care, in their eagerness to kill them?
Killing wolves to enhance ungulate populations...with all we now know (and don't know) about predator/prey relationships and their place in intricate ecosystems, why do we keep returning to the Dark Ages of wildlife management? Oh yes, in the age of the Bush regime, privatization rules, and the greater good is an economic one.
Thank you for this piece. Thoughtful and intelligent people (nonhunters and hunters alike) need exposure to the idea that state agencies cannot operate under conflicting goals and that what should be their primary focus--species, ecosystems, and the public trust--is getting badly short-changed.
That sounds like an excellent idea to me. Proper wildlife management provides benefits for everyone; everyone should share in the cost. And, in turn, wildlife managers should be manage in a more holistic way. Maintaining a certain number of deer, or elk, or whatever harvested should not be the ultimate goal of wildlife management.
Hunters and fishermen pay for wildlife management across the nation. Pittman-Robertson and Breaux-Wallop federal excise taxes on wholesale commerce in hunting and fishing goods provide hundreds of millions of dollars to manage fish and wildlife. Without the exercises of hunting and fishing, there is no tax, and no management money for states to share. Add to that the permits to kill issued by states, and the bucks stop there. George and his ilk pay nothing, but receive a benefit. They believe they are entitled to a benefit.
Added to the tax issue is the existence of trusts. Trusts are tax evasion schemes enacted into law. In the end, however, trusts have to spend a designated portion of their total assets each year. So the NGO's are supplied with lifeblood by trusts, tax forgiven money, to work to essentially put as many people out of business as possible. Again, the public pays, and the few drive the process to keep public resources from public use.
It often occurs to me that George and his camp followers hate people. All they do is anti-human, and is devoted to the long standing war of the elite against the majority. All he writes about are ways to deny humans use of resources.
George does not tell you man evolved with the landscape in North America. Humans came here DURING the Ice Age, when the land was mostly covered with snow and ice. They got trapped for a thousand years or more with a whole lot of mean critters, over whom they had to prevail to survive. We are meat eaters because we had to be. As the ice melted, glaciers retreated, and savannahs and forests began to emerge, human burners shaped the "ecosystem" to meet their needs. They hunted mega fauna to extinction. Warming weather helped shape both the vegetative response and the animals that used it, and allowed humans to occupy the whole of the continents. Humans have been a part of the whole deal since the git-go, and now is not the time nor the place to end that relationship.
I have no idea where this Earth is headed, but allowing natural process to go its own way without humans involved is not what got us here. We hunted, extincted, harvested, burned, planted, all to our betterment. And had babies. We replaced ourselves on this land for tens of thousands of years. I find that a pretty good justification for human involvement today. Since George hates people, and he does not accept history, you have to wonder to what end his propaganda is aimed.
Wyoming, for example, is worried about the declining cow/calf ratio in elk herds under predation pressure from wolves -- despite the fact that most herds are over population targets. WyG&F;may well use this as an excuse to go after wolves, egged on by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.
More worrisome for the long-term viability of wolves in Wyoming is the 10-day period for those who kill wolves to report their kills. A lot can happen in 10 days (given a concerted effort to take out "predator" status wolves by any and every means.
But that was probably the intent of the ag interests from the get-go -- nuke the wolf population way back beyond the USFWS-set requirements in as short a time span as possible.
That would tend to feel good to my macho brethern, but throw the wolf management case back in the laps of USFWS.
Funny how these things work out.
It becomes more obvious every day that enviros were lying thru their teeth when they said the area could deal with 300 wolves in 30 packs without undo problems. Now 5 times that is not nearly enough.
The one and only reason for predators is to control prey species, but then something needs to control them. It is idiotic to insist they know when the food supply is low and will not eat it all. they will not only eat all they can hold, they will fight and kill to be able to eat that. They will kill other species and each other to keep eating.
There have been well over 100 wolves, several hundred grizzlies, uncounted black bears and cougars for several years in Yellowstone itself. Researchers keep insisting the elk loss is negligible, or if they do admit the low numbers they blame it on the drought...ignoring the herd in Rocky Mtn NP that has suffered the same drought and continues to expand because no one will allow a hunt there.
There have been more wolves in YNP now for several years on a constant basis than were killed during the 42 years they were killed there. 14 wolves were killed during the 32 years the army was in charge. 122 were killed during the next 12 years while NPS was giving a bounty on them, 80 of these were pups. Remember no DNA to prove all were actually wolves, but that is officially what the count amounted to that caused the wolves to be extirpated. This information comes from Chase's book "Playing God in Yellowstone", it is also in one of Doug Smiths books.
I am not sure why George has developed such an antipathy to ranching and hunting, but he sure has.
My gosh it seems I am carrying on a conversation with the same people all the time, but that's OK. Maybe we will all meet someplace face to face so we can envison the other.
Marion for thousands of years wolves and elk coexisted. Neither disappeared, and all this was done without "management" from humans. However, these populations of prey and predator ocillated from high and low points in their numbers, and occasionally may have even gone locally extinct (but good habitat is nearly always recolonized by migrants from adjacent areas). In other words, there are no doubt times when predators can and do cause prey numbers to sink to low numbers.
The problem I see with wildlife agencies is they don't take the next logical step and ask "what good could this have for the long term health of the ecosystem"? To answer this question with just one possible response is that periodic declines in ungulate populations caused by predators may facilitate recovery of plant communities from heavy "predation" by ungulates. In other words, aspen, willows, etc. can be heavily browsed by elk. It appears that aspen and willows are "adapted" to such heavy browsing pressure to a degree--so I would argue that periodic heavy browsing is likely normal or at least something that these plants have encountered many times in their evolutionary past or they would not have invested so heavily in things like suckering and other vegetative means of reproduction.
On the other hand, these plants may not be able to sustain themselves indefinitely against heavy browsing pressure and may require or at least enjoy a rest from such browsing. This is where predators like wolves come into the picture. They, along with bears, mountain lions, etc. help to reduce browsing pressure--maybe for significant periods of time.
However, predators never or at least in a more or less open system, almost never completely wipe out their prey, but will eventually starve or migrant if they have to spend too much time hunting to get back enough food.
All of this probably occurs over decades. But wildlife management agencies are not managing for decades. They are managing for next year's hunting season.
The problem with modern wildlife management by state agencies is that they treat wildlife as a "crop" and typically try to incease production and maintain numbers just below the carrying capacity. There is an attempt to keep wildlife numbers more or less the same from year to year for obvious reasons--if you are selling tags, you want a predictable supply of animals to keep tag sales high. These pressures on state agencies (due in part to their need to get funds from sale of tags) to manage for "target" species, often to the detriment of other species and perhaps even the plant communities upon which they depend.
In any event, I would like to see greater acknowledgement from state agencies that predators have an important role to play in ecosystem production and sustainability and that "contolling" wolves or any other predator may not be in the best long term interest of either of these goals. I suspect some biologists working for these agencies feel this way, but are unable to acknowledge this because of the pressure to produce animals to appeal to hunter desires.
I beleive biologists are under a great deal more pressure form environmentalists than hunters.
The big issue seems to be control more than anything else. You want to control how, when, or even if hunters are able to hunt, and ranchers being able to raise livestock and continue a way of life that you have decided is passe and not in keeping with your dream of ideal.
You an I have argued this over and over off of here and will not agree, but please do not say that most westerners agree with your philosophy, those I know do not.
No human can "restore nature", nature is an evolving process that is never really "natural", partly because it is changing and partly because "natural;" is in the eye of the beholder. For instance I do not consider introducing a larger wolf in far higher numbers than ever existed in recorded history in Yellowstone natural. You do.
I consider hunting as much a natural process as is possible in this day and age. Hunters support the cost of habitat, and ranchers provide habitat that would otherwise not be available for wildlife.
Push hunters and ranchers out and try to keep increasing the predators and there will be little or no wildlife survive.
I agree with with the "ethics and legal concerns", but also many of these wolf killings are on PUBLIC land, and on grazing allotments that should be off limits to livestock and managed as wildlife habitat instead having streams, springs, and wetlands trashed by cows. With more ungulates present, the wolves would remain in those areas, but livestock have driven out the elk, deer, moose etc. An excellent example is the back country southwest of Drummond, where the Bearmout Pack was just illiminated. Beautiful, rugged, forest service land that has been devasted by livestock grazing and where one has to step over cow dung in the most remote areas.
Funds that could be alloted to wildlife management of all species are diverted to collaring, monitoring, and subsequently hiring Wildlife Services to "take out" the wolves.
Seems that the livestock people are being compensated at least three times...."Defenders" compensates them for depredations, Wildlife Services provides the "air force", and they pay next to nothing in the form of grazing fees.
End welfare ranching on public lands!
Mr. Geoff, I'm a hardcore conservative/republican and hunter. I also believe that the environment should not be managed for selfish reasons, i.e. predator control for hunter success or predation of livestock on public land. This benifits only a very small portion of the population. We as humans should be able to rise above the basic need to kill our competition, predators do this, but its a survival tactic. I think we humans have evolved beyond this...right? If we are not killing our competition for survival then why are we? My horns are bigger than your horns? How selfish. Hunting should not be just about killing and bragging. Native Americans have the right philisophy, they respect the environment and the animals they take. Before the white man came there was plenty of wildlife.
Ms. Marion, please give me an example of a family that has lost their livelihood to predators. I hear this all the time but... And would you please address the fact that any family that does have a loss to a predator gets compensated at market value for that loss.
Don't get me wrong, if you run livestock on private property, protect it. But don't kill predators that belong to you and me so you can put a bigger rack on your wall that belonged to you and me.
It's a simple historic fact that there would be few species to protect were it not for hook-and-bulleteers wanting something to snag and shoot, and being willing to ante up for the species they like...something that enviros emphatically do not do.
Enviros ARE, however, darn good at making other people pay through the nose to support the species they like, mostly through litigation.
George brings up something else salient, that "state agencies spend the majority of their funding on promoting a handful of species that hunters and anglers desire to kill or capture."
That raises a fundamental point.
Back in the good old days, before Chris Columbus showed up and ruined everything, Indians spent the majority of their time promoting species they desired to eat. The entire fricking landscape was torched with that goal in mind. Indians could give a ripola about blackbacked peckerwoods or whatever the species du jour might be today...how about Palouse worms? I have a hard time thinking of that as a traditional food.
As far as general funding as a way of wresting control away from those who built the entities, that's been promoted heavily in Colorado by the animal-rights bunch. I did the math one time, taking the nongame checkoff from Colorado income taxes and comparing that to license fees paid by the segment of Coloradans that hunt and fish. Average sportsman? 32 bucks a year. Average "nongame wildlife nongame checkoff philanthropist?" 10.4 cents. So who is more dedicated where it counts?
Can't wait for my wolf tag, and for it to be filled.
It's no secret that license sales are declining and many state agencies are finding it more difficult to even maintain programs much less expand them. Licence sales aren't sufficient to support state agencies. And the idea of voluntary checkoffs hasn't worked either. Since wildlife is a public trust, and I can make a pretty good argument that it enhances everyone's quality of life, provides ecosystem services and other values, I believe wildlife agencies should be supported by all citizens just as we are all required to support highways, schools, and a host of other things that we may or may not use directly all the time. I'm talking about dedicated funds from multiple sources.
There are various programs being used around the country, but the best funded system is found in Missouri which has a percentage of one percent of its sales tax going to support the state wildlife agency. But even this small percentage means tens of millions for the wildlife agency. Missouri has a lot of great stuff as a result from many state wildlife management areas to broad education and wildlife viewing materials. In Florida the sale of car license plates supports wildlife programs (recognizing that cars and roads are a major source of mortality and habitat destruction). There are other creative ideas out there.
No matter the source, the idea is to pay most of the budget through some kind of dedicated and reliable funding mechanism other than a reliance upon license sales. I think in the end everyone would benefit--including hunters and anglers--though I would hope with different funding sources agencies would broaden the scope of wildlife they work to protect and support so they don't have to feel compelled to sell wolf tags to support their agencies.
I would have to agree with GEOFF! Where is your data?
I just got back from a moose hunt here in Alaska and have seen the truth on both sides of the fence. In one area, no moose calves. Why? The wolf pack and bears have killed over 90% of them. In Denali NP wolves and bears have killed 93% of the caribou calves!
In areas where wolves and bears have been controlled through predator control measures as we currently practice in Alaska, large game stock are starting to recover, enabling Alaskans in bush communities to conduct subsistence hunt again.
Sir, you are way off point here. You are, by the printed material you have written, anti-hunting. In reality a wolf, in sheep clothing!
In my opinion people like you who are willing to put TIME and MONEY into wildlife/habitat protection who are not hunters are very few. The average "wildlife watcher" is the family that lives in the city that goes on one camping trip every summer and wants to hear/see a wolf, not put money and time preserving the habitat.
That is just my opinion though.
Elkhunter
Wolves evolved with humans. We came here while it was still the Ice Age. When the Ice Age ended with (oh, save me from algore!) climate change, and the trapped humans could begin to really get about the whole of the continental landscape, they were hunters first, with a gathering component, and then they began rudimentary agriculture in a somewhat sedentary lifestyle---all before Christopher Columbus.
Humans, the only arsonist animals, evolved with forests and plains as the ice left. They have been here for the whole deal since the landscape was no more than ice, snow and bare rock. They shaped the landscape, and its occupants, to their needs. And still are, and that does not sit well with George.
George denies his own humanity. He quit reading new science, evidently. So, Marion, don't let him worry you. He needs to pursue his dream of a humanless Eden, and that is his right. He needs to dance with wolves, scurry among brown bears, live the anthropomorphic dream.
In the eat or be eaten world the fit survive and since the end of the last Ice Age that has been humans. George does not have to like it, but it is a self evident truth. Like you, I have a soft spot in my heart for people, first and always.
It's a good plan, George. Maybe the UN or Greenpeace can come take the land over when you've run off the ranchers, who've caretaken the land for five generations.
The Rainbow gathering needs a place to camp, after all.
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/
The concept of how Wyomingites can secure better representation of their views of how the state should manage their wildlife was created by Mack P. Bray of Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Tom Mazzarisi of Madison, Wyoming. Feel free to distribute and forward this information to those you believe may be interested in executing the concept.
–
PREMISE
Thanks to the Wyoming Constitution, all the wildlife of this state belong to all the people of this state, whether they be hunters, anglers, ski bums, hikers, the elderly, wildlife watchers, etc.
However, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department openly admits it almost exclusively represents the interests of hunters and anglers because most of the department’s budget is derived from hunting permits and fishing licenses (a small percentage is received from the federal government). This fiscal relationship leads to bias against non-game wildlife, especially predators such as grizzlies and wolves.
Now, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Department’s 2007 National survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife watchers has revealed that, in Wyoming (and many other states), there are more wildlife watchers than hunters and anglers combined.
It can be seen that non-consumptive wildlife watchers are not being fairly represented in Wyoming, primarily because they are not helping fund the Game and Fish Department, in addition to other political factors, such as the influence of ranchers and agriculture over the state and its departments.
EXECUTION
Therefore, this proposal is offered:
A non-profit entity, Wildlife Watchers of Wyoming, is to be formed with the explicit mission of representing, at the state level, all the wildlife watchers of Wyoming, whether they are bird watchers, grizzly watchers, etc.
Membership should be always be FREE, to encourage large numbers of the public to join. To obtain membership, one would simply send a story, photograph or poem about wildlife.
FUNDING
Funding would be derived from a combination of grants and private sources.
–
Once sufficient members are obtained, representatives of Wildlife Watchers of Wyoming would lobby the Wyoming legislature, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Game and Fish Department to obtain better representation of their interests.
Members would be encouraged to communicate their views to their respective state and federal legislators.
Game and Fish would be lobbied to create a Wildlife Watchers Stamp; similar to the conservation stamp the Department requires all hunters and anglers to buy for $10. The Wildlife Watchers Stamp could cost $10 and the proceeds would be dedicated to the management of species such as sage grouse, grizzlies and wolves.
–
To successfully complete this project would be a major undertaking, but the results would be revolutionary.
Additionally, Wildlife Watchers of Wyoming could be a model for wildlife watchers in other states to adopt.
On behalf of all the wildlife of this great state, please feel free to distribute and forward this information.
–
Happy wildlife watching, forever, to you and yours,
Mack P. Bray
Tom Mazzarisi
Setting aside a tract of land and using it for hunting is a bit like building a soccer field -- they're both green and used for sport, but neither is for the purpose of maintaining undisturbed ecosystems, and therefore neither has anything to do with "conservation."
Don't know if I would agree to your proposal.
In Alaska, the State Constitution, Article 8 section 4 states:
§ 4. Sustained Yield
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.
The beneficial uses for game is for hunters of the state of Alaska. Our Fish and Game are supposed to sustain the moose and caribou population for the people.
When wolf and bear populations threaten the sustain yield principle, the State is OBLIGATED to take action, hence wolf population control.
Maybe Wyoming can take some lessons here.
If you buy the photos or the books he promotes the $$$$$$$s go to VERMONT. Suppose that might mean he wants to TAKE FROM ~ not GIVE TO ~ The West where he harvests his bankroll?
Or, maybe you'd just like retrace his footsteps and see where those might lead you?
NOT ONE of his so-called "credits" EVER listed on this New West site ~ or his own website! ~ just happens to mention where he began his adventures within The West spouting and acting upon his notorious philosophies that founded the EarthFirst! movement. EarthFirst! did much more to injure and attempt to KILL than it did to "preserve" a single thing on earth. It was nourished by blood, violence and HATE.
Apparently he has succeeded in conning a great many people into believing ONLY those "credits" that he posts with his nonsensical rhetoric on this site, in his books and at whatever podium he is allowed to belly-up to.
If you wish to buy that package it is certainly your right to do so ... just know WHO and WHAT you are buying when you lay your coins by the cash register or turn your brain into a sponge for the words he spouts.
Darling George grew up in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has ONLY come to the West to gather coins before he returns them to the East, NOT the West. If that is who YOU want to "follow" ~ in thought or in reality ~ go for it!
I can only suggest that you take the time to know "the rest of HIS story" before you do.
And I can only HOPE that there are enough of you who are willing to take the time to THINK FOR YOURSELVES before deciding to BUY into the trash he spouts now and HAS spouted since he first saw the opportunity to make a buck doing so.
Whether you and your family have lived in The West for generations or whether you have only recently moved to The West, I have no idea whatsoever WHY you would want to plan OUR future here following the guidelines or desires of those who live in and operate out of the East coast. Is that what you want our West to become? Is there any reason you can think of that we should not send them packing and try to solve our own problems within The West? ~ WITHOUT violence and hatred?
Bearbait and Marion are accurate, once again ... so LISTEN UP! The only thing gorgeous George HATES more than people are cattle ~ but that is certainly not the sum/total of his HATE list.
If YOU agree with him ~ then George IS your Man of the Hour.
But all of us throughout The West will reap what we sow together and it is my consistent and continual HOPE that George will NOT be cooking lunch.
His words are only as valid as YOU allow them to be.
Many of us think that is NOT AT ALL.
"During his undergraduate and graduate school days, George worked as a wilderness guide and instructor for the University of Montana Outdoor Program, river ranger/biologist on the Fortymile River in Alaska, a backcountry ranger in the Gates of the Arctic National Park, a surveyor for the BLM in Alaska, a botanist/biologist for the BLM in Idaho, and a junior high school teacher in California. He also regularly guided wilderness trips in the Rockies and Alaska."
I do take note that you must have also been unable to find even ONE reference to his notorious history with EarthFirst! on any site HE claims or in any of the so-called "credits" HE proclaims with articles such as this one.
The victims of that EarthFirst! hate and vengeance do not have such short memories ~ with just cause.
How soon we fail to mark the page
Of those exhibiting such rage.
But when we do they will return
To lead us all to HELL to burn.
But they can not "lead" where we will not go.
The CHOICE belongs to us.
(That's true for you, too, mike-with-the-tiny-m. How ya doin'? Are you out of rehab yet?)
I live in Montana. I like wolves.
Does the first statement there make you any more inclined to care what I think, since I seem to disagree with you?
We try to make our fields, forests, livestock, and wildlife maintain a steady state. Call it sustained yeild, carrying capacity, whatever. This is one philosophy of conservation or stewardship, which ironically evolved from the devastation created by the previous paradigm "fill the earth and subdue it." Like the good little natural pendulums we are, we had virtually wiped out the wildlife throughout this continent, so we realized it and swung the other way. True to our nature, we overdid it in Yellowstone, and saw the results in massive elk overpopulation and winterkill. This being an unacceptable extreme, late hunts reintroduced predation (human) to the ecosystem, more or less mitigating the elk population extremes. The bison hunts were simply an attempt to apply the same method. Human predators can control themselves and switch between food sources before exhausting a particular food. Wolves don't do this.
Animal populations tend to expand to the limit of their food supply, then die off. The food then regrows, and the few surviving animals feast, prosper, and multiply until the next population-induced famine. When the animals are, in turn, the food supply for other animals (predators) the two cycles interact, seeming to offset each other at times, yet eventually cycling even more extremely. Migration is a natural outgrowth of these cycles, as animals have the option of moving in search of food. There's where the trouble starts.
It's perfectly natural for the wolves to decimate the herds, multiply their own numbers, and look for food elsewhere. Since we're not going to let the whole continent return to it's pre-settlement state, we will have to artificially control the wolves. We're not going to wipe them out. It took poison to do that the last time, and I don't think people would tolerate that.
It is when the overpopulation of wolves and bears start to impact the human population's ability to subsist on that same food source is also when problems begin.
In the Alaska bush, subsistence is a real and life threatening issue. Other than Alaska, I am not aware of any other state than has citizens that are, due to location have to subsist to maintain life. In Bush Alaska, there are no roads, no corner supermarkets. In regions that do have small town, groceries are very expensive. Milk in North Western Alaska is approaching $8 a gallon, so folks just don't or can' afford to buy it. Subsistence on the land is also a tradition of the people that goes back thousands of years.
So when caribou and moose population decline to where subsistence is threatened, then the wolf and the bear loose the game.
There's plenty of jobs in the city if you can't handle the country.
Sounds like you are anti-farming and ranching.
If you have $2000 invested say in a car and someone comes along and steals it, would you not be upset?
Ranchers have thousands of dollars invested in livestock. When a wolf or bear comes along and takes that $1200 cow from the rancher, you don't think he should be upset?
Oh, we are suppose to just get along and "live among the pretty little critters."
Don't forget, that cow can no longer produce offspring which most likely would have ended up on your dinner plate or BBQ grill.
You've clearly missed the point: If ranchers would STOP TAKING ENORMOUS SUBSIDIES from us, then they might have a legitimate complaint about the NATIVE wildlife preying on the NON-NATIVE livestock. However, agri-business is far too accustomed to the cushy subsidies, so that will never happen. So for now, a little tolerance for "the pretty little critters" is certainly in order.
One more thing: I eat elk and deer off my dinner plate.
But ~ hey! ~ pendejo: if you actually know a rancher who gets "enormous subsidies" from "us" PLEASE be so kind as to tell me HOW!!! Never got a free lunch from "us" or anyone else in the world but I sure have paid for more than my fair share. Obviously you fail to recognize there even is a difference between "agri-business" as commonly referenced and those who raise the meat on four feet?
How about you? Pickin' up any of those pieces of gold or silver for unemployment or social security or tax breaks or any of the other freebies all the urbanites take for granted as their God-given "right"? Can you tell me how much of the Farm Bill goes to welfare each and every year?
I also had no idea a person could "eat elk and deer" as a year-round continual ONLY source of food ... but now I know! Have you tried rounding out your diet with any of those edibles coming in from China? Might work okay ... one never knows. Maybe digested elk-and-deer-only kills the contamination? Suppose we're all going to live long enough to find out? I do figure that's a definite maybe ... whadaya think?
Ahhhh, yes ... we live and learn!
Just hope it's all in time
To save the generations that are comin' down the line.
For those who sit in town
And hate the ones who don't
Who knows what perils wait for them to see or those they won't.
The ones who feed us all
Are aging as we speak;
Uncaring voices raised are apt to get just what they seek.
Be very careful what you wish for ... it just might come true and then where would you be?
It's all cocktail to me! :-) Sorry couldn’t resist.
Yes there are some differences between Alaska and the Rocky Mountain States. But then why does BC and Yukon have no issues with wolves and bears as oil and gas production take off?
I think it is a social thing. I also believe that the Environmental Activist Waco Terrorist have a strange hold in the L48 and everyone thinks this is the norm, so they don't try to change it.
Yes, these same Waco terrorist are try, as best they can, to take over Alaska now too. I can't pee on a tree in my back yard (which is wilderness) unless I get permission from the Serra Club!
We Alaskans just ignore them and turn and pee on their Alligator shoes!
If you're a farmer or rancher, you have just proven how deep in the subsidy hole the industry is, because you don't even know how much and for how long you've been subsidized. Truly amazing, some of you people are! I am utterly baffled by the astounding ignorance in your comments.
I'd like to say I'm not about to waste my time educating you on your CHOSEN lifestyle, but you clearly need it, so let's start with diesel. You know, the red stuff. That's right, it's not taxed the same as regular diesel, thereby giving farmers a break on the cost of running ALL off road diesel machinery. The rest of "us" pay more every single day. Same thing with your property taxes, you don't pay anywhere near the rate non-farm land is taxed, do ya? Ever heard of price floors? Why do you think they exist? Not for my benefit, that's for damn sure.
However, this is about wolves, and most of "us" want them. My house is surrounded by 8 FWP confirmed packs. It's my choice to live among them. If one of them were to kill my dog, is that the wolf's fault, or mine? (That's a serious question to you)
Thomas, I don't have alligator shoes (I got the belt instead), I do stuff my pillows with spotted owl feathers and my slippers are made from baby bunnies.
Diesel? ... now you're preachin' about DIESEL?
I DON'T USE *ANY* DIESEL, you dear sweet MISTAKEN thing! Not ONE drop ~ now or ever.
And there ain't even ONE dadgumed thing I raise that has a "price floor". Weeeeelllll .... there IS a very high price FOR the FLOOR they stand upon ... is that what you're worrying about? If so, feel free to SEND MONEY IMMEDIATELY and your acted-upon honest-and-sincere concern will be MOST appreciated by me and my banker!!!
Would it be tooooooooo much to ask you to see if you can find a Webster's dictionary someplace and look up two words: "farmer" and "rancher"? Yep. Both of those words made it past my spell-check so they ARE spelled correctly ... or at least you can presume that they might be. Foreign as they are to you, maybe that just might help you out on your research???
Then if all else fails, why not call some of the big boys with the public lands divisions of gov.org and see if you can find out how many bushels of WHAT they harvested last year.
Good thing for a guy like you to know me-thinks. Out livin' with wolves and all ... never know when a guy might want an ear of corn.
No, my new best friend ... most of "us" do NOT want them thar wolves!!! ... at least "us" does not want them in THEIR backyard eatin' anything THEY own. Never been to a city council meeting in your burg that was attended by even ONE urbanite who lost ONE kitty-cat to a wild predator of any kind? Hey! ~ trying showin' up at one with your philosophy pinned to the front of your shirt for them to execute in THEIR backyard and THEN report back on all that "us"-wants-'em stuff.
Of course you and your dog may have survived ~ so far anyhow ~ since neither of you are apt to be nearly as tasty as a cow or her calf after you've marinated so long in that sour sauce.
Dog lover and dumb shit that I am, you would dare to ask me "a serious question" ... BECAUSE?
Naw. I ain't bitin' on THAT hook! Not with such a smart guy as YOU!!!
Whadaya think, Thomas? Can't you Alaskans aim high enough to get that belt?
I just got back from there, I'd gone to spend the week photographing the elk rut. I realize the elk have gotten fewer and fewer every year now for several years. Mammoth has one huge bull, and one small bull, probably 20 cows. One family asked a ranger how come so few elk, he told them the bulls prefer to spend the rut in the mountains. Another told me that the drought is responsible for the lack of elk, when I reminded him that Rocky Mountain also has been in a drought, he said that is a different kind of drought!!!!! Learn something new every day.
I came home early rather than spend a week photographing the same elk every day. There is one nice bull with 20 cows and calves near the 7 mile bridge on the Madison. There was a smaller one midway back to the campground, and one nice one staying in the trees across the river with 6-8 cows and calves. This morning he was down by the road with about a dozen cows and the other bull and harem was not to be found. There is a smallish cripped bull and 3 cows at Norris. Elk Park...nothing, Gibbon Meadows...nothing, Hayden Valley....nothing.
This is the reality of wolves, they cannot be controlled, as they run out of food there, and that day isn't far away, they will hit ranches harder and harder.
Last year when some tourists raised a fuss because they saw no elk, they were told they have no right to expect to see elk in Yellowstone. If that is so how did a small group of people who wanted to be able to watch wolves without going to Canada or Alaska cause so many millions of tax payer dollars to introduce wolves so they could watch them there?
I can't let your statement -- "Before the white man came there was plenty of wildlife'' -- go unanswered. Everything I've read about wildlife numbers indicate there are more deer, elk, moose, etc., now than before white men entered North America. Why you ask? Because now these animals are MANAGED!
Unfortunately for you, me and my dog survived another night among the wolves. So did all my neighbors cattle. Get them stupid cows off our public land anyway.
LONG LIVE THE WOLF.
Yo soy el pendejo, mi nadie bato, pendejos.
By the way, I ove it when the back country enviros complain about "subsidized ranching because rancher do not pay enough in their opinion. These would be the same people who insist that their own use of public lands for playing be subsidized 100%, that they should not pay a thing to use it, much less the going private commercial rate they want ranchers to pay.
I'm sure you also feel they should pay a commercial rate for rescuing those poor lost sould that fall off of mountian sides, get lost wandering in the wilderness, try to climb mountains in a snow storm, etc. The taxpayers just got nailed for half a million to add cupholders to a billings ballpark, but that is ok since it is for entertainment?
You sure do presume to know alot about what I think.
Try to deflect the fact anyway you want, but farming and ranching are the most heavily subsidized industries ever. Blaming the wolf for eating a cow is like dangling a tasty worm in front of a trout and then blaming the trout because he ate it (I know, bad simile because worms and some trout are native while cows are not).
Back to homeboy's article on wolves. I'm happy to see someone start injecting some economic theory into the wolf issue. It's extremely valid. I studied economics in college and the connection between use and non-use values is somewhat elusive until 'option values' are expressed, which is what is being talked about with elk consumption by humans. The hunter has the option of shooting the elk for 'use' or passing for a wildlife watcher's 'non-use.' An elk suddenly goes from a public good (non-use) to a private good (use) when it's shot. If wolves are eliminated to protect ungulate herd numbers, are they being done so solely to protect private interests (use values)?
I think the argument that homey is making is that because there is currently no use value in wolves, any elimination of them is to sustain elk use value only, but he has indicated that elk have both use and non-use values. Slippery slope indeed.
Wolves currently have non-use values only, which any economist will tell you are extremely significant, but very difficult to monetize. When (not if) wolf numbers get large enough and hunting them is legalized, I think we'll all see a tremendous shift in the attitude towards wolves currently expressed by Marion and company.
We have some of the same issues in Alaska. I had a Denali park interrupter state that out of a 100 caribou calves born this year only 7 survived the spring. I stated "so that is a 93% kill rate by mostly wolves and bears?" I was told to basically shut up.
I wish we could post pictures here, but to prove my point, look at this web site and the picture of the bear and the Bou. You will have to paste it to you browser.
Wonder if the bear is taking it to his local taxidermist for a shoulder mount on his wall?
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/newsreader/story/9317639p-9232391c.html
I
Still out there? I'm a magazine writer and am looking to talk to a hunter in the West that supports wolf reintroduction. Please considering contacting me at .
Thanks!
Heidi
[Quote] The hunter has the option of shooting the elk for 'use' or passing for a wildlife watcher's 'non-use.' An elk suddenly goes from a public good (non-use) to a private good (use) when it's shot.
I think you will find most hunters are conservationist and do not mind wolf reintroduction, so long as it doesn't interfere with the folks who are trying to make a living at ranching.
It is when the wolf is given super hero status as Pendejo has, is when we start to question the Wacos intention.
I live in MT, am a hunter, and definitely support wolf and grizzly reintroduction. I'm happy to talk with you.
Thomas in AK:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Like a wolf, an elk, until shot, is a public good. A shot elk has been been privatized, hopefully for consumption, and it is ONLY A PRIVATE GOOD, no matter who puts it where. An economic public good is not the same as the phrase "for the public good." Use and non-use are also economic terms, and are the two components of somethings total economic value. It is very naive to focus on only one portion of value. A wolf has tremendous non-use value, as evidenced by the thousands who go to Yellowstone to look at wolves. And that is their value to humans. They have ecological value as well. You're kind of narrow minded, dude.
Also, I'd make it anywhere, AK ain't that tough.
Maybe I should come to Yellowstone to see a wolf! I have always wanted a wolf hat! Head on top, front paws over my ears and tail and back paws over my neck.
Not narrow minded "dude" just look at it from a different prospective as be it elk or moose, it feeds my family. If it is between a wolf and my moose, then the wolf will be a hat on my head during the cold long dark winter days.
Oh dear, oh dear, ~ dear pendejo!
You make the case that we all know!
That you know NOT of what you speak!
They're only words your mouth might leak!
'Cause ONCE AGAIN you've missed the mark
With accusations ~ such a lark!!!
I ain't got "stupid cows" nowhere
And SMART ones that I got ain't THERE!
They're standin' on that "floor" I OWN
That's nowhere near your doggie's bone!
And it ain't me OR them that's seen
Trespassin' in betwixt, between!
Can't say the same for likes of YOU
Who gives The Sheriff MUCH to do
Since he is on my ol' speed dial;
Trespassers fillin' up his file.
It ain't a matter "who leased what"
Since they ain't signed with X or dot
To pay for anything my moooooos
Might eat or anything I choose.
I'm takin' Applications now
For anyone who might know how
To aim and shoot a sawed-off gun
At any wolf comes HERE to run.
Admission at the gate too high
For them to enter, passing by.
Of course if YOU would like to pay
The price I'd charge please Make My Day!!!
I'll pave the grass with concrete street
So each and every wolf can meet
A plump and juicy guy like YOU
To fill their plates at dinner too!
You don't know "farms" ~ SURE don't know "ranches"!
Accusations form the branches
Of that Tree of Life you'd kill
Without a care for blood you'd spill.
All the time your blazer's wool?
And all the while your skillet's full?
How 'bout those boots you wear to roam
In un-owned spaces near your home?
Short-sighted condemnations flow;
Out of your keys: what you don't know.
But sit in judgment if you must.
Some of us will just feel disgust.
... or so it certainly seems to me ...
Rose Mary, I don't know how you do it, but your poetry just sings truth. Please keep it coming.
Wonderful, just absolutely wonderful!
You are a cowgirl poet for sure.
Made my day as we are loosing 5 minutes a day of daylight and the snow is coming down the mountains!
Thank you Rose Mary for speaking truth !!
Please contact me at .
Thanks!
Heidi
By pendejo the super hero, 9-20-07
Heidi,
I live in MT, am a hunter, and definitely support wolf and grizzly reintroduction. I'm happy to talk with you.
Not sure if you saw my previous post? I'm a magazine writer and am looking to talk to a hunter in the West that doesn't mind sharing the land with wolves. Please considering contacting me at .
Thanks!
Heidi
I value those kind words from you!
And, Thomas, when the days are shorter,
If you're stomach's STRONG,
Click on the link I'll send you here;
Ain't pristine ~ but it's LONG!!!
As bottom of the page will tell you,
If you want to know,
I write such stuff because there's places
I *don't* want to go:
"There was an ole lady who lived on a ranch;
horses and cows she adored.
Wrote silly rhymes to avoid prosecution;
jail and nut-housed abhorred.
That purpose they've served this ole lady for now;
future is not yet for sure.
So read and enjoy if you're of such mind;
if not ... just try to endure!!!"
http://www.cowboypoetry.com/rma.htm
When the DARK is upon you there,
The wolves out of sight,
There's many more pages to read and enjoy
On this Cowboy Poetry site.
... IF you're up to an OVERDOSE, that is!!! ;-)
This thread has been comical. Pendejo, you really are one. As for MTW, maybe you should head back to the Great Lakes where the wolves are?
As for the public trust issue George tried to raise, again, the public wildlife was and remains mostly supported by those who are specially taxed to support the resource and its management. So the trust obligation remains with sportsmen. Most of us are willing to buy licenses if there is hope of a benefit.
I see benefit when 1.) I see nice hat racks and fat does prancing about, all year, but especially in fall.
I especially see benefit when it's been a good year for farmers and ranchers, which puts them in an effulgent and generous mood about the time it becomes necessary to make the "ask."
I do not see benefit when game is sparse except for the very occasional funny-looking dog.
But us sportspeople are the public with the trust. George wants to shift that trust obligation away by forcing the unsupporting and uninvolved larger general population to fund what would, in the Naessean utopia, be a narrow-spectrum regime that has never existed in human history. And I suppose that's the point.
What A Wild Success! Hurray For Bruce Babbitt!
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/northern-rockies-wolf-numbers-rise-while-livestock-depredations-falls/
i think it is quite presumptuous to conclude that sportspeople should be the unique benefactors of management's trust obligation. i bought my license, and intend to pay for the tag(s) ~ but the tag(s) that I buy are restricted to the take of elk, deer, etc. the number of tags distributed are dependent on the population of the 'resource' that i intend to extract from public land. managment keeps that sustainable. we harvest the interest ~ that ought be where the management play is involved ~ and in doing so, we do not denude or cut into the public values as george describes.
when managers become pressured to inflate the principle of the populations to accomodate the industrialization of sport ~ when the money i contribute for a tag that i purchase to take an elk inflicts an extractive/private value on the wildlife habitat or communities other than elk ~ again, to artificially inflate their numbers ~ that's when you tear into the public trust. it's wrong and arrogant.
wolves are a part of the experience and a natural part of the environment on their own. many people value them, and wildlife communities and habitat benefit by them. we cannot kill the freeze that wipes herds out ~ nor the drought ~ it is interesting to consider how much forage and habitat is displaced given livestock's presence. but the wolf ~ we can blame the wolf for our inability to bag when before we could harvest off of the tail-gate.
a tag doesn't give sportsmen the right to take on their terms ~ it gives them the right to try on the natural world's.
"George wants to shift that trust obligation away by forcing the unsupporting and uninvolved larger general population to fund what would, in the Naessean utopia, be a narrow-spectrum regime that has never existed in human history. And I suppose that's the point."
Dave wants to shift the public trust onto an unrepresentative narrow-spectrum group of vociferous industrial hunters who claim to represent all sportsmen. They believe that they are entitled to the biggest rack with the least effort and that others' values on the public common are subordinate because they don't have to produce a $20 tag.
The fact is, wildlife "lovers" got a free ride on hunters' backs inasmuch as prepping the ground for wildlife production benefited other species, as well as provided benefits to the general public in terms of critters to watch when it wasn't rifle season.
Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, etc etc, even though I take exception to some of their programs and goals, have benefited not only their members, but the larger wildlife public that is too cheap or too squeamish to ante up. These groups, hunters collectively, and individual sportspeople, owe nothing to the "general public" unless their projects use public funds.
As for your harvesting the "interest," the fact is, in certain areas the blasted wolves are snarfing not just that, but the principal not only in the wildlife account but also in the livestock account. Go ahead and quiff that predations of domestics are down, but my feeling is that any predation, especially that which is not compensated fully, is not acceptable.
Predation is down because the people in charge of predation control have their heads on straight and are doing their jobs. They don't dither when the calls come in, not like they used to. They know the wolves are way over budget and are in need of control despite all the hype from the Fund, Defenders, NRDC, what the heck all....
And I furthermore get a little unhappy when wolves eat animals that I and others have paid to manage so that I can eat them myself. Is there any compensation forthcoming for my getting skunked because populations are down? Or that I have to play points rather than get an OTC in my favorite spots? Is Defenders going to fork over the loot to pay for wolf managers rather than sportspeople who are getting a stinky deal for their dollar?
Never mind that I get miffed when my rancher friend loses stock, gets stiffed by the usual suspects at Defenders, and then reads in the paper that "hunters" think wolves are vunderbar....makes for interesting visits, you betcha.
I've been thinking some about the "natural" state of things, and "sport" really wasn't part of it. You had the divine right of kings to hunt for "sport" in Yurrup but if you read the anthro histories of North America you will quickly learn that wildlife was not kept around for sport, or chased on the "natural world's" terms.
Heck no. When your life depends on jerking enough meat to last the least-temperate times of the temperate-zone year, yer gonna take all the sport out of the proposition if you can. Why stalk one-on-one when you and your clan can set some fires, do some hollering, build some brush fence, and pile the meat all in one convenient spot for processing? Pretty obvious that's what Indians chose to do.
They did, however, carefully manage for sustained yield by setting their fires and making hunts a seasonal, not random, act. Their impact on vegetation and game was indisputable.
It's hard to say what sort of relationship Indians had with predators such as wolves, but I doubt very much it was as worshipful as is currently politically correct.
Bottom line, begreenie genius, is sport hunting happens to be, guess what, just like wilderness, a product of that modern world you so revile.
Defenders program is private money used to alleviate the economic interests that public lands ranchers claimed were threatened by wolf re-introduction. this economic interest was the most rational qualm with re-introduction (most is relative ~ i am not granting wholesale acceptance of the argument). from this rationale ~ Defenders demonstrated a willingness to compromise. the continued whining of public lands welfare ranchers demonstrates that the reason for qualms with re-introduction were never rationally meritted ~ there is something else - after all, it is not unreasonable to ask ranchers to demonstrate that wolves were directly responsible for the loss of their private economic interest (moo) before cutting a check. the loud ranchers that continue to whine about their inability to operate within the constraints of the natural world - especially when on public land - do their counterparts who are grateful for the compensation a great disservice. they continue to demonstrate that the overwhelming issue was never about a threatened economic interest - it's always been visceral. my two cents - which i'm sure will fall upon deaf ears - would be inclined to suggest that given the continued rhetoric and inneffectiveness of the compensation program at toning the visceral reaction down ~ Defenders ought recognize that the issue for those pulling the political triggers is not economically based and reserve compensation to those operators who impliment a non-lethal program with wolves but whose stock are lost regardless. that might promote some self-regulation via grateful folk telling their belligerent counterparts to tone it down lest they lose a good thing.
"As for your harvesting the "interest," the fact is, in certain areas the blasted wolves are snarfing not just that, but the principal not only in the wildlife account but also in the livestock account."
no such thing as wolves snarfing "principle", just shortsighted feelings of entitlement inflamed... you don't rely upon the meat for your very survival. you are not entitled to kill an elk - nor has anyone ever been, that's not what a tag buys. just the opportunity ~ and not a fixed probability. just as if there were a 200% increase in human competitors buying tags to hunt game you would not be entitled to a given probability of success ~ so too, you are not entitled to a given probability with natural competitors.
"$20 bucks for a tag? guess you haven't hunted big game for awhile have you?"
if that's what you've got marion ~ i'll let you have it...
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/fees/restags.cfm
Non-residents pay a few dollars more than the $20 suggested as the going rate. The additional fee is the main revenue source to support Montana's Block Management (Open Fields) program that benefit all public access hunters. The length of the season has more to do with achieving desired harvest levels while balancing the interests of landowners to have peace return.
Now reading as you pitch a fit.
Would be unfair, or so it seems,
To just ignore all your dreams.
For after all we must suppose
It ain't fair for us to depose
A single voice throughout this land;
A citizen who takes a stand.
But while you're standing at the mike
Perhaps you'd like to take a strike
At tellin' those of us who live
On PRIVATE land what we "should" GIVE?
And not to be unfair to you,
Just so you know before you do,
There's MANY of us, nationwide,
Now called upon to meet your stride.
Please do forego "the public good"
Since "public" NEVER ever would
Show up to pay the payments billed
Or build the fences to be filled.
I know NO rancher nationwide
Who even tries to run and hide
Their livestock on "the public's land"
For FREE without that CASH in hand.
So tell me, if you would "begreen",
Just WHY it is that "livestock" seen
Upon my PRIVATE land that's owned
Should eat my grass or stock, de-boned?
You screech, condemn, unfriendly words
Toward those who PAY to run their herds
On public land while fixin' fence;
You offer them not ONE defense.
There is a scale that's often seen
As Justice and is meant to mean
That balance should be what is FAIR.
Why should "the public" shirk that dare?
You pay me NOT for grass or hay
Consumed by "public" every day;
"Your" livestock eats and plays and kills;
NO penny paid for all those thrills.
So tell me how you use that scale
Conveniently to pierce, impale,
A rancher, "public's" side of fence?
Does PRIVATE land have NO defense?
Ahhhh, yes ... I've heard the words that speak
To me that says I should be meek
And move on back to town if I
Don't like it and am prone to cry.
But maybe it is time, "begreen",
For likes of you to watch, be seen
Out lookin' over fence at line
Which likes of me seek to define.
We have some choices ~ don't we all?
We can decide to stand or fall.
We can shoot randomly on sight;
We can sell out at morning's light.
We can remove your beasts and ours
By only taking a few hours
To make decisions, carry through ...
And say goodbye to me AND you.
"The Public" may not even care
Unless they seek to challenge, dare,
To sterilize that Private Land
When concrete comes where beasts might stand.
But if they do THEY will pay more
When gov.org knocks on THEIR door.
Short-sighted folks are ones to pay.
It's only WHEN and on WHAT day.
BE CAREFUL just which hands you bite
Or you might live to feel the fright
As China shows up at YOUR door
To solve your "problems", give you .... MORE???
But, hell ~ I understand!!!
If you've got a WOLF to watch when could you possibly find the time to worry about it???
In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Has anyone taken the time to fit George for his crown yet?
This article brings up some interesting points, that in my opinion, should have been developed much, much further, particularly the privatization of public goods and property rights points. Also, MT FWP is not wholly supported by licenses and fees; a significant portion of the annual budget is hard dollar funding.
This article is another excellent example of why the environmental movement has been so tremendously successful. Maybe too successful. They're well educated, logical thinkers, well funded by a large and diverse portion of the public, and believe in what they're doing.
Dave, you have no idea what kind of pendejo I can be, maybe someday you'll find out.
Well educated, logical thinkers eh? That are so smart they do not know the difference between public and private land? Or are they so superior that they think whatever they want is public and they are entitled to it? You'd better believe the enviro movement is well funded....a large part of it from taxpayers! Remember the multi million dollar wood pecker? And of course recreation should be totally funded by the working man.
As for the diverse funding, no, that's not true, either. Even the largest environmental groups are grossly dependent on foundational funds, that is, money from probably the least-diverse portion of the public, the upper crust bazillionth of a percent that has multimillion-dollar nontaxable trusts set aside to "do good." That's something George, or his sponsor Doug Tompkins, could tell you about.
As for your brag, PJ, let me point out that I could find out pretty easy what a short hair you are if you had the class to use your real name.
Now, on to forestry!
On to forestry (where I'm published); whaddya got?