Below is the address to the article on the NAWM. I did not like what I read, but I can not disagree with them just because I don't like what I understood.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/North-American-Model-Flawed1.pdf
I would believe Don Peay's interpretation of the North American Model as much as I would believe anything from Michael Nelson. He has written extensively on all that is wrong with hunting as one of the wildlife management tools being used in this country.
Google some of his stuff and see if you think this guy has any appreciation for what hunters have funded. He has long stated his biases against the NAWM, the wolf management plans of the Rocky Mountain States, and a multitude of other hunting related issues.
He is a professor of philosophy and ethics. He does not look at wildlife conservation as an object of wildlife management, rather as a effort of ethical/philisophical principle. Which is why he is the person so many of the anti-hunting groups like to quote as some expert on hunting and wildlife management.
Purely my personal opinion, but to rely on Michael Nelson for interpretation of the NAWM will result in some very skewed ideas of the model, how it works, and the value it can provide as we go forward.
Now to the point of much of this thread.
I always enjoy when Eric posts on this forum, as it gives me insight to other perspectives that I won't get from my travels hunting public lands. And whether I agree with him, or not, it is helpful to have someone come here and give his opinions and impressions.
From his posts In this thread, I am learning is just how much venom has been created over the bison issue. Whether right or wrong, good or bad, our Governor (Buffalo Brian) has created some serious heartburn in his attempt to force bison into areas where locals are obviously dead set against it.
The idealistic side of me would love to have bison wherever they could exist. The practical side of me knows that is not going to happen on a very large scale. If the state is going to involve themselves in bison issues, I feel it is paramount that they seek the input from locals, not just from the Governor's personal circle of friends. If private parties are going to expand bison, such as APF, they are probably best served to seek input from locals, but are not required to do so.
I see much of this blowback Eric mentions as an expression of frustration locals have with bison politics. Given the disease issues and potential property damage issues resulting from bison, seems they are on solid ground to have concerns about this. That is about as far as I can connect the dots on this issue.
The part I can't connect is why hunters are always the dog to be kicked when landowners get pissed off about something, especially when most of us probably disagree with how the bison issue is being handled in NE Montana. To close land to hunting because we have a Governor who wants expanded bison populations before he leaves office in January, seems like just another reason to lay the leather to hunters by those in the vocal fringe of the landowner community.
Maybe locals don't see it that way. Or, maybe these vocal landowners really don't care who is a casualty of them expressing their frustrations, even if some of that collateral damage is inflicted on groups who could help them on this and other topics.
I suspect most hunters in Montana would be in favor of more bison where practical, but they would want it to be in recognition of local concerns, the same as we demanded for wolves, etc. Most would probably side with the more rational landowners, knowing their are the fringe groups like John Brenden who go the extra mile to create conflict.
To continually put hunters in their crosshairs and take their frustrations out on hunters probably moves more hunters from the camp of "Let's see what the locals think" to a mindset of "Hell with it, I am tired of being the whipping post."
It seems strange that evey time the landowner community gets pissed, no matter what they are pissed about, the first thing they do is close their lands, whether it is hunting related or not. I have a lot of landowner clients in my CPA firm and I have good relationships with all of them. They give me a lot of feedback and have helped from my opinions on many topics important to them.
None of them have yet to give me any good basis why the supposed leaders in their groups always lay the leather to hunters. In fact, most of them I deal with do not support that position, but the far fringes seem to always draw attention by leading the charge to close lands.
I struggle to understand why hunters are the ball that is always kicked in this political game. This time it is about bison. Now Eric draws DU into the mix because they are working to inprove waterfowl hunting for all of us by working with a group who holds some of the best waterfowl nesting habitat in all of NE Montana.
Seeing this time and time again has finally made me numb to the concerns landowners purport to have about most anything that happens without them having final say, almost to the point where it is an effort to even pay any attention to what they are mad about each time. They seem to be mad all the time. And they seem to take it out on hunters.
I just find different places to hunt and let these pissed landowners take their toys and go home. And when they need the help of hunters, as could have been provided in the bison issue, it will be hard to get me too excited to come to their camp, given many of them seem to find hunters as the easiest punching bag when they want to express their frustrations.
Miller probably said it best in his last post. I too have tired of a wet backside.
