# Hot topic???



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lets start out with a question, then I will connect it to real life.

Lets say you see a man drowning. You throw him a rope, but as you start to pull him in he asks you how much your going to pay him to rescue him? Your astounded and ask what? He says he thinks it would be fair to pay him $10 per foot as you pull the rope in and save his life. Does this make sense to you?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So you are asking.... Would you still save the man or would you let him drown?

I would save him because that is what god, my family and my up bringing taught me to do. But he would have one heck of a time collecting the $$...or would get a fat lip if you catch my drift.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

I'd let him drown for the greater good! k:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

lol, ya tough decision. I think I'll go with chuck.

OK now for the real world. You know those ranchers in Idaho are being eaten out of house and home by wolves. I think it's real cheap to get a license. Gas would be the big expense to get there. Now I'm not going to say much more I want you guys to go to google and check out wolves in Idaho, stockmen's groups, wolf license money dispersal, private land wolf hunting, etc

See what some think of hunters coming to help. See where they think license money should go. Find out for yourselves because what I say may be wrong. :rollin:


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Just remember no good deed goes unpunished.

Chuck Norris plays racquetball with a waffle iron and a bowling ball.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

People said:


> Just remember no good deed goes unpunished.


Isn't that the truth. I often said that jokingly, but have noticed it come true to often.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here is a good article. It puts ranchers and hunters on the same page (almost). If they stay this reasonable I would be ok with it. I wonder if they still want to be paid to hunt private land for wolves? I wouldn't think so. Not the majority anyway. Post up if you find good reasonable articles where hunters and ranchers are supporting each other. I could go for some good news like that.

I would buy a stamp if it's voluntary. I would have a problem if it's mandatory. Just like ranchers hunters didn't want the wolves to begin with. I would be willing to help, but not if the ranchers are going to try force hunters, who are loosing also, to pay for ranch losses. I would be willing to help voluntarily, but mandatory makes it sound like this is the hunters fault. Hunters are certainly not guilty of anything. It would be like two guys riding the same buss which gets broken into and one guy expects the other guy to pay for his loss.



> Put your money where your mouth is
> by Hal Herring
> 
> George Edwards is a pragmatic, easy-going man with a difficult task: compensating ranchers who have lost livestock to a growing population of wolves. He runs the Montana Livestock Reduction and Mitigation Board, a new agency that deals with wolf predation. The agency tries to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts and may someday help ranchers find ways to better live with the wolves that depend upon private lands for their survival. So far, though, most of its missions are on hold, because all of its scant funding is being used to pay for wolf-killed livestock.
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

http://www.defenders.org/staff/jamie-rappaport-clark

Jamie Rappaport Clark is the current CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. She used to be the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I believe it was Bill Clinton who appointed her to that position.

If you look at the resumes of many employees at Defenders, several came from BLM and other federal agencies. Why????

Those persons have access to important info and there is a wealth of phone numbers and contact info that they garnered while employed by the fed/gov. I think it smacks of impropriety.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think it's legal for them to take all that contact information with them when they retire.

It doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton had those types within his administration. You would not find them during the Bush years.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

One more thing,



> Solutions have been proposed in the past, only to be shot down. *The 1998 Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would have provided $2.8 billion per year for conservation from royalties on offshore oil and gas, was a landmark failure.* The Teaming for Wildlife tax, an excise tax on all outdoor-related gear, crashed into opposition from the Republican "no-new taxes" Congress of the mid-1990s. Jodi Stemler, of Denver, Colo., who has worked on wildlife funding issues for the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation, remembers that, "There was opposition from some of the outdoor industry who said, 'No, we have a lot of people who buy hiking boots or outdoor gear as a fashion statement, and never go outdoors. And not everybody who spends time outdoors cares about wildlife.'" She added that efforts to fund wildlife conservation with non-game sources have always struggled. "In Colorado, we had the 'Go Wild for Wildlife' tax check off, a great idea, great intentions, but pretty soon, everybody wanted in on it, from domestic violence on out. The competing interest groups caused the money to be spread too thin."


The template is always the same.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The template is always the same.


I'm not sure what you mean. Often you use this as an accusation and we never get anything serious discussed.

So what do you mean? I have always taken it that you hate anything that helps wildlife. The hunters have always put their money where there mouth is. I like to bird watch some, but those who do seldom put their money where their mouth is. I like to camp but fellow campers seldom put their money where there mouth is. I like to hike, but fellow hikers seldom put their money where their mouth is. I admire hunters above all others because of their integrity. Sure there are a few slob hunters, but you will not find another group with so many good people. I liked it more when I worked for the Fish and Wildlife than Bureau of Rec because I felt like I was working for my fellow hunters. It motivated me more than salary.

Shaug I read that thing about the 1998 Conservation Act as a failure not because of the idea behind it, but because republicans didn't want any more taxes. I have not decided what I think of that act right now. I like to see money go that direction, but I agree with the republicans on new taxes also. I'm torn.

You confuse me sometimes. Your against money for wildlife, but not against piling profit on top of profit, on top of profit for landowners at the taxpayer expense rather than free market. Our agriculture program is socialistic redistribution of wealth. I see your attempts at blocking anything for wildlife because you want that too. As I debate these things with you and gst it comes off as if you don't think anyone but agriculture should have government taxpayer support. It's evident you don't even want government employees who work for it to have it. Then we would only have Hollywood mentality volunteers thinking they were working for a cause. We need to talk real world. Does anyone other than landowners deserve oxygen?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Shaug.... Re-read your post...



> Solutions have been proposed in the past, only to be shot down. The 1998 Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would have provided $2.8 billion per year for conservation from royalties on offshore oil and gas, was a landmark failure. The Teaming for Wildlife tax, an excise tax on all outdoor-related gear, crashed into opposition from the Republican "no-new taxes" Congress of the mid-1990s. Jodi Stemler, of Denver, Colo., who has worked on wildlife funding issues for the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation, remembers that, "There was opposition from some of the outdoor industry who said, 'No, we have a lot of people who buy hiking boots or outdoor gear as a fashion statement, and never go outdoors. And not everybody who spends time outdoors cares about wildlife.'" She added that efforts to fund wildlife conservation with non-game sources have always struggled. "In Colorado, we had the 'Go Wild for Wildlife' tax check off, a great idea, great intentions, but pretty soon, everybody wanted in on it, from domestic violence on out. The competing interest groups caused the money to be spread too thin."


Let me break it down.... One of the reasons why it fail was not because of sportsman....but because of the "non-sporting" people who buy the products.


> Jodi Stemler, of Denver, Colo., who has worked on wildlife funding issues for the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation, remembers that, "There was opposition from some of the outdoor industry who said, 'No, we have a lot of people who buy hiking boots or outdoor gear as a fashion statement, and never go outdoors. And not everybody who spends time outdoors cares about wildlife.'"


Then She also stated that funding for wildlife with "non-game" or animals that are not hunted are hard to fund for. They need special interest groups. Which in turn don't know how to manage or don't implement control programs....ie our wolf problems!!



> She added that efforts to fund wildlife conservation with non-game sources have always struggled. "In Colorado, we had the 'Go Wild for Wildlife' tax check off, a great idea, great intentions, but pretty soon, everybody wanted in on it, from domestic violence on out.


Then the most import part of all of this that you posted..... This is why all good programs by the Goverment get depleted or screwed up....think of the social security funds!!!!

*



The competing interest groups caused the money to be spread too thin."

Click to expand...

*


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Follow the money,



> Someone has to start telling the truth about predator control in Nevada. I guess that someone will have to be HUNTER'S ALERT. NDOW does not want to do any predator control. Let me repeat, unequivocally, without a doubt, NDOW refuses to do predator control without being forced into it.
> 
> In the 2001 legislative session, HUNTER'S ALERT and Nevada Hunters Association with the help of Assemblyman Jerry Claborn were responsible for the passage of A.B. 291 which gives NDOW $341,000 to $400,000 per year for predator control. By the way, no one from NDOW was there to support the predator bill. This alone should let you know how NDOW felt from the very beginning about predator control.
> 
> ...


These guys were asking the right questions some years ago.


----------

