Skip to main content

View Diary: The truth about Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The diary he linked (22+ / 0-)

    advocates for RMEF. Did you miss the cite in this diary about them?

    Here, let me refresh your eyeballs:

    The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has changed its position 180 degrees on the matter of wolves in recent years. The change corresponds almost exactly with hiring of David Allen as the President and CEO of the Foundation. Allen has not only taken a strongly anti-wolf position, but he has done it taking an “in your face” way to traditional conservation organizations such as those supported by Olaus Murie, which he now calls “extremist.”  Allen has also expressed contempt for many of the concepts of ecology, as he seemed to be moving the RMEF toward a single species, single value of elk (hunting) approach.  Some critics have also accused Allen of failure to support the concept of public lands.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:30:55 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I was referring to the diary he linked (6+ / 0-)

      in the comment I was responding to.
           What you so kindly quoted to me is from this diary. It represents a statement of opinion quoted by the diarist. There is a lot of disagreement about wolf management among conservationists. Allen has made some hyperbolic statements that don't match with the science his organization is supporting. Ban Nock has not supported "wolf kills."

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:55:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And? (10+ / 0-)

        The RMEF agenda is also clearly documented in another link provided by this diarist.

        But since you're intent on splitting hairs, let's put it this way: ban nock obviously supports RMEF. Do you dispute that?

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:04:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I don't. But he also supports (4+ / 0-)

          the science-based research supported by the RMEF And he expressed an opinion regarding the disputes about what the RMEF is about.
               The second link goes to an article which is poorly written, in a rather biased way, to reflect on what the RMEF offered. This link, to a later article in the same publication, is a slightly more fair description:

          An extra $51,000 will fund federal wolf collaring and killing in Montana, thanks to a contribution by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

          “The payment is made to (U.S.) Wildlife Services,” said Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim. “We’re just involved in the direction of how it’s used. We’re charged with managing wolves, and that’s what they’ve offered – to provide money that’s in line with what we’re currently doing.”

          FWP contracts with Wildlife Services to catch wolves for radio-collar monitoring, and to shoot wolves suspected of killing domestic livestock or pets.

          -7.25, -6.26

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:30:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Where's the link for this 'opinion' ? (7+ / 0-)
        There is a lot of disagreement about wolf management among conservationists.
        Utter bs imo.

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:14:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, definitely no utter bs. Totally accurate. (3+ / 0-)

          Wolves have decimated certain populations of other animals in the past and they risk doing so in the future.  They multiply very quickly and have a huge impact on other species.

          Wolves were reintroduced into our area very recently - large through the support of insurance companies who were hoping to reduce their deer accident expenses.  It's worked very well for them.  The wolf population has skyrocketed and our deer population is dwindling rapidly.  I'm still opposed to the wolf hunting that's recently been started around here, but I'm able to recognize the problems that wolves can create for other species and not blindly assume that anyone wanting to protect the other species from wolf over populations are inherently evil and against conservation.  There's a huge disagreement among conservations about how to handle the very serious problem of wolves decimating the populations of other species.

          •  If you're going to come into my diary (12+ / 0-)

            and trash wolves, you'd better have some evidence.  Because my understanding of the scientific literature is that the effects of reintroduced wolves on ungulate populations are mixed.  Also, there have been a lot of positive impacts of wolves on plants and trees due to changes in ungulate foraging behavior.

            Show us some evidence, please.

            The next Noah will work a short shift. - Charles Bowden

            by Scott in NAZ on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:56:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me? You get to decide who gets (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              geekydee, ban nock, realalaskan, sviscusi, NE2

              to comment in your diary and how?  I don't think so.  

              I'm not "trashing wolves".  I love wolves.  As I've made clear, I think incredibly beautiful, intelligent creatures and I'm disappointed that they've been reintroduced in so many areas without more thought having been given to the impact they'd have on other species.  I'm simply attempting to introduce some reality to a silly position that anyone who thinks too many wolves is a good thing can be the only ones taking the high ground.

              But please.  Go forth with your campaign to malign anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That's always a smart position for a diarist to take.

              •  Trollish comment here (10+ / 0-)
                without more thought having been given to the impact they'd have on other species.  I'm simply attempting to introduce some reality to a silly position that anyone who thinks too many wolves is a good thing can be the only ones taking the high ground.
                Back  that up?  Nah.

                Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

                by divineorder on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 02:25:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  OMG. Claiming that comment is "trollish" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ban nock, Sixty Something, sviscusi

                  has got to be about the silliest thing I've read yet.  Believe it or not, holding a position different than yours on an issue does not make someone a troll.  The ridiculous comments of those holding the position that more wolves killing other animals is a good thing is so over the top, I'd actually start questioning the sense of kossacks if I thought more than a small fraction of them are being represented by this silliness.

                  And if you seriously think I'm a troll because I have some empathy with the animals killed by wolves, please, please report me to admin.  Trolls are supposed to be banned, right?  So I'm sure you can get admin to bad me for such an unDemocratic position, right?

                  Amazing to me the disdain I feel for you right now.

            •  It's mixed because it's political n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  WTF ? No link here either? What's the basis (6+ / 0-)

            for this.  Sorry, until you provide a link I have to think this is  just more utter bs.

            Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

            by divineorder on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:59:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And where's your link? You know, the one (0+ / 0-)

              proving that there's no disagreement among environmentalists?  Oh wait.  It's only your own claims that are assumed to be accurate, while those disagreeing with you must provide proof, right?

              Anyone who's spent any time on conservation issues knows there's disagreement on this issue.  In fact, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there has to be disagreement because it's setting different species up as the ones that deserve protection.  Do wolves deserve protection so they can kill other species or do other species deserve protection from an overpopulation of wolves?  The reintroduction of wolves in so many areas is what has caused these problems, and no that it's been accomplished in a disastrously successful manner, we have to face some really serious issues, without taking such a immature position as assuming that one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong.

          •  Totally false (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Scott in NAZ

            At least among biologists who stick strictly to the science, and not politics.

            It is a FACT that wolves populated all of North America before the advent of European settlers. It is a FACT that they were not controlled in any way beyond the carrying capacity of the land. And it is a FACT that with an uncontrolled population of wolves in every corner of the continent, the entire ecosystem and every species in it was thriving.

            To argue that wolves can be harmful to North American ecosystems is utterly disingenuous. It is man, not the wolves, that are harming the environment.

      •  Facts (0+ / 0-)

        That is not a statement of opinion. Those statements are facts. Ban Nock's diary supports the "Elk" foundation that supports wolf kills, ergo Ban Nock supports wolf kills.

        Try logic instead of thin denials.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:45:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site