Wolves & AZ Game & Fish- UNREAL!

Hello fellow Sportsmen,

I don't know how many of you received this email today from OUR Game & Fish, but it's incredibly alarming to me. Don't they get it?!
I think I speak for 99% of the Arizona (and other state's) sportsmen. WE DON'T WANT YOUR WOLVES WRECKING OUR BIG GAME POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA! All they need to do is ask Idaho, Wyoming, & Montana how the wolves are working out for them.

Can't Arizona learn from the mistakes of the northern states?
Can anyone tell me why our Game & Fish caves to this liberal, anti-hunting, misguided pro wolf policy? I thought Game & Fish was supposed to be on OUR SIDE and protect and enhance our big game. Seems like they are selling out to the dark side!
I'm pretty sure that the main reason G & F personel have jobs is because of us hunters- not the antis and pro wolf crowd! It's high time that they wised up.
Just goes to show how screwed up everything in our country is right now. Nobody can just say it how it is and everything has to be sugar coated so as not to offend anyone. Here's how I feel, "TAKE YOUR DUMB, WORTHLESS, FLEA RIDDEN WOLVES AND SHOVE THEM UP YOUR ASS. WE SPORTSMEN DON'T WANT THEM!!! THEY DON'T SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE IN OUR GAME MANAGEMENT OTHER THAN TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY WHAT WE LOVE SO MUCH- OUR BIG GAME. IF THEY BECOME EXTINCT, WHO CARES!!! THEY ARE NOTHING BUT A GLORIFIED, OVERGROWN DOG."
SPORTSMEN, IF YOU SUPPORT WOLVES THEN YOU ARE NOT A TRUE HUNTER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! RATHER YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

----------------------------------------------------
This came from Game & Fish today... Feb. 3, 2012


Arizona wolf numbers are up
Arizona Game and Fish Department conducts 2011 population surveys in state for multi-agency Mexican wolf program





The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Arizona Game and Fish Department and other partners in the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project announced earlier today that the endangered Mexican wolf population count increased to a minimum of 58 wolves compared to last year?s count of 50.

The increase is encouraging news for the multi-agency program, especially considering that the state?s largest wildfire, the Wallow, burned through three packs? denning areas within weeks of pups being born.

The wolf project stimulates high public interest, and the public often asks Game and Fish how wolf population surveys are conducted and what the department's role in the project is.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department dedicates five staff to the Interagency Field Team (IFT), the multi-agency group that oversees on-the-ground wolf conservation activities. Game and Fish?s IFT staff are responsible for the day-to-day management of wolves; coordinating and conducting the annual population counts; and, any helicopter-associated wolf captures in Arizona on public lands and on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.

In addition, the department provides pilots and fixed-wing planes to assist in locating wolves via telemetry signals prior to the helicopter counts and any capture efforts throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), which encompasses parts of Arizona and New Mexico. This year the department conducted the surveys in Arizona, while FWS conducted them in New Mexico.

Other specially-trained Game and Fish personnel that are not part of the IFT assist with capture operations in Arizona to ensure darting and net-gunning activities are conducted in the safest and most proficient manner possible.

Even before aerial operations begin, Game and Fish?s IFT staff are involved in estimating the number of uncollared wolves present in Arizona. They begin surveying for uncollared wolves months earlier through howling surveys, track surveys, use of trail cameras and other methods. They also contact stakeholders, such as landowners and grazing permittees, in the wolf reintroduction area to advise them of upcoming surveys and collect any wolf activity information from them.

?Developing partnerships with these critical stakeholders and implementing proactive management efforts to reduce wolf-livestock interactions on public and private lands is, we believe, the key to the long-term survival of the wolves in the Southwest,? said Director Larry Voyles of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. ?Building public tolerance by those who live on the land and must coexist with the wolf is crucial to the success of the Mexican wolf program in Arizona.

?Every biologist who works on an endangered species repatriation project prays for the day that wild-born progeny are on the ground,? said Voyles. ?The IFT estimates that more than 90 percent of the collared wolves on the ground today in Arizona were born in the wild. Further, we have at least an 18 percent increase in total numbers and a 150 percent increase in breeding pairs over 2010 numbers.

?Even though these numbers are below the target levels of the recovery plan, these elements exhibit a cornerstone achievement in Mexican wolf conservation,? continued Voyles, ?and this year?s count gives credence to the fact that we are moving in a positive direction.?

The IFT estimates the Mexican wolf population at a minimum count level because it is impossible to find and verify every uncollared animal that may exist in the wild. However, the 2011 population count is considered one of the most inclusive because the IFT trapped and collared 16 wolves this fall, allowing biologists to more accurately track and estimate the population than in years when fewer animals were collared.

Population survey and management activities conducted by Game and Fish?s IFT staff are funded by contracts and grants from FWS; no sportsmen-generated funds are used for these count efforts.

The project's other cooperative partners include FWS, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ? Wildlife Services, and Graham, Greenlee and Navajo Counties.

For more information on the Mexican wolf in Arizona, visit www.azgfd.gov/wolf.
---------------------------------
Check out this video:
http://youtu.be/-n8Q1cNr0OA

Pathetic if you ask me. What a horrible, drawn out, miserable way for elk to die. Hunting is the efficient way to responsibly manage our big game- not throwing them over to the wolves! They don't have any "season dates" or "bag limits." For them it's open season, 365 days a year on our precious big game! Just how OUR ENEMIES WANT IT!
Anyone agree with me? If you do, let our Game & Fish know that they work for us and not the pro wolf crowd.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-12 AT 00:43AM (MST)[p]One good decision your neighboring state of New Mexico's governor made concerning wildlife management during her present term was terminating NMGF's assistance and direct involvement with the joint AZ/NM lobo propagation program. The reasoning behind such, I cannot exactly say (though it was construed to have been based on not continuing to aimlessly waste limited budget dollars). Nevertheless, it is encouraging, at least from my state's standpoint on the matter.

I understand your frustration Elk1, but please try to calm down a bit and exclaim fewer emotionally charged sentiments regarding this debacle. Avoid reckless accusations of 'blame', denigrating the animals themselves, and any unnecessary lambasting of the 'enemy' (yes, I despise them idiot greens as well) in your communications, and your message will carry much more dignity and garner wider respect.

**edit---And yes, I agree that ANY wolf introduction/propagation programs in the lower 48 are incredibly misguided and ill-advised, and should be strongly contested with comprehensive, rational action on our part.

"I understand your frustration Elk1, but please try to calm down a bit and exclaim fewer emotionally charged sentiments regarding this debacle. Avoid reckless accusations of 'blame', denigrating the animals themselves, and any unnecessary lambasting of the 'enemy' (yes, I despise them idiot greens as well) in your communications, and your message will carry much more dignity and garner wider respect."
------------------------------------------

My point exactly when I said, "Just goes to show how screwed up everything in our country is right now. Nobody can just say it how it is and everything has to be sugar coated so as not to offend anyone."

Fellas, this political correctness has got to stop. Since when were we told that we have to filter everything we say to be "taken seriously." How has that worked out for us with wolf reintroduction and politics? Not very well, I would contend. That's why John McCain got OWNED by Obama in the last election, because he was too much of a politically correct pansy to say it like it is.
And, That's why Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana got wolves.

You can keep the kid gloves on and be sure to "not offend" anyone and when we have wolves all over our state at least we will still be respected by the liberals.

What makes me sick is that I can guarantee you that our game & fish director, Larry Voyles, has been handcuffed by political correctness. It would be interesting to know how he really feels in the privacy of his own living room!

Me? I'm going to say it how it is without the gloves and filter.
Wolves will be a disaster to our state and it's big game if we keep going down this path of indifference. REAL HUNTERS don't support wolf reintroduction in any scale, and will stand up and say so loud and clear.
I've written to our Game & Fish and while I was "respectful" I didn't mince words. I encourage others to do the same. Go to www.AZGFD.GOV and click on "send comments" at the bottom of the page. OUR game & fish needs to hear from the people that pay their salaries.

I could not care less about political correctness...my point is to employ basic DIPLOMACY when addressing these issues. Quite a difference. ANYONE will take rational and deliberate communication into higher consideration than a tirade of unfocused condemnation. It has NOTHING to do with being politically correct...it IS about basic courtesy, representing well the party on whose behalf you are speaking, and having your message taken seriously.

Just a bit of advice offered for your benefit Elk1, take it or leave it, I'm sure you'll proceed as you see fit.

Good Luck

OK, G.W. I get your point. "Diplomacy", "Political Correctness", etc. Call it what you want.

I figured that on a hunting forum I could speak with my filter completely turned off. Guess we have to keep the kid gloves on here too.

Don't worry, you don't have to give me your advice. Your time would be better spent writing a "diplomatic" message to our Game & Fish to counteract my "tirade."

Is anyone else going to take 5 minutes to write to Game & Fish- post if you do. And, thanks

Ha! I get ya now AZ...was under the impression that you hammered away at the beaurocrats in like fashion. My mistake, sounds like you know how to play the game.

And worry not, I write them guys all the time! And I hate having to put on the soft punchers as well

Anyway...cheers man, later

Does anyone have the inside story on the position of G&F on wolves? I'm hoping they are painting a good picture of the current program so we don't need to introduce wolves into other areas to meet the 100 population objective. Could we be so lucky or have they drunk that deeply of the wolf Kool Aid?

I HATE WOLVES!!!!!!!!! If they ever come to the central parts of AZ I don't think the hunters will welcome them!!!!

>Does anyone have the inside story
>on the position of G&F
>on wolves? I'm hoping they
>are painting a good picture
>of the current program so
>we don't need to introduce
>wolves into other areas to
>meet the 100 population objective.
>Could we be so lucky
>or have they drunk that
>deeply of the wolf Kool
>Aid?


I was thinking the same thing when I read it.

This is federal legislation (ESA) boys. So the states either get involved or get left behind. Better to be involved in the process than not! You guys think the ranchers and sportsmen in Id., Mt., and Wy., didn't oppose this? They made a lot of noise yet they still got the wolves. Writing may help the department make a case but understand that the feds will deploy what they want on Federal lands, in wilderness areas etc. They already have targeted other areas within our state as alternative sites. That's why legislation is needed to put the states back in control. President OBAMA & his environmental supporters is squarely behind the ESA and the wolf deployment. Remember this when you go to vote!

Now maybe some of you will start to understand why we want protective hunting & fishing legislation at the federal and state levels. With it we have a chance w/o it we're helpless. The states need to manage their wildlife free of outside intervention by special interest groups.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-12 AT 06:48PM (MST)[p]Ya Boksee, its obviously a Federal deal. But the NM and AZ Depts of G&F cooperated with the feds on the the lobo introduction from the get go. NMGF just disassociated from the project (the wolves on our side at least are a proven race of livestock killers, with MANY of their alpha individuals having been guilty of such), and AZGF would do well to do likewise.

I thought the point of this thread was to encourage voicing opposition to AZGF's continued collaboration with this ridiculous endeavor? It is directly contrary to sound modern wildlife management...wolves don't finance a given havest of big game ungulates, HUNTERS do. Most state wildlife departments suffer from underbudgeting anyway, so where is the logic in continuing to waste money aiding the perpetuation of a factor that DIRECLY undermines the purpose and mission of the management entity itself? It it DOUBLY nonsensical.

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion regarding 'federal wildlife management legislation'...I could not disagree more if you are saying what I think you may be. Federal meddling in wildlife programs is a provenly bad deal. The ESA and Park Service are prime examples of disgusting incompetence concerning our generally successful current STATE managed wildlife models.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying...though it was only on a relatively superficial level, I already misunderstood where AZELK was coming from on this thread

LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-12 AT 08:16PM (MST)[p]greatwestern---You better reread the post Boskee put up real slow! He has stated in two or three sentences that the STATES should have full control of the game within their borders and doesn't want the Feds meddling in what should be state controlled activities. Under the ESA the Feds can do pretty much what they want to on Federal land and it's better that the states got involved right away so as not to get into the same problems that happened in the 90s in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

Ya thanks Topgun. I actually DID read his post, I'm not sure I unerstand the language in his closing paragraph. That's exactly why I asked him to clarify, and while he may or may not appreciate you stepping in for him, I'm sure he is perfectly capable of helping me understand what he meant.

As far as your statement goes, how exactly is either of our Depts involvement with the lobo project 'better'? Your allusions to the states comprising the Greater Yellowstone don't seem quite appropriate.

I've explained my reasoning behind my opinions in my posts, I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.

It would behoove us all to try and get on the same page here.

Thanks

Well its no wonder they are having to whore out our tags to the auction style tags, they are spending all the money on 5 game managers and planes and fuel to observe them...Total bull jivin honkey!

LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-12 AT 02:01PM (MST)[p]Greatwestern, Would you really prefer that our states department wasn't involved? Think about that for a moment? You really want an open table where the USF&WS, Forest Service, and Wolf lobby get to put wolves in where ever they want? Are you aware that last year those three parties met formulating alternative sites for future wolf deployments and didn't invite our department? I think you need to reread what I wrote and you'll see first hand I want the states to have the power to control any species within it's borders. The ESA has tied the states hands to control much of anything in the matter, and that's what we need to change.

Lest not we forget that we have a department made up of some pretty well educated individuals that have done a pretty fair job managing our wildlife to this point. They know exactly how important hunting is to their budget. In Az. to this point we've spent around $240,000.00 per wolf and that includes federal funding. You're correct in that the program isn't a success but I want my state involved in this process especially when It's impacting hunting. I don't want to leave the streets vacant so the looting can begin, because the wolf lobby could care less whether you or I ever hunt again. But the bigger issue here, rather than the wolves, rests in the fact that we have to get legislation passed in order to alleviate these types of issues going forward. That's precisely why we need to get the control put back in the states hands and defang the monster before it can do irrepairable harm to our wildlife. When your elected officials are promoting their agendas behind closed doors you have to understand that, that's where we need to focus our efforts. We have to send a message to them with voting them out of office and passing legislation they can't change. Then by passing protective hunting and fishing legislation it makes things much more difficult for them to orchestrate this type of control in the future.

Thanks TOPGUN!! You understood exactly where I was coming from!

Write the state but more importantly write your congressman and tell them what you want them to do and advise them if they don't you'll vote against them. Then when you go to the polls you have to send the ultimate message to those who support this type of legislation, showing him first hand that you didn't appreciate what they did to us. Obama is owned by the environmental lobby and it's time to part ways once and for all. You want to take my guns, limit access to federal lands, restrict my ability to hunt, remove thousands of tags, and finally not build a pipeline that will put millions to work, OKAY, but that right there will endanger you & your buddies jobs and I'll vote you out of office, and hpoefully so will my fellow sportsmen. It has to stop and we hold the power to make it happen.

Thanks Boskee, I appreciate you taking the time to further explain your point of view. I agree with much of your message, and I understand the reasoning in your support of G&Fs involvement as a form of vigilance, but it is an exorbitant waste of funding and resources that could put to far greater use.

I don't agree that direct complicity is necessary for State Agencies to keep an eye on what's going on. The lobo project is a profound failure in every regard, and I think that both Dept's should strongly recommend against its futile continuance, nevermind actively helping it along.

And as you point out, we the people can do likewise in our communications to our representatives and with our votes.

Thaks again

I don't agree that our G&F should be involved at all. They get funding for people to play with wolves yet they closed all the fish cleaning stations at Roosevelt for lack of funds. They love the hugger crap as it pays the bills with new money. Let the feds come in and play the wolf game all they want. They use our resources to administer and police the program. Give up the wolf money and do the job we as AZ sportsmen pay you to do.

You guys make some good points. Especially in lieu of them currently putting medicine on beef parts that is supposed to make the wolves sick when consumed and discourage them to prey on cattle. How's that for some deep thinking to promote your agenda. Guess they just looked right past the fact the pups won't be conditioned and the ranchers problems will be ongoing. I wish the program would be abandoned but we all know that's not likely until we get the ESA changed. The mexican grey wolf is only one specie they could use, what happens when they come up with another and keep changing the rules as we go. I agree Glen in that they want the funding but we can't lose sight of the fact that other funding is tied to their cooperation with the feds.

There's no easy answer to this but w/o federal funds we'll be closing more than just the cleaning stations at Roosevelt. Federal funds actually help the department with operational overhead to keep our some of our fees for tags and licenses affordable for all sportsmen. If the Grey Wolf program bit the dust I wouldn't shed a tear because it's impacting hunting opportunity every single day. THE REALITY, is it's here and working with them can serve us better in the end. What's to stop them from going ahead and deploying all the wolves (150 more) now except our departments involvement in the process. IMO the department participation has actually been of benefit to us by helping to regulate the process. My$.02

Fellas,

This is the canned response that I received from the Game & Fish regarding wolves.
---------------------------------------------
"I received your email and the passion you have for hunting and for wildlife is obvious. You are right that hunting is a very important part of our funding. License sales accounted for 29% of Department funding and Pittman-Robertson $(excise taxes from the sale of firearms, ammunition, etc.) amounted to 14%, so the total funding from the contribution from hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts for the 2011 budget was 43%. The Arizona Game and Fish Department manages all the wildlife in Arizona for our citizens, game and non-game. At close to 800 species, we are the most diverse inland state in the nation. The Mexican wolf is a federally listed species under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has demonstrated support for a Mexican wolf recovery program that is balanced. The wolf is considered one part of the equation. Other parts include a vigorous, healthy elk, deer and antelope herd and recognition of the folks that live on the land and derive a living from there and the need for habitats that are in balance and ecologically sound. The Commission is dedicated to hearing from all those who have a strong desire to ?come to the table? and seek solutions. The Commission supports wolves on the ground in a balance that provides opportunity to sportsmen/hunters, recognizes that citizens reside and make a living in the same area and keeps the habitats in the healthiest, most productive condition. Thank you for your comments."



Jim Paxon, Information Branch Chief
Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 West Carefree Highway IEIN
Phoenix AZ 85086
Phone 623.236.7226 / Cell 602.920.8053
[email protected] / Fax 623.236.7903
www.azgfd.gov
-------------------------------------------
At best, they sure seem to be "neutral" in their stance. It's concerning.
I realize that our neighbors to the North did not want wolves either, but had them rammed down their throat by the Feds. Kind of like health care

The more research I do, the more I realize that it's not about saving wolves at all, but more about big money and lawsuits. Make no mistake, this is all the result of a huge moral and belief system shift in our country. If you have an evolutionist world view, you're not going to value the rights of humans over animals and this is the end result. My kids in public school are even exposed to "wolf friendly" curriculum that I have to refute.

You might find this website and video extremely interesting and enlightening. http://www.lobowatch.com/
Looks like we are in for a long battle...

That response is not exactly an honest evaluation. Add in most fishermen that are on the side of hunters and let me know the percentage of revenue from both hunters and fishermen. I haven't met many fishermen other than fly guys that would want to see them divert attention from fishing and hunting to play with wolves for the hippies.

The way I look at it, it's sort of the "pay me now or pay me later" philosophy that I think is in line with the feelings of Boskee. The G&F can either use money now and try to have some sayso in the matter or let it get out of hand by doing nothing and then when the Chit hits the fan and there are 500 friggin wolves eating everything, including the kid's dog off the front porch, it will cost 10 or 20 times as much trying to rectify the situation that might have been kept in check from the getgo!

Hmmm interesting...could someone please explain to me exactly HOW G&F facilitating the lobo project gives them this imaginary power to 'regulate' the endeavor, outside of what their normal pertinent faculty would be otherwise? And HOW exactly it saves them money in the projected long run?

Anyway, thanks for providing your piggybacked 'reasoning' there Topgun

LAST EDITED ON Feb-10-12 AT 03:00PM (MST)[p]
revised see below

Greatwestern why don't you explain why the state wouldn't benefit from extended federal funding on the project since they've already spent upwards of $20,000,000 on the project and that's more funds for the state each year the project continues. Then give us your reasoning as to why they didn't deploy the remaining wolves since they've had them for years (one would think that would have saved them millions). Think it could possibly have any bearing on the state actually working with them? It's time for you to enlighten us .... who knows maybe you'll change our thought process. Then finally explain why the commission voted to only allow replacements with commission approval (I'm sure it will be challenged legally but who knows). Granted things are changing as the landscape evolves but a longer duration gives us time and a slower rate of negative impact on the resource. In the meantime there's a remote possibility that legislation could get passed which may help the states and stop the legislating through the courts.

Ha! Ya Bosque, a friend of mine sent me a copy of your original post 22. Hmmm, looks like I inadvertently happened to pinch your nerves eh? Well, profound apologies...yessir, quite sorry indeed! My inquiries weren't necessarily intended for yourself, though you DO seem to have the desire of acquiring the title of 'resident expert' on this matter.

I merely asked a couple of questions...can YOU answer them in REAL terms? Or will you continue to throw out conjecture and unsubstantiated numbers in a transparent attempt at gaining the 'upper hand' here?

I appreciate you revising your rather obnoxious original message, but the content remains largely the same...lots of fancy talk, but no real substance.

Anyway, if you actually DO know what you're pontificating about, please provide the common courtesy and service of properly educating all of us poor and ignorant bahstads here. It would certainly be within ALL of our best interests, would it not?

So please, by all means, go ahead...we're 'all ears'

Thanks

LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-12 AT 01:22PM (MST)[p]No We'll defer to you since you've already demonstrated your lack of understanding yourself. Show us exactly where you enlightened anybody on anything here. I stated my remarks were opinions above yet you seem prone to be doing the attacking. We're all entitled to our viewpoints on here and we'll let you point out just where we've gotten off track explaining why we took the path that we did. Why don't you reread your posts to see who managed to get flip first and I think you may find that it was you rather than Topgun or I who fired the first volley.

Gee you really think telling them to stick it or not cooperating will really be the answer.... there's volumes of case law and many judgements with millions of wasted dollars in legal fees that clearly don't support that approach or conclusion.......

Now, please show us exactly how you know more than all the parties that tried your way and lost. It's YOU that thinks you have the answer not TOPGUN or me so step up and tell us how to fix this damn mess. Topgun and I merely tried to explain why we took the path we did it's you that thinks you know where everyone went wrong... so we'll leave the enlightenment to you since you know how to fix it.... I'm sure the states of Wy., Id, Mt, and AZ will be most thankful not to mention your fellow hunters, Topgun and myself. You have our undivided attention & that of the state employees monitoring this thread........ now enlighten us

My my, Boskee, the level of your hypocrisy is simply astounding.

Personal attacks? Hardly. Claims to having it 'all figured out'? Not remotely.

I DO have an OPINION on the matter, and also a couple of questions, which I presented above.

If someone (perhaps your mentioned 'State Officials') can answer them, and explain thing RATIONALLY here, I'm sure more than a few of us would appreciate it.

Any respect I may have had for your (rather OCD) point of view, and any possibility of my affording you further benefit of the doubt, has now been very definitively evaporated.

If anyone else on here can provide a decently communicated argument supporting AZGF's direct involvement with the ill-fated lobo project, my mind is open.

Thanks

Why don't you attend a few meetings on the issue so you can quit asking others for information. Then you might be able to figure out why the state acted in the manner in which they did. Then you may be able to see why they were "complicit" as you called it (poor choice of words there). As to your respect fret not, I won't. Then finally since you want to decide who or whom can come on here and opine or support a position or not, please use the correct spelling on your self described term for yourself. That way those of us who may be better informed won't have to associate the term dumb along with your self proclaimed title.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-12 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]
Boskee---No sense trying to communicate with a guy that brings a knife to a gunfight, LOL!!! He obviously would rather argue than read up and find out how the Feds use the ESA. It's a fact that the states are pretty well handcuffed and either have to do the best they can to control the critter under what is agreed to within ESA parameters, or not do anything and let the Feds and critters control us!!! It's really about that simple.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-12 AT 01:00PM (MST)[p]I agree Topgun, no sense indeed. It has been an incredible waste of time attempting to make any sense at all out of your friend's regurgitated rhetoric, or his hypersensitive resorting to childish tactics (insults, misappropriation, false accusation, etc) when someone challenges or questions his "expert" perspective.

And yes, I have 'read up', thank you, been doing so for years. I do have pertinent questions remaining regarding AZ's decision to continue with the program, which I hope might yet be explained here by someone with some actual real knowledge/insight on the matter. For the present, I stand by my support for the NM Game Commission's abandonment of direct involvement in the lobo project, though it is still monitored by the Dept.

I guess the interesting thing here is we presently have examples of both approaches and can see how things develop over the years, and the way each state's decisions concerning active participation in the program affects its long term projection and impacts, for better or for worse.

**edit---I would obviously like to see the entire thing terminated by the Feds themselves, but I honestly don't think that possibility is even remotely realistic anytime soon.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-12 AT 01:59PM (MST)[p]
Greatwestern in todays Az. Republic there's an article that supports a few of the things I was accused of being misinformed about. Take a moment to read it and see that my so called misinformation, may not be as skewed as some may have believed.

I agree with you 100% in that I would like to see the feds curtail the program but the reality is that probably isn't going to happen. The article is in the Valley and State section section B page 9 entitiled "Wolf Numbers Gain Some Ground" in the lower left hand column. Notice the word "partnered" usage coupled with the fact that we actually do have some input in the process. It appears that our Game & Fish Department & Commission does have input and has been acting in the best interests of the state from our perspective and to avoid legal action. So it would appear that while you may disagree with my thoughts, my understanding of the situation isn't too far off the mark, at least from this journalists perspective. :^)

If you have questions you can go to AZGFD.gov and send them an email. Most of the time you'll get a answer within a few day's unless it's a political question and then they aren't allowed by law to take a position.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-12 AT 10:34PM (MST)[p]Jeez Boskee, you really think I accused you of being misinformed? If so, my apologies...absolutely not the case. I simply DON'T AGREE with the methodology you support. And there are a few questions that NO one seems to be able to answer, including those to whom you referred me...been there, done that, thanks

Anyway, it is quite impossible for anyone to say what is the right or wrong approach to dealing with this atrocity, we simply can't accurately define a 'proper' solution to so highly volatile a situation. I never proclaimed to have 'the answer', please do not misinterpret any of my terse contentions as me staking claim to the 'entitlement' you alluded to. This was simply a discussion of differing opinions...or it should have been, anyway.

I have no personal problem with you, or anyone else on this thread, and I think keeping a bit of a sense of humor during any discussion board communications goes a long way toward keeping misunderstandings in check.

**edit---And hey, thanks for the notice...will look for new article.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 02:21PM (MST)[p]Greatwestern, read the article and you should be able to connect the dots. I think your questions are answered. By putting wolves on the ground they eliminate the threat of legal action by the anti's which reduces cost and shows they are moving forward. The length of duration of the program can actually add to the departments revenues while the program is ongoing.

For some of you other guys:

Here's a little bit of a condensed history that may help you understand why the department isn't going against the ESA Federal Legislation. It's not directly related but shows you how powerful federal legislation can be and may support why we choose to conform.

If you think back to the Taulman fiasco US OUTFITTERS went to court and won a case against the state because they wanted more tags. Then came in and threatened to bring legal proceedings inless the state offered more tags to nonresidents. He used the guise that the taking of wildlife was commerce because people sold the parts. The court found for him in that the taking of wildlife was commerce and that with the sale of trophy antlers, hides etc across state lines it was interstate commerce. He relied on the fact that you can't restrict interstate commerce to go after more tags. I like many others on here was at that meeting and his attorney told the state they had better comply ( give more nonresident tags) or else. Well with one judgement under his belt and facing the possibility tens of thousands more legal fees the Department knew they had to yield.

We had already done the drawing and they stopped the issuance of tags and went back and allocated more nonresident tags to avoid getting sued from their draw lists. This resulted in them taking tags away from successful applicants who were residents and giving their tag to a nonresident. That made the state very aware of just how vulnerable & helpless they were on matters where federal legislation prevailed. We don't have tons of money stockpiled to fight unnecessary lawsuits so they complied. Later we got federal legislation passed that gave the states the right to allocate their tags as they saw fit. Taulman had multiple legal proceeding going on with several other western states to get more of their tags on the same premise. Once the legislation passed Taulman had absolutly no grounds or claim on any states tags and it ended.

So while NM has withdrawn from the program we'll see just what actions the wolf proponents decide to take. Given the fact that NM doesn't have as active base of anti hunting groups they'll probably sit back and see how things unfold. If they bring suit and the courts support NM position then look for other states to take the same course. We will have our issues when we get closer to the agreed upon numbers at such time they'll most likely try to bring suit after suit to not let the state take control. Hopefully in this window we can get some federal legislation passed to put the states back in control.

I'm sure I managed to leave out a few details in my summary but I think it may help shed some light on why our state is working with the program rather than against it. This is my perspective on the matter but hopefully it may help some understand.

To those of you that think the state doesn't get it... maybe it's time to take a step back and then you can see how working with them as opposed to working against them may actually be in our best course of action on the matter. It's a political issue and the states handling the wolf reintroduction in the same manner as any other species with press releases shows their good intentions. When we put the otters up on the Black river they reported how they made gains for that specie and they did the same thing with the bald eagle nesting sites at Lake Pleasant. Our department is entrusted to manage all wildlife not just the species we hunt so they are doing their job.

Now if we can dissuade them USF&WS from trying to deploy the wolves to other areas within our state we may actually be able to control things a bit better. That article I mentioned clearly shows that by partnering and working with the USF&WS we actually do have some input and control in the process. So contrary to popular belief the department is actually working for us and tomorrow when you go outside that blue sky will still be there. Many of the guys at the department have worked their entire careers managing and protecting our wildlife and lest not we forget many are hunters and have to draw their tag the same way we do.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]Chris,

Pretty good recap of the USO situation. Here are a couple outtakes from the In The Field column I write for Rocky Mt. Game & Fish magazine.

COPYRIGHT FEB. 2003

Appeal Planned​

It all started on Feb. 10, 1998 when Conservation Force, Inc. and several outfitters and guides from New Mexico filed suit in the United States District Court in Arizona against the members of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission who were in office at that time.

The plaintiffs, including United States Outfitters (USO) of Taos, N. Mex., claimed the 10-percent cap on nonresident permits for bull elk (statewide) and for deer north of the Colorado River (North Kaibab) violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They requested ?a declaration of invalidity as well as damages.?

When the case eventually came before the federal district court in Arizona, the judge granted the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (AGFD) cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the commerce clause claim as a matter of law.

Subsequently, Conservation Force, Inc. dropped out, and the other plaintiffs-- Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, wife of George Taulman who owns USO -- appealed the decision as individuals to take advantage of the commerce law. The case moved to the 9th District Court of Appeals in California.

It was argued and submitted in Dec., 2001. On August 20, 2002, the 9th District Court issued its opinion.

It pointed out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world-record animals harvested from its lands.

?The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department,? the court files state.

It also states, ?In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big-game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely?.

For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the AGFD began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts. To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, in 1991 the game commission amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code. It placed a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River.

The AGFD explained that the continued management of Arizona?s big game ?is dependent on the continued support of Arizona residents? and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity ?to hunt Arizona?s best.?

On the other side of the aisle, the plaintiffs, who are all professional guides who apply for hunting tags around the country for their clients, claimed that profit making is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment. Instead, they argued that they hunt to ?obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts.?

Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th District Court wrote the following conclusion for the majority opinion:

?We hold that Arizona?s cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. We remand for further proceedings to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests.?

In effect, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the Arizona court's decision, thus finding in favor of the plaintiffs. The rationale behind the decision involved the sale of elk and deer antlers, as allowed under state law in Arizona. In other words, the plaintiffs convinced the appeals court that their purpose for applying for permits was obtaining these antlers to sell and not for the recreational hunting provided.

The decision forced the AGFD to pick one of several options available:

? Dump the nonresident cap
?
? Outlaw the sale of deer & elk antlers by anyone
?
? Raise the cost of nonresident permits high enough for a de facto cap
?
? Appeal the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court
?

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously last October to choose door #4 ? an appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have the option to hear the case and rule or simply decline hearing it altogether.

On almost the same day the game commission voted for the appeal, U.S. Attorney Paul K. Charlton?s office in Phoenix indicted two individuals on charges stemming from an investigation known "Operation Navajo Buck (ONB)." One of them happens to be George Taulman, owner of USO.

Conducted during 1998 and 1999, the ONB investigation led to the arrest and conviction of several big-game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They unlawfully used aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northeast Arizona. As a result, 12 individuals have paid fines of $85,000 and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife.

Taulman?s indictment charges him with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, two felony violations of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and two misdemeanor violations of the Airborne Hunting Act.

The felony violation of the Lacey Act alleges one of Taulman?s clients killed an elk with the aid of an aircraft in 1999. The felony conspiracy counts allege that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk in Arizona during 1998 and 1999. Taulman?s business, USO, is also under indictment on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the outfitter?s Cessna 182 aircraft, which he allegedly used during the hunts.

Another indictment cited David Holton III, of Lake Montezuma, Ariz., who is listed as an employee of USO. He is charged with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, one felony violation of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and one misdemeanor violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. All violations relate to aiding a client with an aircraft so he could kill an elk in 1998 near Payson, Ariz.

The federal Lacey Act makes it unlawful to transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase wildlife which was taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation of state, federal, or indian tribal laws or regulations. Violations carry maximum fines of up to $250,000 for a person, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture.

The federal Airborne Hunting Act makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibits a person, while on the ground, from taking or attempting to take wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft. Maximum penalty for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act include fines of up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison.


COPYRIGHT DEC. 2005

BACK TO NORMAL​

After several years of court battles, resident hunters in a couple of Rocky Mountain states are a bit giddy as result of federal legislation that put to rest an ongoing battle between one New Mexico outfitter and the states. The legal wrangling came to a boil in Arizona during 2004 when the outfitter plaintiffs argued that their only reason for hunting animals in Arizona involved interstate commerce. The court filing stated the reason as, "to obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts."

The original court case before U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Broomfield found in favor of Arizona, but in July 2004, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Broomfield?s verdict and ruled in favor of the outfitters. The court cited the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, which was designed to promote unity of economic opportunity within the states. In its review, the court stated: "?the foregoing testimony does not explain why a 10 percent cap, as opposed to some other less discriminatory cap, is necessary to achieve the state's interest in conserving hunting opportunities."

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, allowing the 9th Circuit ruling to stand. As a result, Broomfield ordered the Arizona Game & Fish Department to eliminate the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunters for the 2004 big-game tag lottery drawing. The change required issuing more than 800 additional elk and deer tags in 2004 and disregarding any nonresident cap for the 2005 seasons. To compensate somewhat, the game department removed the ability to apply online and also mandated the purchase of hunting license before applying.

Bolstered by the success in Arizona, the New Mexico outfitters filed suit in Nevada over its nonresident caps. The plaintiffs also had other states in their sights.

Enter U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who successfully co-sponsored a bill with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Senator Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator John McCain of Arizona that short stopped any current or future lawsuits by the plaintiffs. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colorado sponsored a similar bill (HR 731) in the House. In August 2005, President George Bush signed the bill into law.

The law states:

(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.

(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the 'commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

The wording essentially says power to regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management is the sole right of the states and removes any consideration to the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution.

On Aug. 22, 2005 Judge Broomfield granted the Arizona Game and Fish Commission?s motion to revoke the permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the state?s 10-percent nonresident cap on big game drawings.

?This means the last major legal hurdle has been crossed. Now the Game and Fish Commission can continue moving forward with its rule making efforts to reinstate the 10-percent nonresident cap,? says Commission Chairman Hays Gilstrap.

Also in August, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved a notice of rulemaking to reinstate and expand the 10-percent cap. The original cap applied only to bull elk, buffalo, bighorn sheep and some antlered deer units. Now, by a vote of the commission, the cap will include all antlered deer, pronghorn, javelina and turkey hunts. For most species, the cap would be applied at no more than 10 percent of the tags available for each hunt number.

?The rule process takes time and involves lots of opportunities for public input, but we anticipate having the caps in place for the 2006 big game drawings,? says Gilstrap.

Now that the nonresident cap is back in place, the AGFD is also intent provide an online application procedure for the fall hunt drawings in 2006.

The U.S. District court in Nevada dismissed the case against the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners and Nevada Department of Wildlife Director Terry Crawforth.

?It was hunters fighting with hunters,? Crawforth said. ?The agency was spending hunter?s money to referee the fight.?

Crawforth said one of his fears over the issue was having everything the state did to manage wildlife come under constant monitoring and oversight by the courts.

?I was concerned that we were spending sportsman?s dollars battling lawyers rather than spending hunter dollars to do good things for wildlife. I'm pleased that we got the legislation, and the fight is over,? Crawforth said.






TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

Tony that article very clearly shows why your the writer and I'm the hack! Your article clearly illustrates how much power the courts have and how their decisions can influence how our agency's handle their day to day & future affairs. We all get frustrated with this crap but must be reminded that by and large our department has proven time and again that it does manage our wildlife in our best interests. Thanks for posting that up. Regards, CA

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-12 AT 08:12PM (MST)[p]Ya Boskee, will track down the article when I have a bit more time on my hands here, and perhaps my pea-brain will do me the favor of helping me 'connect the dots'

Without directly knowing what the current AZ article says, I will offer that there have been quite a few media articles written during the time NM supported the program that 'justified' the cause...I am generally quite leary of popular journalism, whatever its concern, as it is very seldomly objective.

Anyway, I will see if I can dig up some past documents I've read, communications of recommendation from NMGF to FWS concerning the lobo program, and post them up for yours and others interest. My sources tell me that these were largely ignored by USFWS, and that this factor may have indeed largely influenced NM's desision to resign from active participation in the project, in conjunction with the ridiculous financial expenditure (even though it wasn't nearly that of AZ's...hmmm, perhaps that's why they didn't listen to us? )

Like I said before, it is impossible to tell which is the correct course for the affected States to take, and how it will impact them respectively, financially and otherwise, in the long run...it remains interesting that we have both approaches to the dilemma currently represented.

I guess we'll see how it goes...still can't fathom any REAL changes to USFWS policy on the matter in the near future, but I would happily concede being wrong, and will continue to do my seemingly insignificant part toward the small potential of such a wildly fantastic positive outcome.

Cheers'

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-12 AT 12:27PM (MST)[p]The bottom line on this really is that until we change the ESA in congress nothing is really going to matter. Washington drives the process, appoints the individuals that head up the agencies that are ramming this down our throat. Until you get the states in control it doesn't matter what you or I want because they're going to do what they want as long as they have the power to do so. You have to take the power away or they'll continue to use it time and again just like they've done. Everything else is a bandaid!

But I'll tell you what why don't you go to the next commission meeting and offer up what you think the right course of action is. They have a lawyer from the attorney generals office at every meeting whom they'll consult and maybe they'll agree with you. My guess is that they'll choose to conform to the ESA. State agencies are required to operate within state and federal law. If you have an idea that allows them to do that I'm sure they'll give it consideration, otherwise we'll have to deal with the hand we're dealt, until we can get things changed.

And on that^, I could not agree with you more Boskee

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-12 AT 07:15PM (MST)[p]Hmmm, I have no idea why your edit (2nd paragraph) wasn't in your post when I responded in agreement to your observation.

Anyway, I most definitely disagree with your 'proposal'...even supposing I had the the time or inclination to travel to your state for a meeting, I HIGHLY doubt the Commissioners and their legal consultant(s) would be very receptive to a common New Mexican churl like myself presenting an 'alternative' that is in direct contradiction to what they've apparently thoroughly invested their commitment to following through with...eh, HA!

However, if YOU think my State's reasoning is viable (which you begrudingly admitted MIGHT be in one of your latest posts), then please feel most welcome to bear the torch yourself at the next meeting with this issue on the agenda

**edit---BTW, NM is operating well within the mandates of Federal and State law in their decision to not DIRECTLY support USFWS in this ill-fated endeavor.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-12 AT 10:09PM (MST)[p]I guess time will tell. If it was as easy as you hope Wy., Id., Mt., would have thought of it (I HOPE IT IS FOR BOTH OUR SAKES). The ranchers & residents up there tried just about every angle imaginable and still got the wolves. So I doubt it will be that easy. I guess now we know exactly why the department wouldn't answer your questions. That pretty much sums it up.

Never said it would be 'easy'...please don't attempt to put words in my mouth, Boskee

So, WHY exactly is it that the Dept. wouldn't answer my questions respectfully posed them (per your claim)?

Could it be,hmmm...because they don't have ANY viable answer?

The lobo project is a disgusting waste of money and resource...AZGF would do well to abandon the idiot Feds in this endeavor. The money saved would likely easily handle future lawsuit potential.

If you haven't seen this video yet, its well worth the hour of your time.

http://cryingwolfmovie.com/

I knew the wolf reintroduction was a railroad job, I just had no idea how bad it really was. I wish every wolfie would be required to watch so they can understand how they are being used to harm their fellow Americans and our wildlife.

oh my, our vanity is only overshadowed by our under developed debate skills......... Must be tough still sitting at the kids table for holiday meals. I'm done with you on this thread because I don't want you to throw any more tantrums...... start name calling, or damage your emotional development. You obviously can't separate your emotions from the subject matter...... so it's plain to see why you can't comprehend why any state took the course it did.

Ya Boskee, real tantrum indeed

You're certainly starting to gain a bit of wisdom by making the decision to check out, best to not dig that hole you're in any deeper eh!

I will likewise do my best to advance my 'emotional development' and 'debate skeelz'

On another note, perhaps AZGF really DO actually like wolves, and are more than happy to keep up their earnest efforts at helping them along?

Crazy world...

They like all wildlife even wolves. No need for any excavation work on my part facts are facts it's only when you try to distort them is when the hole gets deep. That's where you viewpoint was lacking here all talk no substance. Maybe the way they're going they're saving you some of your tax dollars since you helped fund the $20,000,000, and any future legal costs of the wolf crowd. Then when you factor in where any AZ. appeal case would go to the 9th US circuit court in San Francisco home of liberals, that may help help you understand why we work with the system not against it. Now go put your binky in and get some sleep, you have to get up early for school.

^Ha! Quit talking in circles and YOU show me some 'substance'

You couldn't refute any of the facts so I highly doubt you'd be up to any substance angle either. Hell you've tried the discredit card, the divide and conquer angle with TopGun, the old distort the fact argument, didn't approve of my methodology angle, thought for some abstract reason that I needed or sought your approval. Then you made statements implying that you couldn't get the department or some authority to answer your questions. eluding to a lack of cooperation on someone's part.


Then to my amusement didn't manage to present or refute one fact except that NM was acting within the framework of the ESA yet you couldn't explain why. Then when I extended an invitation for you to appear before our commission to expound on where we went wrong, you tuck tail and run again. Tactfully, you accuse us of wasting money on the program not being able to comprehend that federal tax dollars were involved and as such you were a contributor too. Hell next thing I know you're going to be accusing me of being unfaithful to my wife to try to impune my character.

One things for certain you sure keep trying to stick your nose in our business. I think TopGun summed it up pretty well except that instead of a knife you brought a spork. Looks like a textbook example out of the old democrat's playbook to me and here you thought we couldn't see the wolf through the sheep's clothing! Oops, got ya! You're a Democrat, still want to talk about hypocrisy, didn't think so.

You've got quite an imagination Boskee. I am now indeed convinced you live in your own imaginary world, where 'winning' rather inconsequential internet battles augments your convoluted sense of self.

I 'stuck my nose' in 'your' business because AZ's COMPLICITY in the lobo project negatively affects my state as well. I offered my state's current position as an 'alternative'.

I will not waste my time 'refuting' your outright conjecture. The only 'substance' you provided was that your Dept. receives Federal funding for the Lobo project, which your state somehow applies to covering their overhead (a VERY backward approach), and the questionably relevent, yet quite familiar, chronology of the USO fiasco in an effort to educate all of us dimwits on here as to 'how the court process works'...which was quickly and handily usurped by Tony's courteously presented superior version.

And no, there is really NO point in me attending ANY of your Commission's meetings concerning this issue, it would be an obvious waste of everyone's time.

I tried to work with you here, but you apparently just can't tolerate my OPINION contesting your Expert Perspective, and not once, but TWICE resorted to insults and direct hypocrisy ('...calling kettle black') when you couldn't come up with a SUBSTANTIAL response. I refer to such as the Cornered Weasel Syndrome...interesting phenomenon.

I haven't seen many people here agree with you, nevermind the 'divided and conquered' TOPGUN. Do some research into your blind piggybacker's posts on this forum, and you MAY begin understand why I don't put much stock in ANYthing he has to say.

I would still be happy to hear from anyone else concerning a viable argument supporting AZGF's decision to remain involved in the lobo project, but I am starting to believe that they really do wholeheartedly endorse the cause, and that Boskee was sent in as their, ahem, 'spokesman'

Thanks

Looks like some of the more recent 'contentious' communications have been removed, I'll look through my records when I get a chance and see if I saved any of them that I am authorized to share here

Anyway, for anyone interested, this probably best represents the 'beginning of the end' of NMGF's direct support of the lobo project, as our recommendations seemed to go largely disregarded by FWS

http://wildlife.state.nm.us/conserv...nSlownregarding10_j_RuleComments31Dec2008.pdf

And please remember, nothing concerning this issue is predictably static, it is all highly subject to political influence and sway

gw-

I sure don't like the sounds of that proposal. NMGF want to open the wolf recovery area to all lands, public and private, south of I40. I don't see how that is going to help control wolf numbers. Nice thing, if they get their way, maybe nobody will want more wolves in my home state of AZ. Thanks for posting.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-12 AT 01:30PM (MST)[p]My My greatwestrern, it would appear that with your vaunted education you weren't able to grasp my intent. It wasn't about me winning ( although it was fun to toss that barb your way) it had more to do with how you attempted to use those tactics mentioned to prove what I said was incorrect in an attempt to discredit me, when the reality quite clearly supports the opposite.

You see once again you went ahead and poked a barb at TOPGUN to try to reinforce your superior knowledge. You seem to think that your education makes you the authority and in reality it only enables you to get through the door. The fact that you have to walk down the hall and get permission to release documents pretty much sums up where you really stand in the pecking order. You aren't the one calling the shots your a few pay grades below that lofty status. LOL :^)

I honestly hope things work out for you guys over there but being "complicit" isn't a position any company or state agency wants to take in any matter especially the ESA, it will only encourage the dark forces against us to use the courts. Complicit in the legal sense implies/ condones illegal actions, noncompliance with the law or knowledge of illegal activity and that isn't a positon that bodes well for any of the parties involved. Being complicit on matters only serves to increase the leverage the other side holds over you.

The fact is that the legislation was written in such a manner that really doesn't allow the states or individuals too much latitude to be able to challenge it in court in spite of damages, loss of income, impact on other wildlife, livestock etc. The states don't have too many avenues for appeal and as such keep getting it handed to them. Maybe that explains why you are considering opening things up south of I 40 over there if that issue still hasn't been resolved given the date of the memo. If still pending, I doubt the pressure really is coming from the FWS alone. It's more likely the prowolfys are threatening legal action or applying pressure to force the issue and know full well that they have legal advantage and the states arguments won't prevail. The FWS doesn't want to face more legal expense and has advised you as such and so the domino's start to fall.

Threats of legal action, when the states don't have the ability to stockpile funds for legal proceedings, on legislation they can't repeal, constantly works against us. So while you seem to think my opinions aren't too valid (which is certainly your right, changing or amending the states control of wildlife pertaining to the legislation is just about the only alternative we have (a point we do agree on).

SO while you seem to get annoyed with me ..... have fun at work and keep studying those pesky legal arguments, who knows maybe you'll find the argument that frees us of the ties that bind. I'm going fishing..... it's one of the many benefits of being a RETIRED "EXPERT". :^)

But if you're the guy that comes up with the idea that gets us out of this damn mess I'll buy you dinner at Rancho De Chimayo, my treat.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-12 AT 02:17PM (MST)[p]Sage, that document is pretty old, written during the time NM was actively participating in the program. I posted it to illustrate FWS disregard for a partner's valid recommendations, which I believe was a contributing factor in my state's resignation from the project.

The 'expansion of recovery area' suggestion was based on the fact that the wolves DO range widely, and it would make more sense to be able to apply management tools to dispersing numbers (the broadened 'hazing' recommendation), instead of being stuck with the single option of capturing and returning such wolves to the recovery area. It would also appear to be a means of possibly quickening the achievement of the population objective and getting them under state management.

Yes Boskee, I think we do agree on the fact that any real change is going to have to come from the Federal level. My questions about your state's continued involvement remain the same, in spite of the interim entertainment here

Is it justifiable to continue to apply substantial funding and resources to active participation in a program which may NEVER achieve its objectives?

Does AZGF actually possess any regulatory power over the the process as has been suggested here?

NMGF's past experience of involvement would suggest otherwise.
These questions are general, not intended for any specific individual. I have not been able to find very satisfactory answers thus far.

Anyway, maybe I can manage to brush up my 'education' and discover this elusive panacea to cure us all of this Canis Lupus Baileyi infection that plagues us, as I DO like the enchiladas at El Rancho quite well.

And Boskee, I use 'complicity' here in an interpretative sense, as it is my opinion that the reintroduction effort is almost 'criminal' in a modern Wildlife Management regard...

Well have fun fishin...I'm jealous!

+1 GW....I'm with GW on this one.. Sorry Boskee but I think you're wrong.












Gun control is a good aim and a steady rest

Mesquite, everyones entitled to have an opinion. It's the fact that we can have them, that allows us to find a way to resolve things. I sent you a pm. Say hello to Travis!