An important note, this guy is not a commissioner.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CorrectAn important note, this guy is not a commissioner.
What role does he have? It wasn't a town hall or such.An important note, this guy is not a commissioner.
On the board of a rewilding org which many of the commissioners have been on in the past I’m sure connected to Marlon no doubtWhat role does he have? It wasn't a town hall or such.
I'm not the one you'll have to take this up withThis statement is just as absurd as a commissioner suggesting to buy private ranchland.
Why was he in that meeting though was my question? It didn't appear to be a town hall.On the board of a rewilding org which many of the commissioners have been on in the past I’m sure connected to Marlon no doubt
He is an outspoken wolf advocate, but his role in the meeting is private citizen. His comments came in an open forum, public comment section of the commission meeting.What role does he have? It wasn't a town hall or such.
I believe it was an open meeting, I think and I might be wrong it was mid week/ mid day in Durango or somethingWhy was he in that meeting though was my question? It didn't appear to be a town hall.
Of course it was, they would like to turn the west into one giant nature preserve that you can never step foot on…Sooo this was the plan all along.
There is always an open forum at the end of commission meetings, though I do believe you must sign up to get a chance to speak. In the meeting discussed above, the open forum lasted for over an hour. Anyone can sign up and get 2 minutes in front of the commission, even random out of staters. Prior to the last election, the group behind the mountain lion hunting ban brought in a ton of private citizens from other states to speak for the ban.Oh was there an audience off camera to the left or something and that left table is where folks came up one at a time to speak? The table structure threw me off like it wasn't an open meeting.
I'm curious if you have any proof to back this up. What unit? Over how many months? How are we sure there were only 12 wolves and wolves were the only issue? Looks like you're in Montana; Montana sure has a lot of grizzly bears.Had a neighbor running cattle on FS. Lost 34 head on one unit and 19 head on the one nearest me. Dept of Ag killed 11 of the 12 wolves and elk hunting has improved greatly. Indirectly the grazing has solved some wolf issues in Montana. USFWS needs to be greatly modified or elimonated. Maybe then grizzly bears would quit migrating into areas where no habitat exists.
I'm sure you know this. But everything they do is purposeful. It all surrounds an end goal. Anything they do that is related to an issue we (conservatives/hunters) are involved in, ultimately heads directly towards an outright ban. Some of my buddies do not believe me, but I firmly believe it.Sooo this was the plan all along.
Area 318. I have a ranch in the middle of it. I see the calf crop every year and I hunt every day of the season on horseback.
I met the dept ag hunter a number of years ago and had very informative dicussion.
A number of friends of mine caught the USFWS planting a grizzly a number of years ago that they denied when cornered a week later just like they did when they planted wolves next to my place a number of years ago. When every drainage gets 5 wolves within two weeks - it ain't natural migration. Thank god for the ranchers that killed them on their calving grounds.
My first degree was in wildlife management and I haven't seen anything like that in the last 50 years. More like bucket biology.