http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/b0d0c545a3e9408e8e7b7352300d4e08/ID-XGR–Wolf-Panel
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 17, 2014 – 6:08 pm EST
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho’s House will get to consider a measure seeking to shift $2 million in taxpayer money toward a panel that will oversee the killing of wolves that prey on livestock and elk herds. [Wolves eat elk, get over it.]
Republicans on the House Resources Committee voted Monday 14-4 for the disputed bill.
It’s being pushed by Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter [the man is an insult to the entire weasel family], over objections labeling this a “funding mechanism for a war on wolves.”
With this cash infusion, Otter wants to target wolf packs blamed for killing too many cattle, sheep and elk. [When did elk become a domesticated species?]
Backers including the cattle and sheep industry pledged not to reduce Idaho’s wolf population, now roughly 680 animals, to levels triggering a renewed federal Endangered Species Act listing.
But foes branded it a “thinly veiled proposal aimed at the second extirpation of wolves in Idaho.”
Exposing the Big Game 
Reblogged this on "OUR WORLD".
Ted Nugent pushes bear hunting in N.B.
by Exposing the Big Game
Outspoken, gun-toting American rocker Ted Nugent is promoting the spring bear hunt in New Brunswick with his Sunrize Safaris.
The website tednugent.com offers hunters a chance to go to New Brunswick and shoot a trophy black bear
Nugent has hunted bear in New Brunswick before.
Ted Nugent
Ted Nugent has hunted black bear in New Brunswick in the past. (CBC)
He chronicles one such trip on the archerytalk.com blog in 2010 in a post titled: “Hi Spirit: New Brunswick Bruins. For a rockin’ good time, try for a far-North spring blackie.”
On that occasion, Nugent arranged for a bear hunting trip in New Brunswick after his band “rocked the house royal with Lynayrd Skynyrd (sic) in Barrie, Ontario, outside Toronto, Canada’s number one cosmopolitan megacity,” the blog post says,
Nugent was hunting with Slipp Brothers Ltd. Hunting and Outfitting in Hoyt, south of Fredericton. On the third day of hunting, with daylight running short, Nugent encountered a bear.
“Right then a big black blob appeared 60 yards out in the dense boreal scrub,” wrote Nugent. “My heart pounded like a double live gonzo big bass drum gone Motor city Mad Man full-tilt boogie. I love when that happens.”
Now Nugent is offering others the chance to experience that feeling with a Sunrize Safari to New Brunswick from June 1-7 for “the bear hunt of a lifetime,” with Toby Nugent — Ted’s son — and Paul Wilson of Sunrize Safaris in camp.
The cost of the outing in $3,550 per hunter plus $184.19 for a licence.
A similar outing for bear hunting in Quebec near Malartic is also offered by the company at a cost of $3,500.
Bear hunting has been on the decline in New Brunswick in recent years.
In 2004, more than 3,600 non-residents purchased bear licences. Last year, that number had fallen to below 2,000.
68439_10151399495155861_1116657731_n
Exposing the Big Game | February 18, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Tags: bear hunt, black bear, Canada, ted nugent | Categories: Bears | URL: http://wp.me/p2nX5S-1eb
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Exposing the Big Game.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Polarized on Predator Issues and More: What are we (conservationists) dealing with in opponents?
I have observed and deduced from countless (many) interactions with hunters, ranchers, and their ilk (supporters on same issues) in blogs, conversations, essays, letters to editors and feedback that those who want to preserve a balanced ecology of predator and prey, most polarized with regard to wolves, that I am talking to a different animal than myself and other wolf and (other) predator conservationists; and it also mostly applies to bison. I could fill a book of my own essays, letters to editors and wildlife agencies and representatives and blogs. Once I get to the basic issues, like one opponent told me, we disagree on all. Now I am sure, once we are away from the hardcore opponents there are gradations of agreement and disagreement, and they, I have concluded are the ones to really talk to. I have observed, many times, ad nausea, that my opponents do not want to be confused by facts, logic, or science: They shut down, and get back and double down on their views (beliefs really), often get angry when they shut down, and literally or figuratively walk away. I want a balanced ecological wilderness where practicable (many niches). They want to farm ungulates even in the wilderness. I want the wolf, lion, and bear left alone believing they will regulate their populations relative to prey and viable niches. They want wolves eliminated or very marginalized, and bears, especially grizzlies, very marginalized, and lions marginalized. I do not believe there should be any farming of elk or other ungulates, which means marginalizing or eliminating predators in the wilderness and logging and clearing for meadow formation in the wilderness. They want to farm ungulates to the maximum so they will have more recreational killing opportunities, to the maximum, and promote the hunting culture and that economy to the maximum. I love wolves and they hate and I think fear them. I do not think that wolves in particular and predators in general or any threatened or endangered species should be managed at the state level because of conflicting interests with ranching, sportsmen, and industrial and development and extraction industry interests: It becomes political management and guess who controls the political climate in western states and some midwestern states, particularly MT-WY-WI-ID. It also becomes localized management.
We disagree with the role of federal government with regard to wildlife and wilderness and wildlife management; and with regard to national forests and other federal lands use and management: They think that federal land in their states is their land. They want it all at the state level and management to take a priority to jobs as provided by extraction industries, ranchers, hunting, and development. They hate the federal government and federal agencies and laws like ESA and EPA and USFWS “interfering” with their economic and recreational interests and development and extraction industries’ interests and rancher and farmer interests. They would gut or do away with ESA, EPA, and federal control of federal lands. The latter is sort of a contradiction because now and historically the federal government has coddled their interests with free range grazing in the past and grazing and farming for a pittance now on federal lands. The National Forest Service has been and is now mostly clearing house for logging, extraction industries and ranching.
These people, opponents are mostly republicans and blue dog (fake democrats, state rights priority) democrats, and mostly right wing nuts, at least on the issues of concern.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
Polarized on Predator Issues and More: What are we (conservationists) dealing with in opponents?
I have observed and deduced from countless (many) interactions with hunters, ranchers, and their ilk (supporters on same issues) in blogs, conversations, essays, letters to editors and feedback that those who want to preserve a balanced ecology of predator and prey, most polarized with regard to wolves, that I am talking to a different animal than myself and other wolf and (other) predator conservationists; and it also mostly applies to bison. I could fill a book of my own essays, letters to editors and wildlife agencies and representatives and blogs. Once I get to the basic issues, like one opponent told me, we disagree on all. Now I am sure, once we are away from the hardcore opponents there are gradations of agreement and disagreement, and they, I have concluded are the ones to really talk to. I have observed, many times, ad nausea, that my opponents do not want to be confused by facts, logic, or science: They shut down, and get back and double down on their views (beliefs really), often get angry when they shut down, and literally or figuratively walk away. I want a balanced ecological wilderness where practicable (many niches). They want to farm ungulates even in the wilderness. I want the wolf, lion, and bear left alone believing they will regulate their populations relative to prey and viable niches. They want wolves eliminated or very marginalized, and bears, especially grizzlies, very marginalized, and lions marginalized. I do not believe there should be any farming of elk or other ungulates, which means marginalizing or eliminating predators in the wilderness and logging and clearing for meadow formation in the wilderness. They want to farm ungulates to the maximum so they will have more recreational killing opportunities, to the maximum, and promote the hunting culture and that economy to the maximum. I love wolves and they hate and I think fear them. I do not think that wolves in particular and predators in general or any threatened or endangered species should be managed at the state level because of conflicting interests with ranching, sportsmen, and industrial and development and extraction industry interests: It becomes political management and guess who controls the political climate in western states and some midwestern states, particularly MT-WY-WI-ID. It also becomes localized management.
We disagree with the role of federal government with regard to wildlife and wilderness and wildlife management; and with regard to national forests and other federal lands use and management: They think that federal land in their states is their land. They want it all at the state level and management to take a priority to jobs as provided by extraction industries, ranchers, hunting, and development. They hate the federal government and federal agencies and laws like ESA and EPA and USFWS “interfering” with their economic and recreational interests and development and extraction industries’ interests and rancher and farmer interests. They would gut or do away with ESA, EPA, and federal control of federal lands. The latter is sort of a contradiction because now and historically the federal government has coddled their interests with free range grazing in the past and grazing and farming for a pittance now on federal lands. The National Forest Service has been and is now mostly clearing house for logging, extraction industries and ranching.
These people, opponents are mostly republicans and blue dog (fake democrats, state rights priority) democrats, and mostly right wing nuts, at least on the issues of concern.
Money that should, rationally and empirically and scientifically go toward nonlethal management and reimbursement to predator, depredation, even though statistically and economically insignificant. But we are dealing with bat sh– crazy!
In the committee meeting where this legislation was discussed yesterday, one of the two legislative sponsors admitted that aerial gunning will be the most likely method of “control,” since hunting and trapping have not produced the desired results. Aerial gunning, he remarked, is expensive. He forgot to mention how much fun it is, especially when zeroing in on radio-collared animals.
The wolves don’t stand a chance.
Aerial hunting of wolves is one barbarity I thought we’d moved beyond long ago. How quickly we backslide. Now, they’ll have to live in mortal fear of every plane that crosses overhead, in addition to fearing every vehicle and every human on foot or horseback, and every suspicious pile of carrion left out. If humans had to live in constant fear, the way the wolves there do, they’d go insane (which isn’t much of a journey from Idaho).
It’s bad enough these brain-dead ignorants ignore the facts, but with no means to mail to them, you can’t find out where they live to throw a fucking bomb through their window.
See you in the International Court of Justice for violating the World Charter for Nature, Idaho.
Wait a second ! Montana has too many elk ..I read that here .. So they need to ” cull ” can they cross state lines and let the ” butcher” fulfill his killing quota? How can this brutality even be considered ?
Has the ” butcher” got that brain wasting disease from eating his cows ? And parasites from wild herds?
Sounds like he is having abhorrent behavior … He’s spreading his disease