Bowsite.com

I just wish it were getting more press. I think it would be well worth the sponsors $ to have publicized this a lot more; I wonder if there will be any press coverage, and how it will be spun... Hopefully this won't just turn into a wolf-bash fest, and rather be a straight forward fact session- and there can be more of these - important that those who don't like wolves can't be reflected as buck-toothed Hee Haws with lard in their hair, beer in ther gut, and blood in their eye.

Will there be anyway to get a transcript of the meeting?

Was Suzanne Stone really there? Or was it Lynn Stone from Stanley??

DDD

That is if you have much left!!

DDD

Some things I HAVEN'T done are the following.

Blathering on every website available about fictitious numbers of everything from wolf kills to wolf packs.

Touting a website that has pictures that are KNOWN to be BS. It claims that the pictures were taken "in the vicinity of" Stanley and, in reality they came from the North Fork of the Clearwater. I told Gillett about this several years ago and it hasn't changed.

Quoting "reliable" sources like Ron Gillett and George Dovell that have some sort of an axe to grind with F&G and like to publish all the rumors, lies, and fantasies that they can come up with.

And, last but not least, going to a meeting -- giving an account of that meeting, and not even knowing who you are talking about!!!

Every time you do something like this you lessen the credibility of the people that are really trying to do something legitimate about old Canis Lupus.

Get a few things straight --- I was fighting this wolf thing, with F&G, the "wolfies" and anyone else that would listen, a loooooonnggg time before you came on the scene to worship at the altar of Ron Gillett and his band of misfits.

I did the research, I found out the facts, and I even tried to get Gillett to do the same.

Mr. Gillett lied to me, twice, in my face. Once at the Meridian store of Sportsman's Warehouse --- I was alone that time, my word against his. And once again at the old Idaho State Fairgrounds. That time I was with Jim Dinelli (sp?) at a meeting that I arranged with Gillett in an effort to get some credibility FOR HIS (Gillett's) ANTI-WOLF COALITION!!

Don't mess with things you know nothing about!!

DDD

I wasn't going to bother posting a link to this, until I noticed that someone had not only set up a link on RM's page to this very Bowsite thread, but had also taken the time to cut and paste Savelk's account of the meeting from this thread onto that page.

For lurkers uncommitted on the wolf-management issue who might be toggling between the two pages, I sure hope the majority of posters on the Bowsite don't come off as "out there" as a good many of the posters on RM's page do.

hmmmmmm

The Old Sarge

I sure haven't.

FWIW, Gillett's corporation was officially dissolved effective 8 July 2008. (See link.) I can't find any listing on the Sec, State's Web site for any entity that might have taken its place.

Anybody know if he's still in "business"?

The Old Sarge

Edited to add: Hmmmm. Seems the url is too long to make a link. Just copy/paste this: http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html?ScriptForm.startstep=viewentity&ScriptForm.startScriptForm.start.ScriptStepView.viewentityFILEvalue=C133641

It'll take a while to load.

I don't think it really matters, where the photos were taken or who the person's name is/was. The point is, wolves kill elk and here is a picture to prove it. Or here is what this Pro-Wolfer said at the meeting. May as well leave the names out of it, because that doesn't matter much.

I'll take the bait. You said.

"I don't think it really matters, where the photos were taken or who the person's name is/was."

If you are really naive enough to believe that I feel sorry for you.

The "wolfies" look at stuff like this -- mistakes, mis-quotes, mis-identifying people, putting out false numbers, etc. etc.-- really hard. Then they put it out as PROOF that those against the wolf don't know their facts and are therefore full of crap!!

THAT HURTS RATHER THAN HELPING THE CAUSE AGAINST THE WOLF!!

When they go to "grannie Frickett" for donations for the cute little puppies they cite these lies and point to references for the REAL (as they call it) data.

Like the man says "sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

If making sure of the facts before spouting off, not publishing ficticious pictures from unidentified places, and relying on facts rather than fiction from red eyed radicals, constitutes what you call "sitting on the couch and doing nothing --- I'll plead guilty.

However -- if writing letters, going to and speaking at public meetings with pertinent officials, and dealing IN FACTS with people that may be able to affect the outcome of the situation is considered "sitting on the couch" you have me totally confused.

DDD

I was telling SaveElk that his efforts were better then sitting on the couch.

My point is: SaveElk could leave out where the photo was taken, he could leave out the person's name, etc.

I agree, if you are going to mention someones name, you better get it right. But again, the name or location of the photo matters about as much as what color their socks are, so just leave it out.

I don't understand why everyone here jumps all over SaveElk. People act like he is a pro-wolf or something. My point is, his efforts are better then sitting on the couch.

i dont' see how it hurts his credibility in this case and i agree with mtnbikeit. it seems people like to jump all over the guy. i won't speak to the accuracy of the pictures on the website. i don't enough about it to comment. but i do know that i support efforts to manage wolves and make known to the public the true damage they're doing and what the future holds for idaho ungulate populations if something isn't done soon.

there are a lot of completely oblivious people out there forming pro-wolf opinions from misleading newspaper articles and radio ads.

i don't know the answer. but maybe hacking on saveelk isn't quite as productive as actually trying to protect the native wildlife of idaho. just a thought.

When you lie, to the cops, they use that as an indication of guilt or cover up.

So if you don't care if information is accurate, do you really care about anything, important, at all.

people make honest mistakes in facts all the time about important and not so important things. he corrected himself as soon as someone pointed it out. he wasn't trying to make people believe something was true when he knew it wasn't.

have you guys never made a mistake about anything you've typed before? pretty hard to believe.

It is now ---- Just as a case in point, saveelk's comment/account of the meeting was posted on Ralph Maughan's website. It was posted and the inaccuracy of the names was made a point of ridicule.

Something to the effect of "they can't even get the names straight".

BTW Maughan's blog was just named the #1 Political blog in Idaho last week. "Little" mistakes DO count!!

"there are a lot of completely oblivious people out there forming pro-wolf opinions from misleading newspaper articles and radio ads"

Yes, there are, and when those articles and ads that you are talking about get ahold of something "solid" like a person from the anti side saying something that isn't true, it gives them a bit of credibility which they use against us.

I'm not trying to jump on ANYBODY in particular here, but I AM trying to point out that truth and credibility are important to our battle for some sort of control of these critters, and that anything else HURTS rather than helps.

DDD

but i'd like to think i'm not that big of a loser.

He would no more blunder into places that he did not know about in the boardroom than he would in the wilderness.

Gosh maybe that would make the guy a "knowledgeable" outdoorsman? Could he be a "real" one also? Or would he just be considered a "nerd" outdoorsman??

DDD

If he confused two pro-wolf advocates' first names when they both have the last name "Stone", that is a pretty harmless mistake in my opinion. And if the anti-managment people think that's a significant mistake then they're idiots and I seriously doubt that it's going to make a difference in the legal proceedings of deciding whether or not to de-list.

I do know both sides of the coin, DDD. In addition to staying pretty current on legal proceedings and social commentary on the subject, I've followed this argument for a long time on this board. I just never say anything exactly because of how you regulars treat someone who doesn't fall in line with your policing of peoples verbiage, grammar and thoughts.

You all talk about how important not being divided is and then rip his posts up one side and down the other. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

And I fully expect to read more posts about me being dumb or uneducated or having a man crush or whatever. Those accusations are you guys' problems, not mine. I know where I stand.

I'm for the management of wolves at population levels just high enough to keep them off the endangered list but low enough to allow ungulate populations to thrive again. I'll be doing everything I can to fill my wolf tag every year.

I'll go back to lurking.

Uhh, yeah! If you are not part the clique here, you better have thick skin if you challenge/question anyone here. The female cliques in Jr. High don't hold a candle to this place. :)

All of you anti-Saveelk cronies should be thankful for which side of the fence he is on. He seems pretty damn persistent and I wouldn't want him on the other team, regardless of the stupid/irrelevant mistakes he has made.

I believe Saveelk asked what you guys have done for the cause? Haven't seen a reply yet (or maybe the resume is so long it is taking awhile to compile), only replies that continue to bash him.

Yet you're the one that started out on Bowsite by calling for us all to slam F&G for wolves. You insisted that F&G was to blame. Some of us challenged your site's interpretation of the situation and the validity and truth of some of your claims and especially your photos and their origins and the conclusions drawn from them on your Web site. We warned you then that misinformation and disinformation could and would do more harm than good.

We warned you that driving a wedge between sportsmen and F&G was not a very good strategy. You pretty much ignored good advice and continue to ignore it today.

Now, here you are bemoaning the notion that "... the hunting community is far too divided and polarized to every come together." If any such division has come about or been exacerbated in the last year, you've had a pretty large hand in it by spreading misinformation and disinformation ... IMO.

The Old Sarge

" I just never say anything exactly because of how you regulars treat someone who doesn't fall in line with your policing of peoples verbiage, grammar and thoughts.

You all talk about how important not being divided is and then rip his posts up one side and down the other. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me."

There IS a cure for your apparent problem with anyone disagreeing with YOUR viewpoint!!

When you want to say something, take the easy way out, just post your thread "no debate". That's the way some folks here fix the problem with "other" viewpoints.

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!!

DDD

That's just it. To some of us, some of his mistakes are not irrelevant.

Try searching Bowsite for all the posts started by Savelek and to which he has contributed. Especially the ones concerning wolves and his Web site.

It's much easier for folks recently joining this fray to do that than for those of us in it for a year or more to repeat dozens, if not hundreds of posts.

The Old Sarge

If you REALLY HONESTLY think that a judge who's deciding whether to reject or uphold a lawsuit to prevent de-listing is going to take into account that some guy on a bowsite forum confused Lynn Stone with Suzanne Stone when making his decision, you really are pretty stupid.

That's what the pissing match on this thread boils down to. Think about it.

And you guys claim saveelk has lost HIS credibility? Sorry to break this to you, but you need to think again.

And there's a lot more to it than confusing the two pro-wolf Stone ladies.

I'm betting you didn't do that search ...

The Old Sarge

OK Herry, I thought about it.

No, the judge isn't going to look at the Bowsite -- he really doesn't give a rip.

BUT -- there are a lot of other people that will, and they will evaluate what they see -- here and on other sites. And they will take into account what they see and hear.

When they do that evaluation (if they are really thinkers) they will take into consideration the apparent credibility of BOTH sides. If they find credibility on one side and none on the other --- well, they will form an opinion.

When they form that opinion -- maybe, just maybe they will take action. When they take action they will aid the side that they have come to trust. Then that side will hire a lawyer, then that lawyer will help influence the judge --- etc. etc.

Yes, I'm stupid, I still believe that integrity counts. Evidently you don't -- evidently some other folks don't either.

Have it your way.

DDD

As BB would say, have a good bowhunt.

If I'm not mistaken, it's you that uses the word "integrity". We're concentrating on, and using the word, crediblity. Two entierly different words with two entirely different meanings.

As for "this thread" ... search Bowsite for the other threads. Is that too difficult?

The Old Sarge

As if you were the only one here that has ...

"I venture to say that I have found that I receive ... an equal opportunity to engage in constructive conversation and intellectual debate with the bloggers on this other site."

Is that why you still have not answered questions posed to you over a year ago? Is it why you avoid direct answers to direct questions and persist in misinformation?

The Old Sarge

If you want to be treated hospitably, try being hospitable and try dealing in facts instead of emotions and sentimentality.

Credibility has very little, if anything at all, to do with either ego or IQ. It has directly to do with dealing in facts, or the inability or unwillingness to do so.

I'm not against you, saveelk. I'm sure you mean well and that you are sincere in your intentions and goals. However, I am against your persistance in misinformation and distortion of facts. It's not your integrity. It's your methods.

The Old Sarge

Stop with the "poor me" stuff already.

And FWIW, this is not a blog. It's a bulletin board, a forum.

Do you really believe that your site and the "information" you have posted on it are anything akin to a viable solution? Do you really believe that that "information" is true and factual after you've been shown time and time again that some of it is anything BUT?

You can rest your case if you like, but it's mite early if you ask me. Some of us here pointed out some of the misinformation on your Web site over a year ago ... when you first came here. You still cling to some of it and it still appears on your Web site in spite of having been proven wrong.

Go ahead. Rest your case.

The Old Sarge

Yes you are mistaken, Sarge. Its DDD that used the word integrity. Read his post right before my last one and stay on topic, please.

Actually since I doubt you'll be able to follow that train of thought, I'll paste his quote right here so you don't get lost looking for it:

FROM DDD:

"...I still believe that integrity counts. Evidently you don't -- evidently some other folks don't either. "

Are you able to follow that, Sarge?

HE accused me of not thinking integrity is important. and I'm saying nothing here has anything to do with Integrity. No one was trying to mislead anyone. it was an honest mistake. Your inability to follow a logical train of thought and keep up on the argument is almost comical.

And continually bringing up "all of his other posts" is irrelevant. I've read the other threads. They have absolutely nothing to do with who was at the meeting saturday. If you really can't understand that then I feel you have much bigger issues than just an argument on a message board.

Did you really have to stoop to insults to point out my error, Herry? It speaks volumes about you.

I made a mistake. I missed that word in DDD's post. I apologize. The rest stands as posted.

You done that search yet?

The Old Sarge

"When you want to say something, take the easy way out, just post your thread "no debate". That's the way some folks here fix the problem with "other" viewpoints."

Maybe YOU should scroll back up to the top and RE-READ the original post!!! There was NO point of view stated THUS, no reason for this thread to be labeled "debate free".

There was no need for a debate, UNTIL your loud and obnoxious mouth got ahold of it. Period!!

It is obvious your life is centered around arguements and you have proven that in every post you have ever made on this site.

Your arguement here is so pointless and ticky tack it is truely comical. We can take any person in charge of any organization or affiliation and make a liar out of them by the mistakes they make. Sorry this world is not made of everyone as perfect as you. My lord!

Old Sarge,

"Try searching Bowsite for all the posts started by Savelek and to which he has contributed. Especially the ones concerning wolves and his Web site."

I am not interested hearing what Saveelk has done to fight the pro-wolfers. I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU AND DDD HAVE DONE????? Still waiting.....

But to summarize ... I've stayed in contact with F&G, the F&G Commission, and the Governor's Office of Species Management (or whatever they call it nowadays) and the last three governor's for more than 12 years. I've written letters to USFWS, all three of my congressmen and the heads/chairs of every government committee (including congressional committees) set up to study wolves since they were introduced. I've personally appeared at several meetings concerning wolves over the years and have helped organize at least two meetings and one protest rally.

I've also done my best to combat the plethora of misinformation put out by well-intentioned people that deal in non-facts and erroneous conclusions about wolves and their effects on our big game herds. I, apart from DDD but coinciding with his efforts, waged a yearlong campaign to get the powers behind the non-profit organization Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition to "come clean" about their activities and fund raising/spending. I was not able to meet with any of those folks like DDD was, but I did contact a few of them by phone and e-mail. And FWIW, as soon as any of them realized I was asking for information instead of making a donation, they couldn't cut me off fast enough.

And, like saveelk who first came here about a year ago if memory serves, I have some info on the Internet concerning the battle over wolves. The biggest difference between the two of us in that department and in all my dealings as listed above, is that I make every effort to deal in factual and verifiable information and that none of it is based on emotion, sentiment, myth or unfounded, undocumented claims.

If you want more, do the search.

The Old Sarge

"There was no need for a debate, UNTIL your loud and obnoxious mouth got ahold of it. Period!!"

Excuse me, did you just read the FIRST post?

Cuz' I didn't reply to that one, or the next or the next ----

I DID reply to one when Saveelk made a mistake in not even knowing the name (or, for that matter the position held) by a lady in the audience.

When I pointed it out he replied "I mean Lynn Stone from Stanley, the DOW representative. I'm confused as to what her official name is. Note that DOW has a Suzanne Stone listed for the NRM wolf program. Not sure if this is the same person. "

"Not sure if this is the same person" ??? Wow, just a little mistake and then basically admitting that he's "confused." Cool!! (And evidently he hasn't bothered to get UNconfused.)

Then somewhere along the line you butt in. Hey, everybody has a right to an opinion, but if you don't want in the argument, butt out!!

As for "what have I done". First of all, I don't OWE you, or anyone else an explanation. I refuse to document every letter or every meeting or whatever. People that count KNOW what I do and what I HAVE done. Who the hell are you??

If Saveelk gets "confused" and drops names, and continues to make invalid claims -- even after he has been told about it -- he is NOT helping our common cause -- he is HURTING it.

If you can't understand that, it makes no sense to continue to try to HELP you understand it. Have it your way, do what you want to. Believe what you will.

DDD

HELLO! anybody here?