BuzzH
Well-known member
I suggest you consider your audience before you make any more suggestions...you're out of your depth, clearly.
Think Area 4 & 5 Type A is worth it
- Thread starter TheDudeAbides
- Start date
I suggest you consider your audience before you make any more suggestions...you're out of your depth, clearly.
icebreaker12
Active member
You mean the fact that if you polled all the members of WY BHA they likely would be on the opposite side of this issue from you? I'm going to go ahead and assume that I won't see you at the commission meeting solely for that reason.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Many times people are on the opposite side of an issue, it happens. I have no problem with that and I have no problem being in the minority or majority on issues. Again, it happens...appear you have issues with that. Tough deal for you I guess.
What I find troubling though, is when people like you, drag red herring into the discussion because you cant defend your assertions that there is "no issues" with hunts that are intended to eradicate a population of animals. There are issues, and big ones.
I have no problem with the GF making those calls if they are based on peer reviewed science and for a legitimate reason. What I have a problem with is using the hunting public to completely remove a herd of any animal. Population removal doesn't fit real well with what hunters try hard to sell to the non-hunting public, the conservation ethic, and argument we only hunt the "surplus", yada yada.
If these type of things need to happen, population eradication, then do it without having to drag hunters into it.
I think SnowyMountaineer made a great point, that someone will be more than happy to blast a mountain goat kid off a rock and post it up on social media. Even more will have no problem blasting a nanny with kids. Its what the WGF department wants, the goats gone, but probably not the best image for the greater hunting public. If nannies and kids need to be wiped out, I say let the agencies do their own dirty work. I have no desire to kill a nanny, or blast a kid off a rock, troubling, but not surprising, that others would want to.
I'll give redundant testimony to the GF commission on this and any other issue I feel needs to be addressed, not only does the hunting public have the right to, they should. See you there, although I wouldn't know you if you were standing on my doorstep.
For the record, just curious if you have any idea who said this?
"I killed a 92lb bear that was on its own in Wisconsin.
Honestly, the suggestion that a game agency would drive any animal to eradication belongs next to any claims made by PETA."
Hmmm....interesting.
icebreaker12
Active member
I said it! Me! And there is certainly a giant difference in the context of that post. But that's fine, its a great red herring. GF still isn't driving goats to extinction. They are a nonnative that doesn't belong here and they are attempting to use people to remove them or reduce them in a few areas they don't want them.
In terms of disagreements. I'm happy to have them. Your posts come off extremely brash and off putting to many. I don't tend to like when people speak in truths that simply aren't there. You have your opinions, I have mine.
Where did I say "no issues"?
Also, which red herring did I bring up?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
For the record I'm entirely undecided on this hunt. It's a strange optic, but I can see both sides.
BuzzH
Well-known member
This^^^
I can also see both sides...but the 10K foot view just isn't giving me a warm fuzzy.
El Jason
Well-known member
There are some very interesting dichotomies when it comes to control hunts. As BuzzH pointed out, hunters have no problems if their G&F agency fires up the helo to take out a wolf pack. Everybody cheers. However, if they do it on something like goats or sheep, everyone complains because they didn't get the opportunity to eradicate a herd.
I see both sides of it, but I'll side with the agency doing the dirty work. From a public perception standpoint, it is so much easier for an agency to pull this off. Yes, there will be public backlash. However, when it's driven simply from a management standpoint it is much easier to defend when you don't have the perception the hunt is used to generate revenue and provide opportunity for grip and grins.
I've seen it done with sheep herds exposed to pneumonia, and the public complained about not getting to do the dirty work. In the end, I think hunters benefited far more from LACK of public press than lack of "opportunity".
I see both sides of it, but I'll side with the agency doing the dirty work. From a public perception standpoint, it is so much easier for an agency to pull this off. Yes, there will be public backlash. However, when it's driven simply from a management standpoint it is much easier to defend when you don't have the perception the hunt is used to generate revenue and provide opportunity for grip and grins.
I've seen it done with sheep herds exposed to pneumonia, and the public complained about not getting to do the dirty work. In the end, I think hunters benefited far more from LACK of public press than lack of "opportunity".
El Jason
Well-known member
BuzzH
Well-known member
I agree, some find my style of posting a bit brash...nothing new there. I just don't do the whole "mamby-pamby" thing and prefer to cut to the chase on why I have the opinion I do. I also appreciate and expect the same in return...I don't do the whole passive aggressive bullchit.
Who said this? "And there’s no reason not to let them try."
Yes there is, and gave valid reasons.
I think the giant red herring is bringing BHA membership into the discussion...nothing to do with this discussion, at all.
Just so you know, myself and every other BHA member, is allowed to voice their own opinion on any issue they want. There will be no ambiguity or doubt when the Wyoming Chapter takes a position on issues...none.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Here's a complete list of people I know that receive/apply/buy tags for either goats or wolves for the meat:
….end of list.
icebreaker12
Active member
I guess there was a misunderstanding about a few posts in there. Particularly "you are out of your depth, clearly".
Oops... didn't think this was a hard one to mention though
How many tags are given for a Mountain Goat vs Wolves... There is an admired value to have successfully taken one of the Big Three.
Side note, Goat, while tough, is still NOT an animal you are able to leave nor would anyone vs wolves that you are not required to take the "meat"... I'll eat Mtn goat 365 over canine...
How many tags are given for a Mountain Goat vs Wolves... There is an admired value to have successfully taken one of the Big Three.
Side note, Goat, while tough, is still NOT an animal you are able to leave nor would anyone vs wolves that you are not required to take the "meat"... I'll eat Mtn goat 365 over canine...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, there was a misunderstanding, and you made it. Probably OK to instruct someone on "how to" and "who to" get in touch with on issues like this, if they hadn't been doing this chit for a few decades. But, you knew that, then act all sored up by the response you were trying to get.
If you disagree, just lay out your case without the foolishness, I can respect that.
icebreaker12
Active member
Here you go:
The likelihood that this is a complete removal is a zero percent chance. Idaho isn’t getting rid of their goats, and Wyoming is going to continue to maintain their herd that is in the area adjacent. Goats will continue to move into this area regardless of if they are all removed tomorrow.
Aerial gunning is expensive. And the more time they fly the more expensive it’s going to be. Allow hunters the opportunity to remove some up front and make some money on it in the process.
People are waiting in line to shoot a goat in most places, and will never afford it in others. People want this opportunity, and will be very mad knowing goats were left to rot on the side of the mountain that they gladly would have shot. It’s a lot different than the other species that GF pays to remove.
We can’t set seasons because someone might do something stupid. That could literally happen tomorrow with anything.... Someone might post a dumb photo of a black bear or a deer or..... I mean there was social media training involved with the potential grizz hunt. Also, where’s the difference between someone shooting a kid (goat) and posting a photo and someone posting a fawn whitetail or pronghorn or calf elk?
Lastly, I don’t see where the bad public perception comes in. I mean I understand we sell an idea that hunters maintain healthy populations, but people have to understand this is removal of a nonnative to protect a very vulnerable native. If they don’t, they won’t agree with a GF removal either and they’ll equate the two anyway.
walking buffalo
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 111
Valerius Geist wrote a research paper on the displacement of Bighorns by Goats.
Goats beat Sheep every time.
When Goats, Sheep and wolves combined, the sheep lost big time.....
Goats beat Sheep every time.
When Goats, Sheep and wolves combined, the sheep lost big time.....
BuzzH
Well-known member
What a load of crap...sheep and goats have occupied the same areas for thousands of years. All across AK, YT, BC, AB, MT...just to name a few.
Oh, and all the while with wolves present in a vast majority of the range of both sheep and goats.
Oh, and all the while with wolves present in a vast majority of the range of both sheep and goats.
Last edited:
walking buffalo
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 111
You sure get your hackles up when science doesn't agree with you.
Yes, your statement is correct. So is the evidence that the relationship between these species is not benign.
