Hunters Beware!

LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-14 AT 12:34PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-14 AT 11:19?AM (MST)

I give a lot of money out for hunting licenses and applications each year, I don't feel bad about not contributing in that way.
Problem is state wildlife agencies cannot fight political battles, and that's where the issues are.

A lot of people think their Game and departments can do more than they can, I think that's where sportsmen apathy comes in and we lose out, I see it all the time.

Outside groups and sportsmen can fight for things the government agencies cannot, as there are laws that must be abided by.
Nothing is black and white despite what stoney says, that's why its important to be aware of your local issues, because nobody knows them like you.

There was a poster on here that was all worried about REI corporation because they didn't sell camo colored hunting gear,
I found it so ironic because he was from a place I used to live and I never saw him at any of the important local public meetings where decisions were made and sportsmen eventually lost out on having thousands of huntable elk every year.
And we lost because sportsmen wouldn't show up, they thought NDOW or someone else would speak up, and it didn't happen,

But he was all upset about this national outdoor sports retail company because they didn't sell camo colored gear? crazy if you ask me?
sorry, but I'm unapologetic about enjoying wildlife and liking to hunt.
 
eelgrass said, With the dozens and dozens of environmental organizations out there, and the hundreds of millions of dollars they collect every year, if they were so pro hunting, why is almost every State Game and Fish Departments underfunded?

I think you need to do a bit more research. Many of the NGO's support the GF agencies and without them, the GF agencies would really be in the chit finacially.

The RMEF, TU, WF, WSF, BHA, RMBS, TRCP, as well as many hundreds more local NGO's that support the agencies with grants, matching funding, fuding research projects, land purchases, access, etc. etc. etc. They provide huge levels of funding and help with many projects that simply wouldnt happen without them.

They also provide support by keeping the State Legislature in check, supporting pro-wildlife bills, etc.

As its already been stated the GF agencies can not lobby on their own behalf. Thats where the NGO's can, and do make a difference.

While guys liked Stoney will have you believe that BHA, WWF, TU, etc. are all anti-hunting, thats just not the case. I worked with many of the groups that Stoney loves to hate and helped pass legislation this year in Wyoming that added 7 million in funding to the WYGF.

While any contributions you can make via direct license sales is a good idea and helps, its not on the same level of support that the NGO's can provide.

I also find it ironic that Stoney is bitc hing about TU having paid staff. Why shouldnt they? The Farm Bureau, Outfitters associations, Grazing Associations, mining Reps, logging reps, they also have paid staff and lobbyists. Why do people like Stoney have a problem with sportsmen/wildlife supporters doing the exact same thing?

I guess its only OK for one side to have a few paid spokepersons and lobbyists, but not the other side?

I get called a hypocrit???

WOW!!!!
 
>Quest,
>
>Exactly, these groups have been using
>the hopeful and truly sincere
>resident hunters from the western
>states' Wildlife Federations. Just go
>to the NWF site and
>then go to see where
>they get their funding and
>you will be amazed I
>think at how they are
>at odds with the true
>sportsmen, consumptive users such as
>the livestock grazers, loggers, miners,
>energy production and etc.

I don't know why I'm bothering to post on this thread because Stoney has shown over and over again that he's not paying attention to most of what other people are saying, but I'll give it a shot.

The above quote may be a key post of Stoney's. I would think that most sportsmen at times would find that they might end up on the other side of the fence than some of these other consumptive users. Stoney assumes that all hunters are right there with energy production, mining operations, overgrazing on public lands, etc. If you are opposed to a dozen new roads through your favorite hunting spot and a bunch of oil trucks running all hours of the day and night, I guess you are a Greenie.

If he would just open his eyes he doesn't have to look at funding sources, BHA is directly opposed to a lot of this type of activity as their primary purpose is to protect the back country from development and keep it for recreational purposes including hunting and fishing. Stoney says he's all about horses and going into the back country, but BHA is the one directly fighting against the development in those wilderness and primitive areas. If Stoney actually believed what he was posting about, he probably should be making a donation to BHA, not claiming they are out to get hunters.

If you wade back through the 200+ posts you will end up finding a more direct financial tie from the "Greenies" Ted Turner himself to SFW and Big Game Forever through the leadership of the Mt-SFW than there is with BHA.

I've never contributed to BHA, but I would rather donate to them any day of the week than to SFW or Big Game Forever. Actually based on this thread, I'm thinking about starting to donate to BHA.
 
I now understand that only non union members and Republicans
hunt.

Gotcha.






"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
>> I now understand that only non union members and Republicans
hunt.

Gotcha.<<

WW, as a government employee union member life long republican from the great state of California who has hunted and fished his entire life i find that hilarious LOL to quote a few posts back carry on LOL
 
TY, I find the whole thing hilarious.

As the CAT would say

JUDAS F'N PRIEST!!!!!

Pass the tin foil before "THEY" get in my head!!


"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
>
>When are you going to answer
>some of those questions I
>asked? I answered everyone you
>asked, you've not reciprocated.
>
>How about a wolf picture? I'm
>willing to trade.
>
>Why no profile name? What are
>you afraid of.
>
>Go ahead and look under the
>hood, but in doing so,
>make sure that agent giving
>out that info has been
>checked out too.
>
>Propaganda is just that.
>
>
>I wanted to take a scalp,but
>the kill was not mine.
>

I am different than a bunch of people(especially Buzz), I do not take pictures to show off my manhood, those are just for me and my family. I really do not care if you question my effectiveness at killing wolves either, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
 
Wileywapati,

I have guided hunters and fishermen for over 30 years and can't ever, ever remember ever taking a liberal hunting or fishing. It is just not in their psyche to do so.

Many of my clients come from the great state of CA and they have all been conservatives and think just like most of us hunters do.

Of course all of us conservatives have a hat rack full of Tin Foil Hats and Baseball Caps!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-14 AT 06:33AM (MST)[p]>Wileywapati,
>
>I have guided hunters and fishermen
>for over 30 years and
>can't ever, ever remember ever
>taking a liberal hunting or
>fishing. It is just not
>in their psyche to do
>so.
>
>Many of my clients come from
>the great state of CA
>and they have all been
>conservatives and think just like
>most of us hunters do.
>
>
>Of course all of us conservatives
>have a hat rack full
>of Tin Foil Hats and
>Baseball Caps!


***So how do you know none of your previous hunters are Liberals? Do you make prospective clients take a test on their political leanings and bar anyone that doesn't agree with your extremist views? You bring to mind something my Mom told me a long time ago when she and Dad moved to San Antonio and a neighbor lady that was a real wacko came down and invited her to start going to her Church with her. Mom told her she was of the Catholic persuasion and the lady came right back with: "You sure don't look like a Catholic!" I wonder what Catholics "look like"!
 
Was gonna, but decided I better just move along.



"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
I made the mistake of taking a liberal fishing one time. I had a key to the gate on Simpson Timber land because I worked for them. That gave me road access to some great fishing on the Klamath River. The whole time we're driving on company land he kept trashing Simpson for their logging practices. Went on and on about how loggers are raping the land, blah, blah, blah.

We split up on the river and when I had my salmon I drove off and left him there. I never saw him after that. He either walked out, got a boat ride, or died up there. Whatever.
 
Topgun,,
I know my hunters as I am with them for several days and learn about them and their lifestyles and can tell usually very quick about how a guy thinks when we take them into the wilderness.

For you to think that liberals can somehow pull the wool over people's eyes and especially when we usually even know them pretty well before they get here to hunt or fish.

Like I said liberals if they do hunt don't go guided I imagine because they aren't wired to have someone tell them what to do or even suggest anything in relation to hunting or fishing.

Like 2Lumpy said when he was involved with a couple of State WF's he had never run into a bunch or crappy , simple minded so calling themselves hunters or fishers. I suppose their are exceptions such as your self, Buzz, 4100fps, piper and you guys whom are art true conservationiosts and hunters and fisherman. Even in NM some of the NMWF guys are good guys but just have a different political and conservation view than mainstream conservatives.
 
stoney, you should try not labeling and categorizing people so much, the world is so big and varied that all labels do is confuse people.
Save them for canned goods and storage boxes.

BTW There is an interesting article in the Trout Unlimited magazine, its about a guided fishing trip in Mongolia taken by 89 year old president Jimmy Carter, check it out if you get the chance.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-14 AT 12:18PM (MST)[p]>Topgun,,
>I know my hunters as I
>am with them for several
>days and learn about them
>and their lifestyles and can
>tell usually very quick about
>how a guy thinks when
>we take them into the
>wilderness.
>
>For you to think that liberals
>can somehow pull the wool
>over people's eyes and especially
>when we usually even know
>them pretty well before they
>get here to hunt or
>fish.

***And how, Sir, did you come up with that idea? That is about as far off as classifying me as Liberal when I'm far from it and have told you that in other posts. I guess you don't want to read anything that doesn;t go along with your ideas or concepts!


>Like I said liberals if they
>do hunt don't go guided
>I imagine because they aren't
>wired to have someone tell
>them what to do or
>even suggest anything in relation
>to hunting or fishing.

***Here again is a blanket statement that's about as stupid as that lady I mentioned in my other post regarding my Mom!


>Like 2Lumpy said when he was
>involved with a couple of
>State WF's he had never
>run into a bunch or
>crappy , simple minded so
>calling themselves hunters or fishers.

***There's another great way to talk about others who are in the fight trying to make a difference for the good of all. Extremists like you and Lumpy ought to get married and while you're at it adopt WH!!!

>I suppose their are exceptions
>such as your self, Buzz,
>4100fps, piper and you guys
>whom are art true conservationiosts
>and hunters and fisherman. Even
>in NM some of the
>NMWF guys are good guys
>but just have a different
>political and conservation view than
>mainstream conservatives.

***Another ridiculous statement, as how do you know who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys"? In fact, please expound on your definitions of the two, as I'm sure that will make another very interesting and informative post regarding your philosophies! Can I assume you are calling yourself a "mainstream conservative" and consider yourself one of the "good guys", while actually your posts more than show you are obviously an extremist and evidently lump everyone together as Liberals and "bad guys" if they don't agree with your extremist views?! One last thing and that is why have you more than once referred to the NWF as the Mother of all the state organizations when that organization does not have chapters of any sort that I'm aware of?
 
Piper,

I try not to categorize people but I know my enemies and the liberal green organizations that have fought everything the conservative natural resource users have done, are my dire enemy and by your seeming support of these organizations makes you suspect.

Take for instance the TU magazine article on old liberal Carter. Now that really confirms my doubts and castigations of TU. My God man that would be sacrilegious for a conservative whom literally hates Ole Pres. Jimmy Carter, to read an article about that old sob.

How do you categorize yourself Piper?
 
But, you'd be honored to guide a couple
Good conservative boys like Ted Nugent
And Troy gentry???



"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-14 AT 07:22AM (MST)[p]>Piper,
>
>I try not to categorize people
>but I know my enemies
>and the liberal green organizations
>that have fought everything the
>conservative natural resource users have
>done, are my dire enemy
>and by your seeming support
>of these organizations makes you
>suspect.
>
>Take for instance the TU magazine
>article on old liberal Carter.
>Now that really confirms my
>doubts and castigations of TU.
>My God man that would
>be sacrilegious for a conservative
>whom literally hates Ole Pres.
>Jimmy Carter, to read an
>article about that old sob.
>
>
>How do you categorize yourself Piper?
>

***Talk about hypocrits when you make a post like that and all you've been doing in this 200+ post thread is lumping everyone together and categorizing us/them from the get-go, LOL! Read the first and last sentences of your post and tell me that's not a hypocrit speaking! Also, FYI that ole SOB was probably the most honest guy that's ever been in the White House and also one of the biggest humanitarians of our generation. He was darn sure the wrong type of guy to go up with all that scum in DC, and, therefore, didn't last long! After reading all your drivel and BS, I think the real "old SOB" may just be the one who started this thread!
 
Piper,

The Carter Administration with all of its good points and faults was the extremely high interest rates that occurred under his watch going up over 22%. Many of us lost much of our equity and economic well being under the old goat's socialistic policies and his trying to have price controls on most everything including the food industry.

What is your political philosophy? Are you a moderate Independent?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-14 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]why ask me stoney?
I believe the high interest rates were a product of Paul Volcker's economic policy to get inflation under control.
But whatever, this isn't the political forum.
So move over there, Cornhusker had a test to take, and my results came up Green.
 
Piper,

Oh yeah blame someone other than one of the worst Presidents the USA ever had. He is almost totally a socialist/communist mongrelized member of the US of A. How did a peanut farmer go so wrong?

Why I ask you is, you blame me of being radical conservative, Tin foil hat, crazy and a host of other very critical cut down handles so what makes your answers to my posts so superior. I want to know why and how you come up with what you post? Why do you refuse to make your political leanings public as you seem to support all the liberal progressive type organizations that try to involve hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation in one breath and their radical environmentalism in the next.

Politics unfortunately has a whole lot to do with the outdoor industry. Most State Game & Fish Commissioners are political appointees. Most regulations administered by our Game & Fish Dept.'s are done legislatively. Politics is involved almost 100% of the time in many decisions affecting yours and my hunting and fishing.
 
The scope of politics as it relates to wildlife management, resource management, habitat, etc. is too broad and complicated to be defined by your simplistic view of an individual hunters party affiliation.

Maybe someday you'll realize that...but I'm not holding much hope.

Most hunters I know, are clearly NOT defined by their political affiliation when it comes to hunting related issues. Most are smart enough to realize that extremes on either end of the political spectrum are dangerous, damaging and unproductive.

Throwing around the words liberal, conservative, etc. are a pizz poor way to define people...and shallow thinking as a best case scenerio.
 
Reality stings a little bit huh Buzz. Most hunters I know are true blue conservatives and not some mismash hodgepodge you have conjured up in your mind. Most of my clients and friends are very politically offended by the liberal mind set infecting our sheeple whom are sadly the majority in this country.

By the way when are you going to answer my questions which are the central theme of this thread?
 
Wildlife management is not as complicated as some make it out to be... If management decisions were motivated to simply have healthy herds, by professionals not concerned about budgets, personal agendas, trophies and politics, herds would be far better off. It's the secondary motivations that screw it up.

For example; You would think that someone with a PhD is actually smart, right? Only an idiot or fool would think bringing wolves into the lower 48 would be a good idea. It sure as heck is not good for wildlife and sportsman... It came down to personal motives and nothing else!!!
 
>Reality stings a little bit huh
>Buzz. Most hunters I know
>are true blue conservatives and
>not some mismash hodgepodge you
>have conjured up in your
>mind. Most of my clients
>and friends are very politically
>offended by the liberal mind
>set infecting our sheeple whom
>are sadly the majority in
>this country.
>

I hate to burst this politicly 'racist' bubble of yours Stoney, but I have at least three friends that, one would say, are liberal thinkers and they are hardcore hunters and support and defend our sport like all others.

Do I dare say they were against wolf reintroduction? They were...
 
Boys this 3 ring circus is starting to wear thin. Beat your head into a wood post and you all might get some where, at least giving the rest of us some peace and quiet.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
It's interesting that one of the biggest reasons for Montana's elk decline is some of those consumptive users, the livestock industry that got some big reductions in target elk populations passed through the legislature. Don't want too many elk eating "their" public grass.

Also interesting is that Wyoming's elk populations are at or near all time highs, but folks still are complaining that the wolves ate all of them.

I personally feel hunters should be more worried about oil, gas, mining, subdivisions, livestock producers, etc. than wolves.

The eco-elite are on my list too, they worry me more than the wolves, but I don't think BHA is part of them.

Donate to the Montana Trappers association, the eco-elite are trying to get trapping on public land banned. Trapping is a great tool in the arsenal against wolves.

p.s. - I'm a very conservative republican, but I still don't like misuse of public land which is one of our greatest treasures.
 
napaden,

You are very correct in that misuse and abuse of the public land (Federally managed or mismanaged lands) is a travesty and a shame. The bad operators or land use managers including many livestock grazers give the rest of the public lands grazers a bad name. The same in the hunting world, the slob hunters give the rest of us a bad a bad name.

The public lands are still under the multiple use mandate but are under great and unrelenting pressure to curtail or remove many consumptive uses taking place here now.

Uses on the public lands and our rights to use them for many purposes is likened to a bundle of sticks. The livestock grazers have rights or grazing permits and allotments on much of the renewable resource landscape, to the forage and they weer mostly established in the late 1800's and early 1900's here in the west. The Forest Reserves were formed in that time period and it took the Forest Service and BLM managing agencies until the 1930's before they started fencing off individual allotments and stopping the open range system that had been in place since the mid to late 1800's.

The Federal Agencies starting managing the landscape that theretofore had been greatly over grazed and overused. Grazing management of the public land has come a long way since then. Over all most of the west has rebounded and for the big part grazing on these public lands is tightly controlled and managed. There are a few bad operators but they aren't lasting. During this whole process much water development was done on the public land. It was in many instances a cooperative effort with the Agencies furnishing the materials and the permittee providing the labor. These water developments helped bring about the increase in elk numbers.

All of this water development and better range management has enabled especially our elk herds to greatly expand in most states. NM has come from less than 5,000 in the early 1900's to over 90,000 today. This has caused a whole new way for these public lands livestock grazers to do business. The Agencies are required by law to leave so much forage for the elk and so this puts a pinch on the rancher.

Contrary to some on this thread NM's landowner permit system has absoslutely been a good thing for both the elk and the rancher and landowners. Sure their are problems exspecially with the SCR (Small Contributing Ranch) program because a lot of landowner permits are going to very small acreage landowners whom only have occasional elk use. The system needs tightened up to put more licenses back into the public draw.

Now these public lands ranchers get some compensation for the knocked down fences, and competition to the grass resource and it goes along ways to make these ranchers want to manage for both elk and their livestock, and we have seen an amazing turn around in these public lands livestock grazer's attitudes toward elk here in NM.

Back to the bundle of sticks. You have a myriad of multiple users able to utilize the public lands, first and foremost hunters but then you have woodcutters, ATV recreationists, backpackers, birdwatchers,trappers and the list goes on. It is truly an amazing way of land management and that is what this thread is all about. Hunter Beware, because there are forces working very hard against the multiple use system we have come to enjoy and love. These people want to lock up the land into some esthetic utopian dream to rid the land of these consumptive users. They view us as a threat to their mother earth and they want to make it their alter to worship and keep us nasty old humans out of their temple.

How do I come up with all of this you might ask? I and my family have been heavily involved in livestock grazing on the public land for many years. We have pretty much phased out of the public lands grazing part of it but my nephew still has a grazing allotment on USFS and my son manages a big FS grazing allotment. I and my immediate family used to run 600 mother cows on FS lands here in NM & AZ. I have for the last 20-30 years went into outfitting full time with a good string of horses and mules to do most of my hunting and recreation business on FS lands and in particular the wilderness areas. I saw a much brighter future in hunting and recreation on the FS lands than running cattle. I don't own a cow anymore but with the price of cattle where they are at today, I wish I still had a few. I don't own an ATV but that is fine with the others whom are able to still use ATV's on the public land.

I fight very hard for the multiple use system of managing the public lands and in recent years have been fighting the wolf proliferation many of us are trying to endure.

The wolf is just one of the weapons the opposition is using against the present day use of our public lands

We all need to stick together to fight this huge and growing movement to rid us all from the public land.
 
yea yea, your right
There is a vast conspiracy against everyone that consumes on the mismanaged public lands.
They want to rid us all from public lands and they hold monthly secret meetings in Jimmy Carters old Peanut oil factory in Georgia.

PM me Stoney, and I will get you an invite to the next meeting.
 
Piper,

You are truly a piece of work! Does the word sheeple mean anything to you? Like lambs being led to slaughter! Carry on Piper in your little make believe world. Maybe if you just try and open your eyes even a smidgen you might start to get the picture.

Try to tell this to the people whose lives are being drastically altered by this huge so called environmental movement. Radical environmentalism is a big part of why our economy is the way it is. Not to bueno!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-14 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]Cry us a river stoney, I bet its tough leading all those horses and mules into the mismanaged wilderness.

I grew up in Elko Nevada, I'm sure you know one time state rep John Carpenter, Commissioner Grant Gerber and most of the others?. I do.
I know what your going to say before you say it, your all the same, and this isn't my first rodeo in listening to the me, myself and I crowd.

Catron County is a changing place, the big money moves in, the environmentalists, the locals feel threatened, its scary, those people, they don't get it, nor do they seem to care much.
I don't really feel sorry for you, but understand where you get your thoughts. And don't worry about the economy, believe me, a clean and healthy environment isn't what's wrong with it.
 
>
>Also interesting is that Wyoming's elk
>populations are at or near
>all time highs, but folks
>still are complaining that the
>wolves ate all of them.
>
>


If you were to look at that statement objectively, you would realize that the Wyoming elk populations around where vibrant wolf populations exist, like the wilderness areas, those elk are in decline. Low calf numbers and all the rest of the not so good byproducts of wolves. Not many ranchers either...

Most of the elk population growth is happening in areas where the wolves are managed as predators.Those same areas the elk are doing well in Wyoming, they coexist with a lot of wyoming livestock. The livestock producers in Wyoming also spend a bunch of time and money on predator control too.

Lets bring Idaho into the conversation, the majority of elk populations around wolf packs are in decline. Idaho has the largest roadless area in the lower 48, which would make it seem like the best area suited for wolves. But, wolves have proved to be too aggressive of predator, and wolf management is extremely expensive. Why do you think the Governor was trying to get 2 million for ID wolf control. The Idaho fish and game spent 38 thousand dollars getting rid of 23 wolves in the Selway Bitterroot wilderness.


We are making this way to complicated. Wolves are best suited for large tracks of un populated wilderness i.e. Siberia, Alaska and Canada. Oh wait, the people who live in those wilderness expanses were LAUGHING OUT LOUD!!! at how stupid of an idea brining wolves to the lower 48 was....
 
Stoney, you might surf around Back Country Hunters and Anglers Web site to see for yourself how menacing they are, and give us a report. I'm sure there out to rid outfitters from the lands.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/our-work-our-values/our-purpose-and-objectives

Do some research yourself without the use of politically motivated lobbiest propaganda.

The very populations you talk about were in decline before the wolves showed up. Lolo, St Joe, Gardner etc.

Wolf, the very fact that Idaho killed 23 wolves in the Lolo zone, and 2 packs in the Frank Church points to the fact that wolf management is working. We have control, and need to make sure we keep it.

Zealots like yourself spreading misinformation about wolves are the threat. If those wolf numbers drop to low, or there's a proven threat to survivability, (Genetic exchange hasn't been challenged in court yet) then we might lose that control, most likely for good. SSS isn't a viable management option, and no matter how hard you wish for it, wolves will always have a presence here. Get over it all ready.

Lets see some kill photos of all those wolves you've taken.









I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Stoney, I said I'd just step on past, but I just can't.

You support a conservative agenda that would have
Deprived you of your choice of employment for
Basically your entire existence.

In Utah our Legislative Republican idiots spend
Millions every year to fight a losing battle trying to
Take control of public lands. This is the same group
Of idiots that can't keep the gates to Antelope Island
Open without a mule deer wealth tag. Now they want
To take over millions of acres of public land to exploit
For short term gain. Where would the funding come from
To pay for one fire season?? How about law enforcement??
Range / Habitat work?? And how much of this land would
Remain open to the public??

Hunters make up about 10% of the population, wether hunters
And ranchers use the land or not the funding that supports your
Socialist way of earning a living is paid for by the 80%.

You wanna be a good conservative / anti liberal stop taking
The welfare the American people, who over half you despise
Because they are liberal, provide for you.

That's right buy your own land, maintain it, patrol it and handle the
Fires when they come. Raise your own fish and game and market
Your hunts.





"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
Piper, ya fricken sheeple!!! Ha Ha.

Reminds me of The SFW Founder. "Hunting is
Socialism and I hate it... Where are my auction tags
For the year?"




"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
4100fps,

I still have not figured out what your trying to accomplish???

You claim to be for sound management of wolves. What happened to 300 wolves and 10 breeding pairs TOTAL...? Now you have bought into genetic exchange??? Are you out of your flipping mind? Sounds like your buying right into the greenie wolf hippie agenda. That is the method used to spread wolves to the wind, keep moving the goal out until wolves are through out the west... Are you smart enough to see that, or should I write it out in your crayons so you can connect the dots??

Again, you attempt to label me an SSS'er I have never killed an illegal wolf...FACT! I will not either, unless, they return to protected status. All eight of the lower 48 wolves I have laid my hands on, and the 6 I have missed, have been 100 percent LEAGAL!!! But, I have the luxury of living in the predator zone in Wyoming. Nor am I, going to judge someone who takes matters into their own hands in other areas, that do not have the flexibility we do in Wyoming. Simply doing what the Idaho Fish and Game spent 38,000 dollars to accomplish, the same goal that need to happen!!! Kind of funny, if you wear a badge it's legal, if your just a patriot, it's SSS. Double Standard if you ask me!!!

Your right wolves will always have a presence here. I am fine with that, because I enjoy nothing more than skinning them out!!! But, your kidding yourself, if you think traditional hunting and trapping are going to be enough to keep them down to management objectives. How many did you kill this year 4100???

Get over the picture idea...
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-14 AT 11:53AM (MST)[p]Stoney said, We all need to stick together to fight this huge and growing movement to rid us all from the public land.

Really?

Every post you've made on this thread is to trash every single hunter who has a different opinion on hunting, resource management, wildlife management, etc.

If you're looking for support from the people you try to politicize, stereo-type, and call "greenies"...I think you better keep looking.

If a majority of outfitters and livestock producers had your attitude, I'd do everything I could to see you go out of business. Frankly, it wouldnt be difficult, you'd do all the work.

But, I know there are many that are wayyyy more moderate in their political views, as well as their views on the environment, habitat, resource management, wildlife management, etc.

Those with a more moderate view on things are the decision makers, they have the biggest voice, and they get things done to negotiate results that everyone can live with. They dont stereo-type and they work WITH others rather constantly AGAINST those that may not share their extremist views.

You make yourself insignificant with your lop-sided view of things...and you're never going to get support from anyone that doesnt have a tinfoil hat balanced on a pointy head.
 
"Every post you've made on this thread is to trash every single hunter who has a *different opinion* on hunting, resource management, wildlife management, etc."

Yes Stoney you sound just like BUZZ now. But just on the other side of the fence.

Buzz thanks for worrying about me reading this thread. Because it seem the more I read the BS the crazier it getting to sound.
Have you all seen any black helicopters around lately.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Wolfhunter,

You may want to check your "facts"...as per usual you seem to make things up as you go along.

The current definition for a viable wolf population in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho is ten breeding pairs, in each of three recovery areas (with some level of wolf exchange between them) for three consecutive years. This definition may change based upon future scientific or biological information, but would not vary between alternatives that result in wolf recovery. A recent scientific investigation into the question of population viability indicates that the definition of a viable wolf population outlined in the 1987 Wolf Recovery Plan (ten breeding pairs, in each of three recovery areas for three successive years with some level of interchange between areas) is still an appropriate measure for determining if gray wolves require federal protection under ESA (S. H. Fritts pers.commun., USFWS, Helena, Mont.)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-14 AT 12:14PM (MST)[p]Gator,

Have you ever formed a complete sentence or thought in your life?

Thanks for all your "knowledge" on these subjects, and proving that our public schools are in need of some drastic changes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-14 AT 01:00PM (MST)[p]Gator,
>
>Have you ever formed a complete
>sentence or thought in your
>life?
>
>Thanks for all your "knowledge" on
>these subjects, and proving that
>our public schools are in
>need of some drastic changes.
>


LOL! Between extremists stoney and WH and now Gator with what you mentioned fitting right in with partial sentences including "their self" we're fighting a losing battle with these guys that say we should all stick together. One has everyone against him other than a few similar thinking friends, and another thinks that it's okay to take care of wolves illegally with the SSS method to get numbers down, even though he says he doesn't do it. In another post he says he knows of one family alone who has killed 17. They had better be in the predator zone and accounted for with calls to the G&F or his friends are plain out violators!
 
Buzz,

Go ahead and attack my words... it does not change the FACT that this issue is covered top to bottom with lies and personal agendas. No wonder the average western hunter does not understand the real wolf issue...

The only thing that is real, is the PROVEN FACTS wolves are not good for hunters, ranchers and ungulates. The numbers or scientific data is not REAL anyways. Swayed by scientific personal interests....FACT!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-14 AT 01:46PM (MST)[p]>Buzz,
>
>Go ahead and attack my words...
>it does not change the
>FACT that this issue is
>covered top to bottom with
>lies and personal agendas.
>No wonder the average western
>hunter does not understand the
>real wolf issue...
>
>The only thing that is real,
>is the PROVEN FACTS wolves
>are not good for hunters,
>ranchers and ungulates. The
>numbers or scientific data is
>not REAL anyways. Swayed
>by scientific personal interests....FACT!!!!

***Once and for all WH, your OPINIONS are not FACT! You have said before, and continue to say, that there should be no wolves in the lower 48 and then start spewing false numbers all over the place to try and validate your OPINION. They are here to stay and the agreed upon numbers are exactly what BuzzH stated and whether you think I'm his Lapdog or not, I look up the facts and have yet to see any where BuzzH has misstated anything in any of his posts regarding this wolf issue. You talk about the average western hunter not understanding the real wolf issue. What is the "real wolf issue"? In your mind it obviously is that every wolf should be eliminated using any method available to man. That is not going to happen and if it would you are too dang stubborn to understand that they will be put back on the ESA and we'll be right back in deep dodo where we started. Smarten up man and get in the real world with most who know what the real facts are!
 
Wolfhunter,

I am not attacking your words, I'm posting facts.

I just find it both odd, and troubling, that someone supposedly so "involved" in the wolf issue, is also so unaware of the facts regarding the wolf recovery.

The reason that the average western hunter doesnt understand the wolf issue, is because people like you make false claims and never bother to check facts. That doesnt help clarify the issue, only causes more confusion.

The correct information is not hard to find, I've supplied the links to you before.

You might have more credibility if you tried to provide actual facts instead of what you've heard from the next bar stool, toby bridges, or ryan benson.
 
Buzz,

I post from personal experience... Boots on the ground!! I do not google, cut and paste my FACTS, I live it. I do not need a link to prove the wolves destruction of a healthy elk herds. I see the healthy six point bulls killed by them, calves shredded, moose with their guts ripped from their body and still alive...

How many wolf packs have you followed for weeks?? Well I have followed many, I might have more wolf knowledge than your experts...when it comes to real world experience.
 
Buzz,

I wonder how many of your experts have put on a pair of ski's and followed a wolf pack for a week in March.... Well I have!!
 
>Buzz,
>
>I wonder how many of your
>experts have put on a
>pair of ski's and followed
>a wolf pack for a
>week in March.... Well I
>have!!


***Yep, you're a bonafide wolf expert because your boots are made for walkin and gettin it done, LOL!
 
wolfhunter,

Personal experience has nothing to do with your misquoting of "facts" and spreading misinformation.

When you get corrected with the real facts, you stomp your feet and hold your breath.

I've never doubted that you hunt wolves, track wolves, only the misinformation you spread regarding the EIS, and wolf recovery.

Thanks for pointing out that wolves kill elk...I'd of never guessed.

IMG_0108.JPG
 
Buzz,

No misinformation or misquoting of facts in pointing out wolves are destroying hunter opportunities in the wilderness areas of Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon and Montana. Or that, wolf lovers and green agendas are pushing to get wolves in all the western states in place of hunting at all costs... And you appear to be a supporter!
 
What my point is that the wolf proliferation in the lower 48 has been successful because it was supported by some of the green type organizations, which enabled or gave credence to the USFWS to do their mission to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA was hi-jacked many years ago by the radical so called conservationists such as The Biological Diversity Center and Wild Earth Guardians through a series of taxpayer funded lawsuits (EAJA)Equal Access to Justice Act, to basically force the USFWS to go beyond their duty and mission.

I think the moderate conservation groups that some of you guys belong to are great to a large degree but never the less they have helped bring on this catastrophic realignment of the way the public land is managed.

For any of you to deny the hardships, economic ruination of many ranchers, small business owners, outfitters, as well as the social and psychological consequences to many or the rural people whom have had their livestock and pets slaughtered, maimed and eaten alive by the wolves, is short sighted at best and ignorant at least.

Sure you guys get to hunt wolves now that you have them but we are just getting started with the heavy hand of the Government reining down on us to enlarge the recovery area for the Mexican Wolves and boys they aren't much smaller than the northern wolves. They kill just as big of animals and do it regularly and often and are taking a heavy toll on our elk and livestock here.

I could have shot wolves on a few occasions and once when they were in my wilderness camp trying to get to my stock tied on the high line. If I had of killed one I would still be in prison and be there longer than killing a human being.

BuzzH,

Carry on with your so called factual information but be sure and don't answer my two questions from my post #160.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-14 AT 09:51AM (MST)[p]>What my point is that the
>wolf proliferation in the lower
>48 has been successful because
>it was supported by some
>of the green type organizations,
>which enabled or gave credence
>to the USFWS to do
>their mission to comply with
>the Endangered Species Act. The
>ESA was hi-jacked many
>years ago by the radical
>so called conservationists such as
>The Biological Diversity Center and
> Wild Earth Guardians through
>a series of taxpayer funded
>lawsuits (EAJA)Equal Access to Justice
>Act, to basically force the
>USFWS to go beyond their
>duty and mission.

***Yes, we have been outnumbered by huggers or greenies, if you like the latter term better. It's also a fact that it's been that way since before the beginning of the entire wolf introduction. We always will be and you need to admit that and realize that what we're saying is that you and everyone else will have to work within the existing framework of the laws that are now in place. It's unrealiastic to think or believe that you will ever eliminate wolves from the landscape with the number of people throughout the country wanting them. It's a shame the decision can't be left up to the persons in the immediate areas that will be most affected, but that's not the way it's set up or decisions are being made. The best we can do is stick together to keep them delisted in many states where we now have individual state control to cut there numbers, but not below the agreed upon levels that would get them relisted. It will take that same cohesion to keep introductions to a minimum, if not completely eliminated from introduction in new areas.

>I think the moderate conservation groups
>that some of you guys
>belong to are great to
>a large degree but never
>the less they have helped
>bring on this catastrophic realignment
>of the way the public
>land is managed.

***Thanks, but the latter is your opinion that most disagree with and you're still guiding on OUR public land, are you not?!

>For any of you to deny
>the hardships, economic ruination of
>many ranchers, small business owners,
>outfitters, as well as the
>social and psychological consequences
>to many or the rural
>people whom have had their
>livestock and pets slaughtered, maimed
>and eaten alive by the
>wolves, is short sighted at
>best and ignorant at least.

***I don't know that I've read anywhere here in this thread where anyone has denied the varying negative effects of the wolf introduction, including that of some ranchers, outfitters, etc. However, you should admit, but probably won't, that ranchers and farmers in this country are so oversubsidized that if they had to make a living like most other professions they'd be in a big hurt and then you'd really be using the word "ruination". IMHO it seems as if you're one that wants more than your share of the pie when it benefits you, but woe be it if that means having to tolerate anything not up your alley!
>
>
>Sure you guys get to hunt
>wolves now that you have
>them but we are just
>getting started with the heavy
>hand of the Government reining
>down on us to enlarge
>the recovery area for the
>Mexican Wolves and boys they
>aren't much smaller than the
>northern wolves. They kill just
>as big of animals and
>do it regularly and often
>and are taking a heavy
>toll on our elk and
>livestock here.

***Could you please show some facts to validate that last sentence with so few Mexican wolves down in your part of the country? Also, can you give a fairly close figure on the numbers now out there and not in actual captivity seeing as how many have been recaptured and are in holding pens at several locations?
>
>I could have shot wolves on
>a few occasions and once
>when they were in my
>wilderness camp trying to get
>to my stock tied on
>the high line. If I
>had of killed one I
>would still be in prison
>and be there longer than
>killing a human being.
>
***You're a true law abiding citizen when many would have used the SSS method to protect their assets and I certainly wouldn't say you weren't within your rights. I think this thread could go on forever with the huge gap existing between the two sides regarding some of your extremist beliefs, so I'd suggest we end the thread and agree to disagee with many of your statements, while still knowing that we would also lend a hand in your efforts if they are kept reasonable and doable.
 
TopGun You must be the cheerleader for the B team. How come you always are the one that lets his mouth over run his ass. LOL



"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>TopGun You must be the cheerleader
>for the B team. How
>come you always are the
>one that lets his mouth
>over run his ass. LOL


***Careful there Gator, as there was no reason for that smartazz comment! Agreeing to disagree and doing what you just put up are two quite different things. But hey, at least you finally put a sentence or two together and even with proper spelling, LOL!
 
You see Stoney, as far right as the cattleman's association information on wolves is, there's other groups just as far to the left of center. The guys in the middle have to sift through all the propaganda to see what's real, and what's BS.

Sorry we don't believe everything that's posted on the net.

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/PageServer?pagename=species_mammals_mexican_wolf#.UyZJ84V7SDc

Probably more people backing them too. They make millions of dollars in donations every time some right leaning group makes headlines. Wolf derby's etc.

The Far right need to figure out how to survive in this environment.







I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Topgun,

We are starting a petition drive and maybe we could get some signatures and support from your friends and sportsmen groups.

The expansion of the Mexican Wolf program will be a great blow to the SW and we are ramping up the fight. We are working hard to educate the general public to the ill effects of the wolf expansion.l We know we will probably always have wolves here now that they have been at it and are very near the 100 wolves they said they needed to make them a viable population here. They are trying to move the goal posts to enlarge the area, direct release into the secondary recovery zone here in NM, and increase the population to at least 300, plus restring severely the removal of livestock killers and more importantly making the Mexican Wold a Distinct Population Segment.

I am the wildlife Committee Chairman of the Catron County Comprehensive Land Use plan and at the Catron County Commission meeting this past Thursday I volunteered to head up the petition program and the education programs to get more support for our side. Catron County's position is for "no more wolves" reasoning that we have almost reached the goal of 100 wolves and with some better livestock killer controls and an eventual wolf control program we can keep and maintain a healthy 100 wolf population here in NM and in Eastern AZ.

I will be at the AZ/NM Coalition of Counties meeting Friday in Holbrook,AZ and as outfitter director on that coalition will be helping formulate our further plans to combat the proposed wolf expansion. I will be spending a lot of time trying to help mitigate the wolf programs that are and have been plaguing us for almost 16 years. Our Director for the coalition is Howard Hutchinson and is probably on of the sharpest natural resource experts in the country. We use Karen Budd from WY and her law firm Budd/Fallon that help us in our battles mainly with the radical sue crazy organizations.
 
Stoney---Please keep us abreast of things and I think if you do things properly to try and limit the population to the initial agreed upon levels that you'll get a lot of support. Most of us do realize how and why the antis have continued to try to change the rules and numbers. We all need to work together and not get into these 300 post pizzing matches where nobody wins and time is lost accomplishing something positive. I think you'll be surprised how many on this thread and on this site may get behind you and offer various levels of support if things are done properly. IMHO to do that and win your battle you are going to need to shoot for the moderates who far outnumber the extremist views you have presented on this thread. Good luck!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-14 AT 11:25PM (MST)[p]It has to be somebody's fault... Grosventre(pot belly)hunter just likes blaming people he does not like. Hell, he is ready to write letters to support the greenies on the NM wolf science project, because he thinks Stoney stole his tags!!! When he should be writing letters to PROTECT & SUPPORT HUNTING!!! SADDD...MR POT BELLY!!!
 
Topgun,

Thank you for your support of our efforts to fight the further expansion of the Mexican Wolf program by the USFWS.

They are proposing the expansion from the present BRWRA of the primary recovery zone in eastern AZ and the secondary recovery zone in western NM (Gila) to enlarging the area to include everything south of I-40 through both states down to I-10 through both states including the Grand Canyon in AZ.

Both states AZ and NM are fighting hard with very critical comments being provided to the USFWS from both state legislatures and Game Departments, as well as many or our organizations such as outfitters, livestock growers, County and local governments and natural resource groups.

We started with the Mexican Wolf proliferation program about the same time as the Northern Rocky Mountain program and we have been some what fortunate as they have spent 16 years now trying to get these pen raised, human habituated wolves to take hold. The USFWS now estimate that they have 83 wolves on the ground here in the BRWRA and they are mostly wild born wolves. We are now at the tipping point where this wild segment is about to increase exponentially and start affecting our elk herds and livestock growers even more. The US Government has spent close to 3/4 million dollars per each of these 83 wolves and after 16 years of setbacks, are still engaging two opposing views on the wolf recovery efforts.

83 wolves can eat a lot of elk, especially calf elk and they are taking a heavy toll on some of our livestock grazers.

Catron County has been in the fight all these years and are at the point where we will accept the 100 goal limit of wolves in the BRWRA and we are in the position of going forward with an official position of "no more wolves" and the expansion of the area and program. It will be on the April agenda of the Catron County Commission to become our official stance and position.

We are up against a huge force to enlarge and increase the numbers of Mexican Wolves by especially the extremist environmental organizations and the behind the scenes support from the moderate environmental organizations such as the NWF. They have unlimited resources to work against us and they use the continuing lawsuits brought against the USFWS by the radicals to expand the program.
 
Stoney,

If that website is the level of critical thinking you are using to form your opinions then you have already lost the war. For the record I grew up on a cattle ranch in Montana, I am married into a a family that has had their ranch for 105 years, 4th and 5th generations are on the place and will be. I support family ranchers in their lifestyle and I support continued public lands grazing. However that website is long on emotion and extremely short on facts.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/fw...cle_08ae7a16-ab14-11e3-a7b6-001a4bcf887a.html

What is the total number of wolf killed livestock vs the total number of livestock out there? That is a relevant question because nothing is good or bad except by comparison.

I don't like wolves on the landscape but to say they are putting cattleman out of business is laughable at best and I would like to see a single rancher that is no longer in business due only to wolves. If they were a marginal operator and wolves were the last straw, then they would have failed anyway.

Nemont
 
NeMont,

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/WolfReport02.pdf

Here is on in depth analysis of the effects of the wolves on our community and our mostly public lands ranchers

Critical thinking isn't too hard to defend on the economic and sociological effects it is having on our rural residents.

This is the new era in public lands management and the fight over how it will emerge into the rest of this century. there are many more competing interests in trying to determine how the public lands are managed.

The biggest threat to our long established custom and culture and economic well being since the early 1900's is the radical environmental movement. The NWF is head and shoulders ahead of its many contemporaries in the battle to remove consumptive uses of the public land in favor of pure environmentalism in a no harm to the natural resource endeavor.

Our ranchers here in Catron County and other adjoining counties in NM and AZ have and are suffering huge economic losses due to the Mexican Wolf proliferation in their endeavor to raise livestock on the public lands that adjoins or is a part of their homesteaded private lands established in the 1870's to early 1900's.

The losses not only stem from direct losses by wolves killing their livestock but more importantly the conception rates and weight losses due to wolf harassment.

Many of our ranchers were just making a living as it was but then throw in the wolf and that put several of our family ranching operations over the economic brink. One of my neighbors is still hanging on and the USFS let him move part of his cattle on another allotment several miles from his home ranch. On his home ranch where the wolves have been hammering his cattle for almost 16 years he now only gets a 40% calf crop whereas on his new allotment his calf crop approaches 90%.

I will include more studies done by our Catron County Wolf Investigator Jess Carey and it is tremendous on just how many cattle have been killed by the wolves here the last 16 years and more recently he has investigated 19 livestock deaths mostly full term mother cows with 6 confirmed wolf kills, a couple of probable possibles and the rest too old to determine for sure exactly what they died from. this has been mostly on one public lands ranch the "Toriette Lake Allotment".
 
First off, I don't mean to sound hearless but the rest of the country doesn't owe you anything and that public lands isn't owned by the ranchers. They have a permit not a right to run cattle on those allotments. I don't like it either but that is a fact.

If the argument is that you are fighting to keep your "culture" or to keep marginal operators in business well nobody owes you or them a living, period.

Everyone has had to adapt to new customs and economic realities. So that is a pretty hollow argument IMO.

In our area we have the American Prairie Reserve that is buying up ranches and their public lands grazing allotments. It is a change to your culture, custom and economy.

I don't think that you are going to win using that line of thinking because it comes off as you believing everyone owes you and the cattlemen running cattle on public lands a living. That will not be an effective long term strategy because those ranchers do not hold title to that land they are grazing, it is owned by everybody.

I see the checks the family ranch has been cashing and the price of our private lands grazing we lease and have a hard time feeling sorry for guys who are seeing historically high cattle prices and paying far below the market for grazing on public lands. If wolves are forcing them out of business then they need to change.

Nemont
 
Wapitibob, they weren't my tags, nor did I say they were. Wolfhunter (or whatever other name you use on here) Although you are dumb enough to believe I would write that letter, it was intended to draw a fool in. Yes you are that fool, but you already know that. Sincerely, pot belly.
 
Ya, Pot Belly, I am foolish, foolish for thinking hunters would actually stand together, and fight together, on this wolf issue ... Help each other protect what they love so much! Instead they tear each other apart, for differences of opinion, pretty sad, if you ask me....

I am just me, I have no other name, I do not know Wharff, as you suspect.
 
Wolfhunter,

Hunters did stand together, and through collaboration with many users, user groups, and interested parties drafted the State wolf management plans.

Thats done...and has been done for a long time. The Feds are living up to their end of the bargain via the wolves coming off the list and into state control. They havent intervened since the S/T rider and the view from here, is that they wont unless the States fail to hold up their end of the bargain.

What you advocate for is simply not going to happen...and thats why you're struggling to "understand" why most hunters are not aligning with your thoughts on the wolf issue.

You're on the fringe...and many wont put themselves out there on the fringe (and for very good reasons).

You're living in the past, and not moving forward with reality. Its your choice to call poachers patriots, believe that you can unite hunters to SSS every wolf in the lower-48, etc.

Its going to be a long, lonely, journey for you since 99% of the hunting public is moving forward via the State management plans.

Just a fact.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-14 AT 10:29PM (MST)[p]Wolfhunter, my father has hunted the Selway for years, long before the introduction of wolf's so I know what they have done there. Every year i also see less moose and elk in the hoback. Not sure if it's from poor habitat or wolf's, but I personally suspect the latter. I do believe the wolf population is way over objective and is being downplayed by certain organizations that do not have sportsmans interest at heart. If give the chance I would kill as many wolf's as possible, and always carry a tag in my pocket when hunting. I don't want to see all the wolf's killed just kept in check. Having a balanced wolf population gives me, and you, another big game animal to hunter while afield. Not having wolf's to hunt what would you call yourself here on MM?

When I posted my first comment it was more of a shot at some NM residents that were happy (and said so) when diy NR tags were cut. Kinda figured one day the shoe would be on the other foot and they would be asking everyone for help, even those same NR sportsmans that they refused to stand up for.

So wolfhunter, now you know my true thoughts/feeling when it comes to the wolf issue. Sincerely, pot belly.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-14 AT 10:30PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

You should go to work for Obama... He needs help selling the affordable care act. OH, THAT'S RIGHT, you already work for the other side of the fringe, I forgot!!! Wolves are about as productive as Obama care!!! You stick to your side, I will gladly stick to mine!

I guess that if you are right, it will leave more wolves for me to kill. I am cool with that!!! I need to get my comforter finished!
 
Wolfhunter,

You're wrong again, I'm not on the fringe of the wolf issue, never have been.

How is wanting states to manage wolves via the plans their citizens agreed to, being on the "other fringe" of the issue?

I'm in full support of the State Management plans and using all legal means necessary to manage wolf populations at high enough levels to keep them off the list.

There is simply no other logical way to deal with the wolf issue, period.

Time to jump into reality.
 
Pot Belly,

I agree the moose are in terrible shape in western Wyoming, not all that can be blamed on the wolf either. I truly do not hate the wolf. I really, REALLY, enjoy hunting them. I HATE the game playing and the politics behind the wolf, the whole restoring balance BS, thats what I hate. Listening or reading the experts lie about the impacts on healthy herds. I just found a dead 6 point bull elk killed by wolves, prime of his life, that bull was not weak, he just lived off of a feed ground, where it snows 400 inches a winter. Kind of hard to get away in that kind of snow. The horse creek & camp creek feed grounds have a pack killing every night almost(kinda shoots the wolves only kill 2-3 times a week in the foot). Ya, that might sound like restoring balance to Buzz or some white tennis shoe wearing liberal from California, I don't call it that. WE screwed up the balance, now we are throwing gas and a match on it. States better get used to 2 million dollar wolf helicopter bills, or far less tag sales, I think Idaho is getting a good taste of that...

I guess if hunters are going to just let the white tennis shoe wearing crowd control their thoughts, they do not deserve to hunt any ways!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-14 AT 11:18PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

YOUR LIYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH!!! You b!tched about the Wyoming "Predator Zone" for the last 4 years. Do I need to go back to copy and paste, prove your a$$ wrong, AGAIN, at your own words???

I think I remember some stuff like the fools in Wyoming are going to get the whole wolf hunting stopped (because of the Predator Zone). You were going to sit back and laugh because you told them so....

Now who is the wiser...Thats right the predator zone management style is the only chance we have at controlling the wolf population growth. Or, like Idaho spending $38,000 to kill 23 wolves. Take your pick!!!
 
Wolfhunter,

Sure I did, it delayed delisting by several years, and really laid the pipe to MT and ID. Thanks to the dual classification it kept those states with approved plans from moving forward by 5 or 6 years.

Even more to the point, Wyoming could have accomplished the same thing with a 365 day season in what is now the "predator zone" under one classification of wolves. The wolves would have been delisted at least 5 years earlier, the populations in MT, ID, and WYOMING would not have been allowed to grow so far past the objectives either. Wyoming delaying listing really hurt MT and ID, since they have a vast majority of the wolves.

Plus, theres still the added bonus that there are still 2 pending court cases that could result in an unfavorable ruling via the fickle court system.

I'll take the certainity of implementing an acceptable plan, over rolling the dice with Federal Courts and Judges.

Wyoming is still not out of the woods, I wouldnt be so quick to call Wyomings dual classification a success just yet. The courts are still going to be the ones that decide the fate of Wyoming Wolf Management plan.

Thankfully, MT and ID have cut all ties with Wyoming, via Simpson/Tester rider, and will not be victim of any court interpretation of WY's plan.
 
>First off, I don't mean to
>sound hearless but the rest
>of the country doesn't owe
>you anything and that public
>lands isn't owned by the
>ranchers. They have a
>permit not a right to
>run cattle on those allotments.
> I don't like it
>either but that is a
>fact.
>
>If the argument is that you
>are fighting to keep your
>"culture" or to keep marginal
>operators in business well nobody
>owes you or them a
>living, period.
>
>Everyone has had to adapt to
>new customs and economic realities.
> So that is a
>pretty hollow argument IMO.
>
>In our area we have the
>American Prairie Reserve that is
>buying up ranches and their
>public lands grazing allotments.
>It is a change to
>your culture, custom and economy.
>
>
>I don't think that you are
>going to win using that
>line of thinking because it
>comes off as you believing
>everyone owes you and the
>cattlemen running cattle on public
>lands a living. That
>will not be an effective
>long term strategy because those
>ranchers do not hold title
>to that land they are
>grazing, it is owned by
>everybody.
>
>I see the checks the family
>ranch has been cashing and
>the price of our private
>lands grazing we lease and
>have a hard time feeling
>sorry for guys who are
>seeing historically high cattle prices
>and paying far below the
>market for grazing on public
>lands. If wolves
>are forcing them out of
>business then they need to
>change.
>
>Nemont
 
Nemont,

Your rant about public lands grazers being subsidized is a tired old saw without even examining the true cost and grazing fees paid by federal managed lands ranchers.

http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_ritf/RITF12.PDF

Your misguided statements toward the custom and culture of these homesteaders whom needed to have a combination of the federal lands as integral parts of their operation and the resulting landscape of the present day federal lands leasors and grazing allotments that are a necessary and integral part of their ranches.

These ranchers have huge investment in infrastructure on these federal lands in the way of stock tanks, water lines with drinkers, fences, corrals and etc. They have worked hard from the early settlement days and even before the takeover of the unappropriated lands by the USFS and BLM were ever formed to make their ranches viable operations. These federal grazing allotment ranches are bought and sold on the open market and with the value of their improvements put on the federal lands makes them taxable by the IRS. The other multiple users that use these same lands for recreation, woodcutting, hunting and etc. came later and have no personal investments on these lands. For you to deny this is shortsighted, ignorant and plain old stupid.

For you to blame the few poor managers and the resulting hardships placed on them by the Federal government overreach, the radical environmental organization and even the moderate environmental organizations that to this day hate these federal lands ranchers and work hard to remove them from the land.

The wolf is just anoter nail in the coffin of many of these hard working ranch families.

For you to bad mouth and put down this vital segment of all rural economies makes you no better than a radical Earth First knothead.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-14 AT 08:44AM (MST)[p]Hey Buzz,

The ONLY reason I started posting on this website, was because of YOU! I read your words on wolf management and your attacks on people who were fighting for states rights. I find it F@CKING HILARIOUS TO SEE YOU NOW SAY... I'm in full support of the State Management plans and using all legal means necessary to manage wolf populations at high enough levels to keep them off the list.[b/]

I really should go back and post your words from years past. It would easily prove my point. But then, I would be just like you...

LAUGHING MY A$$ OFF!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-14 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]Stoney,

That is complete and total BS. I Support public lands grazing as much as anybody else. For you to compare me to a radical anything shows how weak and ineffective your argument is. I am the kind of guy who you should be reaching out to for help in fighting the fight against what the Federal government does and doesn't allow on public lands.

Instead when ever the truth is spoken about the real issue people like you start hiding behind a "culture" that is supposedly so superior that it doesn't have to adapt and change to the realities of what actually happens around them. That attitude goes deep and runs off natural allies.

You can't buffalo me with the idea that you are paying market prices for public lands grazing and that the water tanks and fencing you put in are equal to what it would cost if you had to lease that land from a private ranch. I have no beef with your ability to graze public lands, we have grazing allotments on BLM lands we run our cows on also. My point is that if at all time record cattle prices a rancher can't figure out a way to make then they were going to fail anyway, wolf or no wolf.

I am sorry that facts bother you or that you are in capable of understanding that your approach won't preserve your "culture" long term.

Also to show how unwilling you are to see facts you post a 34 year old study as the basis for me to read. You suppose any facts have changed since 1980? What is the AUM cost of private grazing in New Mexico in 2014? In 1980 what was the AUM cost on public lands vs what the AUM price is in 2014? If you want to convince somebody that you have facts on your side you have to be willing to accept that using a 34 year old study based on data going back to 1976 yet keeping the AUM rate basically unchanged for the same period while every other input cost has gone up is inaccurate at best and I would argue verges on dishonesty.

I get it you are a rugged individualist who thinks you don't need allies that don't agree 100% with you. Well then good luck because you are going to lose without guys like me who can see some of both sides but come down on the side of rural Americans 90% of the time.

You showed your spots, you are a dishonest user of data and are not being honest with yourself about how to preserve what you think is owed to you.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-14 AT 11:14AM (MST)[p]Hey Buzz,
>
>The ONLY reason I started posting
>on this website, was because
>of YOU! I read
>your words on wolf management
>and your attacks on people
>who were fighting for states
>rights. I find it
>F@CKING HILARIOUS TO SEE YOU
>NOW SAY... I'm in
>full support of the State
>Management plans and using all
>legal means necessary to manage
>wolf populations at high enough
>levels to keep them off
>the list.[b/]
>
>I really should go back and
>post your words from years
>past. It would easily
>prove my point. But
>then, I would be just
>like you...
>
> LAUGHING MY A$$ OFF!!!!!

***Yea right, LOL! It would be nice if you'd take a year or two off all the insults and do just that because your memory sucks and you'd find out you're wrong again! What you're talking about is the only real argument or debate I've had with BuzzH and it was regarding the Wyoming wolf management plan. He was correct that by not giving in when Wyoming stayed the course until it got the predatory zone it wanted, it did allow for the proliferation of a lot more wolves, especially in Mt and ID. By going their separate way they finally were able to start getting the wolf populations down and I can see why they would look down on Wyoming for that long delay before they did what they did. I'm now beginning to come around to his way of thinking regarding what they could have actually done to accomplish pretty much the same thing like he just stated yesterday and it would have greatly sped up the delisting in all three states. That, in turn, would have allowed YOU to start killing wolves legally a lot sooner than actually happened. Just maybe you should be thanking him for some of his ideas and wisdom that if Wyoming would have followed would have resulted in fewer wolves being around much earlier in the long run, instead of coming across as a total nut with nothing to back yourself up with every time you make a post!
EDIT: I have no idea why this post came out in bold like it did, or how to change it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it like it is!
 
Nemont,

Go back and re read your #267 post.

Now re read what I pointed out to you in my post.

You keep accusing the public lands rancher of being subsidized and that somehow these ranchers are owed a living.

Quite to the contrary. Not one single federal lands rancher I know receives any subsidy and or thinks anyone owes him a living.

Most of these ranches were established before the Federal Land Agencies USSFS and BLM weere ever even thought of.

Sure it is a culture that has become the mainstay of every rural county in the western United States in that most of these rural counties have as by far the largest part of their Gross Receipts from these ranchers and the tax on their private land holdings and their cattle, sheep and horses. This tax base is huge and in most counties out distances any other industry.

For you to be so darned ignorant and claim you support federal lands rancher make you nothing by a hypocrite.

By the way that study I linked you to still applies almost 100% of the true workings of a federal lands ranch, whether you care to re read it and see for yourself. The only thing that is ever changing is the grazing fees paid as they change the formula every few years.

Yes with the price of cattle very good now it is great that some of these ranchers can finally be in the black. For you not to think of the many, many years they did not receive very good cattle prices also shows your complete lack of understanding the federal lands ranchers.

Again you sound just like a damn radical environmentalsit. You do not even have a clue it seems other than your strong self belief in in some fairy tale that has fermented in your twisted mind.

Try going to the NMSU Range Improvement Task Force list of publications and they have updated and done many studies in the federal lands ranching arena. These mostly PHD's have spent their whole careers trying to educate sick minds in the public opinion poll. the truth dan sure hurts many of you whom were never educated or maybe one of these ranchers de-pants you and threw you into a cold stock tank and you have been pi##ed off ever since. Something is wrong somewhere in your path down the road of reality.

Yu should join John Marvel of the Western Watershed Project up there. You sound just like that sorry S#B.
 
Well if I sound like a radical you sound ignorant of reality.

I grew on a ranch and continue to be involved so you can think I don't understand but I know for a fact what those grazing leases are worth vs private lands grazing.

Tell me where I am like Jon Marvel. You are too stupid to understand what I am telling you. I don't use terms like "welfare rancher" because I know the deal but I have lived long enough to know that often times the public lands ranchers are their own worst enemy.

For you claim otherwise is dishonest.

I live in a county with over 2 million acres of federal lands and most cattlemen have some kind of grazing allotment. I have said anything here that I would say, and have said, over a beer at the local watering hole.

You may be able to think you bluff those who don't know or understand the cattle business and pretend that getting below market rates for public lands grazing isn't being subsidized. Do this ask your fellow cattle producers who don't have access to a BLM or Forest Service grazing allotment if they believe you are getting a subsidy from the government.

Show me a single place where I said to end that system. You are a liar, pure and simple. I am fine with the current system as long as public land ranchers don't think their allotments equal a right because they don't. I know for a fact about the value of them because the home place has been through two estates and there is value placed by banks on those allotments either directly or indirectly.

I don't blame anybody for anything like you say but a marginal operator should go out of business. Nobody will come in help me if my business closes up due to government actions. I don't expect it either. I guess I am a rugged individualist who believes in capitalism and not blame.

Nobody owes you a thing and that is what you are going to get if you don't wise up to who are your allies and who are your enemies.

so keep trying to tell me about how there isn't an inherent subsidy in public lands grazing. I can live with it just don't pi$$ down my back and tell me it's raining. I don't even advocate for increasing the fee or ending public lands grazing.

Take your Jon Marvel comment and stick it.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

Go to the NMSU RITF publications and they have studied the differences between private and federal lands ranchers extensively. If you fail to recongnize their studies just because you think you know so much, well you are sadly mistaken. There is no doubt or anything you can say or do to refute the science and the actual numbers to dispel what I am saying. It completely refutes your antiquated view of the old notion that federal lands ranchers are receiving a better deal than the totally private rancher. There is no comparison my friend. The all private have the very best open easy lands with the most water, meadows, riparian lands and were totally homesteaded, deeded and have no government red tape or hoops to jump through. They run up to 20 times the acreage to produce a lb. of beef than the private rancher. They have to maintain many mores miles of fence. They have to put up with all the hunters, wood cutters, loggers, miners and recreationists whom frequently leave their gates open, shooting holes in their water systems,so then they have to spend a lot of time repairing, their water systems regathering their livestock causing much more expense and the private landowner can lock his land up and has none of the above.

There is just no comparison in the two kinds of ranchers, and for you to not realize this is plain ole stupid.You haven't read anything I have tried to explain to you.

You and John M have a lot in common, but common sense is not one trait in your vocabulary.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-14 AT 02:56PM (MST)[p]Stoney,

If you dont know any ranchers that receive subsidies of any kind, you must not know many ranchers.

If only for conversation:

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=35000

Also, if the BLM leases are such a hardship and worth so little, nobody is being forced to keep their Federal leases.

Release them and let someone else place their bid...I can assure you, they wont sit idle.
 
>Nemont,
>
>Go to the NMSU RITF publications
>and they have studied the
>differences between private and federal
>lands ranchers extensively. If you
>fail to recongnize their studies
>just because you think you
>know so much, well you
>are sadly mistaken. There is
>no doubt or anything you
>can say or do to
>refute the science and the
>actual numbers to dispel what
>I am saying. It completely
>refutes your antiquated view of
>the old notion that federal
>lands ranchers are receiving a
>better deal than the totally
>private rancher. There is no
>comparison my friend. The all
>private have the very best
>open easy lands with the
>most water, meadows, riparian lands
>and were totally homesteaded, deeded
>and have no government red
>tape or hoops to jump
>through. They run up to
>20 times the acreage to
>produce a lb. of beef
>than the private rancher. They
>have to maintain many mores
>miles of fence. They have
>to put up with all
>the hunters, wood cutters, loggers,
>miners and recreationists whom frequently
>leave their gates open, shooting
>holes in their water systems,so
>then they have to spend
>a lot of time repairing,
>their water systems regathering their
>livestock causing much more expense
>and the private landowner can
>lock his land up and
>has none of the above.
>
>
>There is just no comparison in
>the two kinds of ranchers,
>and for you to not
>realize this is plain ole
>stupid.You haven't read anything I
>have tried to explain to
>you.
>
>You and John M have a
>lot in common, but common
>sense is not one trait
>in your vocabulary.

You may wish to read their entire study, especially the part about comparing public land grazing on federal lands to what ranchers pay for State owned and other Federal lands and where they end that it would be good for public land ranchers to pay $4 to $5 per AUM because of the political black eye they continue to get from people like the @sshole Jon Marvel.

I didn't say they were the same thing I said guys like you make it harder for those of use who have to adapt to reality because you are an enemy to common sense and too stupid politically to know when you are losing. You are willing to take everyone one of your neighbors down with you because you live with the notion that it is still 1914 not 2014.

So believe as you wish but please don't pretend that you are a friend to anybody that runs cattle on public lands because you will end up a loser with your tactics. You aren't smart enough to gather people that will help all us who want to keep the lands open for grazing, instead you want to cling to a "culture" and a way of doing things that are rapidly changing and you don't want to change with them.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

How sad! You just don't get it or seem to want to. there is a world of difference between State Land leases and other Federal leases. There is little to no comparison.

I'm a 5th generation cattle rancher that doesn't own a cow. I saw a better future in recreation on the National Forest rather that putting up with the FS and all that goes with a Forest Grazing permit.

I was a member and President of our Gila National Forest Grazing Permittee Association for many years. I have a very good understanding of what I speak and have a good reputation and am respected in the SW as I have held many positions in the Agriculture and Community organizations and still do.

What is your claim to knowing what you do. I would venture guys like you are in a minority rather than the big majority you are claiming. You seem to know so little about how a Forest Grazing allotment works.

You know even less about me and my history and connections. I actually enjoy trying to educate you and BuzzH and the other so called enlightened modern age posters here.

I am in the trenches daily fighting the likes of the National Wildlife Federation and the many radical so called environmental groups. We have a huge alliance of rural people here whom think like I do and we are doing just fine without the likes of you.

Pick up the phone and call the NM Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte and he can tell you about me and my credentials and how we have worked closely together over the years. Call Frank Dubois the former NM Secretary of Agriculture and see what he has to tell you about me. I could go on but you have no interest in really believing anything I say because people like you have your minds made up and when you get called out on it you can't even start to defend yourself.

BuzzH is still dancing around and ignoring the reason for this whole thread. All he wants to talk about is his work on States Rights.
 
>So close to 300 posts and
>this thread is dying???
>
>On the other hand.....


***It was until you brought it back TTT again, LOL!
 
Couple more leftist, liberal, grennie, natural balance, anti-states rights, forest circus wolf management position changes from Buzz we should be good to go for another 100 or so...

Topgun (Lapdog) is good for at least 1/2 of those posts, even when, nobody responds or cares what he has to say. I do not think he has formed a independent thought in at least 2-3000 posts.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-14 AT 02:48PM (MST)[p]>Couple more leftist, liberal, grennie, natural
>balance, anti-states rights, forest circus
>wolf management position changes from
>Buzz we should be good
>to go for another 100
>or so...
>
>Topgun (Lapdog) is good for at
>least 1/2 of those posts,
>even when, nobody responds or
>cares what he has to
>say. I do not think
>he has formed a independent
>thought in at least 2-3000
>posts.


***I'll go up against your idiotic, extremist, non-factual, say nothing posts any time of the day like that one was, LOL! Oh, and here's an independent thought for your one brain cell to digest---You're an extremist just like stoney and you do more damage than any Peta or other Greenie is doing to damage what others are trying to accomplish for the common good of all, including your wolf hating self!!! You appear happy just putting up posts that are personal attacks with no basis or facts about what is actually being discussed! Get a life Bro!!!
 
He and his family are wolf killing mo fo's though. If you don't believe me just ask him, he'll tell you so.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I'll go ahead and help this thread inch toward 300!

As someone who is on the outside looking in on the subject of wolves, I have to say that BUZZ, TOPGUN, and BIGFIN have absolutely blown STONEY and WOLFHUNTER out of the water. As stated, I'm not immediately involved in the wolf fight and I'm fairly uneducated in the history and steps taken to get to where you are now so I feel like I can make an unbiased decision on who has presented the better argument here.

The winning three have presented fact after well delivered fact while the other two continually spew slanted opinions. It's painfully obvious how limited the views of WH and Stoney are.

WH and Stoney continue to alienate the general hunting population and have a sense of entitlement that is usually reserved for the leftists they hate so much.

While somewhat harsh and unapologetic, Buzz has dismantled EVERY SINGLE "fact" presented by Stoney and WH.

On the topic of public land grazing, NEMONT is beating STONEY badly. The tactics being used in that argument are no different then the ones in the wolf argument. For your sake STONEY, step away from your computer.
 
What I find funny, is how some folks are starting to stand up for the wolf. Most of "those folks" probably do not see on a weekly basis what the wolf is doing to our herds. Right now in March, wolves are having a free for all killing spree!!! Our deer, elk and moose are so weak from winter, I could probably run one down with a pair of snowshoe's, and kill it with a pocket knife. The herds are tapped out from winter and have no remaining fat reserves, fawns and calves are hanging on by thread. Wolves will just kill and kill and KILL this next month, more than any other time of the year. And you jokers are DEFENDING THEM....WHY???? If a human was causing the same herd damage, everyone would be in complete support to hang them from the tallest tree. Is that not what the whole argument for winter closures are??? So what is the difference with wolves? Are people so disconnected from reality they do not see the easy truth about wolves??? I guess it should be no surprise, our country elected Obama... twice!! I see it as the same sickness. People are not connected to reality any longer, sucking on the big government tit too long. Some would even rather have wolves over other hunters....WOW!

Does this not concern anyone else???

Another interesting thought; I think the Game and fish values a bull elk at $5-6000 if a human poacher kills it. The G&F claims the amount of $$ is what will be lost from the local economy...I wonder what the total $$$ amount in kills, a wolf totals up, in their lifetime??? What would the judge sentence a human too for the same damage????

Is this not clear to anyone else?

Instead of talking about how we collectively are going to get them to the lowest numbers without relisting, the focus is on "FACTS" of how we allowed wolves here in the first place... Or, if a hunter knows what species wolves are, or what the big wolves weigh. I also love it when Buzz says that herd was going down hill before wolves...Wow, so let's really hammer the herd with a couple packs of wolves.

Doe this not seem counterintuitive to anyone else???
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-14 AT 08:10PM (MST)[p]>I'll go ahead and help this
>thread inch toward 300!
>
>As someone who is on the
>outside looking in on the
>subject of wolves, I have
>to say that BUZZ, TOPGUN,
>and BIGFIN have absolutely blown
>STONEY and WOLFHUNTER out of
>the water. As stated,
>I'm not immediately involved in
>the wolf fight and I'm
>fairly uneducated in the history
>and steps taken to get
>to where you are now
>so I feel like I
>can make an unbiased decision
>on who has presented the
>better argument here.
>
>The winning three have presented fact
>after well delivered fact while
>the other two continually spew
>slanted opinions. It's painfully
>obvious how limited the views
>of WH and Stoney are.
>
>
>WH and Stoney continue to alienate
>the general hunting population and
>have a sense of entitlement
>that is usually reserved for
>the leftists they hate so
>much.
>
>While somewhat harsh and unapologetic, Buzz
>has dismantled EVERY SINGLE "fact"
>presented by Stoney and WH.
>
>
>On the topic of public land
>grazing, NEMONT is beating STONEY
>badly. The tactics being
>used in that argument are
>no different then the ones
>in the wolf argument.
>For your sake STONEY, step
>away from your computer.

In the shadows,

It's no surprise to get your "Pro wolf" cheerleading. You have made that VERY clear in the past. Who cares.... I DO NOT!!!
 
>I'll go ahead and help this
>thread inch toward 300!
>
>As someone who is on the
>outside looking in on the
>subject of wolves, I have
>to say that BUZZ, TOPGUN,
>and BIGFIN have absolutely blown
>STONEY and WOLFHUNTER out of
>the water. As stated,
>I'm not immediately involved in
>the wolf fight and I'm
>fairly uneducated in the history
>and steps taken to get
>to where you are now
>so I feel like I
>can make an unbiased decision
>on who has presented the
>better argument here.
>
>The winning three have presented fact
>after well delivered fact while
>the other two continually spew
>slanted opinions. It's painfully
>obvious how limited the views
>of WH and Stoney are.
>
>
>WH and Stoney continue to alienate
>the general hunting population and
>have a sense of entitlement
>that is usually reserved for
>the leftists they hate so
>much.
>
>While somewhat harsh and unapologetic, Buzz
>has dismantled EVERY SINGLE "fact"
>presented by Stoney and WH.
>
>
>On the topic of public land
>grazing, NEMONT is beating STONEY
>badly. The tactics being
>used in that argument are
>no different then the ones
>in the wolf argument.
>For your sake STONEY, step
>away from your computer.

In_The_Shadow's,

I imagine you think Nemont is winning the argument on federal lands livestock grazers' being subsidized, only because the argument he makes fits your mindset or long held belief.

What you and Nemont have failed to realize that this has all been disproven by studies and research done by some of our western universities. I have cited a study for Nemont and have given him enough information of the real situation of the costs of doing business on a federal grazing allotment, for him to at least think hard and long about what he is repeating from the many lips of anti public lands grazing people and organizations. He hates John Marvel of Western Watersheds Project but yet he holds the same believes he does as that the public lands grazer is a subsidized leetch on the taxpayer. Nothing is further from the truth.

If you two can't come to grips with it alright but Nemont darned sure did not win the argument and he never will. He has the wool pulled over his eyes and apparently you do to, as do so many other anti public lands grazer so called conservationist concerned citizens.

About BuzzH he has failed to answer my two questions from post #160 which is the gist and the reason for this whole thread. Buzz continues to dance around with his rhetoric on unrelated issues but refuses to admit to what the NWF is all about?

And where do I come off as having a sense of entitlement, Shadow?
Explain that to me.
 

Similar threads

luckyluciano2
Have you heard of Howl For Wildlife
Replies
2
Views
333
bullskin
bullskin
J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
C
$150 NR tickets for violating Wyoming Wilderness rule (12 tickets in 10 years)
2
Replies
162
Views
5k
jm77
jm77

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3198.JPG
3DA7CC84-CB1B-453E-B26B-AED0E86C8F6D.jpeg
9103B07D-0E64-4120-938C-01BB4F48B98B.jpeg
0BD3355C-E64B-4EC2-91CB-222556AEE308.jpeg
Scott Elk.jpg
IMG_20201017_115024112.jpg
Screenshot_20231114_101122_Gallery.jpg
IMG950698.jpg
Big Buck
20221125_121133.jpg
Big Bull Elk for StraightSix
703958A0-8484-4AB7-AAB0-D428273AA483.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom