My list of criticisms of the NPS

[JacksonB]

It really does not matter, when it comes to public lands, you cannot deny access to the public land, as far as shooting livestock, that is a completely different crime and should be pursued and prosecuted as such. Even with illegal acts to private property on public lands, that does not give the lease holder the right to deny access..

[Bogo]

Bogo said:

BTW I've seen signs like that all over in my travels out west.

How much hunting do you allow on your land? Do they have to ask permission or can anyone hunt where ever?

There are 12 people I allow to hunt on my land. Every time I've allowed people who are not in the farming industry or close friends to hunt my lands I've lost cattle. Last year I think some 15 deer were harvested from my lands. Way to few and more of them should have been large does. In Iowa permission is required to hunt private lands. There are also many state forests and public hunting lands around the state where anybody can hunt. Some lands like the ones east and south of me are leased hunting lands. The hunting rights are leased to an individual or group and they are the only ones who can hunt them. I think they take way to few does and are part of the reason there are so many bloody deer around here.

[Wyo Native]

No I have no problem with the BLM sign, I thought you posted it as something you felt was ranchers "fault" and hampering you.
There are two kinds of ranchers in this state and everywhere ranching on big chunks of land exist. Family ranchers and trophy ranchers. They have very different attitudes in most cases. Remember last year when the news broadcaster (Brokaw?) got an injunction to prevent his neighbor from allowing hunting on his own private land? Then of course what about the hunter's attitude, how much are they going to want you on their land private or leased if you are angry and confrontational? How many times do hunters leave gates open, shoot livestock? I cannot tell you how much buckshot my Dad had to try to remove from the milk cow's hide after bird season....and that was private land. Do you ever hunt on block lands I think it is called, where ranchers allow hunting on their private land? Do you appreciate it or do you feel they owe you more?
My point is if more private land is moved into the hands of oout of state trophy owners or to environmental groups, you will find things much worse. Have you tried to get access across the Red Canyon ranch owned by TNC?
I make no bones about wanting to see family ranches contine and to see hunting continue that is a win win situation and both sides have problems with the other, but trying to work together to protect both is the way to go.

Why have you made the argument about Private Land? Were we not ONLY discussing PUBLIC LANDS?

Nowhere in this discussion have I made any reference towards taking Private Property rights away from property owners. Land owners have every right in the world to allow or deny access to their lands for use of recreation.

PUBLIC LAND even when leased for grazing DOES NOT belong to the rancher, and they have no right to allow or deny access to said lands, or decide what uses are allowed on those lands. Ranchers attempt all the time to limit or even eliminate the public from using PUBLIC LANDS. Corner jumping is a prime example. WE can not corner jump in this state because ranchers do not want us using landlocked portions of Public Land. Even with today's technology that can ensure that I never even disturb a blade of grass or a grain of dirt on their land, I can't corner jump because they own the AIR above the land also. Give me a break.

I have never hunted on Private Lands. I absolutely refuse because I completely disagree with Land Owner coupons that pay land owners money if hunters kill an animal on their lands.

As for the Block Management program you are referring too, it is called "The Hunter Management Program". I have never hunted these areas and never will. Almost all of the areas of the Hunter Management Program are 1 mile square checker boarded Public/Private Lands. I

I have three of these management areas within minutes of my house, they are the "Bear River Divide, and Knight Ridge and Medicine Butte management areas. None of these lands are fenced, and by time hunting season opens the grazing permits for the public lands has expired and cows are SUPPOSED to be out of the area. The private sections are not owned by one single individual either, they are owned by several small ranching families out of the Bridger Valley, Evanston, and Rich County Utah, that have formed together and created grazing coalitions. They are the Bear River Land and Livestock Company and the Deseret Land and Livestock Company.

One of the biggest reasons these coalitions have joined the Hunter Management program is because they cannot limit access to checker boarded public lands due to existing public easements that overrides Private Property denial of access.

The ranchers also are not signing up for the Hunter Management Program out of kindness either. They make a ton of money without having to lift a finger. The Bear River Divide Management Unit alone nets the three ranchers that own land in the area well over $50,000 a piece. This money comes from the Game and Fish paying them money to have their lands in the program, along with Land Owner coupons which they receive $16 dollars for every big game animal killed in the management unit, even if it was killed on Public Lands.

[ELK]

If you hate ranchers so bad that you will not hunt on the enrolled lands, nothing I say is going to impress you. How many acres of private property are enrolled in the program? Do you feel it is their duty to let you use their lands for free without any payment form the state?
I am not trying to make excuses for anyone posting leased land. I only suggest that you find out who the leasee is, and whether it is a local family rancher or an out of state trophy rancher.

[DanS]

I hope you are not inferring something about me that isn't true, that I am anti-rancher.

Maybe I should have said that to your recent inference to my political loyalty.

Here's the difference...
I just found out you were an elected official, and immediately raised a legit question about your funding sources & apparent interest in defending the livestock industry so vehemently regardless of the issue & evidence provided. You said that the livestock industry has not supplied you with funding. Therefore I have not questioned that again.

ELK has repeatedly inferred that I am "anti-ranching" as a defense against the many legitimate issues & questions I have repeatedly raised about the livestock industry & it's policies. That strategy is pretty transparent.
She unfortunately has not been able to defend against the issues & questions I've raised with either information or hard evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore I have repeatedly stated openly that I am not "anti-ranching", and that I understand the importance of producing food. I have also repeatedly stated that I would rather see ranches than trophy homes & over-development. Meanwhile no one making the claim that I am "anti-ranching" has been able to supply any evidence to support that claim.

[DanS]

I disagree entirely with the premise that ranchers are running roughshod over anyone..

Your opinion I guess... clearly I disagree. And I will continue to post considerable evidence that they are. Whether you ever allow yourself to see the truth in it or not... I can't say.

They did NOT force others to live and pay the cost of wolves for their enjoyment, they are on the receiving end of the damage from them. They pay to lease grazing land, benefitting all beef eaters in the country. They do not try to get laws passed and charge the taxpayers billions of dollars so they can keep everyone else out.

The livestock industry has (& continues to) force the public to pay millions to kill wildlife for the livestock industry's own benefit.
They continue to force the public to operate a grazing lease program on public lands at a net LOSS of almost half a billion dollars to taxpayers.
They force taxpayers to pay millions of dollars for ineffective & worthless disease control programs.
They force taxpayers to pay millions of dollars to haze & kill wildlife & keep them off of public lands for the livestock industry's benefit.
& as Wyo Native clearly pointed out above,
They forced hunters in Wyoming to pay for testing/killing of elk for the livestock industry's benefit.

Please cite an exaqmple of ranchers dominating public land policy.

I have. Several DOZEN times. Unfortunately no matter how many times I point them out to you, you seem to ignore them.
Whatever your attachment is to the livestock industry, it obviously does not allow yourself to see the truth in these examples:
-Montana's bison hazing/killing.
-Wyoming's elk testing/killing.
-The 8 MILLION dollars spent every year on western public lands for predator killing so that the livestock industry can more safely graze their PRIVATE property at a net LOSS to US taxpayers.

Not to mention Wyo Native posted some really good examples on here as well.
ALL of these are clear examples of the livestock industry's dictating public land policies. Basically it's clear to me that the livestock industry as a whole cares little about the health of the general ecology. They instead want to remain as dominant as they always have been over public land policy. They want to continue to have their livestock dominate the landscape & force taxpayers to largely pay for those policies.

[DanS]

Ranchers do not impose their will on enviros they try desperately to protect their right to continue producing food for our country instead of public land being turned into a private playground for those with lots of time to spend enjoying it.

I have no problem with ranchers producing food. I think they just need to understand that they are guests on public land & act accordingly. They need to understand that livestock should not take precedence over wildlife on public land.
I don't see the political & physical dominance of the livestock industry as "desperate" anything.
Frankly, the only thing they seem "desperate" about is not giving up any of their huge political influence.

And what exactly does the city dwelling taxpayer or anyone else get from the enviros free use of public land?....The bill to care for it.

Wait just a minute....
Attempting to paint "enviros" as free users of public lands is a misrepresentation of the truth.
Everyone pays taxes & therefore no one using public lands is a "free user".
There are understandably certain special use fees for certain uses that require greater infrastructure on public lands (hunting, fishing, boating, camping). However everyone is free to use said public lands including those "city dwellers"... including you.
So your painting enviros as using public lands free is simply wrong.
Also your insinuation that "city dwellers" don't use public lands & don't get something out of it, is also false. Plenty of "city dwellers" spend a good deal of their time using public lands & I know for a fact that they get a great deal out of it.

[DanS]

If you have questions please jsut list them, don't hide them in one of your long disertations.

Hide them? Are you serious?
So, ELK... just for the record... the next time you read one of my posts...
Can I suggest that you take special notice of the sentences I write using QUESTION MARKS as punctuation?

Those are the questions that you are apparently having trouble "finding".

I'm curious though... so here again is one of my questions:
Why is it that these questions that you seem to miss are generally the really tough ones???

And no I do not believe you like ranchers, unless you can get them to pay more and use the land less. That is jsut my opinion from what you have written.

I have actually a few friends that are ranchers & we have good relationships believe it or not.

But as you seem confused about my stance on ranchers I will state once again:
-I would rather see ranches than over development.
-I would like to see better & more sustainable ranch/livestock management overall.
-I think that ranchers should pay enough to make their leasing of taxpayer land at least a break even venture for taxpayers.
-I think in areas where there are disease issues or higher populations of predators that the public land grazing leases should be bought out. And I absolutely believe that in high risk areas livestock should not be grazed when they could be grazed elsewhere.
-I also believe if livestock owners are going to willingly graze their animals on public lands known to be frequented by predators, then they should do so at their own risk.

My interests are to see livestock interests made to act overall more responsibly, have a better respect for ecosystem health & balance (especially on public lands), & that they should act as though they are sharing public lands instead of owning them. My interests are not to "get rid of" or to "end" ranching. If you have proof that I have said or implied either.... let's see it.

You seem to wrongly interpret my reluctance to stand idly by & submit to the livestock industry's public land dominance & huge political influence as my "hating" of ranchers or that I am "anti-ranching".

[Wyo Native]

If you hate ranchers so bad that you will not hunt on the enrolled lands, nothing I say is going to impress you. How many acres of private property are enrolled in the program? Do you feel it is their duty to let you use their lands for free without any payment form the state?
I am not trying to make excuses for anyone posting leased land. I only suggest that you find out who the leasee is, and whether it is a local family rancher or an out of state trophy rancher.

Once again why are you spinning this discussion about Public Lands, into Private Property?

Who said I hate ranchers? Nowhere have I said this. In fact unlike yourself, I am personally involved in ranching (although not full time). My immediate family owns a ranch in Thayne, raises pure bred Herefords, and even has grazing allotments on Public Land in eastern Idaho and western Wyoming.

And no I don't feel it is the duty of ranchers to let the public use their PRIVATE land for free or even for a price. I don't care how much money they can make from letting hunters access their lands. I just disagree with where the money comes from. They should be paid by the individual hunters that want to use their lands and not from the Game and Fish Funds.

FYI I do know who the ranchers are who post the "Private Property" signs. They are not "Trophy" ranchers as you suggest. But rather they are original homestead ranches that have put together a grazing coalition, they are all out of the Rock Springs, Farson, and Bridger Valley areas. In fact other than around Jackson Hole "Trophy" ranches are not that big of an issue.

[ELK]

OK, you seemed so bitter that they would get money for allowing hunting. I guess I don't see the problems because obviously all hunters have to buy a license to utilize the land.
Teh ranchers probably went together in order to be able to keep running if theya re family ranches that have gone together (bet they learned about that sort of thing in college), that being said I agree that there is no excuse for trying to post public land. A ranch back ground is no guarantee that one cares about ranchers, look at Bruce Babbitt, he is from a ranch family in Arizona. Lot's more green on the other side of the fence though.

[ELK]

Why is it that these questions that you seem to miss are generally the really tough ones???

You got me there, I have no idea.

[ke4yyd]

I hope you are not inferring something about me that isn't true, that I am anti-rancher.

Maybe I should have said that to your recent inference to my political loyalty.

Here's the difference...
I just found out you were an elected official, and immediately raised a legit question about your funding sources & apparent interest in defending the livestock industry so vehemently regardless of the issue & evidence provided. You said that the livestock industry has not supplied you with funding. Therefore I have not questioned that again.

ELK has repeatedly inferred that I am "anti-ranching" as a defense against the many legitimate issues & questions I have repeatedly raised about the livestock industry & it's policies. That strategy is pretty transparent.
She unfortunately has not been able to defend against the issues & questions I've raised with either information or hard evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore I have repeatedly stated openly that I am not "anti-ranching", and that I understand the importance of producing food. I have also repeatedly stated that I would rather see ranches than trophy homes & over-development. Meanwhile no one making the claim that I am "anti-ranching" has been able to supply any evidence to support that claim.

BS again Dan, You did not raise a question, there was no question mark at the end of your statement. It was an accusation, pure and simple, based on your own jumping to conclusions.

DanS wrote:
I guess I can assume that much of your campaign funds come from the livestock industry though.

See, Dan, no question mark!

BTW, defending the science of brucellosis eradication does not make one/me a defender of the livestock industry as you have so erroneously assumed. I am amazed at how you conclude that I "vehemently" defend the livestock industry simply because I have opinions/experience about hunter behavior that is different than yours.

After reading your comments about ranching it is obvious to me that you are anti-ranching. You are one of those who say "I am OK with it if they do it my way".

[DanS]

BS again Dan, You did not raise a question, there was no question mark at the end of your statement. It was an accusation, pure and simple, based on your own jumping to conclusions.

Actually what I did was make the statement that I "guess I can assume".
So I was raising the potential sources of your funding as an elected official as an issue.

You & ELK have now claimed I was making "accusations" and "assertions". Which are both clearly false.
But I realize that is the game that is being played here. So as I am not going to allow you to distract this thread with a pointless argument over semantics however... let's get back on track there shall we?

1- As an elite elected official, why are you acting as though you are SO offended that a civilian taxpayer of the US might wonder where your funding comes from?
2- As an elite elected official, do you feel that the public has the right to know the source of any potential funding that you receive?

BTW, defending the science of brucellosis eradication does not make one/me a defender of the livestock industry as you have so erroneously assumed. I am amazed at how you conclude that I "vehemently" defend the livestock industry simply because I have opinions/experience about hunter behavior that is different than yours.

I conclude that you are a defender of the livestock industry because just about every time I've been involved in a thread discussing the problems that I have with the livestock industry, you & ELK seem to jump in & defend the livestock industry.

Also I would edit that last statement to read more along the lines that you, "have opinions/experience about hunter behavior (in my local area) that is different than mine". Obviously you asked me for proof of how local hunters feel contrary to your assumptions & I gave you several.

After reading your comments about ranching it is obvious to me that you are anti-ranching.

So now, you are making the same accusation that ELK is that I am anti-ranching it seems. I would ask you for proof as to where I have called for "ending" or "stopping ranching". Again I will tell you the same I told her... if you can't find proof than I must take that as an admission that you have no proof.

You are one of those who say "I am OK with it if they do it my way".

Really?
So then David, why do YOU believe that it is wrong for me to want to have a say as to how the livestock industry acts when it is on PUBLIC LAND?
I am a taxpayer.
They waste my tax money.
They kill thousands of wildlife every year that I want on public land.

Why is my standing up for public lands that I fund & enjoy such a problem for you?
Even your having the nerve to infer that it is wrong for me to have an opinion on what they do when it affects me is here again I can highlight how you defend the livestock industry.

[DanS]

Why is it that these questions that you seem to miss are generally the really tough ones???

You got me there, I have no idea.

Only you can answer that one ELK.
By not answering them you open the door of interpretation however.


In any case, on the topic of unanswered questions.... let me go back & list some of the previous questions I asked on this thread for you:

It would only work if the buffalo were also tested and the infected killed.

Above you were talking about brucellosis testing/killing of wildlife for the livestock industry
1-IF the testing and killing elk would "only work if bison were tested & killed also"...
doesn't that logically mean that the CURRENT testing & killing of BISON would "only work if ELK were tested & killed as well"?

2-Also, if, as you seem to infer here, elk are such a minor issue. Then how do you explain the Montana Stockgrowers Assoc. basically blaming the recent outbreaks on elk & only elk?

3-Are you going to revise or rephrase your comments about Wyoming hunters & their compliance with testing & killing of elk for the livestock industry's benefit?

4- Why is it suddenly so offensive to wonder aloud where an elected official's campaign contributions come from?

5- Shouldn't we, in our democracy, be able to make such statements or raise such questions concerning our elected leaders, without being criticized or them feeling wronged?

6- Nowhere have I EVER claimed that I feel that we need to stop the act of raising livestock... go ahead & prove me wrong. I challenge you to find me a quote or a position where I have said anything about ending or getting rid of ranching. Do you have any evidence/proof?

7- Therefore I am asking you to comment on the fact that several GLARING examples of the livestock industry dictating public land policy were served to you, silver platter style. Comments?

The reason I'm asking this last one is because of the fact that midway down Page 6 on this thread you asked me to give you some examples of the livestock industry dictating policies on public lands. I cited several GLARING EXAMPLES, so did Wyo Native.

You never commented on any of them.
Normally I would take that to mean that you have nothing to say to contradict those as examples & are giving them your tacit approval. However I know from past threads... that most likely in a future discussion I will make the same comment about the livestock industry dictating policy on public lands & you will again ask for examples, as though I never posted them before & you never saw them.

[ke4yyd]

You & ELK have now claimed I was making "accusations" and "assertions". Which are both clearly false.

Absolutely not false as it is in the record. You can try to wiggle out of this but your words are there for all to see.

1- As an elite elected official, why are you acting as though you are SO offended that a civilian taxpayer of the US might wonder where your funding comes from?

You put two words in your question that have no place in a civil discussion. You seem to think you are an expert on what is expected of elected officials. If you really wanted to prove your point you could have went on line and found out who contributed to me and how much. If you had done that you would have realized your accusation was baseless and you would have been deprived of your ------ remarks. ( I wanted to put childish in there but Bruce seems to not approve so I will leave it to the readers to put in what they want.)

I am not offended by anyone asking in a civil manner about my political experiences.

2- As an elite elected official, do you feel that the public has the right to know the source of any potential funding that you receive?

You bet, and we make periodic reports of who and how much for anyone that is really interested to see. This is covered under the Florida Sunshine Law. If you had bothered to do some basic research you could have found out how futile your assumptions were.

I conclude that you are a defender of the livestock industry because just about every time I've been involved in a thread discussing the problems that I have with the livestock industry, you & ELK seem to jump in & defend the livestock industry.

I believe you will find that you made another erroneous conclusion. I don't defend the livestock industry. My defense has always been about the erradication of brucellosis and the science approved by the NAS that APHIS has followed. If that benefits any organization so be it.

Why is my standing up for public lands that I fund & enjoy such a problem for you?
Even your having the nerve to infer that it is wrong for me to have an opinion on what they do when it affects me is here again I can highlight how you defend the livestock industry.

You are not telling the truth now, Dan. I have never inferred it was wrong for you to have an opinion. It is amazing how you come up with these statements.

[DanS]

You & ELK have now claimed I was making "accusations" and "assertions". Which are both clearly false.

Absolutely not false as it is in the record. You can try to wiggle out of this but your words are there for all to see.

I have no need to wriggle. I'm glad my words are on record. I'm also glad you reminded everyone that they ARE on record while calling into question the validity of what I said.

On record:

Originally I wrote: "I guess I can assume"... Clearly I said I "assume".

Elk wrote, "but what would be a correct response to DanS's assertion that being an elected official in Florida..." Elk clearly stated that I "asserted". Which is different from what I said.

YOU wrote, "It was an accusation, pure and simple, based on your own jumping to conclusions." You clearly said that I made an "accusation". Which also, is different from what I said.

Those are the facts. Those facts are on record. Thank you for pointing them out.

Although I did notice that later in your post above you did say,

If you had bothered to do some basic research you could have found out how futile your assumptions were.

Refreshingly here you originally called my "assertions", assumptions.
Which is what I originally said. I thank you for changing that & actually phrasing it as I originally did.

However, here you also pointed out that I should have gone & researched your contributions online. Well I probably could have if I knew who you were & your elected office. As I know you as either "birddog", "Ke4yyd" or "David", I do not know who you are. And I would guess or "assume" that I could not do the research you believe I should have with simply any of those monikers.

As for the rest of your post...

It's clear that we all get frustrated from time to time during these discussions. And obviously as we are all passionate about our own opinions, that happens.

I could be wrong here, but from the tone of your recent posts, I feel you may have gotten a little upset about the pointed questions I asked concerning your feelings/opinions as an elected official. In which case, I apologize for getting you upset.

I think perhaps I will wait on any answers to those questions or responding to your posts until you do not seem to be so upset & perhaps we can discuss things more along what I understand to be the guidelines of this forum. How does that sound?

[ke4yyd]

However, here you also pointed out that I should have gone & researched your contributions online. Well I probably could have if I knew who you were & your elected office. As I know you as either "birddog", "Ke4yyd" or "David", I do not know who you are. And I would guess or "assume" that I could not do the research you believe I should have with simply any of those monikers.

A simple matter of asking who I am if you couldn't figure it out. I have nothing to hide about myself. KE4YYD is my Ham callsign. With that info my elected office data is readily available on the internet. A google on that would have pulled up my name, address, birthday, etc form the FCC database. As I said, that would have been too easy and a loss of the ability to make a blatant accusation.

Look what I found on KE4YYD on Google among other things.

http://www.qrz.com/callsign?callsign=KE4YYD

From that site info using my name, address and county look what else is found, among other things.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... JZYRf0MrXw

After a couple of Googles one could have found out my elected position. From that info and your ample internet skills you could have found out about who and how much I received from campaign contributions.

Refreshingly here you originally called my "assertions", assumptions.
Which is what I originally said. I thank you for changing that & actually phrasing it as I originally did.

Look whos arguing semantics now....

I could be wrong here, but from the tone of your recent posts, I feel you may have gotten a little upset about the pointed questions I asked concerning your feelings/opinions as an elected official. In which case, I apologize for getting you upset.

I think you have that backwards. I wasn't the one who yelled at the moderators.

I think perhaps I will wait on any answers to those questions or responding to your posts until you do not seem to be so upset & perhaps we can discuss things more along what I understand to be the guidelines of this forum. How does that sound?

I think that is a great idea. When do you think you will start?

[ELK]

Above you were talking about brucellosis testing/killing of wildlife for the livestock industry
1-IF the testing and killing elk would "only work if bison were tested & killed also"...
doesn't that logically mean that the CURRENT testing & killing of BISON would "only work if ELK were tested & killed as well"?

2-Also, if, as you seem to infer here, elk are such a minor issue. Then how do you explain the Montana Stockgrowers Assoc. basically blaming the recent outbreaks on elk & only elk?

3-Are you going to revise or rephrase your comments about Wyoming hunters & their compliance with testing & killing of elk for the livestock industry's benefit?

4- Why is it suddenly so offensive to wonder aloud where an elected official's campaign contributions come from?

5- Shouldn't we, in our democracy, be able to make such statements or raise such questions concerning our elected leaders, without being criticized or them feeling wronged?

6- Nowhere have I EVER claimed that I feel that we need to stop the act of raising livestock... go ahead & prove me wrong. I challenge you to find me a quote or a position where I have said anything about ending or getting rid of ranching. Do you have any evidence/proof?

7- Therefore I am asking you to comment on the fact that several GLARING examples of the livestock industry dictating public land policy were served to you, silver platter style. Comments?

Well at least this seems to be a step up from your burning question being Why don't I answer hard (your interpretation) questions.
The first in this series doesn't make sense, you seem to be saying I don't want test and slaughter of both seperately. I want both tested.
2. Don't know that they did.
3 Nope, I can find nothing by googling either that indicates the objected.
4 & 5. It is rather ........ (Ill get banned if I put a good description) to suggest that a Florida local elected official in in the pocket of Wyoming Ranchers.
6 & 7, I saw no glaring examples of ranchers dictating policy. Are they the ones demanding only hikers, no bikers be allowed? Do the memand no oil, gas, coal, wind, or solar interfer with their delicate sensibilities?

[DanS]

Well at least this seems to be a step up from your burning question being Why don't I answer hard (your interpretation) questions.

Elk,
I ask you many questions in my posts. They are the ones with question marks at the end of the sentences.
My question above was simply why is it that every time I ask a truly pointed question about the hard truth about one of your positions... it more often than not seems to get missed. Only you can provide an answer as to the reason why.

The first in this series doesn't make sense, you seem to be saying I don't want test and slaughter of both seperately. I want both tested.

The first question I posed was based on the fact that currently bison are tested/killed & elk are not.
When I asked you if you'd support testing/killing of elk, you said it would "only work if bison were tested & killed also".
I agree with you that if one species is then both should be.

Where I questioned you was if it makes sense for both to be tested/killed, then why is it that you, or the Montana livestock industry, raise as much stink about elk as they do bison?
Isn't that logical?

Since they don't, than you obviously have to start to realize that this policy of testing/killing one species and not the other is a complete farce. Therefore you should be critical of the livestock industry for testing one species and NOT the other! Very simple!

3 Nope, I can find nothing by googling either that indicates the objected.

OK so to review...
You claimed that the testing/killing of elk in Wyoming was funded AND supported by ranchers & hunters. You blamed the opposition of it solely on "enviro" groups.

Wyo Native provided evidence that not only was it ONLY funded by hunters, but it was NOT supported by them at all. Furthermore there were no "enviro" groups at any of the meetings.

I asked you if you wanted to revise/rephrase your comments that were proven unequivocally to be FALSE by someone intimately connected with the issue, and your answer is to not back off of them because you could not find other info by "googling".... I rest my case your honor.

[DanS]

4 & 5. It is rather ........ (Ill get banned if I put a good description) to suggest that a Florida local elected official in in the pocket of Wyoming Ranchers.

I asked simple yes & no questions. The correct answers I believe are yes and yes, period.
We are in a free society. We elect our leaders and they have a responsibility to us.
Therefore wondering where their campaign funding comes from should not be offensive to anyone.
And those that wonder such things shouldn't be criticized.

But rather you just responded to a yes & no question by claiming you can't answer without being "banned".
You are just avoiding the question. If you don't want to answer the question, just say so.

6 & 7, I saw no glaring examples of ranchers dictating policy. Are they the ones demanding only hikers, no bikers be allowed? Do the memand no oil, gas, coal, wind, or solar interfer with their delicate sensibilities?

Of course you didn't!
I believe you are simply avoiding the question & throwing blame at "enviro" groups as a diversion.

So what you are saying here is simply this:
You do not believe the livestock industry (<-a special interest), dictating public land policies to US taxpayers that are: that do not work, are contrary to what the public wants, and worse yet operate at an annual net loss of half a billion dollars... as a problem.

It's really funny that you have in the past harshly criticized "enviro" groups for trying to control private or public land policies, but when your beloved livestock industry does the same thing... suddenly it's all quiet on the western front!!!

Which leads me to ask...
1- In your opinion are the people that produce livestock somehow better then people that do not produce livestock?
2- Should livestock producers be given special treatment in the US?

[DanS]

Hey Elk,
Did you miss the questions I posted on my last post? Are you leaving this thread? Or should I post them as a new thread?

[DanS]

Hey Elk,
Did you miss the questions I posted on my last post? Are you leaving this thread? Or should I post them as a new thread?

Actually don't worry, I'll post them on a new thread.

As they are definitely off the original topic.
They focus on the right/wrong about civilians wondering where their elected officials get their money. Or opinions about whether livestock producers should be treated differently than other Americans.

[ELK]

So what you are saying here is simply this:
You do not believe the livestock industry (<-a special interest), dictating public land policies to US taxpayers that are: that do not work, are contrary to what the public wants, and worse yet operate at an annual net loss of half a billion dollars... as a problem.

It's really funny that you have in the past harshly criticized "enviro" groups for trying to control private or public land policies, but when your beloved livestock industry does the same thing... suddenly it's all quiet on the western front!!!

Which leads me to ask...
1- In your opinion are the people that produce livestock somehow better then people that do not produce livestock?
2- Should livestock producers be given special treatment in the US?

1, No I do not believe that food producers are "better" than others, they do provide what we all muist have....food.
2. Nope, no special treatment, they should pay ever bit as much as back country users pay.

[DanS]

1, No I do not believe that food producers are "better" than others, they do provide what we all muist have....food.

They provide a type of food for people true. But I am REALLY glad to hear that you don't find them to be any 'better" than other citizens of this country. Sometimes by your posts I'm not sure.

2. Nope, no special treatment, they should pay ever bit as much as back country users pay.

1- OK... In your opinion, concerning the amount of money that they pay to "lease" public lands for.... should that cover the costs that the leasees incur by leasing those lands?
2- If those leasees were taking annual losses of almost a half a billion dollars a year, do you feel they are justified in being angry?

Thank you very much for the answers btw... didn't want to not get answers to these as the thread potentially got "buried".

So about this question (admittedly off topic)...

3- As a private citizen, if you were criticized for wondering where an elected representatives got campaign funding... how would you react?

[ELK]

1- OK... In your opinion, concerning the amount of money that they pay to "lease" public lands for.... should that cover the costs that the leasees incur by leasing those lands?
2- If those leasees were taking annual losses of almost a half a billion dollars a year, do you feel they are justified in being angry?

Once more how about the costs for recreationalists, you know trailheads, trails and their maintneance, trash removal, etc?
I personally think that ranchers do pay the full costs of leasing lands for grazing, I have used my uncle as an example, they sent him a bill, he sent them the check, that was the extent of the interaction until the next year, unless he would have had to pull them off the mountain early. He maintained fences, water holes, weed control, etc. He got a seperate bill for using the trail to the mountain, I don't remember now how much they pay to trail for 2 or 3 days. How much do you pay to use a trail? This one requires no maintenence.....yours? I persoanlly think the numbers are juggled to make the costs of hikers trails fit into grazing costs. Do you know what the deficit is for hikers? Are you concerned?
I am not in the least concerned about any perceived breaks the ranchers get, in the first place I KNOW a lot of it is bookkeeping juggling by the feds. In the second again, the food they produce at a reasonable cost is extremely valuable to the ordinary people in this country.
By the way you mention half a billion, you do realize that is how many taxpayer dollars were spent for Plum Creek ?
No, I don't worry about the politicians, they all represent special interests, that is how environmetnal groups have gotten so much power.