26 replies to this topic

[Smokecreek1]

We all are too. I think this thread speaks to the core problem we have today of "trying to manage public, state and private lands to the satifaction of everyone and all interests" and of how that  is a thankless and almost impossible task. Nature doesn't do its thing  according to state or federal boundaries,  I spent 30 years in BLM and no matter what we did someone hated us; yet we "managed(sometimes)" the land, the state(sometimes), the wild animals and the ranchers the water(sometimes), and oh yes,  the "public" also has a say(sometimes)---and you wonder why we have problems out there.  Our management system swings back and forth according to who has the money or politcal power at the time-part of the system. Wolves are good -they are bad. We used to be able to compromise and use the intent of the law to get things done, but "talking" with the enemy is no longer allowed it seems. Rant,Rant. No hijack here!

 

A good example (one of many) of how things work today: After 20 years of intense discussion, management and compromise, the bighorn sheep was reintroduced to the northern part of our area and thrived; while the southern part remained open to sheep grazing- thereby following the rule that bighorns and domestic sheep can never mix because one will infect the other. One day we noticed that a young male bighorn was running with a flock a sheep down south-months later, he was still there -not dead ,not infected and seemed to be doing quite fine. Hmmm. Maybe we could use this beast as bridge and help solve the problems between the two. "No said the state, "no" said the enviromentalists--so he was caught and taken away , and a possible solution to the problem removed because of political reasons-no compromise here-we'd rather fight. Lot's of other problems out there too! So what do we do?  Rant, Rant!

 

On the site we have talked about these things many times and I hope we  will continue to do so.  We can disagree, but as long as we can talk, maybe we can figure out what to do and still use the land and it's resources. I had an old boss who-when it came to major public land decisions-would take all those with an interest in the area/problem and put them out in one of our field camps, leave them there with food and booze and his staff (our job was to answer any questions) until a compromise decision(s) was made.   Maybe a to simple a solution-talk with the enemy! But, as we have said here before,  if you don't stay involved with what goes on out there-what ever you believe in, the "there" maybe soon  gone. Sorry off on my rants again.  

 

Smoke

Edited by Smokecreek1, 03 December 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Smoke,

 

Nicely said...

 

WS

[35whelen]

your right  smoke

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

Smoke ,this morning after reading some of the previous posts I felt I had to at least think of some sort of response.

Well you have said what I had thought and felt I could reply with. So thanks for the words of wisdom.

Frank

[idahoron]

 

On the site we have talked about these things many times and I hope we  will continue to do so.  We can disagree, but as long as we can talk, maybe we can figure out what to do and still use the land and it's resources. I had an old boss who-when it came to major public land decisions-would take all those with an interest in the area/problem and put them out in one of our field camps, leave them there with food and booze and his staff (our job was to answer any questions) until a compromise decision(s) was made.   Maybe a to simple a solution-talk with the enemy! But, as we have said here before,  if you don't stay involved with what goes on out there-what ever you believe in, the "there" maybe soon  gone. Sorry off on my rants again.  

 

Smoke

 

 

Trying to talk with "wolf lovers" as some call them, and trying to let them understand our side is like talking religion and politics at Thanksgiving or Christmas. Nothing good will come of it. 

 

Someone here, and I think it was imix said that wolves were good for everyone. NO, no they are not. Wolves are reducing game herds to the point that they no longer can be managed by the game departments. When big game numbers are reduced to that point the F&G can only stop hunting and see what happens. In some cases they can try to reduce the wolf numbers, and to try to regulate them but that doesn't always work. The wolf advocates file lawsuits and the F&G doesn't have the money to fight them. 

In my own case I have always counted on elk as a food source for my family.  Some will say that no one in this day and age "needs" elk  or any game meat. We have Wallyworld stocked to the rim with everything a person needs. I say no it isn't.  Hunting for me is way beyond just plopping a stake on the table from the local supermarket. It is my connection to the wild, it is desire to teach my children to be independent by harvesting my own meat, and butchering that meat for our use. I also raise a garden and store that food for winter.  Hunting for me is not about driving around and drinking beer and shooting stuff. When the government steps in and alters my world with a non native invasive species, yes I do take that personal. And, NO wolves are not good for everyone, not me. 

 

I can't understand why people that think so highly of wolves won't write a check to F&G departments to help?  People love to watch wildlife but they won't pay one cent to help manage those animals. Here in Idaho we have Access yes. This is a program that hunters provide money to open private land to recreation. In a lot of cases people mountain bike, hike, photograph, and watch animals on this land without paying. It is the hunters that pay for it along with all the wildlife management, but these other users never for one second think that they should help pay to open land to the public or manage wildlife.

 

When we on "this" side of the fence try to make our side heard we get comments like this one from "imix" on a previous post.

" Most of the objections to wolves are, like the negative posts here, unintelligible and incoherent. Wolves are ultimately good for everyone, except maybe some marginal, dub T welfare ranchers.  But even they can be compensated for any losses, so the objections are really visceral ingrained hatred of any large top-tier predator."

 

No I don't think that a " simple a solution-talk with the enemy! " works.  Both sides have lines drawn and both see each other not as people but as "the enemy".  One side wants to keep our heritage, the other looks at themselves as a more highly evolved more highly educated, and knows what is best for everyone. Sounds like political lines doesn't it? One person makes a comment and others pat him on the back. Ultimately lines are drawn, and when that happens  listening and understanding go out the window and all that is left is  "enemys" 

[takesiteasy]

Here in Minnesota we have the largest wolf population by far of the lower 48. http://www.fws.gov/m...s/WolfPopUS.htm  Wolves are not considered endangered here. We have deer, moose, elk, bear, and wolves as large game hunting prey. The populations of each ebb and flow. The DNR tries to manage the various hunting seasons to keep things in balance. Recently moose are of concern in parts of the state and hunting has been suspended. The deer harvest was down this year. There are vocal critics on both sides of the wolf issue and it is an ongoing "discussion" about which special interest gets served by the public policy. Climate, disease and pests, competing recreation demands, business interests, politics and other factors enter into the equation. Success ultimately can only be measured over years. There is no easy answer. Nature is a very complicated system of competition and checks and balances. Count me as one with Aldo Leopold who believes that saving all the parts is important. Within that system, the human system is equally complex. Each element has a role to play. There is no other way. We could wish for a more civil climate of public discourse but it is sorely lacking currently in every aspect of public policy making. It is up to each of us to solve that problem in our own daily life and doings.

[Ted]

The moderators agree on locking this thread. This subject is well covered on many hunting and conservation forums.

Enough has been said here and we work to maintain the forum's customary level of politeness toward differing views.