Nope, but I can read. Did you read any of those posts? They see this as a way to have a greater say in what the F/W does.
Montana, antis attempt to buy seat at wildlife management
- Thread starter Apparition
- Start date
Only a government body would not sell something and then raise the price. Can you imagine a retailer that isnt selling the number of widgets they need to stay solvent, and as a way to sell more they raise the price? Total idiocy!!
Topgun 30-06
Banned
Yes, I've read every post those nuts have made, but that doesn't mean what they think will ever happen. If it does, it's our own fault for letting it happen!
The antis are all talk and never put their money where their mouth is. If, as some seem to believe, thousands are willing to buy these stamps, why don't they just buy all the hunting licenses and not hunt? Almost every state has a way for non-hunters to contribute - habitat stamps, conservation licenses, etc. Almost nobody but hunters buy these. It just doesn't happen. And when they don't buy the future wolf stamps, they will be shown for the blowhards they are, and we hunters will have gained.
llp
llp
Musket Man
Veteran member
Topgun 30-06
Banned
I have no idea where you live since you haven't filled out your profile, but you might want to get in the real world! Who do you think has spent millions delaying wolves from being delisted and then after that who has been spending millions more fighting it? Answer---Antis! Now we're awaiting more rulings in their continued fight againt Wyoming having the largest part of the state designated as a predator zone where we can shoot them on sight with no license or tags required. Depending on a Liberal Court ruling we could be right back in the same mess we were before the Wyoming plan was finally accepted and they were delisted. Who delayed grizzly bear delisting over the white pine bark cone question? Answer---Antis! Your statement is far from the truth and if it was anywhere near correct we wouldn't be having all these problems. The next big hassle will be within the next year when the Feds finalize their plans to delist grizzlies. See what happens with all those antis that don't put their money where their mouth is, LOL!!! You, Sir, are wearing blinders if you remotely believe what you stated in your opening sentence!!! Your statement would be accurate if you were talking about us, as hunters, but not antis!
Last edited:
Musket Man
Veteran member
If the anti groups like destroyers of wildlife tell them to buy wolf stamps they will sell like crazy. Look at the money they donate to these groups already.
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
Hey TG,
I don't buy the "we aren't carrying our weight argument". Have you ever heard of RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, DU and dozens of other conservation groups funded by HUNTERS! Montana has out priced the tags by a long shot and now they are paying the piper. Not to mention MM is right, they were always either silent or extremely wishy washy on the wolf issue from the get go. You see they forgot who has funded their Govt. organization for the last 100 years and bit the hand that feeds them. They should have been screaming to the heavens from the time the reintroduction was proposed. I do agree that residents need to take on more of the financial burden as far as tag prices go. I would be willing to pay a little more for tags in Colorado if they proposed a measure.
I don't buy the "we aren't carrying our weight argument". Have you ever heard of RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, DU and dozens of other conservation groups funded by HUNTERS! Montana has out priced the tags by a long shot and now they are paying the piper. Not to mention MM is right, they were always either silent or extremely wishy washy on the wolf issue from the get go. You see they forgot who has funded their Govt. organization for the last 100 years and bit the hand that feeds them. They should have been screaming to the heavens from the time the reintroduction was proposed. I do agree that residents need to take on more of the financial burden as far as tag prices go. I would be willing to pay a little more for tags in Colorado if they proposed a measure.
Topgun 30-06
Banned
We're not talking about anything other than funding the various state game departments that have for too long depended on NR fees to run their departments. That has now come back to bite them in the butt and it's their own fault. I also don't live in a cave and IMHO your question/comment about my knowledge of organizations was condescending and inappropriate. In fact, I belong to more than a couple of them! It's also very nice that you'd pay a "little more" for your tags and most residents of the western states should be paying "a lot more" for their tags and the game departments wouldn't be in the shape they are relying on NRs every year to stay afloat. Finally, screaming wouldn't have done any good when you're dealing with the Feds. It was actually Wyoming that held things up with the large predator zone they wanted in place and that stalled plans that Idaho and Montana had in place. They couldn't get anywhere on wolves until Wyoming was finally removed from the equation such that wolves could be delisted in the other two states.
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
That was in response to your "we talk the talk but don't walk the walk" comment. We do walk the walk through money to these groups and volunteering time with game counts through the Game and Fish Departments. As far as paying a lot more for our tags you don't pay a lot more for tags in Michigan, I don't see paying 40.00 for a deer combo as paying "a lot more". Actually the opposite is true of eastern hunters, your resident tags are cheap. I do pay a lot more when I hunt out of state and don't mind doing it as long as it isn't Montana prices. As far as them putting millions of dollars towards the cause, we do the same thing. All of the conservation groups funded by hunters have lobbyists looking out for our interests. The RMEF is a leader on controlling wolf populations. They don't spend more money then us, they judge shop in the 9th circuit and then sue to re-list wolves. They win the suits because of handpicked judges and then are reimbursed for all legal fees through tax dollars and this is what helps fund their cause.
Last edited:
Topgun 30-06
Banned
Please read and try to comprehend this one last time! The comments were made specifically regarding all the western states game departments and nothing more. I made no statements about any other part of the country and none about any organizations, so your comment wasn't necessary when it was to something that I wasn't even addressing in my posts. I'm specifically talking about hunters supporting their own state first of all by paying reasonable fees for all their big game licenses such that they don't have to rely on raising NR fees every year or two to the high rates that are now common throughout the west. Yes, Montana is the worst and the way they make you buy something you aren't going to use sucks. However, a lot of the other states have the requirement to buy a license just to apply for a PP or Bonus Point or to apply for a license that's almost impossible to draw along with other things that are needed to put more money in their coffers. There is also no reason to discuss license costs in the east or compare them to western fees because there are plenty of residents that bear the cost to keep their departments fluent, unlike the western states for the most part. Michigan, for example, has anywhere from 3/4 million to a million residents buying hunting and fishing licenses every year and it doesn't depend on NRs like all the western states that have a fraction of that number of residents buying licenses. You can say what you want, but the western residents need to pay a lot more for their licenses and if they don't want to they need to figure out a way for nonconsumptive users to pick up some of the load or eventually all the states will be in the same shape as Idaho and Montana because NR fees can only go so high before people quit going. Idaho and Montana are prime examples of the latter. Even Colorado where you live has really been flooding the media with ads the last couple years trying to increase the number of nonresidents coming to hunt because their budget is not great.
You may also want to look at your statement about the RMEF and wolves. They were way late to the ballgame when it comes to the wolf problems and lost a lot of members, including myself, because of it. They finally rethought their policies, hired a new CO and got involved in the battle, and now under David Allen are increasing their numbers quite well again. When that happened I rejoined like many have. However, to say they are a leader in controlling wolf populations is about as far from the truth as you can get and I have no idea how you could come up with that statement. I also don't need any schooling on how the antis do what they do, as I've been following the way they operate for a couple decades or more! That is just one of the reasons why I made the statement in an earlier post that politics is one of our big problems in winning any battle they get involved in because of the Liberal leaning of the Federal courts.
You may also want to look at your statement about the RMEF and wolves. They were way late to the ballgame when it comes to the wolf problems and lost a lot of members, including myself, because of it. They finally rethought their policies, hired a new CO and got involved in the battle, and now under David Allen are increasing their numbers quite well again. When that happened I rejoined like many have. However, to say they are a leader in controlling wolf populations is about as far from the truth as you can get and I have no idea how you could come up with that statement. I also don't need any schooling on how the antis do what they do, as I've been following the way they operate for a couple decades or more! That is just one of the reasons why I made the statement in an earlier post that politics is one of our big problems in winning any battle they get involved in because of the Liberal leaning of the Federal courts.
Last edited:
For someone who wants to lecture on reading comprehension you aren't paying attention. Anti's do NOT fund fish and game departments. Period. End of Statement. Offering wolf stamps won't get them to buy them, because, wait for it, Anit's don't fund fish and game departments.
They spend all their money on law suits, trying to accomplish through the courts what they can't do by funding fish and game departments. They have no interest in funding fish and game departments, and there is evidence of this in many states which offers various "stamps" for anybody to buy. Essentially none are bought by the Anti's.
llp
They spend all their money on law suits, trying to accomplish through the courts what they can't do by funding fish and game departments. They have no interest in funding fish and game departments, and there is evidence of this in many states which offers various "stamps" for anybody to buy. Essentially none are bought by the Anti's.
llp
Musket Man
Veteran member
Wyoming may have held things up but they are the only state that heldout and got what they wanted in the end. If MT and ID had stuck with WY maybe it all would have been settled sooner.
Topgun 30-06
Banned
Oh, I think I'm more than paying attention and if you can find any post that I've ever made on this or any other thread on this website saying the antis fund F&G Departments please show me! How can you say what number of people, anti or not, will buy those stamps if they're created? You can't unless you're God! I'd also like to see your evidence to back up your statement of what stamps the antis buy or don't buy. Name one state that asks you whether you are a hunter, biker, photographer, or anti when you purchase a stamp. One stamp that many nonhunters buy every year is the Federal "Duck Stamp". It's funny to read your comment and then go read the number of respondents that are antis that are for that stamp. No, that doesn't mean they'll buy one, but it's a better representation that they will than that they won't. I have also stated that I've followed the wolf debacle closely since it started with the introduction back in the 90s. I know exactly how and where the antis spend the majority of their money and in case you missed it you can reread the last sentence or two of my last post!
Last edited:
Topgun 30-06
Banned
Sorry, but I have to laugh at that one. How in the world do you figure that would have happened if they had stuck with Wyoming when Wyoming was the one state that took several extra years fighting for the predator zone in the majority of the state while Idaho and Montana were killing hundreds of wolves? You obviously need to do a lot of reading to catch up on the facts before you speak about the various state involvements! What did Idaho and Montana want that they didn't get after Wyoming was finally set apart from them and the Feds delisted wolves in their two states? Please be careful IF you answer because I'm good friends with a Wyoming resident that was born and raised in Montana and was directly involved from the initial stages of the introduction and planning to the present time. If Idaho and Montana had not been allowed to go on their own, there would be hundreds of wolves alive today that were shot or trapped while Wyoming was attempting to get their plan reapproved after it was first approved, then was rescinded, and then finally accepted and is what it is today. You do know that the Wyoming plan was initially approved and implemented for a short time don't you? Montana and Idaho residents for the most part have very negative feelings for the way Wyoming handled the whole situation and most place the blame on Wyoming for holding things up so long while wolves continued to spread and populate more and more territory. If, as you say, the three states had stuck together I think you would find just the opposite would have occurred and all three states might still be fighting for control within their boundaries.