PDA

View Full Version : Urgent Please Read. Govt To Hire Sharpshooters At Taxpayer Expense...


castnblast
July 13, 2006, 11:28 AM
OK...LEAVE IT TO THE GOV'T (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE) TO SPEND MONEY ON A PROJECT THAT COULD ACTUALLY PROFIT FROM. FROM THE NRA, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS TRYING TO SPEND 18 MILLION OF OUR MONEY TO HIRE SHARPSHOOTERS TO REDUCE THE ELK HEARD AT ROCKEY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: THEY DON'T NEED TO SPEND A DIME AND THE COLORADO WILDLIFE COMMISSION IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THEY NEED OUR HELP:eek: I DON'T CARE IF YOU HUNT IN TX, WY PA WA OK OR WHEREVER. THEY NEED OUR HELP AND WE NEED TO PUT OUR COMMENTS IN. PLEASE SEE www.nraila.org/currentlegislation

THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HUNTERS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT, AND SAVE OUR TAX $$$.

I'M A TX RESIDENT, BUT THIS ISSUE AFFECTS US ALL SO LET'S DO OUR PART AS HUNTERS.

HATS OFF TO THE COLORADO DEPT OF WILDLIFE FOR SUPPORTING HUNTERS AND OUR CAUSE. LET'S HELP EM OUT AND SEE THIS THROUGH.

THANKS!!!

P.S. STAFF @ FIRING LINE, CAN YOU GET THIS ON A MUST READ ITEM???

Sarge
July 13, 2006, 11:38 AM
All I wanna know is, "Where do you apply?";)

smithandwesson460
July 13, 2006, 11:53 AM
spray and pray:D

FirstFreedom
July 13, 2006, 02:33 PM
That's absurd - who do we contact at the national park service to gripe? Got any specific contact info? Not for Colo Wildlife dept -they're on our side - the folks who need to hear from a lot of us in unison are the feds. The least they could do is allow an archery hunt.

kingudaroad
July 13, 2006, 04:54 PM
I wonder if their still taking bids for this job. Me and my sharp-shooting team would probably be able to save the government some cash. In fact, we'd be willing to shoot every elk in the state for say.........$10 mil.:cool:

castnblast
July 13, 2006, 06:17 PM
freedomfirst: contact your senator. Let them know. Colorado residents: PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE WILDLIFE OFFICE. DON'T LET THIS OBSURD ACT HAPPEN. This could be a great thing for future hunting opportunities at other parks if this issue can be steered in the appropriate direction.

Jseime
July 15, 2006, 11:56 PM
Ive got a box of 150 Grain SSTs and a can of IMR 4831 in the basement that i could put together and be down tomorow. If they pay for my gas me and the boys can take care of any extra critters you guys have runnin around down there. Heck Ill even shoot a couple terrorists and a mad cow while were at it.

This is typical of a situation where an organization becomes top heavy. All the bosses are busy running around trying to justify their jobs and they completely lose touch with the real world. I work for an oil company which was recently bought out and the new company has apparently thrown every last shred of common sense out the window. I think this is one of those situations.

maas
July 16, 2006, 06:09 AM
the 338 loaded and ready to go.............. do i hear firing line feild trip?:D

Rich Lucibella
July 16, 2006, 11:35 AM
castnblast-
As much as I'm in favor of contacting our elected representatives on important issues, this one is not yet "ripe" for that...at least not based on the info provided by NRA.

In order to contact your Senator, you must at least be able to reference a proposed bill. There doesn't seem to be one here; nor is there any specifics as to the National Park Service "proposal".

As in shooting, in politics, we must identify our target before firing. If anyone has specific info, including the results of the July 13 CO meeting, please post.
Rich

contender6030
July 16, 2006, 11:51 AM
Her in Ga the DNR had a special "population reduction" hunt at two parks and If I'm not mistaken they have two more planned for this year. I think they do it like a quota hunt (send in your name and they have a drawing). I can't imagine spending tax money to hire shooters when the idiots could MAKE money from license fees and such. Sounds about par for their course though.:rolleyes:

Rich Lucibella
July 16, 2006, 01:32 PM
Contender-
But didn't you know? It's, it's, it's "counterproductive" to allow hunters into National Parks. It would demonstrate that those ecosystems are out of balance due to the lack of natural predation. So it is only natural to spend taxpayer millions on "professional game management technicians" while maintaining the long history of protecting the Park wildlife from human "predators".

I have a better idea....why don't they just round up all the reintroduced wolves raising hell with livestock in the Mountain States and relocate them to the Park. Then the average American tourist can personally witness the way game animals die "naturally". I'll hunt my Elk in Wyoming. ;)
Rich

Rich Lucibella
July 16, 2006, 01:54 PM
These morons aren't kidding. They've put forth five alternatives, none of which include the obvious: Hunting Tags!
Rich

swampdog
July 16, 2006, 02:18 PM
I have a better idea....why don't they just round up all the reintroduced wolves raising hell with livestock in the Mountain States and relocate them to the Park. Then the average American tourist can personally witness the way game animals die "naturally". I'll hunt my Elk in Wyoming.
Rich

There is too much sense in this suggestion for it to ever be considered. Maybe after the "average American tourist" witnessed one of their dogs or, God forbid, one of their kids dying "naturally", they'd rethink the whole wolf introduction concept.

It would seem that a lottery style hunt would be the cheapest, most effective, answer to this problem. When was the last time our goverment did anything in a cheap, effective manner? Hunters in National parks? The greenies would be rioting. Your truck would get vandalized and you'd have a bunch of idiots running through the woods, screaming, peeing and carrying signs. This gets people arrested in NC, btw. On a national park, these fools would probably have park ranger escort.

North Carolina also has a reduction program, lottery style, for its state parks. Makes "cent$" to me.

swampdog
July 16, 2006, 02:36 PM
Wow, I checked out that link. Guess I might have been wrong about them considering wolves. I've got a question, though. Does anyone know how you go about "intensively managing" a wolf? Can you imagine the lawsuits if one "slipped its leash" and attacked someone?
I like the "fertility control agent". Birth control for elks. What will they think of next?
I hope everyone realizes we pay these people. The cost of the "proposal" by itself was probably astronomical. By the time they get done paying sharpshooters, building fences, sterilizing and aborting and "redistributing" the elk, we will have spent millions. A lottery style hunt would make money and the game would pay for itself.
I wonder how big and expensive an elk-proof fence is.
Being politically correct can sure get expensive. If they go through with this, someone needs to get fired.

Jseime
July 16, 2006, 03:26 PM
The greenies would be rioting. Your truck would get vandalized and you'd have a bunch of idiots running through the woods, screaming, peeing and carrying signs.

Hillbilly: I dont know officer i coulda swore i was shooting targets
Policeman: Well alright ill let you go this time, but you should always make sure that you know its not an idiot in a tie die shirt before you start firing

"Enivironmentalists" and the like really dont understand the environment and should be rounded up and put on an island to see how long they would last in the great outdoors without the comfort of their jobs at air conditioned music stores.

Art Eatman
July 16, 2006, 06:00 PM
You think this NPS deal is stupid? Hey, when the Fish&Wildlife Service folks were "studying" the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf into New Mexico, they showed three options and the annual cost for each.

Intensive Management: $12 million.

A mid-range effort: $ 8 million.

Do nothing: $ 4 million.

Only the feds can do nothing and have it cost $4 million per year.

If I'm lyin' I'm flyin', and I ain't flapped a wing: I read the (Bleep!) report.\

Art

sm
July 16, 2006, 07:21 PM
I got an idea.

TPTB allow TFL folks to gather to handle this problem.

TFL will Represent Responsible Firearms Owners, Hunters , Ethics, Game Mgmt...

I hate to mention this - still if TPTB are going to throw out money - why not throw it to TFL?

I am sure TFL could "manage this problem" for a lot less monies. Heck gas money for some, or equipment for a new shooter, perhaps Make a Wish Kid getting them there and special needs ...anything.


TFL would "raise more than a bar" - TFL would raise awarenes and blow some ideology, myths and lies.

I'm picturing a Kid, on a Make A Wish, taking a critter.

Film it.

Everyone from gun grabbers, "for the children", Hollywood, UN...you name it would have thier Ideology blown clean out of the tub.


I am not speaking of Gov't Programs - Instead Private Institutions running the whole show. No Gov't allowed to meddle. Just a Social Experiment that Tax dollars funded perhaps [kinda odd feelings about that part myself still] still call it Grant Money. Only this time the results I know would be better.

Let those wanting to / studying to be in Wildlife Mgmt, live near and say for instance HS folks getting Home Schooled while they "work" the Programs.

I know I am dreaming, and it will not come to be. Then again if given the green light and greenbacks for say 3 years - what would be the results?

If you keep on doing what you have always done - you will keep on getting what you always got.

I'm a realist...just sometimes I wish I as a Rich Realist. :)

Steve

Epyon
July 16, 2006, 07:44 PM
Guess I might have been wrong about them considering wolves. I've got a question, though. Does anyone know how you go about "intensively managing" a wolf? Can you imagine the lawsuits if one "slipped its leash" and attacked someone?

There is too much sense in this suggestion for it to ever be considered. Maybe after the "average American tourist" witnessed one of their dogs or, God forbid, one of their kids dying "naturally", they'd rethink the whole wolf introduction concept.

There hasn't been a reported case of wolves attacking humans. Not only that, but it'd be absurd for people file a lawsuit against a national park where an apex predator belongs. Wolves tend to be more avoidant of people than bears. As for the topic on this thread, leave it to mass beauracracy, and mass stupidity when it comes to wasting our tax dollars. If they really wanna spend that much money so badly, why don't they pay the hunters who actually enjoy elk instead of wasting all that good meat at least for processing if not for ammunition and such? Mmm... elk steaks, elk kebab, elk flank, elk pot roast, elk burger... the possibilities are elk-less!!:D

Epyon

maas
July 17, 2006, 05:57 AM
the last time i herd of a kid wanting a hunting trip for there make a wish, hollywood had a fit. they offered him a but part on one of the james bond movies stuff like that. but, by god, the kid stuck to his guns (pun intended) and went to alaska and shot a bear.

Art Eatman
July 17, 2006, 09:43 AM
"...If they really wanna spend that much money so badly, why don't they pay the hunters who actually enjoy elk..."

Epyon, that's the crux of the matter: Anti-hunters go bonkers over the idea that hunters actually enjoy hunting, killing and eating wild game. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the enjoyment-factor is more annoying to them than the actual hunting. It's the old "I don't like it, so you can't do it!" deal.

From the Feds' standpoint, it's the usual arrogance that if you're not a federal employee, you don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'. As a generality, NPS employees regard the National Parks as "theirs" and really resent the vistors who come through. (I grant that there is that percentage of visitors who actually should have stayed home.)

Art

swampdog
July 17, 2006, 05:44 PM
Epyon

There hasn't been a reported case of wolves attacking humans.

http://www.google.com/search?q=wolf+attack

It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America. HISTORY STATES OTHERWISE! It depends on which century you want to research wolves attacking and killing humans,1800's, 1900's or 2000's. Through some quick searches we found some noted naturalists have long documented wolf attacks on humans:



* John James Audubon, of whom the Audubon society is named, reported an attack involving two men traveling through part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in the winter. The two men were carrying axes when they were viciously attacked by a pack of wolves, they managed to kill three wolves. One man was severely wounded and one man was killed, and devoured by the remainder of the wolves, only bones remained the next day. This occurred about 1830 ( Audubon,J.J.. and Bachman,J,: The Quadrupeds of North America.3 volumes. New York, 1851-1854)



* In northwestern Colorado, an 18-year-old girl was viciously attacked while bringing in milk cows, she screamed and her brother, who was nearby armed with a gun responded to the scene and killed the Wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal barely full-grown. This occurred in the summer about 1881 ( Grinnell,G.B; The Trail and Campfire- Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897)



* In1942, Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian Pacific Railway, was attacked by a wolf, the wolf was killed by the trains engineer, and firemen with picks and other tools. It should be noted that this wolf was scanned and inspected by an Investigator Chrichton, a Conservation Officer. His assessment was the animal was young healthy and in good condition. ( " A Record of Timber Wolf Attacking Man"Journal Of Mammology, Vol. 28, No. 3, August 1947)



Here are some examples from British Columbia:



Wolves overran Vancouver Island in the 1980's. Attacks became so common that many articles were published in Canadian magazines documenting such attacks:



* Aug., 1987 a 16-year-old girl was bitten by a wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, she was bitten on the arm, clothing prevented severe lacerations. The wolf was shot by the Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies. Well-known wolf biologists Dr. David Mech took issue with this attack stating it could not really be considered an authentic attack since the girl wasn't severely injured. (Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin Provincial Park, July 25, 1988)
* In August, 1996 eleven-year-old Zack Delventhal was viciously attacked, the boys face had been ripped open, his nose was crushed, parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing and dangling. The wolf was killed by Park authorities and found to be a young healthy adult male wolf ( Cook, Kathy; " Night of the Wolf " Readers Digest, July 1997 p. pp. 114-119)
* Sports Afield Magazine, December 2000 January 2001 issue, in Alaska a picture of six-year-old John Stenglein, lying in a hospital bed viciously attacked by a healthy male wolf, the wolf was killed by loggers near his camp. Also this same article reports a 22-year-old man in his sleeping bag on a beach near Vancouver BC who was also viciously attacked by a healthy male wolf, the wolf was killed by Canadian officials.
* In Northern India since 1996 there has been more than 80 people killed and eaten by wolves, in1998 30 (thirty) of those killed were children between ages of one (1) and twelve (12.) See National Geographic, Man Eaters of India)



Wolves are known as man-eaters throughout the world, don’t be fooled by unfounded rhetoric that “there has never been a documented wolf attack on humans” or “wolves are needed within our ecosystem to allow natural management to begin”. Lewis and Clark didn’t eat horsemeat when exploring the west because they wanted to; the wolf population was so large that game (deer, elk and moose) was in such short supply that they had to kill one of their own horses to survive.

Russian nobility never threw serfs off their sleighs to slow down the wolf packs, either.

As far as a lawsuit goes, if someone gets killed by wolves in a National Park, where there were no wolves before they were reintroduced, I'm sure there would be some kind of suit.

The wolves weren't really my point and I apologize for getting off topic. My point was the goverment wasting our money, which we both seem to agree on.

Why pay sharpshooters when the sharpshooters(us) would be glad to pay for the privilege?

HorseSoldier
July 17, 2006, 06:06 PM
Wolves are known as man-eaters throughout the world, don’t be fooled by unfounded rhetoric that “there has never been a documented wolf attack on humans” or “wolves are needed within our ecosystem to allow natural management to begin”. Lewis and Clark didn’t eat horsemeat when exploring the west because they wanted to; the wolf population was so large that game (deer, elk and moose) was in such short supply that they had to kill one of their own horses to survive.

I'm not saying wolves have never, ever attacked a human being, but I kind of have to question the Lewis and Clark bit. If the amount of game was so utterly scarce in the environment due to wolf predation, then how did all those Indians manage to make it through the same winter, despite outnumbering the L&C expedition by thousands to one? There must not have been a horse alive by spring anywhere west of the Mississippi River.

I'm suspecting attributing inabilities to successfully hunt food with firearms to the predation of wolves . . .

a) made for a better story by raising the specter of scary, evil wolves, since everyone "knew" they were ravenous, murderous beasts and all that, and also

b) made for a better story than saying "our hunting skills, honed in the forests of the east just did not quite cut the mustard out west during that winter . . ."

Art Eatman
July 17, 2006, 11:12 PM
Elk. NPS. Not wolves eating people.

:), Art