[GreenFreeper]

"What we're afraid of is that this will end up being window dressing for vegetative treatments that might benefit the sage-grouse and might benefit deer and elk, but will surely benefit cattle," said Allison Jones, a biologist with the Western Wildlife Conservancy. "We're worried about the lesser-known species like the three-toed woodpecker and the pygmy rabbit. These are species that are currently falling through the cracks and need the most funds. So let's sit back and see where [DWR] really focuses its resources."

Yeah I'm sure big brother would do a better job managing species than the people that actually live there. Conservation is reliant upon local work, not federal bureaucracy!

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for ping. I continue to have mixed feelings on who really should have the final say on these type issues. If individuals and companies where so good at protecting wildlife, then why would we ever have gotten into the needs to protect our natural heritage. It is a two edged sword.

[girlangler]

Went to a state wildlife commission meeting here not long ago and our agency director was talking about this.

They (commissioners) were hearing the biologists explain their plan for using some of the matching federal funds to help buy land to keep the non-game species from disappearing.

As many of you know shrinking habitat is the biggest reason non-game species are disappearing. What many don't know is the wildlife agencies use monies generated by hunters/anglers to manage non-game as well as game species. I know a lot of the endangered, threatened non-game species live on federal and state lands bought by and managed with sportsmen's money.

Also, in many states, big paper companies own a lot of land with both game and non-game species. They have, in the recent past, tried hard to manage these lands in a way that benefits wildlife.

The problem is the urban, non-consumptive tree-hugging so-called environmentalists scream every time a hunter is allowed to use public lands, or a company, state forestry dept., cuts a tree. Many game and non-game species actually benefit from logging, but these urban environmentalists don't get it.

At this particular meeting we had one of these tree-hugging freaks get up and make a total fool of herself because in her almighty judgement a state wildlife agency just isn't capable of managing land containing non-game wildlife (they've been doing it for decades and actually helped rebound many species).

She basically took up way too much time that could have been used for something constructive, like a plan for the state agency to acquire more lands (with matching funds) for all wildlife to habitate.

These freaks need to quit worrying that a deer/grouse hunter might benefit from use of these funds, and be thankful these true conservationists (hunters) are doing more than talking about saving wildlife. They are, and have been DOING it for decades.