Wolf stamp.
- Thread starter mtmuley
- Start date
double_a85
Member
I would be surprised if they didn't sell any. My guess would be the wolf activists would buy em up and then tell everyone they have more of a stake in wolves than hunters, trying to once again stop the hunting.
I guess it will be a chance for the non-hunting community to put their money where their mouth is. Probably a good thing. If they are serious about supporting wildlife funding, they will buy some. If they are not serious about funding when given the chance, it will be good to know.
I see SFW is sending out email blasts that this wolf stamp is going to be the doom of wildlife management as we know it. Prior to reading the SFW hysteria, I had no real opinion about it. Now, I am probably biased towards the notion, as my bullchit compass always points the opposite direction from SFW.
I see SFW is sending out email blasts that this wolf stamp is going to be the doom of wildlife management as we know it. Prior to reading the SFW hysteria, I had no real opinion about it. Now, I am probably biased towards the notion, as my bullchit compass always points the opposite direction from SFW.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
I heard about this stamp on another site a couple weeks ago. I hit a few of the anti sites and it does seem they think that by buying a lot of stamps that it will give them a big voice in wolf management. The guys were having the same thoughts about it that Randy mentioned SFW is spewing out in emails. I think I understand their thoughts, but I don't agree about the antis getting their say on things just because they buy a stamp. After all, if you buy one you would be doing it on an individual basis and not as a group noted to be against hunting.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not likely. You already pay a fee to apply for a species. If your a hunter, you contribute.
I don't think people will buy a lot of these things. This is nothing new, it's been tried before and not much participation to place.
double_a85
Member
Your right. Most hunters contribute to the species management without really thinking about it. I always buy a bear tag and a wolf tag for those "chance" encounters. I don't actively pursue them, but by me spending the money on the tag it helps fund management.
RobertR
Member
I think the stamp is a good thing.
Read what radical George Wurethner writes about the wolf stamp.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/06/02/mdfwp-wolf-conservation-stamp-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
Read what radical George Wurethner writes about the wolf stamp.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/06/02/mdfwp-wolf-conservation-stamp-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
George concludes:
As predicted, when asked to be part of the funding solution, they use the same old worn out and far fetched whining excuses to justify their non-participation. Not that any of the excuse making surprises me.
George has no regard for the deal that was struck to get the states to allow for reintroduction of wolves. Nor do any of his like-minded "nature will find its own balance" friends. Once again, he cries for an end to wolf hunting and trapping, the two main incentives provided to states to sign on to reintroduction.
I suspect he would defend the hypocrisy where at the time of reintroduction he and his ilk were dancing in the streets that wolves were going to be brought in. Now, the critical part of the deal that was incentive for states to go along with it, hunting/trapping/management, has no place in George's thinking. It is nice when he puts it in black and white like this, so people can see what level of distrust he and others have earned on the topic of wildlife management and reintroductions.
As per usual, more hypocrisy from George. Can't imagine what his next sniveling session will be.
As predicted, when asked to be part of the funding solution, they use the same old worn out and far fetched whining excuses to justify their non-participation. Not that any of the excuse making surprises me.
George has no regard for the deal that was struck to get the states to allow for reintroduction of wolves. Nor do any of his like-minded "nature will find its own balance" friends. Once again, he cries for an end to wolf hunting and trapping, the two main incentives provided to states to sign on to reintroduction.
I suspect he would defend the hypocrisy where at the time of reintroduction he and his ilk were dancing in the streets that wolves were going to be brought in. Now, the critical part of the deal that was incentive for states to go along with it, hunting/trapping/management, has no place in George's thinking. It is nice when he puts it in black and white like this, so people can see what level of distrust he and others have earned on the topic of wildlife management and reintroductions.
As per usual, more hypocrisy from George. Can't imagine what his next sniveling session will be.
katqanna
Well-known member
I think it was a couple years ago that Defenders of Wildlife wanted to put their money where their mouth was on giving a donation to FWP for collars and such on a wolf study. FWP accepted money from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for the study, but would not accept Defenders of Wildlife. When I heard about it, I called both FWP and Defenders to confirm. They both did. Just throwing that out there.
Personally, I would not advocate to the "wolfers" to buy a wolf stamp, until FWP manages by scientific wildlife management instead of just giving 100 extra kills to landowners, not part of the quota that is supposed to be based on science. This is no different than the mountain lion politics with that bs FWP paper that was not based on responsible science and is academically contested or the elk rancher kills that are being used under the brucellosis umbrella or the sage grouse politics in reverse.
Ive been researching some articles and a book on the insidious neo-conservation movement - pretty much a conservation movement run by private conservation groups who hold the purse strings for their recreation/private parks agenda against wildness - the Nature Conservancy being one. I dont know if any of y'all heard the Sen. Jennifer Fielders comments after she got back from the UT ALC federal lands transfer meeting, but she spoke of the presentations and the Nature Conservancy's advocacy of their model. This needs looking into.
Factor in the comments Keith Aune made at the bison discussion group meeting in Billings about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation being outdated. I have heard comments that this is coming out of FWP, that the conservation hunter North American Model is not going to work, that they need to throw in with the landowner (their interests) and other funding. If the ag/livestock legislators threaten/control the purse strings contributing to the funding woes of our wildlife agency, so that sportsmens dollars are prohibited from taking care of wildlife/habitats needs, then whose dollars are going to be allowed?
This is not just a a two sided struggle for our Public Trust wildlife/habitat, there is a dangerous third side - the pseudo conservationists and they are extremely well funded and connected. They are a different face of privatization.
While I know and respect some of the wolf advocates that are very science based (integral part of the ecosystem, respect them as wildlife not pets or anthropomorphize them), not all wolf (or any other species) advocates are the same. Be careful what you wish for. Not all dollars are the same either.
Personally, I would not advocate to the "wolfers" to buy a wolf stamp, until FWP manages by scientific wildlife management instead of just giving 100 extra kills to landowners, not part of the quota that is supposed to be based on science. This is no different than the mountain lion politics with that bs FWP paper that was not based on responsible science and is academically contested or the elk rancher kills that are being used under the brucellosis umbrella or the sage grouse politics in reverse.
Ive been researching some articles and a book on the insidious neo-conservation movement - pretty much a conservation movement run by private conservation groups who hold the purse strings for their recreation/private parks agenda against wildness - the Nature Conservancy being one. I dont know if any of y'all heard the Sen. Jennifer Fielders comments after she got back from the UT ALC federal lands transfer meeting, but she spoke of the presentations and the Nature Conservancy's advocacy of their model. This needs looking into.
Factor in the comments Keith Aune made at the bison discussion group meeting in Billings about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation being outdated. I have heard comments that this is coming out of FWP, that the conservation hunter North American Model is not going to work, that they need to throw in with the landowner (their interests) and other funding. If the ag/livestock legislators threaten/control the purse strings contributing to the funding woes of our wildlife agency, so that sportsmens dollars are prohibited from taking care of wildlife/habitats needs, then whose dollars are going to be allowed?
This is not just a a two sided struggle for our Public Trust wildlife/habitat, there is a dangerous third side - the pseudo conservationists and they are extremely well funded and connected. They are a different face of privatization.
While I know and respect some of the wolf advocates that are very science based (integral part of the ecosystem, respect them as wildlife not pets or anthropomorphize them), not all wolf (or any other species) advocates are the same. Be careful what you wish for. Not all dollars are the same either.
Similar threads
