George Weurthner

[RobertR]

I cannot believe the crap this guy writes about sportsman.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/05/whither-the-hunterconservationist/

 

[Big Fin]

Fret not, Robert. George is gonna be George.

George & Co have a nice little congregation, though they lack a strong enough value proposition to create much in the way of an effective following or membership that would/could invest heavily to make a measurable impact on the bigger picture of complex landscape conservation. Sooner or later, shouting and tantrums wear thin, as people realize it does nothing to improve habitat or fund conservation. The smaller the audience, the greater the frustration, the louder the yelling.

Eventually, people turn to those with an attractive value proposition. Once people realize that wolves are not in danger of disappearing, as George & Co continuously advocate, people start to worry about more relevant topics; like their public lands being sold; not having access to their lands; their wildlife being handed over to groups who will sell it to the highest bidder; actually improving habitat rather than talking about it, etc. And people turn to those who have a vision for handling the issues that are more complex than personal complaints about wolves being shot or trapped as part of an agree-upon state management plan.

With the democracy of opinions provided in our modern world of the internet, blogs, social media, and such, George & Co will always have a platform and always have their own following, however small it erodes to. I like that the web provides such platforms to all, even when I might not agree with some of what comes from those platforms.

Seems George & Co are in denial that almost 20 years ago the citizens of the United States offered a deal to the citizens of MT/ID/WY, in order to get wolves on the ground. Now that wolves are on the ground, George & Co forget that the deal made to get wolves on the ground was to allow states to submit management plans to the USFWS for approval, with the eventual goal of transferring management control to these states.

That was no big secret. It was argued up and down. Eventually the deal was accepted by the states, grudgingly, and ended up being written in black and white. To scream and yell about it now, when that was the plan all along, seems rather hypocritical.

In his rant, George makes not one reference to the fact that every action he finds so appalling is an action allowed and permitted under the state management plans approved by the USFWS. George & Co now wants to move the goal lines. Seems George & Co have no use for commitments made and promises issued, especially if it gets in the path of the George & Co theocracy.

Seems frustration can drive George to pen his words such that any person not avowing to the George & Co oath should be considered a demon among us. He does correctly state that hunters are not a majority of our population, though he fails to see, or at least fails to mention, neither are George & Co. Since we hunters fund the super-majority of the wildlife management in this country, via licenses, taxes, donations, and volunteerism, what does that say about the George & Co members who are paying nothing, yet criticizing the people shouldering the financial burden?

I am pretty sure that if George & Co wanted to see more state agency funding, particularly from non-hunter/angler sources, state agencies would gladly accept such if George & Co were to break out their checkbooks and make such donations. And, I suspect they might even earmark George & Co. donations for non-game issues and species.

Right now, hunters and anglers are paying for those non-games species, and I am fine with that. I appreciate all wildlife species, game or non-game. I don't have much appreciation for the folks who pay nothing (as a friend calls them, "the no-skinners," for they have no financial skin in the game), yet demand that the other guy's money be spent according to their dictates. Always easy to spend the other guy's money.

Some people have provide earmarked donations for Wildlife Services. Not sure what right George & Co have to tell others how to spend their money, but George seems to imply his disciples are empowered with such authority. If George & Co thinks the funded activity is illegal, or outside the bounds of the state wolf management plans, then reading comprehension seems lacking. The Montana plan has specific language about how Wildlife Services will be one of the tools used under that USFWS-approved wolf management plan. I can send that lengthy document to George, though I doubt he cares to preach from the true Written Word of how society agreed wolves would be managed.

Maybe George is smarter, and his opinions more valuable, than the tens of thousands of Montanans who commented on the state wolf management plan. Maybe he is smarter than and opinions more valuable than the people who invested thousands of hours working on such plan and who were proud that the USFWS biologists found that work to be a model plan for state management of species being delisted. I doubt he is any smarter, but the flock at the Church of George & Co seem to put great faith in his sermons.

If these actions are outside those approved management plans, then George & Co should file legal action to have such management efforts stopped. You notice that they are not filling such actions because they know they will lose. If they lose, there is no money in it for them.

George seems to paint himself as some person of great enlightenment; the renaissance man of the hunting world. Fine. Who I am I to disagree, being the son of divorced parents; with my father a broken down gypo logger, and my mother a waitress. Like many who George & Co would deny recognition for their labors on behalf of wildlife conservation, I was well into my double digit years before finally taking permanent residence in a house without wheels, so maybe it is expected that we are not to his level of sophistication in concepts so immensely complicated as written promises and USFWS-approved management plans.

Are George & Co out with the unwashed masses doing the much needed on-the-ground volunteer work for habitat improvements? Are they at the public meetings working through difficult issues with many different stakeholders? Are they working with landowners to try find workable solutions to the complex problems that hold the future of wildlife that have seasonal dependency on private grounds? Are they advocating for public land management policies that will improve ungulate habitat, which in turn helps the predators they feel are being so neglected in our conservation work?

Maybe George and the congregation are doing all those things. If so, good on them.

In his broad brush statement that no state manages predators as part of a large complex of species, George pretty much discounts all the research that has been done on mountain lions, black bears, and grizzly bears. Because the research does not support the George & Co party anthem, it is best to discount such study if possible and even better to discredit the authors of those studies on all fronts.

If George & Co cannot handle living in a world where some wolves are killed as part of the promised deal to get wolves on the ground, and that the death of some wolves would be expected under the USFWS-approved state management plans, then it seems they have three choices. 1) Get over it and realize a deal is a deal, 2) Continue ranting and complaining to the ever-shrinking circle of George & Co investors, or 3) File some lawsuits to get these management actions stopped if such is supposedly outside the bounds of these management plans.

George, and maybe some of his congregation, might agree with me on this point. I do feel that when hunters focus too much on predators it distracts from the important work that is in front of us; habitat, disease, etc.

When elk calf weights are below likely survival levels; when lactating cows are not recovering over summer; when calving happens later and later due to low nutrition levels and thus results in smaller calves going into winter, none of that is solved by focusing purely on predators. No matter how few predators we have, or don't have, the core habitat values will always be the underlying foundation for the health of our wildlife.

So long as we have state elk management plans with artificially low objectives, we will never get above those objectives, even if every predator were to mysteriously die of disease. Focusing purely on predators does not fix these state management plans, rather seems to take our eye off the ball at times

I read many rants about wolves in every school yard, wolves ate all the elk, we need to kills all the wolves, etc. Often, the ones complaining loudest aren't lifting a finger or spending a dime to improve habitat. The most vocal complainers I meet usually spend very little time exercising the hard-earned opportunity to hunt wolves, rather assuming the State or Feds are supposed to do that for us.

I do worry that having wolves as an excuse for why some people didn't fill their elk tag is an alibi for not working on the harder issues facing us. If predators become the excuse of convenience, some will rationalize reasons for not investing in habitat and better elk management plans. That is not good for any us; hunter, predator, or prey.

 

[shoots-straight]

I cannot believe the crap this guy writes about sportsman.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/05/whither-the-hunterconservationist/

What exactly is it in his column that you disagree with? His continual ranting about wolves, or wilderness?

 

[shoots-straight]

What exactly is it in his column that you disagree with? His continual ranting about wolves, or wilderness?

.

Never mind, Randy covered the whole thing is detail.

 

[Nameless Range]

I appreciate you taking the time to write a lengthy response Randy. Well said.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well said Randy.

Since most of us are labeled as wolf lovers by the Toby Bridges of the world and blood thirsty neanderthals by the George Weurthners, I think we're sitting in a good position.

Having said that, I think it is critical to continue to talk about wolf management based on science and not poltics, which is really what Idaho is doing now: managing through politcs.

Here's another take on the Idaho situation from a guy who has logged more backcountry miles than most of us: http://thoughtsfromthewildside.blogspot.com/2014/03/killing-wolves-hunter-led-war-against.html

 

[BigHornRam]

In the past, George has been affectionately refered to as the "Myopic Asshat"
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=239083&highlight=myopic+asshat

 

[Topgun 30-06]

In the past, George has been affectionately refered to as the "Myopic Asshat"
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=239083&highlight=myopic+asshat

***Geez, I wonder why after reading that article of his in the OP, LOL!!!

 

[jryoung]

...