Jim Beer’s speech in Boise. Anti-wolf, tea party, nullificationist

Notes on his speech-

I guess by now Beers needs no introduction, but the themes he expresses show the anti-wolf folks are really just part of tea party eruption with their efforts to nullify the laws of the United States. He would make the Southern Confederates of Civil War days proud, IMO.

The notes below were taken by someone very familiar with wild wolves who prefers not to have their name released as they don’t want to be “hassled.”

_____________

These are hand written notes taken directly from the Jim Beers presentation last night, February 16, 2011 at Boise State University. If they don’t make sense, you are right. If you try and apply common sense and logic to what was stated, you probably can’t. In any event, people like this are walking around the streets of the United States presenting information like this as fact. If you believe it, well, I can’t help you. If you don’t, you are in my camp. Please feel free to share this with others. Kindly remove our name and this lead in from the notes since I don’t need the hassle. (written by the notetaker)
Here are my notes from the talk Jim Beers gave at BSU on Feb. 16:

There were about 150 people in the crowd, including many couples. The average age was 50. More men than women. No kids or teens. There were at least 6 members of the Idaho legislature present, and several members of Crapo’s staff.

In the lobby beforehand was a raffle that included items such as an Alaskan wolf pelt ($900) and the thing most people were standing in line for, an engraved “SSS” rifle.

Sponsored by Idaho Freedom Foundation, BSU Political Science Department, Idaho for Wildlife, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assn, and Maurice Clements

Beers was introduced by Maurice Clements as a great American who has been relentlessly harassed by the USFWS.

Beers:

“Wolves are the big issue of our day, including wherever they intend to put them next.

Wolves are vilified as a result of humans’ experience with them.

Stanley P. Young talks about wolves killing people and being in their gardens.

Wolves killed (American) Indians and spread a lot of disease, including smallpox (I think he was driving at the idea that wolves, not whites, were responsible for the spread of this disease on the frontier)

The reason wolves were killed off in the first place was that women and children needed peace when the men weren’t around..

Don’t let anyone tell you they won’t kill people.

Countries that allowed wolves to persist don’t have an advanced civilization now – they’re like Africa.

How did America allow wolves back in? It was the love/drug culture of the 1960s-70s. Lots of turbulence resulted in the formation of enviro and animal-rights groups (and the concept of Wilderness, which really means “no use.”) This is when the term charismatic megaspecies came into use (I think he means charismatic megafauna)

There was science involved in listing wolves – no talk of how many there are in Canada and Alaska and Asia. “I had dinner recently in Brussels with a Russian man who told me they have 4-6 million wolves there. They used to have more, but the USSR gunships used wolves as target practice during military training.”

Dont ever let anyone tell you that they can count wolves accurately. There isn’t enough $ to fly enough to find out how many there are.

DOW, ASPCA, Sierra Club, TNC and others used the feds to gain control over public lands. The ESA was used to list animals that there already millions of – since there is no difference between Mexican wolves, red wolves and gray wolves. For purposes of this talk I am calling them G.I. wolves – “government introduced.”

The feds have a plan to put wolves into the Grand Canyon next. (side comment here about kids getting killed, potentially, at bus stops)

People in other places give money to these enviro groups to keep wolves in rural places.

How this wolf reintroduction disaster happened, in short: (please pay attention or you will lose this thread of reasoning)

-Because of UN treaties and certain parts of the US Constitution people discovered that they could benefit from so-called civil rights laws. Those laws made for new civil service laws (and subsequent bonuses to managers who thought them up,) which required that minorities and women be hired into management positions in the federal govt. These new (presumably unqualified, from his tone) managers were environmentalists, not the old guard of men who knew what they were doing. These new managers felt a need to change the way YOU live, and this is how wolves not only landed on the list of endangered species, but were eventually reintroduced.

The feds are no longer giving the states $ for depredations. Soon there will be no more outfitters or sawmills, either (??)

The states are simply contractors to the feds. It’s what they’ve become. You saw that 130 lb. coyote in Missouri last year and how the state didn’t care.

The feds don’t like Republicans because they’re not as free with the money.

The USFWS stole $45-60 million in PIttman-Robertson (excise taxes) which, by a circuitous route, was used to reintroduce wolves and pay bonuses to FWS managers (Jamie Clark and Beth Stevens implicated here). The states never asked for their money back, and there are several reasons:

-The states’ primary goal is not to make the feds mad. The feds are the source of the states’ money. It’s all about enviro education now, not hunting.

-The federal inspector general who was the auditor during the P-R scandal was Obama’s Stimulus Pkg IG.

…subsequent trashing of Jamie Clark/implication that the current head of DOW is about to go to work for Max Baucus as chief of staff.

There are wolves in 21 states now.Kids can’t go camping or fishing now without thinking twice. The more you let wolves breed the more you get – like an inkblot across the map. Look at coyotes. They’re living in cities now. Wolves will, too, but they’ll learn it faster because they move around in groups.

…trashing of Native Americans and how the corrupt DOI manages their casino licenses

<I’m getting whiplash just writing all this down>

For wolves, food is not a limiting factor. They can eat out of garbage cans, dumpsters — they’re just like dogs.

Suggestions for the crowd on how to get wolves delisted:

-Assert states rights

-Repeal the ESA – the American Revolution succeeded with only 1/3 of the colonists participating; we got prohibition repealed. The feds are afraid of getting rid of the ESA because a lot of people in cities like it. ESA is just fat and waste. Obama probably won’t sign a repeal – the the next president will! Start working now!

-Get your legislators to pass a repeal of the ESA, either by court ruling or congressional compact.

-Amend the ESA – make feds pay for damage caused by species not formerly present here. Says he and Geist both are confident a kid will be killed (make human safety the driving factor of state legislation. If you present it right, who (congress) wouldn’t sign that??)

– Other ideas: only species endangered worldwide can be listed under ESA/only species, not subspecies/force just compensation for taking of property/recover species only federal property/forget genetic connectivity and DPS, that’s for academia.

And finally, Dave Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation got up and said, “Now you know why Helen Chenowith thought the world of Jim,” and in turn, Beers said, “And she was a role model for me.”

Questions from audience (that I could hear)

Q: why do we keep hearing that wolves don’t kill people?

Beers: The unspoken policy is to not make things any worse than they are.Say it’s coyotes or dogs, but if they’re not there, they don’t know. We used to all have a stake in caring whether a wolf killed someone because everyone was related to each other in the pioneer days. It’s a very serious problem.

Q: I’ve heard you can’t call in a wolf to shoot it. What do they use for bait (IDFG)? dog scat?

Beers: Best way is to do like in British Columbia and trap at a carcass.

Q: How about introducing dog poop with parvo in it, or using (some kind of sharp hook) with meat on it that will cut the wolf to death?

(more of a statement than a question)

Q: What about neutering?

A: not feasable.

Q: The OX ranch had 70 head of cattle die of worms. How can we get the word out about this?

Beers: ICA and Farm Bureau should be criticized for not being here tonight. They should have donated $ to this event. Clements speaking: The apathy these days is terrible. <Agreement to organize on e-mail “it starts here and now.”>

115 Responses to “Jim Beer’s speech in Boise. Anti-wolf, tea party, nullificationist”

  1. Ralph Maughan Says:

    There is a story on Beers in the Idaho Reporter. This on-line news of Idaho government is produced by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a tea party organization.

    Time right to challenge Endangered Species Act, says wolf policy expert. By Jay Patrick

    • JEFF E Says:

      I have it on good authority that he also said that the decline of the Fish and wildlife sevice started when “they” (whoever that is) starterd to “let woman and minorities in”. this statement was repeated several times

      • mikarooni Says:

        Well, maybe it wasn’t incompetence and political crony corruption that ended his career. Maybe he just flat created a hostile work environment for his colleagues. Only the worst redneck scum would consider even listening to this guy; yet, the Society for Range Management is hosting both Beers and Charles Kay in a Utah State double feature. Maybe someone will even bring a mayonnaise jar with some palladium and they can all sit around it and watch for neutrons.

  2. jon Says:

    Thanks Ralph, this just proves yet again how much of a nutcase Beers is. He also believes there is no difference between dog fighting and deer hunting.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      jon,

      I also think folks should put his speech into a broader policy and politics context. This kind of thing is closely related to what is happening in Congress with tea party trying to impose massive budget cuts, all on the government operations part of the federal budget, the attack on state, town, and county workers in Wisconsin by Governor Walker, the “reform” of Idaho k-12 education by the Idaho legislature, etc.

      It is important to note the presence of many politicians at his speech. These people would never come to hear a real scientist talk about wolves. This is where they are getting their information.

      If it is true for wolves, god help us on other matters of state.

      • timz Says:

        I believe you can thank Mr. “hope and change” for this surge in anti-government, flaunt it in your face, attitude. (Ya it’s always been there but never to this degree) They see his inexperience and weakness and are going to capitalize on it. Just a few reminder of what happened in 2010.

        “Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era.
        The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.
        That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.”
        They also lead with 29-20 in Governors picking up 11 in 2010.
        You don’t like it now, you ain’t going to like 2013 I’m afraid.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Timz,

        I’ve rarely thanked him, but I know your comment is more general. It is scary to think Obama is the thin barrier between what I believe will be the economic destruction of the country if there is a prolonged government shutdown. I just submitted my taxes for 2010. There should be a big refund coming back. What will happen to them if the IRS gets cut or the government closes down for a month or two? Magnify personal problems like that a million fold (other people) and what happens?

      • timz Says:

        You are correct, my comments were not directed at you or anyone in particular. You’ve expressed your disappointment in him many times. This is hitting close to home for me, my daughter is a first year professor at the Univ of WI.

      • william huard Says:

        Ralph-
        I have never seen such a toxic and crazy time in my lifetime. All I can hope is that we get these extremist views out of our system and return to some sanity in this country. I hope more than any other reason for obama to be elected to a second term so the Supreme Court can revisit the Citizens United case. I read yesterday how the Americans for prosperity KOCHSUCKERS and the Club for Growth (Pat toomey) are behind this union busting in Wisconsin. The Club for Growth is famous for their arguments of having NO corporate Tax Rate which means the revenue will come out of the pockets of the poor and middle class. This is a scary time for sure!

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Tim Z –

        Actually we can thank the fear mongerers, birthers, teabaggers, racists, etc….the people responsible for spreading lies such as “Death Panels”, “He’s a Muslim, Socialist, Communist, he hates America and white people, He’s gonna kill grandma”…..It’s a coordinated effort of distributing misinformation and this garbage started during the campaign. It lit the fuse on a stick of dynamite that appears to be ready to explode.

        I am certainly no fan of the way Obama is handling environmental issues but to say he is the one solely responsible for the tone of the country would be a stretch. There’s a ton of misinformation out there meant to confuse and scare, see Jim Beers, that the gullible take as fact and these nitwits have no interest in finding the truth.

        It’s a sad picture of the U.S.A. in its current state.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Ralph and all,

        The Republican Noise Machine

        http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/republican-noise-machine

        You can read whatever reviews you want on this book, but if you haven’t, I would recommend it. It explains where all the attack originated and how it was perpetuated. I read it a few years ago, and I think we have observed into a more virulent form that even the Republicans are having trouble controlling

      • Immer Treue Says:

        ++haven’t read it++

      • Alan Says:

        timz,
        President Obama has certainly been a big disappointment on environmental issues, but one can no longer use inexperience as an excuse. He now has experience that only four other men currently alive have, two years as President. I am afraid that it has become clear that he really just doesn’t care much about environmental issues. While liberal on social issues, he is a moderate at best on the enviroment.
        Regarding the in-your-face tea-sucker, show me the birth certificate, anti-government, I really think that a lot of it is racist (not all). I know that whenever I get into an arguement with one of them (something I try to avoid more and more), after I debunk all of their smaller government, tax slashing (for the rich), cut programs for the poor, where’s the birth certificate, socialist/commie b.s., when they get angry enough, out pops the n-word. More often than not. Sad to say, I think a lot of people, whether they admit it or not, deep down, are just ticked off that we have a black President and want him to fail.
        I am ashamed for them, because a few of these people I consider friends, even though I differ politically from them.
        Regarding this meeting, just proves what my daddy used to say, “All nuts don’t grow on trees”.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Alan,

        I think there is obviously some racism in the tea party eruption. The more overt kind is in the southern states. Although there is racism in Idaho. I don’t see it myself, but among my friends and family anyone who showed old fashioned prejudice against Black folks would be shunned.

        We still don’t have a good demographic who the tea party is other than White and Republican. About half the self professed Republicans also say they support the tea party.

      • JB Says:

        Ralph et al.

        See this link for demographic information about the tea party:
        http://www.gallup.com/video/127283/Ask-Frank-Tea-Party-Profile.aspx

        The jist: They are conservative republicans.

      • john philip Says:

        While I may agree that the president is a huge disappointment on environmental issues, I hold out some hope. Salazar’s got to go. Hopefully the president gets that. Udall’s an obvious replacement choice. Salazar and whomever his replacement is must be infinitely superior to whomever McCain would have inflicted upon us.

      • john philip Says:

        And Ralph, the tea party, whatever that is, wherever it is, seems to me to be fundamentally racist. Few teapartiers will cop to it, but the sentiment is there, even here in the “liberal” northeast. I shake my head in wonder (and disbelief) at this stuff. I personally know some people who swear they’re not racist and they’re politically independent, but they’re terrified of “creeping socialism” and they’re as oblivious of their receipt of government benefits as the clown in South Carolina (I think) that wanted to “keep your government hands off of my Medicare.” There’s no getting anywhere with these folks. The closet racism is demonstrated by how they talk anybody who’s different from them.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I’ve found that some of the most “racist” or at least the most intolerant people have been minorities. Also, there is often a sliver of truth when it comes to stereo types. Yeah, tea partiers included. It’s been said that black women hate white women because they steal all the good black men. It’s also known that hawaiians hate whites, calling the “howlies” (sp). My uncle and mom lived in Hawaii while my grandpa was stationed there while serving in the marines. All cultures and ethnicities have pride in their heritage and culture. Don’t buy into the whole racist tea party crap. Some of the biggest racists i’ve met have been minorities. Then again I know whites that are pretty racist.

        Basically everyone is a bit apprehensive when it comes to things that you are not used to. I’m a very large guy, but when I lived in Hayward, CA (near Oakland), the blacks would sit on the porch yellin’ “wutz up white boy” and all this stuff. It was all in fun (I think/hope), but it did make me a bit nervous sometimes when they had lots of friends over. Same goes w/ the lady in the alley example that is often used. She is scared when passed by minorities, it’s just the way it is.

      • Salle Says:

        I believe you can thank Mr. “hope and change” for this surge in anti-government, flaunt it in your face, attitude. (Ya it’s always been there but never to this degree) They see his inexperience and weakness and are going to capitalize on it. Just a few reminder of what happened in 2010.

        Actually, I see it as thinly veiled racism.. they can’t accept that the president is not a white churchboy from their denomination… therefore, they must discredit and destroy anything that he might be able to achieve. This is something that women and people of color see in their everyday lives, especially if they actually get close to achieving something of note or when the supremacists feel they have been slighted because someone is making progress they feel entitled to. It’s just that it’s about destroying a president this time around.

        I suspect that things are going on in back rooms in DC that you might only see in the movies… like the rest of the BS that is overwhelming this nation at present.

    • timz Says:

      I’d say it’s no stretch at all because he makes an easy target for the stuff you mention because he’s weak, ineffective and has mis-managed just about every crisis that he’s faced (BP spill, Egypt, etc). You are right about one thing, people tend to be gullible.

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Tim Z,

        This garbage started during the campaign before he was even elected. Whatever you feel about how he governs/leads, remember this crap started prior to him being elected……and we get it Tim Z, you don’t like Barack Obama.

        Not sure what you mean about mismanaging Egypt. The populace of overthrew a dictator, damn that was inspiring to see…..where’s the issue. Was he a good dictator in your eyes.

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Excuse me, should read “the populace of Egypt”

      • Immer Treue Says:

        timz,

        Whether you or any cares for Obama or not, don’t forget the shit storm was years in the making before he took over. I’ve heard nothing but good in terms of Obama and Egypt. Prior to Mubarak leaving, all the usual fear mongers were throwing their usual barbs. Whoa, the people overthrew a dictator.

        “W” invaded a country under false pretenses, and we are still paying for that. Where is the indignation for that? That’s something Obama is trying to get us out of too. That 3 am phone call came the day he was elected.

      • timz Says:

        Obama sits quietly while a sitting governor openly and in writing tells the admin to go to hell, he’s going to defy federal law. Obama or someone from his adminstration should be on the air making it clear that anyone who does so will be arrested by US Marshall’s and charged. And you are correct I don’t like Obama, as a matter of fact I can’t think of a single politician I do like.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        ““W” invaded a country under false pretenses, and we are still paying for that. Where is the indignation for that? That’s something Obama is trying to get us out of too. That 3 am phone call came the day he was elected.”
        “W” may have invaded a country under false pretenses. We don’t know what is going on over their. Obama said he’d pull troops out w/in his first 14 months in office (I think), close guantanamo w/in the 1st 10 months (I think), if we passed the stimulus Unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%. Basically, he had no real experience and was completely caught off guard w/ just how cruel and fck’d up this world is. I think he knows now that Guantanamo is needed etc…

        I have no idea why we are in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we elected the Congress and President and they feel that it’s necessary. Only thing we can do is wait a couple years and vote in others that are more aligned w/ our wishes. Then again the new crop might get important classified info that isn’t publicly known.

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Tim Z says:

        “Obama or someone from his adminstration should be on the air making it clear that anyone who does so will be arrested by US Marshall’s and charged.”

        “he does too much”…”he doesn’t act quick enough”….Come on Tim Z, at least be genuine…no matter what he does you are going to have an issue with it.

        Lot of big fish to fry in this country and around the globe…..I’m not so sure a grandstanding governor from one of the least populated states in the country is making a blip on the White House radar.

        However I do agree that Schweitzer’s grandstanding/threat of defiance and advocating the breaking federal law was disrespectful and un-american and I hope someone from the Dept. of Interior got in his ear.

        Of course it could have been part of a bigger piece of political theater that is playing out.
        Sure

      • Immer Treue Says:

        We can complain all we want about Obama, “W”, etc… One thing we all need to keep in mind that we are all relatively on the same page in terms of wildlife. We need to focus on that rather than our differences.

      • timz Says:

        “I’m not so sure a grandstanding governor from one of the least populated states in the country is making a blip on the White House radar.”
        Openly saying your going to defy the law is a blip? To me it borders on anarchy.

  3. jon Says:

    And no one ever said wolves won’t ever kill people. The chance of getting killed by a wolf is extremely small. There are 1000 plus wolves in Idaho. If they truly wanted to kill people, they would have. 16 years after being reintroduced and not one human death should show you that the chances are very small. There are other things out there that are much more dangerous to humans and they happen much more often than wolf attacks on people.

  4. Ken Cole Says:

    I went to this thing too. I though his speech was totally incoherent.

    • jon Says:

      You must have been shaking your head in disbelief as beers made some of those crazy claims he constantly makes.

  5. Richie G. Says:

    We are in a bad political climate, taking down of labor to medicare to the environment to wolves. It may not sound the same but it is and it is coming from one group.They want to take all wolves out of the United States, that is their end game.

  6. malencid Says:

    Jim Beers is insane. There is not a scintilla of sense on any of his statements. My god, I hope he isn’t making a living out of these random discourses.

  7. Richie G. Says:

    Ralph I did not read your comment before I put mine up, you
    hit the nail on the head or the ball out of the park. We are being attacked on all fronts, I heard they took some environmental law out of the budget bill that Nancy Pelosi introduced. Bernie Sanders was speaking on the radio and a women was speaking that she will not get a heart transplant because the governor of Arizona cut medicare for certain procedures. I hate to see the road we are on for the wolves in America.

  8. MAD Says:

    All I can say is WOW! That guy is absouteoy crazy, but very dangerous considering his audience. I don’t know where to start….

    “All wolves are the same, Mexican, Red and Gray.”. Uhhh, actually no. The Mexican is a subspecies of the Gray and the Red is a separate species, as is the Eastern Timber Wolf (Canis Lycaon). And you call yourself a biologist Jim?

    “You can’t count wolves accurately.” Hmm, I think the biologists I know that specialize in population abundance estimating would disagree. Besides, if we can’t estimate wolves properly, how are we estimating elk and other game species?

    The whole UN, civil rights laws conspiracy thing is kinda laughable.

    As far as the USFWS “stealing” money to fund the wolf introductions, I’ll be honest, I don’t know if that’s true. But if it was just a shift in the appropriation of monies that the Agency had, and he didn’t like what they were doing with it, that’s not illegal.

    The kicker is the reference to Chenowith. She’s got some great one liners – “Wolves are trespassers in her state”, etc.

    I won’t even respond to anything relating to Geist, he’s a hack.

    If there are more wolves, the risk of attack to humans increases, very simple idea. Be more cautious. So if I go scuba diving or surfing and get attacked by a great white, the answer us to kill the sharks???? These people are insane

  9. jon Says:

    http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=130313

    The yahoo they are referring to is Jim Beers.

  10. Mooseboy Says:

    What is even scarier is that people honestly believe this BS that Beers says. MAD, I’m sure that after wolves sharks are next on Beers list to eliminate.

  11. william huard Says:

    My basic question is how is Jim beers considered a wolf-policy expert? The man is a loon. Conspiracy theories abound- next week it will be shelter puppies that are destoying our freedom. The right wing in this country has a very different view of what constitutes freedom

    • jon Says:

      Wlliam, Beers doesn’t like anything that involves the federal government.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      william huard,

      All you have to do is put up a web site, get a few friends, and maybe a donation, and you can call yourself an expert. Once a few of the media cover you that way, you are on your way as an expert.

      To prevent that, many credentialing boards have been established for doctors, lawyers, professors, and other professions. Some have quasi-legal powers, but in the end if you can convince people you are an expert, for the purposes of political and social influence, you are one.

      How did Glen Beck qualify to have a program about politics that millions listen to and believe? On the left, remember that Keith Obermann was a sports newscaster.

  12. Immer Treue Says:

    If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, out financed, and out voted. Their narrow and biased attitude must be outweighed by an attitude based on an understanding of natural processes.

    L. David Mech

    Don’t be afraid to go elsewhere, and express your views, back it up whenever you can, and be polite, because every one responding here is preaching to the choir.

  13. Mtn Mama Says:

    Beers is a scary man. I dont like to stereotype but how many of these right-wing wolf-haters are NOT caucasian, middle age, middle class Males? I didnt throw in overweight but would guess its a decent percentage also. Do I sound like him with generalizing??

    • timz Says:

      I don’t know Mama I fit that description to a tee and I love wolves. 🙂

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I rarely see minorities (if ever) in the mountains. Be it blacks (African American), Asians, Indians (from India) etc…I do see Peruvians, but they do not speak english so I just give them a beer and some food and send them on there way. They always look like they’re starving. Anywho, of course white males are going to outnumber other ethnicities and even genders. I rarely see females in the woods either. White males seem to be the only people that enjoy the wilderness and NF.

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        timz,
        Sorry my friend. Like I said- there are dangers to generalizing- ha!

    • Spangle Lakes Says:

      wolf moderate – you rarely see females in the woods? Where do you live – Iran? Obviously you don’t get out into the woods much.

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        wolf moderate,
        If you dont see me in the mountains, climb higher- its not often I get a cold beer above treeline. You may even catch me on a day when I am carrying my daughter – then you can see 2 females in the woods.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I rarely see females in the woods compared to males. I’d say approx 10-15% are females (you don’t agree w/ that?). I spend 2-3 months in mountains a year. I rarely see native americans, asians, or blacks either. I see alot of white guys, of which many are overweight. Mtn Mama was right in that regard lol.

        I was hiking into the SNRA out of Grandjean to hunt for elk and saw 2 lesbians on horseback w/ a dog. I’m not kidding. I saw one other female w/ her husband while bowhunting out of Stanley and that’s it that I can remember. Didn’t see 1 black person or native american.

      • petticoat rebellion Says:

        Most Native Americans live in their own “wilderness areas”…they’re called RESERVATIONS. And if we are out in wilderness areas off the REZ, we already saw you first and got the hell out there…haha!

        I have a lot of other women & minority friends who don’t go in the woods because of fear…some are afraid of the wildlife, or hearing banjo music out there, and running into people like Jim Beers & his ilk. You can thank movies like “Deliverance” for that.

        As for me, I’m a child of the wild, a female minority that can’t get enough time in the wilderness, maybe when I retire.

        BTW, there are some groups that are working to get more females & minorities, especially from urban areas, out in the wilderness. Find one in your area and volunteer if you can, or start your group.😀

      • wolf moderate Says:

        the “deliverence” shot was a good one. I guess minorities are scared to go in the wilderness because of inbred hillbillies and hillbillies are scared to go into predoninately black neighborhoods because they don’t want to be killed. Look at the MSNBC series on prisons and you will see how rampant racism is between blacks and hispanics, and blacks and whites. Pretty sad.

        Anywho, I will be sure to become a community organizer and get minorities into the Natiional Forests and wilderness areas. I already try to get females to go to the mountains all the time, but for some reason they don’t wanna go. Weird.

        Who knows, this (community organizer) experience might be enough to get into higher office! 🙂

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Wolf Mod and others,

        A lot of “misunderstanding” in Wisconsin

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-16-hunter-homicide_x.htm

  14. wolf moderate Says:

    LOL. Most of this is pretty crazy. This one was especially looney, “Countries that allowed wolves to persist don’t have an advanced civilization now – they’re like Africa.”

    This makes sense though: ” Other ideas: only species endangered worldwide can be listed under ESA/only species”

    • jon Says:

      I don’t agree with that. Wolverines for instance are not endangered worldwide, but they are in america. Should they become a protected species? You betcha.

    • JB Says:

      wolf moderate:

      Only listing species that are endangered worldwide was the approach used in the legislation that preceded the ESA (the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969).

      This “idea” is brought up time and again with predators such as wolves, lynx, grizzly bears, and jaguar–all of which once roamed the US until we exterminated them via sustained effort–by people who do not understand the history of species eradication and subsequent protection within the US.

      The net effect of this type of change would be allowing for the wholesale removal of inconvenient species within the US with the justification that there are plenty elsewhere.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        That’s why I’m here. I didn’t think about that (embarrassed). Thanks for pointing that out to me. But, there should be a mechanism to discourage organizations from abusing the ESA to achieve there objectives. It seems that lots of money is burned up litigating lots of stupid chit frankly.

      • JB Says:

        I certainly don’t think the ESA is perfect, but I do believe a lot of the recent criticism about the ESA is disingenuous. One thing to remember in all of this is that federal courts grant agency actions a wide degree of deference in how the interpret ambiguous language in a statute and how agencies interpret science; yet, despite this deference, FWS and NMFS actions are judged “arbitrary and capricious” again and again.

        The ESA usually isn’t an issue; however, once the politicians get involved funny things happen. If you ever get a chance, rent/buy “Battle for the Klamath” (http://battlefortheklamath.blogspot.com/). My favorite part is when the Bureau of Reclamation biologist tells the NOAA fisheries folks that they cannot show him that endangered salmon will die without water. Priceless.

      • JB Says:

        Oh, I forgot the best part: when they Bureau gave the water to the farmers in Oregon in 2002 in a dry year, flows were so low that salmon could not migrate upstream. A minimum estimate is that 33,000 died without spawning. So the farmers got the water and the recreational and commercial fisherman, along with two native tribes that had fishing rights, got hosed. And that was WITH ESA protections.

      • Salle Says:

        But, there should be a mechanism to discourage organizations from abusing the ESA to achieve there objectives. It seems that lots of money is burned up litigating lots of stupid chit frankly.

        I don’t get the part of abuse via litigation… The Act states that US District Courts will be where disputes about interpretation of specifics in the Act will be remedied. NGO funding for these actions are provided through donations from members, the state and federal agencies are funded through taxpayer dollars. You’re not making sense after making this claim ~ and having it explained to you numerous times ~ that NGOs do not use public/taxpayer funds for litigation purposes, in fact they don’t get taxpayers funds. If you are so sure that his is really the case, that NGOs use taxpayer funds for litigation, then please provide proof of this because I think you’re singing the same song as the wolf-haters who make this same claim.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        JB said:
        “One thing to remember in all of this is that federal courts grant agency actions a wide degree of deference in how the interpret ambiguous language in a statute and how agencies interpret science; yet, despite this deference, FWS and NMFS actions are judged “arbitrary and capricious” again and again.”

        I couldn’t agree more. This is a real problem, and it cuts both ways. Language is imperfect and leaves inevitable wiggle room in the law. Agencies are supposed to solidify the law with regulations. If those regulations are supported by evidence, the court isn’t supposed to substitute its judgment for that of the agency even if the court might come to a different conclusion.

        But they often do. Rather than apply an “arbitrary and capricious” standard, they apply the “convince the biased judge to his own level of personal satisfaction” standard. The judge’s determination of what is arbitrary or capricious can itself be arbitrary and capricious.
        For example:

        Scalia’s dissent in Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources – cutting down a tree where an endangered bird nests doesn’t “harm” the species directly enough to count under the ESA.

        Molloy’s rulings in GYC v. Servheen – whether delisting plan adequately protected Grizzly bear; whether decline of whitebark pine seeds, which are used as a food source for grizzly bears, endangered the bear’s existence. The scientific evidence was uncertain. FWS said whitebark decline probably did not endanger the bears, and delisted based on upward population trends. The judge disagreed with FWS’s scientific interpretation of uncertain and ambiguous data projected into the future, and relisted.

        Additionally, the judge’s requirement of “adequate regulatory mechanisms” also surpassed the actual requirements of the ESA. The ESA doesn’t require “adequate” regulatory mechanisms for delisting. It says that an animal is endangered if “INadequate” regulatory mechanisms fail to protect its continued existence from other sources of harm. Those are different things to prove. One involves actual present conditions, and one requires speculating the hypothetical effects of regulations into an uncertain future.

        Wyoming v. Dept. of Interior – FWS found Wyoming’s wolf management plan inadequate because wolves could be shot on sight in 88% of Wyoming, and this would hinder genetic connectivity. The judge disagreed.

        The ample evidence FWS presented didn’t convince the Wyoming judge, who required “new” and “meaningful” scientific data to “ineluctably” support FWS’s position that wolves are unlikely to successfully disperse through a free-fire zone full of people who hate them.

        Because the scientific evidence presented didn’t personally satisfy the judge, he declared FWS’s rejection of Wyoming’s plan to be arbitrary and capricious. It wasn’t that FWS’s position was unsupported, it was that the judge disagreed with their conclusion. Essentially, FWS got “hometowned”.

  15. freeanclear Says:

    Where is the attack on public workers in wisc. Asking them to pay for a portion of there healthcare, their pension at the expense of non public workers who pay portions or all of healthcare, many with no pension but 401s that require their own contribution and then have your neighbor pubilic worker grin everytime he sees you thinking to himself, your picking up his tab too!! Didn’t realize that was such a novel new approach. Read past the tv screen, u will see.they are not losing anything, only coming back from there high perch to the private emplyee. Only an academic or pubilc employee can see this as good az they are so acccustomed to this kind of unbridled greener. Oh, don’t see anyone complaining about the nasty signage being diplayed on courthouse steps either. I guess those must be redneck tea partiers that don’t have anything to do but find some kind of issue to go put up nasty mazi signs. Where is the outrage that was so prevalent before the last elections over nasty signs and such. Just goes to show, the true grass footers of pelosi i’ll are just as redneck, no count as the so called teapartiers. Pull yourself away from the tv dean back over two years of wisc budget and read the proposal, not asking any more than what anyone should expect. Contribute to your own retirement, contribute to your own healthcare.

    • timz Says:

      It’s a political attempt to balance a budget on the backs of public emplyees. With the mantra of “absolutely no new taxes” what are private sector employees giving up to balance the budget? Since there are more of them then public sector employees using the schools, roads, etc., they’re getting a free ride. And if you listen to the opposition the concessions aren’t the issue, it’s losing their collective bargaining rights.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        timz,

        Well said. We are also looking at a sector of society that had jobs/careers that no one else really wanted, because they were relatively low paying, low status jobs. Now that the economy is in the tank, it’s not, “oh man, I wish I had that job”, but more of, “If I can’t have that job and benefits, they can’t have it either attitude.”

  16. Alan Says:

    “….since there is no difference between Mexican wolves, red wolves and gray wolves….”
    Wait a minute! Stop the presses! Does this mean that we can finally put the fierce, and dreaded “Canadian wolf” to bed? If all wolves are the same, that MUST mean that the re-introduced wolves are the same as the wolves that originally inhabited the region! At least that’s settled!
    Also, if an animal can’t be endangered if their are plenty of them elsewhere, then let’s stop whining about the lack of elk in the Lolo (for example). There are plenty of elk in Alaska and Canada! Guess we can put that to bed now too, along with that pesky Northern Yellowstone herd. Who cares if there are only 4,000?

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Alan,

      You beat me to it!

    • Jeff N. Says:

      Well said Alan…..Great points….Damn, I wish you would have been there mention these points. I can visualize the looks on the faces of Beers and the attendees…first the one of confusion and bewilderment…progressing to twisted faces of anger as they realize you are correct but refuse to accept or process the accuracy of your statement….and finally a full blown “shout down” as heads explode.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        The analogy doesn’t really fly. Wolves are a net loss for rural areas, whereas elk are a huge net gain. W/ the loss of mining and logging, one of the only things left is hunters. W/o them, the towns would go broke in many areas.

        I do see your point, it’s just like comparing apples and oranges.

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Wolf Moderate –

        Why do you view wildlife solely as an economic entity, what does it say about you or the communities whose, as you say, entire existence depends on the hunting of a single animal and why should the rest of the country share this same view? The entire country is struggling thru this economic downturn. If a state or community is really that dependent on the hunting of an animal to sustain its economic viability then doesn’t the blame lie squarely on the community or state in question? Sounds like a bad business model, very unsustainable. Why scapegoat a wild dog?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I’m saying the rural communities are transitioning from logging and mining and therefore hunting revenues are now very important. I guess I view everything w/ economic benefit/loss. Our country is going seriously broke and if we don’t find ways to “make wildlife pay”, then people/govt will pillage the forests, rivers, and mountains. I just do not understand how we as a country compete in this global economy. Our standard of living is artificially high and is due for a very large correction. Basically w/in the next few yrs, budget cuts will become incredibly drastic and the govt will start to look for new revenue streams. Why not start clearcutting, mining, etc…to get some easy money in the govt coffers? Alright, basically what is wrong w/ profiting from wildlife. It makes them even more likely to become a sacred cow.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “what does it say about you or the communities whose, as you say, entire existence depends on the hunting of a single animal and why should the rest of the country share this same view?”

        Why is it that people from outside the states involved (that have already raped and pillaged there ecosystems) can come out here and dictate what the states in question can/can’t do in there own state? Do you see people from western states dictating what east coast states can/can’t do in there states pertaining to wildlife? No. Why? Cuz it’s none of our biz and it’s there state.

        Yeah, Yeah. Federal lands are everyones land. Well, that isn’t really “fair”, because western states have like 10x the public land that east coast states have. I say all states should have a % of the there state as federal. So NY, RI, HI, etc.. Should all have the same amount (percentage wise) as western states. What is wrong w/ that?🙂

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Wolf Moderate –

        I live in AZ, where wolf reintroduction is occuring, I feel at the leas,t minimally qualified to comment on western wildlife management issues.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Anyone is allowed to comment on wildlife issues. Half the state is yours lol. AK and ID have more fed land than state land. My point was that it shouldn’t. Who am I to tell anyone what to do. Just expressing my opinion. These “issues” are really getting on my nerves. Good luck. Watch for coyotes in AZ. I here they are all over the border. I’m trending more and more right everyday. I hate the GOP but the teabaggers I’m starting to dig. They are for states rights so….who knows! :*)

      • Alan Says:

        “…Wolves are a net loss for rural areas, whereas elk are a huge net gain….”
        Oops! My mistake. I thought we were talking about science, not self serving special interests.
        You are right, though, sad statement on our species that it is: money does make the world go around; which brings us back to the 35 million dollars wolf watchers bring every year. Not all of that is spent in and around Yellowstone. A lot of it is spent passing through other areas, for gas, lodging, food etc. both on the way to and from the National Parks.
        Regarding hunting, I have several neighbors who hunt and every year they groan about how the wolves have killed all the elk, and every year they come home with an elk in the back of their pickup trucks. Elk numbers are down drastically in a few areas. Region wide they are doing fine. Who’s to say that they wouldn’t be down in those areas wolves or not? Many say they would due to degrading habitat.
        “It’s not fair that Federal lands are everyones lands?!” Seriously? What could be more fair than “Ralph’s Ranch” or “Alan’s Ranch” or “Wolf Moderate’s Ranch”? Land that we are all free to use? Doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor. Most folks that live in states with little federal land are very jealous of those of us fortunate enough to have a lot of it. These states would love to have the federal lands we have. Don’t kid yourself. Why do you think tourism is the (official) number two industry in the state of Montana? They aren’t coming here because of our beautiful cow pastures, nor are many coming for our state parks (as beautiful as they are). Would you rather we all had to go, hat in hand, to private land owners and beg permission to go camping, hiking, fishing, hunting? Is Texas your idea of the ideal state model? Because I can pretty much tell ya that if all this federal land was turned over to the states it wouldn’t be long before it would be sold off to special interests to fill state coffers. What little would be left would be so crowded as to make it unusable for anyone seeking a true outdoor experience.
        “Why is it that people from outside the states involved (that have already raped and pillaged there (sic) ecosystems) can come out here and dictate what the states in question can/can’t do in there (sic) own state?” Maybe BECAUSE they have (or their ancesters have) already ‘raped and pillaged their ecosystems’, and because of that they know and understand just how precious an intact ecosystem is. Perhaps, just perhaps, we, surrounded as we are with beautiful National Forests that we are free to use whenever we choose, can’t see the forest for the trees, and could use a little advice from folks for whom it is now too late? You never miss it until it’s gone, as they say.
        BTW, I think my analogy soars like an eagle.

    • jon Says:

      And everytime a hunter or a rancher tells you that canadian wolves are non native, just tell them that every Jim Beers, one of the biggest wolf haters we have here in the us says there is no difference between mexican wolves, red wolves, etc. Elk are doing far better than wolves as there are many more of them. I laugh at everytime I see someone say that elk are going on the esl because of the wolves.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I agree Jon. I was only saying that to try and compare wolves to elk is not a very good argument. If there is a lack of wolves in a specific area it doesn’t affect local residents, but if there is a decline in elk populations then it does affect the locals. That’s all I’m saying. Yeah, yeah, who cares about the locals affected. Well, money makes the world go round not wolves. Gotta find a way to make wolves an assen and not a liability. Gonna be hard to build a tourist industry around wolves outside of YNP. Just too hard to locate reliably and on a consistent basis.

        And there aren’t many elk in AK (kodiak, SE AK is about it). I did see a huge bull elk just west of Whitehorse, which was a trip.

      • Cody Coyote Says:

        Every time a rancher tells us that the reintroduced Northern Rockies Grey Wolves are not ” native” to the Lower 48 states , ask him where his Hereford, Angus, Charolais, Simmental cattle and/or Ramouillet, Morino,Hempshire , or Scottish Blackface sheep came from . Or his friggin’ hogs and prize rooster , for that matter.

  17. Immer Treue Says:

    I listened to about twenty minutes of his drivel, and it would have been nice to have someone there to debate him topic by topic.

    Another one was, in lower 48 there were only wolves in N. Minnesota. I guess that also puts an end to the illegally introduced C. occidentalis killing the wolves that were still native to the NRM states.

    • mikarooni Says:

      Nobody would have been able to “debate him topic by topic.” They would have been used as foil for 30 seconds or so without being allowed to get a word back in; then, they would have been shouted down or punched out.

    • jon Says:

      Everytime you hear this non native argument being brought up, you have to ask yourself, would they argue against elk or deer being reintroduced? I don’t believe so. They will make up any reason they can to not want wolves in their state.

      • ProWolf in WY Says:

        Jon, the native.non native argument does get so old. Notice how there are no complaints about mountain goats being introduced to several western states outside of their native range, to moose being introduced in southern Colorado, Rocky Mountain elk being introduced into Arizona and New Mexico, gemsbok and aoudad in New Mexico, or pheasants, chukars, or huns introduced all over, or even turkeys introduced in many areas where they are not native. Since all of these are fun to shoot and don’t eat things that are fun to shoot I guess that must make it okay? How many of these people making this argument would be eager to hunt any one of these animals?

      • JEFF E Says:

        There is an opinion of the solicitor general that it is legal to use P-R funds to introduce viable eggs of a non indigenous species of game bird into the western US. That was in 1949

    • jon Says:

      I’m somewhat patient and listened to the whole hour of it to see what he had to say. Everything that he said, I suspected he would have said. He used to work for adc, so I’m not surprised at the attitude he has towards animals, specifically predators like wolves. He calls wolves government introduced wolves. Clearly, this guy does not like the federal govt, a govt, he used to work for until he got fired. Does anyone know why he got fired? He seems like a bitter person who has an axe to pick with the feds because they fired him.

      • mikarooni Says:

        I don’t know and don’t know if anyone really knows the “official” reason he got fired; but, between his blatant political bias, which he seems to have been very willing to bring to work with him, and his aforementioned references to “women and minorities,” there’s plenty there that could have made him undesirable to have as an example of the DOI.

      • jon Says:

        Mika, I heard and I don’t know if this is true, could only be a rumor, but I heard that he discovered the supposed theft from the pittsman robert fund to be used for wolf reintroduction and was supposedly going to go public with it and that is why he was fired. Again, this is just a rumor, so who really knows for sure.

      • mikarooni Says:

        More likely that he got fired for other reasons and is using the improper wolf reintroduction funding story as a cover, to get attention from his crowd, and to save face. I’ve heard so many stories from the rednecks about how they were going to uncover the truth and trash us in court. I’ve seen none of them, zip, nada, turn out to be anything more than a puff of gas. I’ll believe Beers story when he takes to court, proves it, and gets a ruling in his favor.

  18. Ann Sydow Says:

    And the most outspoken of anti-wolfers call Jim Beers “a great man.” That speaks volumes about them.

  19. JEFF E Says:

    Jim Beers is a shill. In addition, in my opinion, after hearing an unedited recording of a presentation by him, he is a racist on top of it. And this is what different state legislatures and other elected officials are listening too. the really sad aspect is that all of his talking points are either greatly exaggerated or completely false. It took me about four hours to completely debunk two of his points that he talks about at every whistle stop. But none of the government entities or much less the people that follow him around like lap dogs even think about cross checking his drivel. Just accept every thing he spouts as gods truth.

    • JEFF E Says:

      In addition it will never be taken to court as Bob Fanning has claimed for over four years now will happen. It will always be the propaganda of some huge magic lawsuit. That way shills such as Beers will always have an audience to spread his hate and pustulation.

      • jon Says:

        I believe Bobby is still trying to get donations to fund his lawsuit. Poor little guy is having trouble getting the funds for his lawsuit. Anyone can see his lawsuit is going nowhere. If they had any proof what so ever, they would have released it a while ago. Not waited all these years claiming they are going to expose the truth about the illegal introduction of canadian wolves. Supposedly, rockhead is releasing a documentary due out soon called yellowstone is dying. He says he’s going to expose the truth in it. How many times have we heard that?

  20. IDhiker Says:

    “Why is it that people from outside the states involved (that have already raped and pillaged there ecosystems) can come out here and dictate what the states in question can/can’t do in there own state?” – Wolf Moderate

    Wolf Moderate, are you trying to say that Idaho and Montana should be allowed to “rape and pillage” their states, too? So Idaho and Montana can be like Indiana, New york, or whatever?

    The reason Idaho and Montana have such a high percentage of Federal land compared to other states, is the other states were already wrecked before the settlers got out here. Perhaps those in Montana and Idaho who resent these public lands should move back east where they won’t have to put up with Federal interference.

    • Salle Says:

      Absolutely. I live here because of all the federal lands.

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      I also live here because of the Federal land. I personally find big brother less bothersome than fenced off private land where I have no access. I enjoy being able to go swim or fish at a lake that isn’t completely owned and surrounded by summer homes.

      “Perhaps those in Montana and Idaho who resent these public lands should move back east where they won’t have to put up with Federal interference.”

      I hear Texas is lovely. Wouldn’t you rather be free to breathe polluted air, drink polluted water, and smell your neighbor’s pig farm? After all, the taxes are low.

      Sometimes regulations make us more free. “Freedom is the recognition of necessity.”

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      I was also born here, and am generally in favor of environmental regulation. I’m not dictating what people can/can’t do in their own state, I’m dictating what people can/can’t do in MY state.
      It’s also one country, and out of state people deserve some say of how the land is treated in THEIR country. These forests aren’t State forests, they are NATIONAL forests.

      I’m sick of people advancing their interests by claiming ownership and tradition. Your ancestors did not hunt by four wheelers. Even if damaging land use practices were undertaken in the past, that doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do then either. Public land doesn’t belong to any narrow group. It doesn’t belong to you or any mythological homogeneous local population.

  21. Alan Gregory Says:

    He reminds me of the hunters who drive down a habitat-fragmenting road at night and then get mad when they don’t spot a deer from the pickup window.

  22. MAD Says:

    as far as the native, non-native issue….

    I’m proud if the fact that I grew up in New York City, and worked for 20 years as an underpaid, unappreciated civil servant (don’t get me started on the union issue in Wisconsin).

    It’s exactly because I grew up there that I came to love MT, and to now practice law here. And I’ll be damned if some nitwit says that I have less of a right to express my opinion or act upon my values because my parents and grandparents were born elsewhere. THIS is where I live and work now, by choice. Last I checked in the U.S. we were free to move around the country and change our residences.

    NYC is a great place to live if you don’t mind 8 million other people and a metro area of over 12 mill. It bothered me about the pollution, the crowding, the horrible land use planning and lack of significant outdoor recreation or “natural” environs in which to visit (2 hours to Catskills and 4 hrs to Adirondacks).

    Travel to the East and West coasts to see how people have destroyed the environment and ask yourself if that’s what you want for MT, ID & WY?

    • jon Says:

      That is the type of people you have to deal with in MT. If you don’t share the same views as them, they consider you an outsider or a transplant from some liberal city.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Hey jon,

        Earlier I was trying to illustrate a point that it’s really not fair that people from outside the states in question have input on how to manage wildlife only because of the federal lands. The states on the eastcoast have very little federal lands so it’s unfair that they get more say as to how other states manage there wildlife. I don’t hear of people from ID, MT, WY etc…telling NY, CT, PA, etc…on how to manage there wildlife.

        Is it because they do not care (probably) or because they have no say in the matter since there is essentially no federal land in many east coast states? It’s great when anyone participates in the management of wildlife, either from the state or not, but not when they frivolously sue when the state doesn’t act in a way to there liking.

        Jon, is your dad the publisher of a wooden boat magazine? If you do not feel like answering that’s ok. Seeya.

      • Salle Says:

        I don’t hear of people from ID, MT, WY etc…telling NY, CT, PA, etc…on how to manage there wildlife.

        Maybe that’s because they don’t a rat’s a$$ about anything outside their own little isolated lives. Like MAD said:

        And I’ll be damned if some nitwit says that I have less of a right to express my opinion or act upon my values because my parents and grandparents were born elsewhere. THIS is where I live and work now, by choice. Last I checked in the U.S. we were free to move around the country and change our residences.

        I have to agree wholeheartedly… because that is absolutely correct. A freedom that we all enjoy.

      • JEFF E Says:

        One aspect of this conversation,aside from the fact of federal lands owned by each and every citizen equally, from Guam to the Virgin islands, is the amount of federal money each state receives as opposed to what is contributed. In fact those states that receive less than what they contribute may even deserve a bigger voice. If not why not?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I look at it as subsizing the states for not being able to run there states as they’d like. If AK wants a natural gas line to Valdez or where ever, it should be up to the state to decide this, not people in Washington that want the state to be there personal playgroun/zoo. So, if the fed’s want to deny projects that would be highly profitable, then the states should rightfully get more than states that have less fed land, thus less restrictions.

  23. MAD Says:

    “The states on the eastcoast have very little federal lands so it’s unfair that they get more say as to how other states manage there wildlife. I don’t hear of people from ID, MT, WY etc…telling NY, CT, PA, etc…on how to manage there wildlife.”

    But herein lies the problem I have. We are talking about FEDERAL lands, not State or local. Every American has an equal right to comment and participate regarding federal interests. So, are you honestly saying that your argument is based solely on the fact that MT, ID and WY have more federal acreage? Then using this logic, folks in the Northwest should have no say in the oil drilling done in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska, or the potential Marcellus Shale drilling (huge natural gas deposits) on the east coast because you live in a distant zip code? Or are you implying that the residents of MT, ID and WY are just smarter than us east coast bred interlopers?

    Imagine for a moment that you had relatives who died at Antietam, or Gettysburg or Jonesborough, GA (as I do); and the Park Service tomorrow decides that they want to develop the site for natural gas extraction, or build affordable housing. Do you think it’s fair that I can argue because you don’t live in Maryland, or PA or Georgia that your opinion or input is not needed, wanted or valued. C’mon…surely your argument has to have a little more weight than just geography.

    If we’re talking about federal lands and interests that are held under the “public trust doctrine” by the Feds for the American people, then I believe that we all have a right (and obligation) to comment and participate equally. End of story. I don’t care that federal land is distributed unevenly throughout the U.S. I’m an American citizen, I pay my federal taxes, and I vote; therefore I should be afforded the same respect and opportunity as any other American, regardless of their background, money, politics and opinion.

    Is that idealistic, and naive? To an extent, yes. But then again, I wouldn’t be involved in environmental law if I weren’t idealistic – instead I would be chasing around ambulances or working for corporations making bucketloads of cash.

    • rtobasco Says:

      Smarter than an eastern interloper? Just taint so. But I’ll be danged if I’m going to let some suit, whose only exposure to wildlands has come via a coddling outfitter and some romantic notions as a result of reading too much Hemingway, tell us how to manage our lives. That would be like me pushing my way into Wall Street and attempting to dictate how to run the economy. Not a realistic picture at all is it? I’d be willing to bet I’d get run out of town in a New York minute. However I have seen “Wall Street” and I have in the past enjoyed the chance to peruse the WS Journal on occassion. Maybe I’m qualified after-all.

      One of the biggest problems I see with the evolvement of the west as I once knew it has been too many suits and too much money coming in here. You folks move here because of the lifestyle and the opportunity to be “closer to the land.” It is you and your kind that have driven development into what once were wildlands. Your rude and arrogant ways have made it harder for all of us to enjoy being outside. I don’t begrudge your love of the land and I can accept reasonable change. But I’m real tired and fed up with folks coming from other parts of the country and wanting to impose change because “this isn’t the way we do things where I come from.” Get on back home then!

      Now my redneck is showing – but the older I get the more pride I take in my logging, ranching and hunting heritage. I have read posts throughout this website and it seems a majority of folks would have us return to time before the white man arrived on the scene. Quite a romantic thought I suppose. But that’s not today’s reality.

      Truly, most of you know that can’t be. But that doesn’t stop you from wanting to lock up the land and chase the ranchers and loggers into oblivion and bring back the cuddly little wolves to boot. I’ll be the first to admit that past practices by ranchers and loggers have at times been less than perfect. But among folks who are on the ground, i.e., the working man, there is generally a keen understanding and appreciation of responsible stewardship. That also means practical solutions to problems when they arise.

      Wolves are here to stay. We accept that fact and there are those among us who don’t like it much, but we do accept it. Lets manage them when and where its necessary (There will always be a necessity somewhere – you had better accept that) and move on. Only when it has been proven for more thana couple of years that wolves can be managed and not eradicated can folks from either side of this issue settle down and deal with more important things. But as long as suits and such from way off parts of the country are able to impose their romantic desires via a biased court system we will have no resolution.

      Granted there are a bunch of bozos who call themselves “sportsmen” who are way to keen on OHV’s and the like. They give the rest of us a bad name. But then my personal experience leads me to believe that a majority of that kind taint from round these parts neither. I would love to run them and their atrophied arses out too.

      We’ve hundreds of thousands of acres that could benefit from responsible logging to stem the spread of bark beetles, etc. and improve wildlife habitat. Or – we can wait for the inevitable as forest fuels build to dangerous levels. Sooner or later the perfect storm will pay a return visit and we will have wide spread catastrophic fires (I hope sooner rather than later). Hopefully we’ll be smart enough to get out of the way and let burn. Might as well if we can’t log any more, eh Mr. Environmental lawyer?

      There have been thousands of locals put out of work at the whim of eastern interlopers (includes Californians) and their ilk. Our economy is depressed. That used to be a good thing because it tended to keep your kind at bay. Now that technology allows you folks to come squatting – giving you the chance to exert your high falutin influence on us backwoods types – life in the west will surely never be as good as it once was.

      MAD, as far as I can tell you’re just another suit itching for a chance to tell us how to run our lives. Though you may say different, and you probably already do, you’ll never be from around these parts. May our paths never cross. Of course you can make my dream come true by hitching up your wagon and headin back up the trail you wandered in here on.

      • MAD Says:

        the above post says it all, I can’t even argue with such brilliance, clarity and outright superiority. I think I’ll leave now because the man behind the curtain has spoken. thanks for heads up

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “One of the biggest problems I see with the evolvement of the west as I once knew it has been too many suits and too much money coming in here. You folks move here because of the lifestyle and the opportunity to be “closer to the land.” It is you and your kind that have driven development into what once were wildlands.”

        Isn’t that why your ancestors moved here too? The opportunity for something better? I bet the area around New York City was very nice a couple hundred years ago. That’s probably why people moved there. Then it got so crowded that you couldn’t walk ten steps without stepping on someone else’s toes. Regulations became necessary to keep people from constant conflict. People moved west to escape the bullshit people bring with them.

        More people = more conflict = more rules. It’s not a matter of telling people how to live their lives, it’s a practical matter of long-term survival and necessity. Iraq used to be the heart of the “fertile crescent,” but centuries of poor land management have built up salt in the soil and destroyed the land’s productivity. See: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030720&slug=civilization20

        We’re ALL products of population growth and technology, thus we’re all responsible for environmental conflicts. Backwoods people have kids too.

        I don’t think anyone really believes we’re going to go back to 1491. Of course there’s going to be logging – we all use toilet paper. Still, it should be done responsibly. Frankly, looking at a massive square clearcut makes a lot of people not give a damn if a few more loggers are out of work – if that’s what they represent.

        The extreme abuses ruin it for the responsible ones, but if there were no laws, there would be a “race for the bottom.” The guy who cut the most corners would make the most money, and you’d see a lot more extreme abuses. It’s hard to strike a balance when the only tool one guy has is the hammer, and the other has an incentive to take as much as he can get away with.

        Likewise, I think a lot of us wouldn’t have a problem with the wolves coming off the list and even being hunted if legislators and others didn’t have such an obvious seething desire to exterminate and confine them into tiny little token populations as soon as they are delisted. Every time I see a “smoke a pack a day” bumper sticker, it does nothing but disgusts me that humanity is really that stupid. If delisting means caving to those idiots, you can bet the bulk of the lawsuits will tilt the other direction.

        Nature is inconvenient sometimes. Backpacking would be easier if there were no bears around. But rather than cursing the bears, I just store my food where they can’t get it and try not to startle them out on the trails. I recognize they have some redeeming values even if they inconvenience me sometimes. They are part of what makes the woods what it is. I think the callous disregard and hatred for nature’s inconvenience turns a lot of people off – not just romanticizing “city people” either.

        You sound overall like a reasonable person, but I don’t see this issue as a conscious conspiracy of city people vs. rural people. Jobs got shipped overseas because cheap labor and lax environmental regulation nets corporations more profits. People buy that crap at Wal Mart because the price tag is lower than stuff made here. Environmental laws got passed here because almost everyone got tired of rivers catching on fire and people getting cancer/heavy metal poisoning from industrial byproducts. The predicament we’re in is just a function of the sum total of human stupidity, greed, and population growth. The path forward will always require change. That change will be more difficult for some people than others. History marches on with little regard for people’s feelings. Maybe it’s not fair, but it’s the result of the choices we make to have more babies, buy disposable products made in China, and keep our homes 72 degrees year round.

    • Salle Says:

      Smarter than an eastern interloper? Just taint so. But I’ll be danged if I’m going to let some suit, whose only exposure to wildlands has come via a coddling outfitter and some romantic notions as a result of reading too much Hemingway, tell us how to manage our lives. That would be like me pushing my way into Wall Street and attempting to dictate how to run the economy.

      Um, not quite.

      Your rude and arrogant ways have made it harder for all of us to enjoy being outside.

      Funny, that’s what anyone who goes out to enjoy the outdoors and is accosted by the “road lice” ATVs. Doesn’t matter where you’re from, but mostly it’s the folks that live nearby that are the culprits.

      Taken a look in the mirror lately? These comments show a lack of understanding the country you live in.

  24. Billijo Beck Says:

    In the lobby beforehand was a raffle that included items such as an Alaskan wolf pelt ($900) and the thing most people were standing in line for, an engraved “SSS” rifle.
    Ummm Guys. Not to be a thorn or something. But What Engraved SSS rifle would that be. Considering I am the one that had the rifle from the RMEF and I didn’t get there until the event was almost over with the Gun.
    See, When I arrived….Everyone was inside the room listening to Mr. Beers speak. and Funny I had to Make my Own sign And it sure as Hell didn’t say SSS rifle.
    However, It was on the Idaho For wildlife Table.
    So Please tell me again how EVERYONE was Lined up at the Table that Held the SSS Engraved Gun before the event started.
    Oh, and another thing. The crowd believe it or not was Normal looking people. Not the crowd like described on here, Of course described on here there was also this HUGE LINE for a Mysterious SSS gun.
    And Another Thing. No body from here who attended this Didn’t say Hi to me. My feelings are Hurt.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I’m really bummed I missed the Beers convention (?). Is he speaking in Boise again, or are there other people due to talk about wolves coming up aroun the Boise area?
      Thanks.

  25. Doryfun Says:

    Hey Dude the Bagman,

    Have’t checked this thread for awhile, but now that I have, it was worth it, just in finding your last post. Very good. You hit a lot of pertinent points, right on, in my estimation.
    If I remember correctly from some other post somewhere, you are in the legal profession?? While I will continue to tell laywer jokes, I have always appreciated that profession, and early on urged my lawyer friends to go into environmental law – because that is where the real battles take place. Of course, that was back when there was not much money in it, so not many were willing to enter that arena. It is not a profession I could ever do, but I find it interesting, and appreciate it, despite the frustrating parts of it too.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: