The Dirty Dozen

Florida Sportsman

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: The Dirty Dozen

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    572

    The Dirty Dozen

    The Dirty Dozen

    Courtesy of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (www.ussportsmen.org)

    There are groups that undermine and manipulate systems across America to end hunting, trapping and fishing. These same “less-than-honest” groups also often then exploit wildlife and conservation issues in the name of raising dollars for their devious causes. Here are a dozen organizations that have taken efforts in the past year to prevent you from hunting or trapping:

    Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): After losing an effort to have the chairman of California’s Game Commission removed because he went legally hunting for mountain lions in another state, HSUS then pushed legislation to end the hunting of bears and bobcats with hounds in California. HSUS has also threatened to sue to stop wolf hunting in the Western Great Lakes region. Shame on them.

    Center for Biological Diversity: This group has repeatedly sued the federal government to end the use of traditional hunting ammunition through attempts to ban lead. This ban would also apply to fishing tackle and would affect all sportsmen and women. The group’s information is based on flawed details about lead and bullets. The CBD is also working—and suing—to stop Western Great Lakes region wolf hunting seasons.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): This radical animal rights group issued a request for its minions across America to break established hunter harassment laws. PETA urged followers to interfere with hunts by protesting, spreading human hair, and other unlawful acts.

    Defenders of Wildlife: This group has been working to end wolf management in Wyoming and misguiding the public on the truth about overpopulated Yellowstone wolves. Defenders of Wildlife has filed a number of anti-hunting lawsuits and often seeks to recoup its legal costs for the suits from taxpayers.

    Sierra Club: This group’s board of directors worked for—and implemented—a policy officially opposing all trapping. The Sierra Club also tried to end a decades old elk hunt on public land in Wyoming.

    The Fund for Animals: They have threatened to sue to halt established Western Great Lakes region wolf hunts after hunters and state game management supporters were successful in removing the long recovered wolves from the Endangered Species List. The have also filed a suit that would stop wolf management in Wyoming.

    Howling for Wolves: A Minnesota-based group suing to stop wolf hunting in that state. The group claims that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources didn’t properly adopt the hunting season even though it went through the same process as other hunting seasons.

    American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Supports laws to prevent keeping dogs in outside kennels (a standard practice across America). They have also filed a brief supporting the lawsuit aimed at shutting down wolf hunting with dogs in Wisconsin.

    Western Environmental Law Center: A ring leader in a group of eight anti-organizations that want to ban wolverine trapping in Montana until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determines if the wolverine will be placed on the federal threatened and endangered species lists. This is just another “backdoor” ploy to end all trapping.

    In Defense of Animals: This anti-hunting group sued to stop bear hunting in Virginia, has called for a boycott of Alaska over its highly successful and sustainable wolf management program, strongly opposes wolf management in the Northern Rocky Mountains, and is pushing for a federal ban on animal testing for medical research.

    Friends of Animals: This Connecticut-based group believes “hunting in all forms is unethical, socially unjustifiable and ecologically disruptive.” The group worked against bear hunting in New Jersey, deer hunting in Connecticut, and against many science-based conservation programs. This group claims “hunting is an important cause of many deer/auto collisions… by inciting the deer to be incautious.”

    WildEarth Guardians: They earn a place on this shame list for working to ban trapping on public land in New Mexico. This group has also sued the federal Wildlife Services department over their wolf management program and has called on Congress to end funding for this important federal wildlife management entity.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    clermont, FL
    Posts
    711
    never a fan of any anti-hunting org. but never been for wolf hunting either, which it seems almost EVERY group on here if against and has earned them a place on this list.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    572
    Wolves were reintroduced out west and have totally decimated Elk populations. Populations of 30,000 plus elk have been reduced to number hovering around 10,000 in the last 10 years. The wolf has a place, but like the panther, you can only put so many in one place before you end up with very negative results.

  4. #4
    Moderator huntmstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,218
    Wolves, like other predators, need to be kept in balance. They have become a problem out west and hunting them is a valid method of controlling numbers. I'm not saying I would go hunt them, but I'm not against it either.
    Final Approach Pro Staff, Duck Junkies Pro Staff, and proud member of the Fab Five.

    I had you pissed off at "hello."

  5. #5
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by huntmstr View Post
    Wolves, like other predators, need to be kept in balance. They have become a problem out west and hunting them is a valid method of controlling numbers. I'm not saying I would go hunt them, but I'm not against it either.
    Really? Elk numbers were out of control and destroying the streams and wetlands. The so called "hunters" hate wolves because now they have to hunt. The days of artificially high elk numbers are gone. Every ecologist knows that predator numbers are controlled by prey and that control by humans only messes up the cycle more.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by SWFL Hunter View Post
    Wolves were reintroduced out west and have totally decimated Elk populations. Populations of 30,000 plus elk have been reduced to number hovering around 10,000 in the last 10 years. The wolf has a place, but like the panther, you can only put so many in one place before you end up with very negative results.
    Elk population where artificially high and as a result water quality in the streams suffered. The so called "hunter" hate the fact they actually have to hunt elk no.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...g-Success.html
    For now, the reintroduced wolves appear to be doing the job they were recruited to do—put more teeth in the natural order that had been out of whack since the wolves disappeared in the early 20th century. By 2005, they were killing around 3,000 elk every year in Yellowstone, where outsized herds had been denuding the park's vegetation. Much of the elk predation took place in the Lamar Valley in the northeast quarter of the park, a stretch of open space that has been compared to East Africa's Serengeti Plain. For all its magnificence, it has been something of an unbalanced ecosystem, the absence of trees due in no small part to an overabundance of browsing elk.

    With wolves back on the prowl, the elk became more restive. And as the elk spent less time foraging along stream banks, scientists have reported that willows and other plants that had been eaten to the nubs began to flourish again. So did some of the animals that depend on the trees, like beavers, which use willow branches to build lodges. Since the wolves were reintroduced, beaver colonies have increased eightfold. So there are more beaver ponds—habitat for insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, even moose, Smith says. Especially in winter, wolf kills have provided food for other park dwellers, including ravens, magpies and bald and golden eagles.

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz2Gwdi1jaW
    Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episo...he-wolves/213/
    When the gray wolf was eradicated from Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s, more was lost than just the noble and fascinating predator. The park’s entire ecosystem changed. Now, nearly a dozen years since the wolves returned, the recovery of that system to its natural balance is well underway, say ecologists William Ripple and Robert Beschta of Oregon State University.

    The researchers began studying the interaction of wolves with other parts of the ecosystem somewhat indirectly. “Back in 1997, I became aware that the aspen trees in Yellowstone were declining,” Ripple explains. “There was disagreement and confusion as to why these trees were disappearing, so I set out with graduate students to unravel this mystery.”

    “We went out to the park and we cored the trees and studied the tree rings which show the annual growth, and we were able to age the trees that are still there,” Ripple says. The tree ring analysis indicated that the aspen, which usually regenerate themselves by sending off new shoots rather than by producing seeds, had stopped producing new trees during the first half of the 20th century.

    Ripple and his colleagues looked at several possible variables that could be affecting the trees, from climate fluctuations to a changing natural forest fire regime. But the only factor that fit, Ripple says, was the browsing patterns of elk, which like to feed on the seedlings of aspen trees, and which are also a favored food of gray wolves: “The wolves were killed off from Yellowstone in the 1920s, which correlated with the start of the aspen decline. That led us to develop the hypothesis that the wolves were connected in some way to the aspen trees.” That connection, Ripple concluded, was mediated through elk: “We connected the dots: wolves affect elk; elk affect aspen; and therefore wolves affect aspen.”

    Aspen grove (photo: NPS/J Schmidt; 1977)

    Ripple and his colleagues subsequently discovered other changes. In some areas, willows — small, scrubby trees that grow in wet areas along stream beds — were starting to grow taller, because they were escaping predation by elk. In other areas, however, the willows continued to be heavily grazed upon. The same patchy changes were also seen with cottonwood trees, which also grow along streams.

    “The more I looked at it the more I could see that what is going on may be an ecology of fear,” Ripple says. “The theory goes like this: the browser — in this case the elk — need to make behavioral decisions and tradeoffs as to how much time and energy to put into eating food versus how much time to be staying in safe places.” Those decisions affect where the animals concentrate their feeding efforts, and therefore the distribution of the vegetation they eat. “What we started noticing is that the plants were doing better where the terrain might favor the wolf a little bit more than the elk,” he says. For example, the elk might browse less in areas with poorer visibility (more dangerous to the elk because they can’t see if wolves are on the scene), or regions littered with heavy debris (a risk because it becomes an impediment to escape in the event of an attack).

    Indeed, Ripple says, “we found that aspen were growing the tallest along streamside areas that had some downed woody debris or some downed logs nearby.”

    Elk behavior and vegetation distribution aren’t the only factors impacted by the return of the Yellowstone’s wolves. Ripple suspects that the ripples of their recovery are reverberating throughout the entire ecosystem, in birds, fish, insects, as well as in other plants and animal species. Beavers, for example, are probably affected, he says. “The park service has been monitoring beaver since the wolves returned, and found that they have increased in numbers every year in the northern part of Yellowstone. Before the wolves returned, there really wasn’t much food for the beaver. But now with this growth of these plants — especially the willow — the beavers have more food, and they are also using the willows to build their lodges and their dams, which may be contributing to beaver population increases.”

    “We are at the beginning of a grand ecological experiment,” Ripple says. “We were without wolves for seventy years, and we’ve just had them back in for 11 years, so we’re only just starting to see changes. It could take many decades for the ecosystem to recover.”

  7. #7
    Moderator huntmstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,218
    Oh good gravy, give it a rest already! Does everything have to be a fight with you? For every green report you post, I'm sure I can find something to counter it. Let's not go in circles on every single issue, please. I don't have the time or desire to baby sit another thread today.
    Final Approach Pro Staff, Duck Junkies Pro Staff, and proud member of the Fab Five.

    I had you pissed off at "hello."

  8. #8
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by huntmstr View Post
    Oh good gravy, give it a rest already! Does everything have to be a fight with you? For every green report you post, I'm sure I can find something to counter it. Let's not go in circles on every single issue, please. I don't have the time or desire to baby sit another thread today.

    Just trying to temper feelings with science and facts. Don't get mad at information even if you don't initially agree.

    There is nothing wrong with two sides of a story. But remember, both sides must be factual. Feelings don't belong.

  9. #9
    Moderator huntmstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,218
    Your "Facts" are not always as objective as you make them out to be. Your facts in this case are isolated to Yellowstone NP. Yet you don't take into account all the other areas that wolves are proliferating and damaging the elk herd that was NOT artificially inflated. For instance, elk herds in Idaho are under attack according to Idaho Fish & Game.

    http://idahostatejournal.com/news/lo...cc4c03286.html

    POCATELLO — The Idaho Fish and Game commissioner for the Southeast Region said Idaho’s burgeoning wolf population has adversely affected elk numbers and impacted revenue received from out-of-state hunters.
    Pocatellan Randy Budge, speaking at the Rotary club Thursday, walked the crowd through the history of wolf reintroduction in the Northern Rockies and related data regarding predation, some of which brought gasps from the audience.
    Budge noted the initial goals of reintroduction were 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in Idaho. Wolf populations have grown at 20-25 percent a year and now number approximately 85 packs, with 1,000 wolves, which he indicated to be a conservative estimate.
    “Wolves have been very productive,” Budge said.
    The 2009 delisting of wolves in Montana and Idaho under the Endangered Species Act allowed the states to open hunting, but Budge said the current numbers culled by hunters and federal controls are unlikely to keep wolf numbers in check. And Budge said the numbers are creating a problem for other animals the state is obliged to protect, preserve and manage.
    “From a wildlife perspective, there’s no question that this growing wolf population has had a devastating impact on our elk populations and our moose populations,” he said. “Our scientists’ and biologists’ studies on all these collared packs indicate that each wolf eats an average of 16 elk per year, so if you do the math and are being conservative, our 1,000 wolves are eating 16,000 elk per year.”
    He said 295 sheep, 76 cattle and 14 dogs were also confirmed to have been killed by wolves in 2009.
    Budge said the state’s biggest and historically most stable elk herd in the Lolo Pass area has gone from 11,000-13,000 elk to under 2,000 since wolves began to inhabit the area.
    “Put wolves into the equation, it tipped the balance,” he said.
    This impact resonates beyond Idaho’s borders, according to Budge.
    “Our out-of-state hunting numbers were down 25 percent in 2008, 31 percent in 2009,” he said.
    Fish and Game polled previous visitors to the state to find out if the economy was the culprit or if it was some other reason.
    “The No. 1 reason listed for not coming to Idaho was, ‘You haven’t taken care of your wolves and your wild animal populations are down,’” Budge recounted, “and the No. 2 reason was, ‘Your license fees are unfair.”
    The second problem stemmed from a license fee increase by the 2009 Legislature that affected only out-of-state licenses. The plan to increase revenue actually resulted in a decrease in revenue, he said.
    Looking to the future, Budge said current litigation regarding wolves may ultimately be disheartening for those hoping to retain state management rights.
    “I think there’s a pretty good chance we’re going to see a ruling in the next few months that may find further flaws with the delisting, and we may be turning it back over to the federal government,” he said. “My fear is if the plaintiffs succeed in getting the wolves back on the Endangered Species list, we’re going to see a relatively high level of intolerance from Idaho sportsmen who will then begin to ignore the law and have a ‘hunting season’ anyway, just an illegal one rather than a legal one.”
    In closing, Budge said the recovery of wolves “should have been hailed as one of the greatest success stories that ever existed under the Endangered Species Act, but instead we’re mired with controversy and conflict and a lot of stress and strife over who has responsibility and control, the state or the federal government.”
    So let's be honest when we're offering "facts". Or shall we continue to play this game?
    Final Approach Pro Staff, Duck Junkies Pro Staff, and proud member of the Fab Five.

    I had you pissed off at "hello."

  10. #10
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by huntmstr View Post
    Your "Facts" are not always as objective as you make them out to be. Your facts in this case are isolated to Yellowstone NP. Yet you don't take into account all the other areas that wolves are proliferating and damaging the elk herd that was NOT artificially inflated. For instance, elk herds in Idaho are under attack according to Idaho Fish & Game.

    http://idahostatejournal.com/news/lo...cc4c03286.html



    So let's be honest when we're offering "facts". Or shall we continue to play this game?
    I think your take away from that biased article is wrong. There was no science in that article.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •