"The wolf slaughter begins......."

mtmuley said:
What are you waiting for? Get some traps, some snares a spotlight and head on out. Or just hunt them down and kill them with a rifle. There are so many wolves here in Montana we can't kill them fast enough. Get here soon! mtmuley
Click to expand...
Idk just haven’t got around to it yet, been too busy killin coyotes here in Utah and Nevada I guess! One day I’ll try my hand at calling them suckers in up in Idaho and Montana!
 
This is the kind of stuff that can feel good to frustrated elk hunters and ranchers and at the same time is also really risky and more complicated than it might first seem.

Obviously wolves need managed. State F&G agencies struggle with the regulations and politics involved, and are trying to work within the system to get meaningful things done. That progress can be painfully slow, but things have been progressing. For some hunters and livestock producers that progress might feel like "too little, too late," but it is encouraging to see how far we have come in the last few years.

It's scary when folks run out of patience and a state legislature (or two, like MT and ID) write and pass wolf bills that don't really sound like professional wildlife management, and in fact, kind of sound like a big "F U" to the wolf advocates. This is risky, we ain't dealing with the Trump administration anymore. It's these kind of actions that can be interpreted as reckless, get exaggerated and extrapolated to worst-case-scenarios and give wolf advocates very potent ammunition in their propaganda (like the linked article) and more importantly, in federal court. These are the kinds of actions that get Biden administration-appointed USFWS bureaucrats to consider a review or a re-listing of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It's a dangerous game to play when congress and the white house are controlled by a political party known for being very wolf friendly.

Fingers crossed that this doesn't blow up in the face of all those that want sound wolf management.
 
mtmuley said:
What are you waiting for? Get some traps, some snares a spotlight and head on out. Or just hunt them down and kill them with a rifle. There are so many wolves here in Montana we can't kill them fast enough. Get here soon! mtmuley
Click to expand...
Is the population of wolves that out of control there? I don't live up the so I have no clue to the situation. Ive always heard they go after livestock and such, but are they really doing damage to the big game population as well? If people stopped hunting at the rate we do( not going to happen, that I realize) could the forest sustain itself with a wolf population?
 
You Might Wanna Pull the Wool Up off Your Blind/Closed Eyes!



Buck300 said:
Is the population of wolves that out of control there? I don't live up the so I have no clue to the situation. Ive always heard they go after livestock and such, but are they really doing damage to the big game population as well? If people stopped hunting at the rate we do( not going to happen, that I realize) could the forest sustain itself with a wolf population?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As You've All Heard Me Say Many a Times!

You'll Never Satisfy all the DickWeeds in this World!

But Our Government Can Waste Billions Trying!

MT doesn't Understand Wolf Management Quite Like TARDS Do!

Sure We Have a Few Wolves!

But They Never seem to Populate Real Well!

They Are Labeled BIG COYOTES When needed to be!

(((Gotta RAZZ You Just a little MT!:D)))

This BS Will Never End!

And Whoever Voted this Last JOKER In Didn't Help Matters!
 
The bleeding heart thing is so pitiful. I wish they would put a video of the wolves at work. Not too many people can take that it is hard to watch.
Then put some little 4-h kids lamb out there, the "one sheep" he was talking about on the video and let them have at it. I'll bet they wouldn't get too much support then.
 
Daxter said:
This is the kind of stuff that can feel good to frustrated elk hunters and ranchers and at the same time is also really risky and more complicated than it might first seem.

Obviously wolves need managed. State F&G agencies struggle with the regulations and politics involved, and are trying to work within the system to get meaningful things done. That progress can be painfully slow, but things have been progressing. For some hunters and livestock producers that progress might feel like "too little, too late," but it is encouraging to see how far we have come in the last few years.

It's scary when folks run out of patience and a state legislature (or two, like MT and ID) write and pass wolf bills that don't really sound like professional wildlife management, and in fact, kind of sound like a big "F U" to the wolf advocates. This is risky, we ain't dealing with the Trump administration anymore. It's these kind of actions that can be interpreted as reckless, get exaggerated and extrapolated to worst-case-scenarios and give wolf advocates very potent ammunition in their propaganda (like the linked article) and more importantly, in federal court. These are the kinds of actions that get Biden administration-appointed USFWS bureaucrats to consider a review or a re-listing of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It's a dangerous game to play when congress and the white house are controlled by a political party known for being very wolf friendly.

Fingers crossed that this doesn't blow up in the face of all those that want sound wolf management.
Click to expand...


Too late. I agree 100% with what you wrote. It's always the biggest issue we face, SELF IMPOSSED loss. Now here it is again, tons of headlines about killing wolves 24/7, 365. No headlines about the massive success of state control leading to huge populations. Why? Because the wolf worshippers use PR and OUR big mouths against us. We play defense, always. If we spent any time forcing the worshippers to comment in stories about the success of wolf management in stories, we would be on strong ground. Instead, we talk about SSS, or "killing them all", etc, and then get to try to walk that back.

 
Believe it or Not!

We Have a Few Wolf Luvin JOKERS Right Here on MM!

And Just for Them Few:

hh wolf.jpg
 
This dude that wrote the article touched on just about everything he can think of, to say we are destroying this earth. Ignorance at its best.
 
Buck300 said:
Is the population of wolves that out of control there? I don't live up the so I have no clue to the situation. Ive always heard they go after livestock and such, but are they really doing damage to the big game population as well? If people stopped hunting at the rate we do( not going to happen, that I realize) could the forest sustain itself with a wolf population?
Click to expand...
Go look at the numbers of elk on the Yellowstone elk winter ranges, pre and post wolf. The numbers will blow your mind. The wolves have decimated the Yellowstone, and surrounding area, elk herds. Not to mention the moose...
 
mta5672 said:
Go look at the numbers of elk on the Yellowstone elk winter ranges, pre and post wolf. The numbers will blow your mind. The wolves have decimated the Yellowstone, and surrounding area, elk herds. Not to mention the moose...
Click to expand...
Wolves weren't the only problem with that herds reduction, but they didn't help. mtmuley
 
Daxter is correct in his post above. This is just a symptom of the political problems we have in our country these days. Everything in our team sports political fights have become all or nothing propositions. You can't even talk about the middle ground anymore.

Because for so long wolves incorrectly received full protection and no ability to do anything to manage their over-populated numbers, the reaction is "kill them all!" It should be "how do we manage back to appropriate numbers in a methodical way?" Of course, the tree huggers won't accept the more reasoned approach either, and so why not just say "kill em all?" And now that the narrative is kill them all, the response is "back to full protection!" The response of those wanting to protect wolves could be, "Well, we can't kill them all, let's cut those numbers down some and still allow you to manage them." Heaven forbid we find a middle ground where wolves still exist while being properly managed. That would make way too much sense to be able to happen in this land in this day and age.

We can't have actual adult conversations about anything that has become political anymore in this country. We are required to act like children and demand our way entirely, if we don't get it exactly as we think we should, we pizz and moan about it and drive the response on "our side" and "their side" even more to the extremes. Welcome to the United States of America. Heaven help us all...
 
Here's a controversial thought/idea:

Remember when the Feds put in all those laws about illegal immigration and local sheriffs and police organizations around the country said they wouldn't enforce them?

Is that where we are with wolves? Let the Feds ban the hunting, but then have local wildlife law enforcement look the other way if people do it anyway..? Fight fire with fire?
 
State and Federal wildlife departments have done an amazing job over the past 120 years bringing back all kinds of wildlife species and now they can't be trusted?

Am I the only one who sees what the goal is with wolves?
 
I'd love to hunt a wolf, but realize it is a very difficult proposition and I just don't have the time to dedicate to doing it. At least not yet.
 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Press Release
Service to Initiate Status Review of Gray Wolf in the Western U.S.
September 15, 2021
Contact(s):
Joe Szuszwalak, 303-236-4336, [email protected]



The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the initial review of two petitions filed to list gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western U.S. as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service finds that the petitions present substantial, credible information indicating that a listing action may be warranted and will initiate a comprehensive status review of the gray wolf in the western U.S.

On June 1, 2021, the Service received a petition (dated May 26, 2021) to list the gray wolf Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) or a new western U.S. DPS as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The Service received a second, similar petition on July 29, 2021 (addendum). The Federal Register notice will serve as the 90-day finding for both petitions.

Under the ESA, a DPS is a portion of a species' or subspecies' population or range and is described geographically instead of biologically. The first petition proposes listing a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS consisting of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small portion of north-central Utah. Both petitions also propose some alternative Western U.S. DPS to include all, or part, of the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS states with the addition of California, Colorado, Nevada, and in one petition, northern Arizona.

The Service finds the petitioners present substantial information that potential increases in human-caused mortality may pose a threat to the gray wolf in the western U.S. The Service also finds that new regulatory mechanisms in Idaho and Montana may be inadequate to address this threat. Therefore, the Service finds that gray wolves in the western U.S. may warrant listing.

Substantial 90-day findings require only that the petitioner provide information that the proposed action may be warranted. The next steps for the Service include in-depth status reviews and analyses using the best available science and information to arrive at a 12-month finding on whether listing is warranted. If so, listing a species is done through a separate rulemaking process, with public notice and comment.

The public can play an important role by submitting relevant information to inform the in-depth status review through www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0106, beginning September 17, 2021, upon publication in the Federal Register and will include details on how to submit comments.

The 90-day finding and petition review form associated with this announcement are now available for review.

Visit the Service online to learn more about gray wolves and the ESA petition process.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
 
thehill.com

Let’s stop slaughtering innocent wildlife, in Montana and beyond

From trophy hunting to trapping and wolf hunts, wildlife is under siege.
thehill.com thehill.com


Another FAIL by us.

Oh sure, we will respond. We will go on defense.

When do we, the millions, put out OFFENSE. Calling BS on this crap and openly challenge these folks to put up or shut up.

Backpack tax. Birdwatcher stamp. SOMETHING other than big mouths.

In the mean time, sure be nice if I didn't have to explain to my mom why we are using night vision to shoot wolves
 
hossblur said:
thehill.com

Let’s stop slaughtering innocent wildlife, in Montana and beyond

From trophy hunting to trapping and wolf hunts, wildlife is under siege.
thehill.com thehill.com


Another FAIL by us.

Oh sure, we will respond. We will go on defense.

When do we, the millions, put out OFFENSE. Calling BS on this crap and openly challenge these folks to put up or shut up.

Backpack tax. Birdwatcher stamp. SOMETHING other than big mouths.

In the mean time, sure be nice if I didn't have to explain to my mom why we are using night vision to shoot wolves
Click to expand...
Sport hunting is suffering a very slow painful death. We can't "progress" and defend killing innocent animals.
 
mta5672 said:
Go look at the numbers of elk on the Yellowstone elk winter ranges, pre and post wolf. The numbers will blow your mind. The wolves have decimated the Yellowstone, and surrounding area, elk herds. Not to mention the moose...
Click to expand...
In the past way before they were reintroduced was that the case as well? It seems at some point they must have had some way of balancing the wild game population without decimating it.
 
BrowningRage said:
Here's a controversial thought/idea:

Remember when the Feds put in all those laws about illegal immigration and local sheriffs and police organizations around the country said they wouldn't enforce them?

Is that where we are with wolves? Let the Feds ban the hunting, but then have local wildlife law enforcement look the other way if people do it anyway..? Fight fire with fire?
Click to expand...
So, state fish and wildlife agencies rely heavily on Pittman Robertson funds (federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition). In most states this makes up a very significant portion of the agency budget. Guess who distributes that money to the states? You got it, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the same agency that oversees implementation of the endangered species act. States would have to quadruple license and tag fees to compensate for lost PR dollars if the feds withheld that money. That might be a factor as to why F&G department directors are hesitant to tells the feds to stuff it.
 
Daxter said:
So, state fish and wildlife agencies rely heavily on Pittman Robertson funds (federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition). In most states this makes up a very significant portion of the agency budget. Guess who distributes that money to the states? You got it, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the same agency that oversees implementation of the endangered species act. States would have to quadruple license and tag fees to compensate for lost PR dollars if the feds withheld that money. That might be a factor as to why F&G department directors are hesitant to tells the feds to stuff it.
Click to expand...
In regards to P&R funds (& D&J for fish), by LAW, anyone who buys guns & ammunition pays that money into a special Treasury account, which is then apportioned out (some on a matching basis) by the USFWS each year. To change that, Congress would need to amend the law in some way. That likely won't happen any time soon since P&R has existed since the late 1930s.
 
Daxter said:
This is the kind of stuff that can feel good to frustrated elk hunters and ranchers and at the same time is also really risky and more complicated than it might first seem.

Obviously wolves need managed. State F&G agencies struggle with the regulations and politics involved, and are trying to work within the system to get meaningful things done. That progress can be painfully slow, but things have been progressing. For some hunters and livestock producers that progress might feel like "too little, too late," but it is encouraging to see how far we have come in the last few years.

It's scary when folks run out of patience and a state legislature (or two, like MT and ID) write and pass wolf bills that don't really sound like professional wildlife management, and in fact, kind of sound like a big "F U" to the wolf advocates. This is risky, we ain't dealing with the Trump administration anymore. It's these kind of actions that can be interpreted as reckless, get exaggerated and extrapolated to worst-case-scenarios and give wolf advocates very potent ammunition in their propaganda (like the linked article) and more importantly, in federal court. These are the kinds of actions that get Biden administration-appointed USFWS bureaucrats to consider a review or a re-listing of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It's a dangerous game to play when congress and the white house are controlled by a political party known for being very wolf friendly.

Fingers crossed that this doesn't blow up in the face of all those that want sound wolf management.
Click to expand...
"Sound wolf management". Is this coming from the same game managers that have given the west sound mule deer management? "Sound Wolf Management" would have been never letting the wolves back in to begin with.
 
Muley_73 said:
"Sound Wolf Management" would have been never letting the wolves back in to begin with.
Click to expand...

While I don’t necessarily disagree, you can’t unring that bell. So we can sit around and complain about what should have happened 30+ years ago, but didn’t, and do nothing. Or we can work with what we’ve got now and make things better.

Ironically, that fits for the mule deer example you cited as well!
 
Daxter said:
This is the kind of stuff that can feel good to frustrated elk hunters and ranchers and at the same time is also really risky and more complicated than it might first seem.

Obviously wolves need managed. State F&G agencies struggle with the regulations and politics involved, and are trying to work within the system to get meaningful things done. That progress can be painfully slow, but things have been progressing. For some hunters and livestock producers that progress might feel like "too little, too late," but it is encouraging to see how far we have come in the last few years.

It's scary when folks run out of patience and a state legislature (or two, like MT and ID) write and pass wolf bills that don't really sound like professional wildlife management, and in fact, kind of sound like a big "F U" to the wolf advocates. This is risky, we ain't dealing with the Trump administration anymore. It's these kind of actions that can be interpreted as reckless, get exaggerated and extrapolated to worst-case-scenarios and give wolf advocates very potent ammunition in their propaganda (like the linked article) and more importantly, in federal court. These are the kinds of actions that get Biden administration-appointed USFWS bureaucrats to consider a review or a re-listing of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It's a dangerous game to play when congress and the white house are controlled by a political party known for being very wolf friendly.

Fingers crossed that this doesn't blow up in the face of all those that want sound wolf management.
Click to expand...
Daxter said:
So, state fish and wildlife agencies rely heavily on Pittman Robertson funds (federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition). In most states this makes up a very significant portion of the agency budget. Guess who distributes that money to the states? You got it, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the same agency that oversees implementation of the endangered species act. States would have to quadruple license and tag fees to compensate for lost PR dollars if the feds withheld that money. That might be a factor as to why F&G department directors are hesitant to tells the feds to stuff it.
Click to expand...
Same old nonsense from the same tired old Wildlife bureaucracy....... can’t, can’t, can’t.

Fear of anyone and everyone accept for the public sportsmen that funds the agencies. The PR funds come from hunting sportsmen, not the US Fish and Game, not the feds, not from the wolf advocates, from us. Our money, our tax dollars, not the antis or anyone else but sportsmen.

Maybe the PR funds should all be used to reverse the laws that reintroduced wolves and get the populations of coyotes, cougars and bears under control instead of being used to for anything else these States Wildlife Resources use it for, like the salaries of the cowards that tremble at ever word uttered by every wolf advocate.

Wolf advoates are fearless......they learned long ago the States agencies had no back bone. None. If there is any resistance to the wolf advocated, it’s damn sure is not from the F & G bureaucrats, it’s from Agriculture Associations and Hunter’s Organizations, NOT State Wildlife Agencies. They’re gutless and feckless and these two comments reaffirm the same trembling reaction they have made to any kind anti-hunting effort. We have seen act exactly the same way when responding to the numerous other critical issues they’ve back down from in the sport hunting environment, over the last 50 years.

Yes Vanilla, we have what we have, we can’t go back and undo that’s been done in the last 30 years........ but we can do this...... we can do the same thing the wolf advocates did, when they had no wolves in these State.

Did they say, “to bad but it is what is and we need to make the best of it” Hell no. They aren’t cowards, nor are they discouraged because they have to overcome something is status quo. No, they do not They dig in. They fought, they threatened, they lie, they’re committed. The politicians feared them, these bureaucrats fear them because the wolf advocates didn’t quit, they didn’t bend and they didn’t break. Why? Because they had nothing to loose, only something to gain.

The only way we win is fight back, as hard or harder. Not constantly capitulate. To hell with “what might happen.” Is it worth saving or not?

Our bureaucrats on the other hand have and continue to continuely give in to them. And we as sportsmen continue to tell them we are okay with that.

If anything is accomplished and sportsmen win any battles with wolf advocates or any other anti sport hunting advocate it will because of the actions and efforts from ANYONE ACCEPT our State’s Wlldlife Agencies.
 
Last edited:
Muley_73 said:
"Sound wolf management". Is this coming from the same game managers that have given the west sound mule deer management? "Sound Wolf Management" would have been never letting the wolves back in to begin with.
Click to expand...
Where were you in the 90's when it all started? I'm sure you were attending meetings, at the very least submitting comment or doing your part in some other way. mtmuley
 
mtmuley said:
Where were you in the 90's when it all started? I'm sure you were attending meetings, at the very least submitting comment or doing your part in some other way. mtmuley
Click to expand...
? Actually Mt, you guessed right.

He was at those meeting. Many dozens of them. He rode there in my pickup. He was in his early twenties then, the formative years, when it comes to many of the issues sportsmen are facing today.

Like most of our children, we don’t always agree but I can tell you this, it’s not from his lack of having a front seat for the last 25 years.

Just to share a little insight.
 
2lumpy said:
? Actually Mt, you guessed right.

He was at those meeting. Many dozens of them. He rode there in my pickup. He was in his early twenties then, the formative years, when it comes to many of the issues sportsmen are facing today.

Like most of our children, we don’t always agree but I can tell you this, it’s not from his lack of having a front seat for the last 25 years.

Just to share a little insight.
Click to expand...
Then good for him. Seems funny to ***** and moan now and not just accept they are a part of life in most if the West now. I already know your thoughts. No need to revisit. And aren't you in Utah? What meetings did you attend? You drive to Idaho and Wyoming? Montana? mtmuley
 
mtmuley said:
Then good for him. Seems funny to ***** and moan now and not just accept they are a part of life in most if the West now. I already know your thoughts. No need to revisit. And aren't you in Utah? What meetings did you attend? You drive to Idaho and Wyoming? Montana? mtmuley
Click to expand...
Yep, from Utah.

Regarding meetings I attended, WOW, that’s a tall order. I think maybe you really don’t care all that much. I guess rather than try to list them all I will just offer this, specific to wolf management decisions, I was appointed or invited or whatever the formal term for it might be, to set on two formal State Wildlife Committees. One, in the 90’s when wolf repopulation in Utah discussions first started, it was on a Utah Wildlife Resources (our F&G Agency) Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) which likely won’t mean much to you, not living here in Utah. You could research what roles the RACs are supposed to provide. Muley73’s comment "Sound Wolf Management" would have been never letting the wolves back in to begin with.”, sound very much like the discussions/comments that where made by many many sportsmen, at those meeting, during those early years. As a result of those meetings and the pressure and work many sportsmen did with our State’s Legislature, State law was passed that has pretty much kept wolves from being formally reintroduced in Utah. We have wolves that come into the State but they have never been reintroduced here and they don’t seem to spend much time here.

I was appointed or invited or what ever to recommend a Five Year Mule Deer Plan to the Utah Wlidlife Resources Big Game Department for approved by the State Wildlife Board where wolves were part of the overall predator management, as it relates to mule deer. This was later, in the 2011-2016 as I recall.

I was very unsuccessful in my efforts to influence the members of the Five Years Mule Deer Plan Committee. (Much of the efforts on that committee and my ineptitude where shared here on MM back during the 2011-2012 years, if you’d care to research the archives. Personally, I wouldn’t bother, it’s all old history now days but it’s there if you’d like to have a look.

I have been an elected Officer in a number of other Wildlife groups since 1975, and attended literally hundreds of public State Wildlife hearings, representing those groups, including Utah State Muzzleloader Association (Vice President) Utah State Wildlife Federation (Secretary Treasure) South Central Utah Elk Management Committee (voting member) South Central Utah Fishing Committee (voting member)
Monroe Mountian Aspen Restoration Committee (voting member) Sevier County Wildlife Federation (Chapter President) and Blackhawk Muzzleloaders (Vice President)

My involvement in the organizations has put me in attendance, as a presenter or a spokesman representing these organizations with countless bureaucrat agencies, Legislatures, Governors and a half dozen different Legislative Committees. I’ve entertain F & G Directors in my home, shared vehicles with them, fought for them and against them many many times, on countless occasions.

I have three sons, all washed in the blood, they were raised in these meetings, with these issues. I wanted them to know the truth about our life style.

After 40 years in the trenches, and failing so miserably at helping stop the decline of our mule deer (my first love) population in 2013, I quit participating on anymore public committees, attending anymore public hearings or communicating with an public agencies. I decided I’d had every opportunity to bring about change and as far as mule deer and elk were concerned it was pointless for me to spend anymore time beating a dead horse, and....... I believe the future of sport hunting now must be won or lost by a new generation, a generation that will still be here in another 30/40 years and it was no longing my duty or my right to decide what their hunting futures should or shouldn’t be.

Again, this is old news, shared here years ago, ad nauseam.

No, other than letters to those State’s Governors, I have never attended wolf meetings or any public Wildlife hearing in any of those three States. I did however make a Monster Muley comment regarding some outfitter wanting to reduce tags on Unit G, in Wyoming, a couple of years back and was told to mind my own Utah fuking business, by a member from Wyoming. I’m thinking I’m about to get another invite from Montana right now.

Oh well. At my age it goes with the territory.

Mt, I have no problem with you, how could I. I just want what I believe is best for our wildlife resource, I’m certain you want the same. We probably agree on what’s good for it and what’s not, we probably do disagree about the way we should get there. Just a guess, for sure.
 
Last edited:
mtmuley said:
Then good for him. Seems funny to ***** and moan now and not just accept they are a part of life in most if the West now. I already know your thoughts. No need to revisit. And aren't you in Utah? What meetings did you attend? You drive to Idaho and Wyoming? Montana? mtmuley
Click to expand...
I think it's ok to ***** and moan about things, then inact change. I don't like paying taxes, even though they are a way of life, so I vote to change that. We don't have to accept the way life is now.
On another note, well said 2lumpy, I'd say you are well versed on the subject of discussion.
 
2lumpy said:
Same old nonsense from the same tired old Wildlife bureaucracy....... can’t, can’t, can’t.

Fear of anyone and everyone accept for the public sportsmen that funds the agencies. The PR funds come from hunting sportsmen, not the US Fish and Game, not the feds, not from the wolf advocates, from us. Our money, our tax dollars, not the antis or anyone else but sportsmen.

Maybe the PR funds should all be used to reverse the laws that reintroduced wolves and get the populations of coyotes, cougars and bears under control instead of being used to for anything else these States Wildlife Resources use it for, like the salaries of the cowards that tremble at ever word uttered by every wolf advocate.


PR taxes are funded on the majority by sports shooters. Not to say we sportsmen don't contribute, by high volume shooters, do pay the freight. Assuming them to be anti wolf is probably foolish, and if anyone in the PR debate decides to flex, those folks could.

The rest of your comment I agree eith

Wolf advoates are fearless......they learned long ago the States agencies had no back bone. None. If there is any resistance to the wolf advocated, it’s damn sure is not from the F & G bureaucrats, it’s from Agriculture Associations and Hunter’s Organizations, NOT State Wildlife Agencies. They’re gutless and feckless and these two comments reaffirm the same trembling reaction they have made to any kind anti-hunting effort. We have seen act exactly the same way when responding to the numerous other critical issues they’ve back down from in the sport hunting environment, over the last 50 years.

Yes Vanilla, we have what we have, we can’t go back and undo that’s been done in the last 30 years........ but we can do this...... we can do the same thing the wolf advocates did, when they had no wolves in these State.

Did they say, “to bad but it is what is and we need to make the best of it” Hell no. They aren’t cowards, nor are they discouraged because they have to overcome something is status quo. No, they do not They dig in. They fought, they threatened, they lie, they’re committed. The politicians feared them, these bureaucrats fear them because the wolf advocates didn’t quit, they didn’t bend and they didn’t break. Why? Because they had nothing to loose, only something to gain.

The only way we win is fight back, as hard or harder. Not constantly capitulate. To hell with “what might happen.” Is it worth saving or not?

Our bureaucrats on the other hand have and continue to continuely give in to them. And we as sportsmen continue to tell them we are okay with that.

If anything is accomplished and sportsmen win any battles with wolf advocates or any other anti sport hunting advocate it will because of the actions and efforts from ANYONE ACCEPT our State’s Wlldlife Agencies.
Click to expand...
 
Wolves bring a lot of hysteria to the table, I moved to eastern Idaho from Utah five years ago. I was told how horrible the elk hunting is and that the wolves have destroyed it. I have had five years of the best elk hunting I have ever been involved in, and I hunt in a wolf zone. And everywhere I go all I see is elk. And more elk and more elk. And I have never seen a wolf. Now the deer are struggling really bad.

I don’t mind if wolves share the same country as I do, I buy a wolf tag every year.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
In regards to P&R funds (& D&J for fish), by LAW, anyone who buys guns & ammunition pays that money into a special Treasury account, which is then apportioned out (some on a matching basis) by the USFWS each year. To change that, Congress would need to amend the law in some way. That likely won't happen any time soon since P&R has existed since the late 1930s.
Click to expand...
Pittman and Robertson funds were misappropriated during the Clinton administration and it could easily be done again. The executive branch stopped listening to congress long ago.
 
deadibob said:
Pittman and Robertson funds were misappropriated during the Clinton administration and it could easily be done again. The executive branch stopped listening to congress long ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah I recall that. I can't get back to my old articles, but if I recall Congress passed additional legislation to supposedly prevent that from happening again. The new law outlined very specific uses for the funds.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20230716_061017.jpg
Winter Range 2.jpg
IMG_3016.jpeg
72B4BB8B-47AA-41CD-AE32-DF822EAD1CDD.jpeg
358 bull.jpg
CFFFD8A1-E382-424A-BDF3-18BF77101A11.png
684E8F4B-8E37-4C2A-B4D9-9345F5EF315A.jpeg
A Whole Mess of Points!
55EED2EB-9B30-4D4A-8D91-B30B974807DE.jpeg
0486E815-C483-4D7D-AF4F-13D27D68D386.jpeg
7D37C6B4-FE63-48C9-A11F-E1DB42E6FC60.jpeg
IMG_2213.jpg
Back
Top Bottom