Alaska Board of Game nominee cites Bible as he skins a wolf

(VIDEO): Legislature To Vote On Confirmation April 9-

I’m on vacation, but this item on Huffington Post was too good to pass up.

It is just pathetic that a person like this could rise to a position of overseeing wildlife management in such an important place as Alaska.

Story on Al Barette. Huffington Post.

130 Responses to “Alaska Board of Game nominee cites Bible as he skins a wolf”

  1. Cindy Says:

    No comment

  2. william huard Says:

    Sara Palin has appointed all these extreme Sportsmen for fish and wildlife people like correy rossi. They don’t have a problem with allowing wire loop snaring of bears after they have had cubs, or closing the buffer zone around denali that had protected the famous toklat wolf pack, a pack that has bloodlines back to the murie days. this pack has been studied for decades and is a large tourist draw for alaska. The powers to be don’t care that 95 % of alaska is currently open to hunting and trapping, and they can’t for the benefit of the wolves or tourists give even a little. Disgusting. Alaska wildlife management is one big special interest and is criminal.

  3. JimT Says:

    May this man live an interesting life..soon.

  4. Talks with Bears Says:

    Two of those wolves were huge.

  5. ProWolf in WY Says:

    In general, religion has no place in ANY government position. Church and State are separate.

    • izabelam Says:

      hehehe good joke..check the Utah staet ..maybe it is not a country goverment but still state goverment..

  6. william huard Says:

    I heard on another blog that Barette was rejected by the alaskan legislature. why am I skeptical that the next appointee will be as bad if not worse for wildlife. god forbid having a biologist or someone other than a hunter or trapper!

  7. Linda Hunter Says:

    Alaska has been cutting off it’s foot. One of their main sources of revenue besides their natural resources is tourism from people who come from around the world to SEE WILDLIFE. People from other cultures who have ruined their natural areas look to Alaska to provide wildlife viewing on their trips of a lifetime. The Palin style of wildlife use . . as if they were a tissue used for a sneeze then tossed out, will make an eventual huge dent in Alaska’s fortunes. I am surprised outfitters from there are not outraged to the point of public demonstrations. . but maybe they are confused over what is happening.

    • Jon Way Says:

      Linda,
      I agree with your statements. But unfortunately this happens in literally every state in the union. Maybe not to that extreme but basically it does from Mass. to MT to Alaska…

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Linda, the Palin approach to wildlife is too common in the US, but I agree, Alaska has been cutting off its own foot. Idaho has done the same with its complaining about wolves eating all the elk.

    • izabelam Says:

      Long winter..frozen brains..but as Jon Way said..it is not only Alaska. Unfortunately, country and state leaders are myopic…they only see what is in a front of them. They don’t think future..and really why? Who cares about future, we all will be dead so we care only for NOW..just being sarcastic!

  8. JB Says:

    It seems a PTD fight is brewing.

  9. RLMiller Says:

    Good news: he was voted down by the AK state legislature. The Mudflats is the best place for political news about AK (Democratic partisan site), and it has the story along with links to past stories:
    http://www.themudflats.net/2010/04/09/al-barrettes-nomination-to-alaska-board-of-game-is-denied/

  10. JEFF E Says:

    http://community.adn.com/node/151052

    In the final two paragraphs Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife weigh in.

    • jon Says:

      Jeff E, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that these “sportsmen” do infact care nothing about wildlife. These sportsmen no matter what will always defend and stick up for a trapper or a hunter.

  11. JEFF E Says:

    This Guy is a SFW favorite. Glad the Alaska legislature voted him down

  12. william huard Says:

    Interesting article. I was struck by the comment that the Sportsmen seem to prefer dead animals over live ones- which seems appropriate. The religious angle on the wildlife management issue is odd, as is the symbolic issue of alaska vs the feds in the denali debate, as if the wolves aren’t the real issue. Unfortunately they are the ones paying for it though. This guy Barette belongs in a pysch ward.

  13. pointswest Says:

    An American Superhero…

    • william huard Says:

      That pretty much sums up the party of goop. He should be quoted as saying” and you god damn communist socialist liberals keep your hands off my medicare!!!!!Palin, bachmann and liz cheney- there you go the 3 stooges! cancel discovery we have a new pilot program!

    • pointswest Says:

      It is so interesting that Justice Stevens, who is stepping down from the Supreme Court, is considered by the Republicans to be a liberal. Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, a Republican President, as a conservative Justice in 1975. Legal experts, and Stevens himself, claim that his political opinions have not changed since his appointment. It is the nation that has changed. It has gone so far to the extreme right that he is now considered liberal, especially by the extreme wacky right.

      I think the wacky right is history. I do not believe the nation is necessarily swinging back to the left; it is that the conservative movement became so extreme in its efforts to purify itself that it has lost contact with reality. The “faith based” Bush II administration is about the biggest disaster the nation has had, perhaps third behind the Civil War and the Great Depression. This image illustrates this concept well, the funny looking Superhero hiding behind a silly guise defiantly plugging his ears in denial of the truth. It illustrates conservative principles pretty well.

      Who are the conservatives going to put up for President in 2012, Walks-With-The-Dinosaurs Sarah Palin with former drug addict Glen Beck as Vice President? I think the Tea Party is forming because the word “Republican” is becoming a dirty word that no one wants to be associated with. The conservative movement is fractured and will be easily defeated now.

    • pointswest Says:

      OK…no more talk on politic…this is a wildlife blog but politics are relevant sometimes.

    • jon Says:

      I don’t like Obama at all and I’m not a republican nor a democrat, but as bad as Obama may be, I would rather have him as president over Palin or Bachmann any day of the week. If the conservatives want a conservative president to win in 2012, they better look for much better candidates than Palin or Bachmann.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Jon/PW – In no way do I mean disrespect however, I feel sure that I do not share some of the views with either of you. Myself and family are hunters and proud of it. This is important, OUR country is facing/has been facing serious issues – the political class has failed us all. The good news is this – we all will come together once we believe that a person liberal/conservative does not matter. What matters is that person or party/movement is HONEST and respects the American people and is interested in building a country and not a party.

      I submit an example, JB comments on here quite a bit – never met him or her but, without the opportunity to look JB in the eye, my instincts tell me he or she cares about this country and would put us (the people) first. And to show you I mean business, on many issues I know JB and I would be on opposite sides – at this point, where we are as a country, that does not matter – honesty and service to this great country matters. At this point as a citizen and the father of a 16 year old, I would like the opportunity to be able to look to someone/point out someone in elected office that “we the people” could respect.

  14. ProWolf in WY Says:

    Jon, sportsman is just a fancy, more PC word for hunter and trapper. A lot of sportsmen groups only care about wildlife that is fun to shoot and may or may not taste good.

    • jon Says:

      That has been my stance on hunters for a while. I truly believe that they care nothing about wildlife. Not all hunters, but I’m sure a good deal of them. I just want to make it clear not all hunters are like this. But you listen to people talk about wildlife like this Al Barrette guy and it’s easy to tell people like him care nothing about wildlife. These “sportsmen” group only care about killing wildlife. They only care about killing it. Answer me this, do you think hunters would pay for wildlife if they weren’t allowed to kill any animals at all? They constantly talk about how they pay for conservation, but what they fail to leave out is that they are paying for conservation solely to make sure there are plenty of animals for them to shoot and kill.

    • pointswest Says:

      I became a hunter because my dad and uncles were all hunters. We liked to hunt (and fish) mostly because it gave us a reason to spend time in the wilderness and to get away from the female oriented domicile. It also provided adventure and good exercise. When our family was large and my father’s income small, elk, dear, goose, pheasant, duck, grouse, and fish significantly reduced our grocery bills. I do not believe I tasted beef steak until 14 years of age . I was raised on elk steak.

      Killing an animal was only the realization of success of the entire expedition along with all its training and preparation. It was always terribly disappointing to lose a wounded animal or to lose the carcass one killed (i.e. have a grizzly steal the carcass).

      I gained an understanding and a profound appreciation of wildlife and ecology by hunting. I am much more interested in wildlife preservation than other people I know. I do not feel that the game I killed was a detriment to the herd because thousand die every year anyway due to very natural causes. Killing a wild animal is like felling a tree in the forest and creating an opening for the sunlight which only allows other vegetation or another new tree to grow.

      My education and understanding leads me to believe that the greatest threat to wildlife is loss of habitat or the degradation thereof. Elk and deer, for example, are very prolific and are sexually mature in just a couple of years. If healthy and well fed, they tend to bare twins and, so are even more prolific. So it is the quality and quantity of habitat that is the most important factor in preserving wildlife.

      I believe people who vilainize hunters are usually poorly educated or are emotionally disturbed. They might be projecting their own feelings of hostility onto the hunter or onto the wildlife and are trying to draw attention to their own emotional turmoil. Sometimes anti-hunters are exhibiting a behavior psychologists call “acting out” where they act out their own trauma in an effort to draw attention to it and to get help with it. So, I dismiss many things anti-hunters say as constructs and as metaphors created by their mental illness.

      I believe some hunters are unethical but one cannot generalize and say that hunting itself is unethical. I believe hunting is a very good thing. I like it. I am often quiet about it because I do not one everyone to hunt. There are so many people in the world today and if hunting becomes too popular, there will be too many hunters for the current populations of game to support.

  15. Save Bears Says:

    People might want to click this link that Ralph has on his blog:

    https://wolves.wordpress.com/about-hunting/

  16. ProWolf in WY Says:

    Pointswest, I think only the most staunch anti-hunters will disagree with what you have said. My dad and uncle are also big time hunters and I enjoy the pastime as well. However, I also enjoy other outdoor recreation and believe that wildlife enhances it. All wildlife has a place in the ecosystem and it is not just for people to shoot. That is why I have a problem with lots of sportsman’s groups and I think it is safe to say quite a few other people might agree with me.

    • pointswest Says:

      There are types of hunting I do not like and many hunters I do not like. I hike and fish a lot in addition to hunting and always enjoy seeing wildlife.

      Geese, I accidently chased up a nearly mature burrowing owl chick last summer on our dryfarm. Although nearly full grown and feathered, it was still young and senseless that it did not even try to fly away. It let me pick it up. Being young, he was so clean and healhy looking. I could not stop looking at that little creature. I cannot describe how interesting he looked…all the details of its beak, its tongue, its big bright yellow owl eyes, its color patern and crisp feathers, and its yellow feet with the sharp tallons. I was transfixed and fell into a deep state of relaxation and peace. I really wanted to take him back to show my son but was afaid that if I removed it from that spot that it might loose contact with his parents who were probably still feeding it. I let it go…sadly.

  17. Nancy Says:

    “I believe people who vilainize hunters are usually poorly educated or are emotionally disturbed. They might be projecting their own feelings of hostility onto the hunter or onto the wildlife and are trying to draw attention to their own emotional turmoil. Sometimes anti-hunters are exhibiting a behavior psychologists call “acting out” where they act out their own trauma in an effort to draw attention to it and to get help with it. So, I dismiss many things anti-hunters say as constructs and as metaphors created by their mental illness”

    Pointswest:

    For roughly 10 months out of the year, I get a big thrill out of watching the Mulies, coming and going around my place (because they don’t fear me) In the spring, I’m just as excited to see Elk and Pronghorn trailing back into the valley I live in. I feel very fortunate to be able to catch sight of a Pronghorn with not one, but sometimes 3 little babies. A moose with twins. A Badger wandering thru on occasion, the joyous sounds of coyotes over in the valley or up on the hillsides and on that very, very rare occasion, a wolf or two, howling.

    And then the middle of October rolls around, when the testosterone levels shoot thru the roof in these parts BECAUSE……….. its hunting season! Everything short of domesticated livestock, heads for cover and those that can’t, get chased for weeks on end – around pastures and forest areas, not by predators but by HIGH POWERED (as in gotcha from a half mile away) human predators.

    So tell me, am I emotionally disturbed because I’d much rather stare into, if just for a fleeting moment or two – bright, intelligent, inquisitive eyes – instead of dull, dead eyes?

    Been around too many hunters and outfitters to think its all about getting meat for the freezer – more often than not, its all about getting out into the “wild”, having a license to kill something (because a really big rack will go so well on that wall and its guaranteed to impress the neighbors) coming down from that high and then going back to a hum drum existence.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Nancy, that is the way of the West. Come October some of us like to go hunting, we are licensed by the state to hunt a certain species of animal within a time frame using a proscribed method. That is why I live here, one could made more money in a larger city, but I have chosen to live in Montana for the hunting and this is where my family has lived for the last 5 generations. We are not law breakers anymore than any other segment of society. If you do not like it one can always go back to where they came from or you can get the state lawmakers to change the laws — good luck. Some of the most eager hunters are those that have been here the least amount of time. I think that there are more hunters moving into the western states than there are hardcore wildlife fanatics.

      Most individuals like you are very frustrated that you and your ideas have very little political clout in the western states. It will take a catastrophic shift in the prevailing paradigm for rapid change to occur. Yes change will come, but over time, and the change may not be what you want or I want.

      Relax enjoy the your experience where every you live and let the hunters hunt.

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      Most hunters I know say they love to get outdoors, spend time with their friends and have adventures like the wild turkey poker game back at camp or the camp breakfast with rum pancakes etc etc. and have a chance to get away from home . . some of the same hunters don’t seem to care if they shoot something or not. I believe that there is a good side to the hunting experience that will carry hunting for many years. . BUT, high tech equipment and the lack of clear ethics not just in hunting but in all of society makes hunting accessible for people who should just watch it on television. I feel the same benefits of outdoor experience and adventure can be achieved without the emphasis on extreme sport killing . . it always has to be bigger, better and more. The road traditional hunting is going down on the overall is bad for hunters, bad for wildlife views and bad for people who want to live or recreate in natural areas. We can blame the media or we can blame families who don’t stick together to pass on ethics the way they should but I am afraid that Nancy has a point . . the woods are becoming more and more like a high tech war video game in October. . I had to leave the country last October but now that I am tracking again here I see evidence that hunters who wanted to get away from a female oriented domicile did NOT pick up after themselves once again and left all kinds of trash out in the woods. Those of you who do hunt please keep up the proactive ethical influence on the hunting community to be aware of what you do out there and be aware that other people DO watch you.

  18. JB Says:

    SB: Thanks for posting that link.

    PW, Nancy, Elk275: I think the conflict between hunters and non-hunters can be attributed to what is considered “normal” behavior in different cultures. Many people who grow up in urban locations (regardless of education) simply can not fathom why anyone would want to shoot a *rare* (to them) wild animal; they reject the idea that hunting can “connect” one with nature– in part–because the whole notion of pursuit of an animal is foreign to them, and seems to conflict with the idea of “connecting” with nature/wild places. In contrast, hunters grow up in rural society and (regardless of education) see the pursuit of wild animals as “normal” behavior; indeed, it is sometimes a sanctioned excuse for missing school/work and getting outdoors.

    Having grown up in an “ex-urban” community, I straddled these two cultures, and developed respect for both points of view. It is my belief that stereotypes (on both sides) largely prohibit the exchange of meaningful dialogue, and have led to the myths that (1) all/most hunters are unethical, ruthless killers and (2) all/most urbanites are crazed, animal-rights advocates. Both of these views vastly oversimplify the truth and stifle real dialogue between groups that should be banning together to support conservation efforts.

    • pointswest Says:

      There are people who don’t like hunting and there are anti-hunters. When you speak of culture and of “normal” behavior, you are speaking of people who don’t like hunting. I am not referring to people not liking hunting, I am speaking to anti-hunters…those who dream up all the falsehood and who express strong emotional feelings against hunting and hunters. These people are suffering from mental illness…it might be mild mental illness but it is mental illness.

    • JB Says:

      I would suggest that having anti-hunting attitudes is “normal” in some cultures. You might look up Jainism for example; this religious group in India makes great effort to avoid killing any animal lifeforms. Similarly, I don’t think people in subsistence cultures have a mental illness because of the way they treat animals, which many people find abhorrent.

      The hatred of certain racial and ethnic groups has been (and continues to be) normalized in various societies. These people aren’t mentally ill, they are simply expressing attitudes that have been adopted from the group (often) without much thought.

    • jon Says:

      I am not anti-hunting myself. Hunting for food is more acceptable to some than hunting for sport. I believe sport hunting should be banned.

  19. Virginia Says:

    So, now those of us who are “anti hunting” are mentally ill. I guess I would have to take exception to that statement and put it back on those of you who believe that you cannot feed your families or survive without hunting. I grew up in a small town in Wyoming, my father was a hunter. I hated it all then and I feel the same now. “Ethical hunter” is an oxymoron in my opinion. Our local newspaper just had an advertisement for people who want to join in “coyote reduction.” There go those “ethical hunters” again. Killing is killing and taking a life, not “harvesting” as some seem to want to call it. It reminds me of george bush using words like “collateral loss” instead of just saying it for what it is – killing.

    • pointswest Says:

      Have you ever slapped and killed a mosquito? …killer? Did you know that when you shower, that you are killing thousands of bacteria living in peace and harmony on your skin? You could choose to not shower and let the bacteria live! But you do not have those kind of morals…do you?

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Virginia, I do consider myself an ethical hunter. I never shoot anything that I won’t eat so that limits me to ungulates, upland game birds, and most kinds of waterfowl. I don’t shoot predators, rodents, or rabbits because I don’t plan on eating them. I will agree with you that having a contest for shooting coyotes is not ethical, and I also do not agree with shooting prairie dogs for “target practice.”

  20. pointswest Says:

    I enjoy all the same things but let me point out three things you said that are not grounded in reality:

    1) Testosterone levels “shoot through the roof” in hunters October.

    2) Everything heads for cover or gets chased in hunting season.

    3) Hunters “more often than not” are about getting into wild with “a license to kill something” because a big rack will impress neighbors.

    All three of these statements are absolutely false and things in your imagination which are designed help you emotionally.

    1) Testosterone levels “shoot through the roof” in hunters October. Please provide one scrap of evidence that any man’s hormone level rises during hunting season. This is a preposterous statement and a complete fabrication of your mind. It is a complete falsehood with no basis in reality. It is obviously imagined for to serve you emotionally.

    2) Everything heads for cover or gets chased in hunting season. This is also completely false. Game does not know when hunting season begins or ends. Hunters may spook game at which point they might tend to stay in cover longer. But vast areas see few hunters and hunters simply do not have the impact on game behavior you imagine. Deer and elk, in particular, are growing their heavy winter coats in fall and usually bed down by midday because they get too warm. They are still very active at night and in the early morning however. I know this from years of hunting and following their tracks. You see fewer deer and elk in Yellowstone and in Teton Parks in October too.

    3) Hunters “more often than not” are about getting into wild with “a license to kill something” because a big rack will impress neighbors. This is also blatantly false and a fabrication of your mind. The term “trophy hunter” was a very negative one among all the hunters I knew. Hunters often avoid large bull elk or buck deer because they are such bad eating. Some hunters, often when young, would choose to kill a large buck or a large bull over a younger better eating animal but might be insulted with the term “trophy hunter” if they did. There is some trophy hunting but the facts are that hunter success rates for elk are generally well below 50%…in some areas, in the 10 to 20% range I believe. Very few hunters pick and choose which animal they want to kill but take the first deer or elk they can get a good shot at. Game departments offer cow tags for some areas (usually in lotteries) which are sought after by hunters since the chances of success are much higher with a cow tag. So your assertion that hunters “more often than not” are trophy hunters is pure imagination.

    I assert that it comforts you somehow to make such blatantly false staetments. There is no other reason for you to make them.

  21. Linda Hunter Says:

    pointswest you must live a very sheltered life where hunting is done the old fashioned way. . I wish you were right but I am afraid that there are areas where this is just not the case. Last fall I was out when some guys setting up their camp decided to see how many trees they could mow down with an AK47. I ran for cover and left the forest. Some good friends of mine where were hunting there were also chased out of the woods by guys with automatic rifles who were shooting cars and then some hunter got mad at a forest harvester and shot him dead. Where Virginia is in the country may be as she says it is. . the thing is we cannot generalize about hunting as every spot in the country that has hunters may be different. There is nothing wrong with hunting as you describe. . it is just not a reality everywhere.

    • pointswest Says:

      Yes it is.

      Automatic weapons are illegal. I’ve only known one person in my entire life who owned one. You are also talking about murders and associating hunters with murders. That is so irresponsible, it sounds like something coming from a six-year-old.

      Here in LA, I overheard two electrician talking about murders they comminted when they were younger and in LA gang life. This was on two separate ocasions and both were electricians.

      Electricians are murderers.

  22. pointswest Says:

    OK…I can see how these anti-hunter discussion degrade so I am going to refrain from responding to any more posts. Anti-hunters should get there last few imagined digs in since they will stand without a response from me.

  23. Virginia Says:

    pointswest makes such an eloquent defense of hunting that I incorrectly assumed he/she lives out here in the West. His/her hunting experiences have obviously been perfect in California. As I live in “hunting” country, I can tell you that there is practically a story every day in the local newspapers and on Facebook about poaching, trespassing, property destruction, animal chasing, blasting and decapitating rabbits and prairie dogs, etc., etc. – all by “hunters.” This, in itself, can push someone to detest hunting in general. Last time I was checked out, I did have most of my mental capacities.

  24. Nancy Says:

    Well put Virginia!

    I also live in hunting country and my first exposure (years ago) to that “sport” was almost stumbling over a gut pile on my clearly marked “No Trespassing” property. (It was just a few yards from my cabin…..not far from the propane tank)

    I have a perfect view of the valley across from me (most of it is ranch land) and I’ve witnessed large elk herds (spooked by hunters, strategically placed) running back and forth, jumping fences (where calves are often left behind to run up and down, desperately looking for ways to get over)
    Seldom is there time for them to “bed” down during the day, when the local outfitter & his guides (with guests in tow) are most active.
    And then after 6 weeks of this kind of harassment, they migrate out of the area, exhausted, family groups splintered and in what kind of shape, to face the winter months?

    No, I’m not mentally disturbed but it certainly disturbs me emotionally to see what goes on around here in the name of “hunting”

  25. Layton Says:

    “I have a perfect view of the valley across from me (most of it is ranch land) and I’ve witnessed large elk herds (spooked by hunters, strategically placed) running back and forth, jumping fences (where calves are often left behind to run up and down, desperately looking for ways to get over)
    Seldom is there time for them to “bed” down during the day, when the local outfitter & his guides (with guests in tow) are most active.
    And then after 6 weeks of this kind of harassment, they migrate out of the area, exhausted, family groups splintered and in what kind of shape, to face the winter months?”

  26. Layton Says:

    Sorry — hit the “submit” key to quickly.
    “I have a perfect view of the valley across from me (most of it is ranch land) and I’ve witnessed large elk herds (spooked by hunters, strategically placed) running back and forth, jumping fences (where calves are often left behind to run up and down, desperately looking for ways to get over)
    Seldom is there time for them to “bed” down during the day, when the local outfitter & his guides (with guests in tow) are most active.
    And then after 6 weeks of this kind of harassment, they migrate out of the area, exhausted, family groups splintered and in what kind of shape, to face the winter months?”

    Two points Nancy.

    IF what you were saying were true, and IF these animals are being “harassed” and all the bad things that go with it. It only lasts for six weeks — from humans. It lasts 24/7, 365 from wolves.

    What do these family groups have to look forward to?? The other 46 weeks of exhaustion, family group splintering, and of course being pulled down by “other” hunters. But, (in your eyes it would appear) that’s OK.

    Funny viewpoint.

  27. Virginia Says:

    I do have to make one more comment and then I will shut up about this. As to mental illness- comparing taking a shower and killing germs on the body with the killing and maybe skinning of an animal could be classified as a statement of one who might be truly”mentally ill”.

  28. mikepost Says:

    Ralph, please stop all this foolishness…

  29. Nancy Says:

    Layton, I guess you missed this information put out by FWP:

    Wolves influence elk distribution, movements, group sizes, and habitat selection to varying degrees in different areas, but hunting activity and hunter access have a greater impact on elk distribution, movements, group sizes, and habitat selection than do wolves.

  30. Si'vet Says:

    Jon, to answer a question you asked several posts back, would hunters support wildlife they can’t kill. Absolutely, most hunters finacially support many wildlife programs, of species they never intend to hunt. I haven’t harvested a turkey, duck, goose, sheep, etc. for decades, and contribute yearly to there survival financially or physically. As for the comment hunting is going down the wrong path, I strongly disagree there as well, I believe it’s getting better. Poaching, party hunting, failure to properly reduce your harvest to bag etc. are just some of the infractions that will have fellow hunters turning you in. Agreed there are still infractions that take place, but the chances of those infractions being accepted by other hunters, that tide has changed significantly. If the speed of communications, and the attitudes were different 30 yrs ago, you would have seen they weren’t “the good old days”. “Not all” but many of the up and coming generations of hunters are more concienious and respectful of wildlife. Reread many of the links posted here, the average age of these thieves isn’t 21.

  31. Layton Says:

    Nancy,

    Ahhhhh, never mind.

    • Jay Says:

      C’mon Layton, don’t be a quitter, let’s hear your response. How does it jive with these statements from the MT FWP final report on wolf-elk interactions? (pg. 49):

      By the first week of the general hunting season, most elk have moved to winter range areas where hunting by the general public is precluded and the wolves have followed them (Fig. 29). During November of the general hunting season, distribution of both elk and wolves is centered on lands where hunting by the general public is precluded
      (Fig. 30). During November in 1976-86, when these winter range lands were more open to general public hunting, elk were much more widely distributed across the National
      Forest and more available to hunters (Fig. 31) than they are today. [my comment: in other words, when elk WEREN’T afforded the luxury of private ground to hide out on, they stayed more dispersed to avoid human hunting].

      The more recent early movement of elk to winter range areas is a result of establishment of “refuges” from human hunting, not a result of avoidance of wolf predation. Wolves
      follow the elk and are present and killing elk on these hunting “refuges”.

      Based on MTFWP’s results, elk are tolerant to wolf predation, but head for cover as soon as the rifle-toting humans show up. Not exactly what you’re portraying, is it.

    • Layton Says:

      Jay,

      Do you really believe all that crap?? OK –

      By the way, how ARE Mother Goose and the Easter Bunny doing in this utopia that you have somehow found??

      By the way, just a little clue. Hunting by humans is “precluded” on winter range BECAUSE IT CAN BE!! Humans can be legislated out!! Wolves think they are in heaven because there is no other place for the elk to go in the winter. Wolves CAN NOT be kicked out by game wardens or laws. As I said before they hunt 24/7 365 — can you understand that??

    • Jay Says:

      So it’s crap when you disagree with it, but if a guy like Geist or someone else says what you want to hear, then they are brilliant…I see how you work now. Of course this study by MTFWP is “crap”, because it doesn’t preach your message.

      Elk don’t go hide on private land until the hunters come out, but stay out in woods with the wolves–obviously elk view human hunting as the biggest risk–can you understand that??? Someone that’s not so biased such as yourself would, but I’m probably wasting my time.

    • Save Bears Says:

      I would have to say, both sides on this issue seem to be very biased..

  32. pointswest Says:

    Human hunting is managed by state game departments. If human hunting is deemed, by game managers, to be too great of detriment to a herd in a given management unit, game mangers can:

    A: Limit the number of hunters in a game management unit
    B: Put restriction on they type of game (ie spike bull) that hunters can kill
    C: Change either time or the duration of the season
    D: Close the seaon completely for a given game management unit

  33. Linda Hunter Says:

    Wow now we gonna talk about hunting humans?

    I am glad to hear that hunters are starting to self police SiVet . . that is what needs to happen big time. The only way for honorable hunting to survive is if the hunting community pulls together and cleans up on the guys who are ruining it for them.

  34. william huard Says:

    I would like to see hunters’ return to the conveniently ignored ethic of fair chase. For starters the 30 or so states that allow wildlife preserve hunting should close them down. Bear baiting is unethical and shouldn’t be allowed. Versus had a show a few months back showing a guy who was hunting cougar with dogs. The dogs were at least a mile ahead of him, going crazy barking, when he caught up to them totally out of breath, all he had to do was aim the rifle and shoot the cat out of the tree. That’s not hunting, I’m sorry. Now you have all these southern hunting clubs, using coyote and fox as bait to train the dogs. These are the types of things that make people that don’t hunt really angry- where is the respect for these species that are exploited?

  35. william huard Says:

    People that engage in wildlife penning and such are sadistic- there is no other explanation for people to gain enjoyment out of seeing an animal ripped to shreds. I’m suppose to just shut up and be called an anti- because I question these topics

    • jon Says:

      I do not care what any hunter tells me, any so called hunter who kills animals for sport or to hang its head on their wall does not care about animals. A true animal lover does not kill animals for sport or trap them or kill them just to hang their head on their wall.

  36. pointswest Says:

    I agree that hunting is not, “shooting the cat out of the tree.” It is training the dogs. It is understanding the cat and its habits. It is learning the area and and about cat habitat. It is understanding logistics and preparing for the hunt. It is leaning about and understanding guns. It is about working together with other hunters and teamwork. It is many things. It sounds like you are the one hung up on the kill.

    Many times, I have seen a fox or a coyote play with a rodent they have wounded. I have watched them spend up to an hour slowly killing something, literally playing it to death. How do your ethics work for foxes and coyotes?

  37. william huard Says:

    It has nothing to do with being hung up on the kill- whatever the hell that means. It has to do with hunters feeling entitled to treat wildlife as they see fit and feel that no one should question their motives. Cats, dogs, coyotes, foxes kill other animals because it is their nature- they are not sadistic. Humans are sadistic. Take a trapper that doesn’t check his traplines every day or every 2 days, that is sadistic, and the reason why they don’t check them is because many states don’t require them to- which shows a disconnect between humans and the animals that they say they have the utmost respect for.

    • jon Says:

      Humans are cruel, animals are not. The way an animal may kill another may be cruel to some people, but any common sense person knows that wolves or other carnivores eat and kill with their teeth. trappers to me are sadistic people. This isn’t about hunting or killing for food. People make a decision to trap an animal and kill it. People who kill animals for fur also disgust me. I do not believe for one second any trapper that makes a conscious decision to trap and kill an animal whether it be for sport or for its fur cares about animals.

  38. Virginia Says:

    Now we are to impose ethics on animals? How do you explain ethics to an animal? What on earth are you talking about – ethics for foxes and coyotes?

  39. pointswest Says:

    Yes…only humans are capable of understanding and being culpable to ethics. But we hold the human owners of pitbulls, for example, culpable if that pitbull injurs or kills a child or even another pet. In fact, we have laws making the owners of pitbull legally culpable for the agression and destruction of their pitbulls. There was a case here in Calif a few years ago where someone’s pitbull killed a woman in front of her own apparment. The state of Calif put the owner of that pitbull in prision. Animal rights advocates might begin to hold the state ethically culbable for the agression and destruction of wild animals. There are probably some extreme examples where this has been done. There are probably some people who would like to see states enact laws and making some wild animal agression illegal and the state culpable for enforcing these laws.

    If you can make a human culpable for the actions of a pitbull, it is not much of a leap to make the state culpable for actions of the wild animals which it manges. In fact, I’d bet it has already been tried.

    Also, I hunt and I am not sadistic.

  40. Save Bears Says:

    Jon,

    I don’t know of any hunters that just kill the animal to hang the head on the wall, all of the hunters I know either eat the animal, or they ensure those who cannot afford to purchase meat get the meat, with programs like hunters for the hungry, which by the way, donated over 1 million pounds of meat for those less fortunate last year, even those I know who hunt Africa the meat goes to the villages and is consumed. I have no heads on my wall, but I do have a couple of sets of horns, I also have incorporated horns as well as sinew into my bows.

    If the meat is not consumed or donated, then your not talking to a hunter, you are talking to a killer, which is a big difference

    I guess, my posting of the link yesterday, to Ralph’s view on hunting threads, fell of deaf ears, because the last two threads that took off in this direction have been quite the spectacle to behold..it definitely shows the wide divide between those who hunt and those who don’t..

  41. Save Bears Says:

    Jon,

    One more simple question?

    Are you a vegetarian?

  42. william huard Says:

    I think what is happening in Alaska highlights the major issue. How a very small fraction of the population has all the control and power over wildlife management decisions. The revenue is the key. In my home state everyone has the opportunity to contribute money into the environment- through programs or specialty license plates for example- so the revenue is not just from hunting fees. This creates a more balanced system free from just the special interests of a few groups. The Alaskan system is influenced by SCI and Sportsmen with their right wing heavy handed agenda- kill the predators!

    • Elk275 Says:

      ++I think what is happening in Alaska highlights the major issue. How a very small fraction of the population has all the control and power over wildlife management decisions. The revenue is the key.++

      I lived in Alaska for a number of years in the 70’s and it is not a small fraction of the Alaskan population that is pro hunting it is a small fraction of the population that is anti-hunting.

      The hunting of wolves on the boundaries of Denali National Park is state land, and the state should be able to do what they want with their state lands.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      WH – you are clearly mistaken, it has been brought to everyones attention here over the last few days that ALL AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are contributing to pay BILLIONS to lawyers filing lawsuits against the Federal government on behalf of enviro organizations. A specialty plate? What a joke? From the numbers presented why would anyone donate a dime to these Enviro Organizations when they are all ready receiving BILLIONS in welfare from the federal government? You need to do some research before shooting off your mouth on a blog.

    • JEFF E Says:

      TWB,
      what you are saying is patently untrue. it has been shown time and again here and elsewhere. do some real research.
      the funds you are talking about have not paid anywhere near the amount you are trying to bullshit people with and as a matter of fact have paid nearly as much to livestock interests with, and the they win plenty, lawsuits that they bring .

  43. pointswest Says:

    Anti-hunters will always have an uphill battle becuase humans have been hunting for the past two million years and to get their view accepted, anti-hunters must show that this very normal and natural human behavior is wrong and has been wrong for the past two million years.

    Good luck.

  44. Save Bears Says:

    Jon,

    I know very few people that only hunt for the head, even if they are after a trophy, they still use the meat…you guys are watching to much TV, even those who go after trophies eat the meat…

    • jon Says:

      I am sorry, but that is not true. There are actually hunters out there who kill for sport. There are many other hunters out there besides the ones you know. I am just stating a fact here. There ARE hunters out there who kill animals for sport and for sport only.

    • Layton Says:

      Jon,

      You forgot to answer SB’s question — are you a vegetarian?? And to just expand a bit, do you use wool, or leather??

      Anxiously awaiting your answer.

    • jon Says:

      I told the other guy this isn’t about hunting for food, this is hunting for SPORT. Do you understand the difference? Do not act like there aren’t hunters out there who hunt just for sport.

    • Save Bears Says:

      Jon,

      In the US, every state has laws against wasting meat, if you hunt you either donate or use the meat, so if they are hunting just for the head and not taking the meat, then they are not hunters, they are criminals and should be prosecuted as such…

    • Save Bears Says:

      And Jon,

      I am sorry, I don’t believe what your saying is true…and you don’t believe what I am saying is true, so it seems as if we have a stalemate here.

      By the way, you didn’t answer my question, are you a vegetarian, or do you eat meat? A simple yes or no will work?

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      First: I repeat, I am not a vegetarian! Obviously you need such a proof nowadays on this blog. Thanks to my hunting friends that supply the venison in my freezer – delicious. And yes, Gentlemen, please do not play the naïve role. You know very well that there are all too many trophy hunters that hunt for the trophy or for that hunting kick only. Yes, that is a very thin line between hunting and poaching. That ethical Austrian hunter that needed to posses that pelt from that last Austrian brown bear easily tipped over to be a poacher – just for that bear only! Maybe in the regulative US you are not allowed to leave meat behind, at least in theory. But look around what is or what can be made available for hunting on this globe, legal, illegal, or somewhere in between. So please put off your blinders also. Ok, I have learned on this blog some of you tend to eat bear or cougar – even coyote – but that is certainly not the rule. Maybe, if you are hungry enough or – on the opposite – decadent enough. When does somebody come up with a wolf recipe as an excuse? The average trophy hunter going abroad for a bear pelt to have that stuffed at home has no interest in the meat. Ever heard of bear meat imported back into the US from Russia along with the trophy? He is looking for something to grace his living room – or better trophy room. Naaaa, there are of course no such rooms, never ever. Yes, I already heard it all on this blog: Trophy hunters donate the meat to those poor, starving locals. Hm, the are no starving locals in Russia in need of the bear meat the hunters leave behind. And, even many African natives are not so happy with the meat they graciously receive from some trophy hunters – some being from animals they do not eat for ethical reasons or cause it´s already rotten anyway. So these programs serve mostly as an alibi. Sorry, all over this globe trophy hunting has long ago lost it´s glamour, it´s highly controversial and on the edge of being ethical. It´s so simple: Eat, what you kill! And if you dare to hunt a leopard or hyena – eat it! Bon appetite.

  45. Layton Says:

    Naaaaa Save Bears,

    Nobody has to kill something to get meat — meat grows on bushes, nicely wrapped with plastic, modern man grows meat like beans and NOBODY has to get their hands bloody.

    Anti hunters are ALL vegetarians — with viewpoints that say (for instance) that baiting is unethical — and none of them ever fish with any sort of bait.

    And utopia is here, and 100 million (or so) people just “disappeared” to make everything work the way these wild eyed, so called “conservationists” want it to.

    All is well, just close your eyes and you can see it.

    Right??

  46. Save Bears Says:

    Being honest with you, I don’t understand why the issue of pro vs anti hunter continues to be a hot point, we all know, we are never going to agree!

    As long as the law allows it, hunters will continue to hunt..plain and simple..

  47. Nancy Says:

    Save Bears said :”In the US, every state has laws against wasting meat, if you hunt you either donate or use the meat, so if they are hunting just for the head and not taking the meat, then they are not hunters, they are criminals and should be prosecuted as such”

    Interesting statement SB – I’m sure you’re familiar with predator derbies? Google Idaho – SFW Predator Derby and explain to me, after reading the “rules” why THIS form of hunting is okay?

    The definition of hunting: hunting. A, noun. 1, hunt, hunting. the pursuit and killing or capture of wild animals regarded as a sport

    As Jon said (and I totally agree with him) There ARE hunters out there who kill animals for sport and for sport only.

    The definition of sport – “Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively”

  48. Save Bears Says:

    Nancy,

    Predator derbies, which I have vocally opposed, hunt for non classified animals, coyotes, fox and bob cat in Idaho are not classified as game animals, they are predators and the law says they can be killed on sight. I should have clarified “Big Game Animals”

    I wish people would use the search feature around here, the predator derbies were discussed to death and as I said, I oppose the derbies…

    • JB Says:

      SB:

      I think Jon and Nancy have a valid point, here. I know you oppose predator derbies and I respect you for it, but if the people who hunt in such derbies can be called “hunters” than Jon’s original point–that some hunters hunt for sport–is legitimate.

      I think this speaks to one of the major PR problems that ethical hunters have: despite very diverse motivations, the whole group simply is referred to as hunters; that is, while we have a term to separate people who kill game out of season (i.e. poacher), we lack terminology to describe the wide range of behaviors and motivations that underlie hunting. Whether they blast crows and woodchucks for fun, kill predators for prizes, shoot big-game for trophies, participate in “canned” hunts, or harvest an animal for food, they are all labeled “hunters”.

      Granted, certain adjectives that describe different types of hunting are becoming more common (e.g. trophy, sport, subsistence), but I think this conversation demonstrates a lack of consistent application of these terms–that is, we don’t yet agree what they mean. Note, research suggests there is a marked difference in public support for trophy hunting vs. subsistence hunting (the latter being far preferred; I have these citations but there on my home computer, will post tonight).

      Anyway, my sense is that rather than deny that some people hunt purely for sport or trophies, ethical hunters would be better served by doing their best to distance themselves from this crowd.

  49. JB Says:

    Sorry, should have written “…they’re on my home computer…” not “…there on…”

  50. Save Bears Says:

    JB,

    I am not denying they are out there, I specifically stated, I don’t know any, the people I know that do go after the larger bulls and bucks, don’t waste the meat, they take it home or they donate to a worthy charity…most that I hunt with take it home to feed their families.

    I agree there is no constancy in the way the term hunter is applied and it is often used by the non-hunting community to chastise and bash all hunters, which is just as bad as using the term environmentalist to bash them as eco-terrorists! Which we all know is not the truth, but in many parts of the west, you mention environmentalist and watch out for the negative comments coming…

  51. pointswest Says:

    Several years ago, in Idaho, there was a big news story about “bunny baseball”. Every 10 years or so, the jackrabbit population explodes in the Territon, Idaho farming region and local farmers form rabbit drives to kill the overpopulated rabbits. These rabbit are headed for a big die off anyway. In just two years, the population of rabbits can grow to 10 times of what the area can support. Rabbits are everywhere, by the hundred, and they begin to ravage farmers crops, their haystacks, their gardens, and all native vegetation. The rabbits’ crowding also leads to epidemics that can spread to domesticated animals. No one doubts the necessity of the rabbit drives. If not killed, something like 98% will die a slow agonizing death of starvation or disease anyway.
    During the rabbit drives, most of the local farmers’ male population organizes and forms long lines to herd the rabbits into a previously constructed rabbit fence. The fence channels the rabbits into a pen, and once trapped, farmers would enter the pen and begin clubbing the rabbits to death. We are talking about tens of thousands of rabbits. One year, a news crew filmed some farm boys playing “bunny baseball” during a rabbit drive. This was the name given to a “sport” where one farm boy would pick up a rabbit and toss it in the direction of another farm boy with a club. The farm boy with the club would swing at the rabbit and the object was to kill the rabbit in one swing. The film was aired on the national news and all hell broke loose.
    But I think this story PROVES that farmers are evil and farming should be made illegal.

    • Elk275 Says:

      That is not hunting but needed animal control. In my subdivision and the adjacent subdivisions in Bozeman during the spring and early summer months the home owner’s associations have “gopher” control. From what I have read they pump propane down the gopher holes and ignite the gas and cause some type of explosion killing hundreds and hundreds of gophers. I have known animal rights people who have a negative attitude on hunting after several years welcome gopher control whether shooting, poisoning or other methods. Every years the gophers rebound and need control again.

    • pointswest Says:

      I know it is not hunting, it is farming and farming is immoral and should be illegal! Stop picking hunting!

    • pointswest Says:

      That should read: …stop picking on hunting!!

  52. Virginia Says:

    Why do you insist on posting stories like this one? Sometimes it is best to be thought stupid rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  53. pointswest Says:

    I was mocking some of the other stories in this thread about hunters and I agree these stories are pretty stupid. I was hoping someone would come along and clarify the point I was trying to make although you should refrain from becoming personal.

  54. Linda Hunter Says:

    bunny baseball is because they killed all the coyotes.

    • pointswest Says:

      That is untrue and is beside the point.

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Pointswest, when people kill too many of the coyotes it does make sense that a lot more rabbits would be left around to reproduce.

    • pointswest Says:

      I understand that but it was not the case in eastern Idaho. I have family there and know all the details. Coyotes were worshiped. They prayed for more coyotes but no more came. No one was shooting coyotes. I know everyone likes to find a human villain, especially one they do not know, but there was none in this case.

      As Si’vet pointed out below, it was agronomics or more specifically, it was that the jack rabbits from the surrounding sage country could migrate into the farmed areas to winter on haystacks and stubble. There was an unnatural carryover through the winters and this species of rabbits can quickly out populate coyotes, foxes, and bob cats and produce a population explosion about every decade.

      I believe much of the problem has been abated by farmers putting protective fencing around haystacks and by plowing stubble in the fall. This brings the winterkill of the rabbits up to more natural levels (like 70%) and the population explosions have ceased.

  55. Si'vet Says:

    Linda, I have to agree with PW, the rabbit population explosion in that area wasn’t due to the reduction in coyotes, in fact if you had even a fraction of coyotes needed to control the number of rabbits, mange would have taken them out. The reason for the explosion was a shift in agronomics. The area mentioned has become world famous for it hay, so thousands of acres of sagebrush was turned into hayfields and when the rabbit population was on the up swing, the amount of high quality food lead to the explosions. It is hard to imagine the numbers, hillsides would crawl with rabbits, hay stacks tipped over because the bottom of the stacks were eaten away. It was a difficult situation to manage, most control methods would have had lasting side affects, the measures used were pretty brutal. Hard to believe but helping to reduce the population in that brutal manner was actually considered a community service project. Hopefully it is all behind us.

  56. Nancy Says:

    My apologies SB for not using the search engine, I so applaud you if you oppose derbies. Did you also take the time to write a letter of protest to any of the sponsors like Cabelas? (I heard Nikon realized killing for sport wasn’t worth losing customers over and backed out)

    The best (or thats what I’ve heard) in hunting gear and much more, that grown men (and some women) drool over, comes out atleast a couple of times a year, in their catalog. Yet they seem to have no problem adding their name (as in support even though that support, offends some people, like you?) to derbies like the one in Idaho.

    So is it most? many? some? Or just a few? Ethical hunters, like yourself, who shun these derbies but have a tendancy to look the other way (wink, wink ;>) when it comes to the buds, who have no problem popping off a few “non – Big Game Animal species?
    You know, those sub species that struggle to keep everything else in order (while ducking for cover) …… but who unfortunately fall below hunting and ranching expectations that have dictated how the west has been and should continue to be, when it comes to THEIR right to exist.

    • pointswest Says:

      Nancy,

      Did you know that, in general, two thirds of all small animals and birds die every winter?

    • Jay Says:

      PW, did you know the human head weighs 8 pounds?

    • pointswest Says:

      Yes. Why? What does yours weigh?

    • Jay Says:

      Did you know dogs and bees smell fear?

    • pointswest Says:

      Jay, Did you know that when you expose the delusions of the mentally ill that they often become hostile and launch into personal attacks?

    • JEFF E Says:

      I don’t like cabelas, don’t kill just to do it (derbies) and hunt and fish every year. Some people have a skewed perception of reality..on both sides of the fence

    • Jay Says:

      Obscure trival fact day is entertaining, no?

    • pointswest Says:

      Just to be clear, I don’t like Derbies, I like Cabelas, I don’t like killing for the sake of killing, but know that with agriculture that some species become grossly over populated and I am not very concerned about killing animals headed for a big winter die off anyway.

    • pointswest Says:

      > >Jay writes: Obscure trival fact day is entertaining, no? <<

      Jay, no not really. Not when it has nothing to do with the discusion at hand and not when its only intent is a personal slight with no relevence to the topics being discussed. If fact, it is boring, tiresome, childish, and I wish you would stop.

    • Jay Says:

      So “…two thirds of all small animals and birds die every winter” is relevant to the discussion? Sounds like obscure minutiae to me, but that’s just me. Take a breath and relax, I’m just adding a little lighthearted humor to the conversation.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Nancy – not attempting to change your mind, appears that would be hard to do however, try this. Instead of attacking people engaged in a legal activity that builds community fabric and associations, maybe you should praise them for saving untold bunnies, whitetail fawns and field mice. You know, just look at it another way.

  57. ProWolf in WY Says:

    I would be interested to see a place where coyotes were worshiped.

  58. Elk275 Says:

    ++The best (or that’s what I’ve heard) in hunting gear and much more, that grown men (and some women) drool over, comes out at least a couple of times a year, in their catalog. ++

    Nancy

    I get my Cabalas catalog several times a year at the post office. I throw it away immediately. Eighty five percent of the merchandise is made in “China junk” and it makes me drooling mad. When I an out hunting everything is American made, boots by Danner, coat and pants Filson USA, pack by Mystery Ranch/ Bozeman made, scope Leopold with American glass – rifle – custom made in Montana, truck – Ford, optics – German, contents of pack – 90% made in USA. Yes,there is the cheap Chinese made head lamp and several other accessories, some things one has no control over. I do not support nor do I drool over 85% pf Cabelas merchandise. The other 15% can be purchased other places for less.

    • Save Bears Says:

      Heck,

      I just wear a pair of wranglers and a filson read plaid shirt most of the time, carry a bow make in Montana, and arrows I made myself, I don’t think I have read a Cabela’s catalog, at least not that I remember, my knife is a gerber, made in Oregon, and of course, the boots are danner,, been wearing them for over 20 years now..

  59. Elk275 Says:

    ++I just wear a pair of wranglers and a filson read plaid shirt most of the time,++

    Remember — Cotton kills. Heck that is all I wore in the 70″s and 80″s too.

  60. Si'vet Says:

    Here is some info with regards to predator derby’s, I am not posting this to change anyones mind, but if your going to talk about it you may as well know something about it. And pro wolf, most hard core predator hunters have a lot of admiration for the very wiley coyote, and it’s not testosterone it’s adrenaline. I’ve had permission to hunt coyotes on 11 very large private ranches for many years, and keep notes, the average calf loss in the spring to coyotes is 3 per ranch. (not earth shattering)
    Derby info:
    Almost all derby’s are fund raiser’s for different groups to raise money for other wildlife projects, and YES, some funds were targeted for wolf litigation by one group. And 1 derby was a fund raiser for a local park enhancement project.
    1. ave cost to enter=75.00
    2. ave cost to particiapte= 200.00
    3. ave set up per coyote= 8 ( 1 coyote per 8 tries)
    3. ave coyotes taken by team= 0.3
    4. ave funds raised (includes fur sales)= 2205.00
    Derby’s are not a wholesale slaughter of coyotes. Most teams are just dead money (donators). To participate in a derby, and have continued success you have to do the following.
    1. prescout and get permission @ 3.00 + a gallon
    2. Plan on getting in as many set ups as possible, and most successful set ups are a good distance from the truck. At the end of a derby usually the folks that are at the top are dead dog tired. You won’t be successful driving around drinking beer.
    3. Know and understand coyote behavior.
    4. Be willing to be very UNsucessful for years.
    Again just info, I’m not out to change minds, the reason coyotes are so successful, they are smart, have great senses and are physically tough.
    4 years ago I did some calculations on goverment coyote control cost to the tax payer 200.00 per coyote this included aerial control, for 2 areas.
    If you have a few legitimate, civil question, with regards to predator hunting/derby’s, I would be willing to answer, again ( legit/civil questions).

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Si vet – I appreciate your educational efforts. Most here do not want YOUR kind of information. Does not fit their agenda.

    • Jay Says:

      So its thrill-killing (adrenaline, as you say). Are you one to say wolves kill for sport?

  61. Si'vet Says:

    Thanks TWB, it does put a target on your back. I am not afraid or embarrassed about my interests in hunting. I don’t read or participate on any anti – wolf sites, I feel for me there is more to learn and try to understand on this site, because the feelings and points of view are so different and diverse sometimes than my own.

  62. Nancy Says:

    Talks with Bears – I think lynching people in this county a few years back fell under the same kind of logic – building community fabric and associations. Hell, people use to come for miles around, probably the only time they ever really had the opportunity to get together and socialize.

    Why, they’d string em up up for just cutting across the wrong pasture or stealing a chicken cus they were hungry………Yes indeedy, the human race has come along way in 100 years, yet some still can’t seem to get past those feelings of superiority when it comes to other species.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Nancy – thanks for clearing it up for us – usually folks “like you” take a while to figure out. Not in your case, you went right to “lynching” – priceless. Peace Out.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Oh Nance – noticed you did not address my question about the bunnies and fawns?

  63. Si'vet Says:

    Jay, I guess you could call it a thrill or a rush / endorphines ,there is certainly a sense there especially after everything I put into to prepare. Yes I have commented that wolves kill for sport, man kills for sport, my wife’s jack russell’s kill for sport, I also made the commented that man is the only animal that kills in the name of religion. I can think of very few upper level predator’s at sea or on land that haven’t killed for sport.

    • Jay Says:

      I’m just assuming that you are referring to situations where wolves kill multiple livestock? If my assumption is correct, do you not think that the “sport killing” that occurs is more of a function of putting a domesticated animal that has had its instinct and ability to escape bred out of it in contact with an animal that has not had its instinct to catch and kill its dinner bred out of it?

  64. pointswest Says:

    I took a couple of semesters of philosophy at the University of New Mexico and, at the time, there was a heated controversy about using chimps and other higher primates in the lab for experiments that may injure or kill them. Some of these experiments, it was argued, would save hundreds of thousands of human lives with the information they might garner. I remember well reading a position paper about the ethics surrounding lab animals and, in general, the killing or injuring of animals for human benefit. I do not recall the author’s name and it seemed like he used a combination of utilitarianism and existentialism to formulate his arguments but he pointed out that humans do not seem to mind when we shower and kill bacteria, nor do we mind when we kill cockroaches, nor do we mind if we kill fish. We usually do not mind when we kill mice, rats, frogs, and snakes. Humans start to have emotional trouble, however, when we start killing animals that we can have relationships with, such as dogs and cats, and with animals that are more similar to ourselves such as large mammals and primates.

    He formulated a system by which animals could be rated by either their ability to have a relationships with humans and by their similarity to humans. You could then give each species a rating of its affinity to the human race and make decision base on that affinity rating. You do not give the same consideration in the ethics of killing or injuring a cockroach (periplaneta Americana) as you do for a chimpanzee (pan troglodytes). You do not give the same consideration in the ethics of killing or injuring a chub (semotilus atromaculatus) as you do for a panda bear(ailuropoda melanoleuca).

    Then, even an animal low on the affinity scale, you do not kill or injury it for no reason. An animal low on the affinity scale such as a rattlesnake in the desert, leave it alone and do not kill or injure it. If you have a rattlesnake under your house that might injure your pets or children, you might kill it with a gun.

    The point is that we DO have ethics surrounding animals and their relationship to man. In fact, we have highly developed ethics. These ethics do play a part in our legal system. I know that some of these ethical systems were used in formulating laws regarding animal cruelty, use of lab animals, pest control, etc. So instead of condemning to Hell entire groups of people like hunters and farmers and insulting them and calling them names, why don’t you focus on the ethics? There are ethical hunters and there are unethical hunters. It is ethical to kill some animals (over populated rats) and it is unethical to kill other animals (endangered orangutans). Why does it have to be so personal that you celebrate when a grizzly mauls a hunter?

  65. Si'vet Says:

    Yes in most cases livestock, We’ve all seen and heard of sport killing of deer and elk that are usually in wintering areas, but I actually haven’t witnessed it, and you know how things can be blown out of proportion, so I take most of that with a grain of salt until I feel the info is completely valid. Example: a dead cow elk not eaten, wolves may have been spooked and haven’t returned yet. And I think there is a lot of photo chop shop going on. Domestic livestock are just that, domestic, and are bred and raised to maximize gain, palatability/flavor, of which I appreciate especially during BBQ season. I think frenzy, and prey flight play into to it especially when the prey is fenced in, and can’t really leave the area.

  66. Martytag Says:

    As one who gladly participated in the Mud Lake rabbit drives I can tell you that they were absolutely necessary. All summer long you raise your crops, put up hay to feed your cattle during the winter months only to have those jack rabbits come in off the desert and eat out the bottom bails and tip the stack over. The cattle will not touch the hay after a rabbit has done his business on the hay bails. Imagine your house gets infested with mice and they are eating all the food you have put up for your family. What do you do when people from across the country ask you to not kill the poor mice, they need the food more than you do. You say that is not the same ….. I am here to tell you that it is the same thing.

    We had lots of great advice from people back east looking to save the poor jack rabbits. The best one I heard was “Easter is just around the corner, could you capture them and sell them as Easter Bunnies?” I believe that people still think of cotton tails when they hear the word jack rabbit. In honesty a jack rabbit is a rat with big ears and huge feet.

    There has not been a rabbit drive since 1981 in the Mud Lake area. If they ever do come back, I will be there with bells on. I am not a hunter, I really don’t care for the mindless killing of animals. I do support my community and the hard working farmers who help put food on my table to feed my family. I saw several people come to document the event, to stand as a witness to the cruelty imposed upon these poor defenseless animals. After the outer wall would be raised and the rabbits would see that they were trapped, they would turn and head back the way they came. The rabbits would start to pile up against the 3 to 4 foot plywood wall and then start jumping over those holding the boards. At this point those who were there to stand up for the rabbits would start getting hit by the escaping rabbits. They always ended up grabbing a club to defend themselves. Unless you experienced it, you really have no point of reference to say it was cruel.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: