Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Here in Vermont the Fish and Wildlife service is severely underfunded and undermanned. They may wish they were budget-maximizing bureaucrats, but there's not much budget there. Conspiracy theorists may well be having a field day with this, but it's also true that cougars would be expensive, and I'm willing to bet they're glad there aren't any yet.

Rubbish, and a review of the Fish and Wildlife Funding Task Force Report of 2007 proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of your assertion:


http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/taskforce//FW_Final_Task_force_Report/_Taskforce_Final_Report.pdf

Previously, it was the Vermont Department of Fish and Game. It was funded by user fees, primarily hunting and fishing licenses. But its role was expanded in the exact opposite way of your assertions:

It is important to note, VT F&W is no longer a fish and game
department, but a fish and wildlife department (10 VSA Section 4041). During the past 20 years, there has been a concomitant increase in resources directed to non-game, threatened, and endangered species.

Contrary to what you are saying, it is the addition of non-hunted species, specifically threatened and endangered species, that has increased their budget, but there is no way to target users like hunting and fishing can. So they actually got their own budget task force to recommend ways of permanently funding this budget increase instead of relying upon annual appropriations from the general fund necessitated by the increased responsibilities.

So let's see now whether you are a reasonable person who is willing to acknowledge when he has been proven wrong so decisively.

 

[William Parcher]

INTERCEPTED TOP SECRET

Any Fish & Wildlife staff person or affiliate who uses the "I" word pertaining to ANY animal discussed with a taxpayer citizen will receive mandatory special retraining.

 

[Jodie]

Rubbish, and a review of the Fish and Wildlife Funding Task Force Report of 2007 proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of your assertion:


http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/taskforce//FW_Final_Task_force_Report/_Taskforce_Final_Report.pdf

Previously, it was the Vermont Department of Fish and Game. It was funded by user fees, primarily hunting and fishing licenses. But its role was expanded in the exact opposite way of your assertions:



Contrary to what you are saying, it is the addition of non-hunted species, specifically threatened and endangered species, that has increased their budget, but there is no way to target users like hunting and fishing can. So they actually got their own budget task force to recommend ways of permanently funding this budget increase instead of relying upon annual appropriations from the general fund necessitated by the increased responsibilities.

So let's see now whether you are a reasonable person who is willing to acknowledge when he has been proven wrong so decisively.

When you look at 2012 it says the opposite of what you claim. Why did you use such outdated information? 2007 was six years ago prior to the economic collapse that put a dent in everyone's state budget.

The department's annual budget totals approximately 13 to14 million dollars which is primarily funded by user-based fees such as license and excise taxes on gasoline and on hunting and fishing equipment.

Assisted by public input, the department recently developed a Strategic Plan to help direct its activities. This plan will steer the department in a common direction consistent with its mission, serving as a "contract" with the public on the types of work to be done. It also helps by prioritizing human and financial resources in the midst of staffing and funding constraints.

http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/about_history.cfm

 

[The Shrike]

Wildlife management agencies are consistently and dramatically underfunded to meet their mission. Seriously, when's the last time you saw coverage on CNN of a senator delivering an impassioned speech on the need to increase funding for the USFWS? The Service can't do its job which is why it is routinely sued by environmental groups for not doing its job.

State wildlife agencies typically fare even worse. Some states derive some tax money from general sources (e.g., Missouri has a portion of their gas tax fund their wildlife conservation programs) in addition to what they collect from license fees and excise taxes on guns, ammo, and fishing tackle. Other states just have what they can collect from those latter sources. When the number of hunters goes down - as it has - the budget is slashed and the agency can do less and less.

Thus, one way ANY state can increase its ability to carry out its mission is to promote hunting. More active hunters means more money for landowner incentive programs, educational outreach programs, conservation initiatives aimed at non-game species, etc. One way to increase interest in hunting is to provide more species to hunt. Eastern states that offer limited elk hunts, for example, sell off the tags in a lottery system and make a killing off that resource. Same goes with recently added bear and wolf seasons in some states.

Mountain lions are no different. There are people in the eastern US dying for the chance to hunt them in their home states. A newly established breeding population of mountain lions in their extirpated range would be a net positive for the wildlife agencies in those states, not a negative.

I've never understood the stupid "we don't have cougars" conspiracy stories. If you have cougars and someone has an insurance claim due to loss of livestock or something, there's nothing the state agency can say to refute it. The carcass would be there with abundant cougar spoor all around. There's no reason for a state agency to say there aren't breeding cougars except in the case that the evidence doesn't support the statement.

In contrast, state agencies welcome cougars moving back to reclaim former range, as is happening now. It means that our ecosystem-based wildlife management practices are working, that we'll have some help controlling the super-abundant deer in the East, and, anywhere the cougars do really well, the possibility of a new hunting resource and the new revenue that would come with it. There are negatives too, such as the inevitable human conflicts with cougars in the East, but you can't stop them so why deny them? You'll just end up looking like idiots once the inevitable dead cougar shows up on a highway in Connecticut.

 

[LTC8K6]

lol

That top secret memo is probably how it went down.

Seriously though, if they told the locals, they'd be out trying to bag one.

They'd be trying to bag a bigfoot, too. Really trying.

 

[William Parcher]

The problem with claims of cryptids is that the locals are generally unreliable and are very much prone to telling lies, hoaxing, exaggerating and misleading. It can frustrate honest people who are just into the natural world as it is. Some people seem to be attracted to that crazy hot mess (it can produce real nuggets) but for others it's just a waste of time and resources.

Imagine a field biologist putting together a list of local fauna for an area. But what they do is interview all the locals and just list the animals that they say they have seen. That big list gets published as "Animals of Kentucky" and then shows up in bookstores everywhere. A real nature book that is by the people and for the people.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It's funny that the locals often shoot or eat those animals they are told do not exist too.

 

[The Shrike]

What's funny (or sad) is you interpreting "hasn't been described by taxonomists" as "told does not exist". Can you provide a single example of scientists telling people that the thing they're eating does not exist?

 

[Resume]

It's funny that the locals often shoot or eat those animals they are told do not exist too.

That would be funny.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's funny that the locals often shoot or eat those animals they are told do not exist too.

It seems like the locals shoot/eat them when it benefits your current argument, and the locals worship and protect them when it benefits your current argument.

 

[William Parcher]

It's funny that the locals often shoot or eat those animals they are told do not exist too.

Have you and your fellow Kentuckians been shooting and/or eating grey wolves for the last century?

Or is it just Tartar Wolf from Wisconsin? Or are you just going to change the subject?

 

[LTC8K6]

Have you and your fellow Kentuckians been shooting and/or eating grey wolves for the last century?

Or is it just Tartar Wolf from Wisconsin? Or are you just going to change the subject?

Yes, but they don't say anything for fear of the gov't, natch.

Can't have the gov't protecting those Kentucky wolves.

There are tens of thousands of secret Kentucky Wolf graves all over the state.

 

[William Parcher]

Thousands of years from now fossil diggers will recognize that Kentucky was a hotspot for the Tartar-mouth Grey Wolf.

 

[The Shrike]

. . . and the bark-eating bigfoots!

 

[LTC8K6]

The bark eating story is just to give footers another "sign" to point at in the woods.

 

[bruto]

. . . and the bark-eating bigfoots!

They're very good for your cholesterol, but we like to keep them a secret for fear of running short. If we ran out of bigfoots we'd have to start eating mountain lions and they're very tough.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Have you and your fellow Kentuckians been shooting and/or eating grey wolves for the last century?

Or is it just Tartar Wolf from Wisconsin? Or are you just going to change the subject?

I'm not much on eating wolves,coyotes, big cats or Bigfoot. If it makes you feel good to believe there are no such things in KY, by all means, believe on.

Just be ready for a healthy dose of "I told you so." in case you're mistaken.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

When you look at 2012 it says the opposite of what you claim. Why did you use such outdated information? 2007 was six years ago prior to the economic collapse that put a dent in everyone's state budget.

Try to get beyond whatever rage you have from the past and maybe you won't look so silly.

The point was to pick the very task force that had to deal with expanding the department beyond Fish and GAME (hunted) responsibilities it had in the past and to new duties of protected or endangered species. The name of the department was changed accordingly to Fish and WILDLIFE.

That didn't happen in 2012. So why would I look in the wrong year?

The person I was responding to claimed a department would go so far as to lie about the existence of cougars in order to prevent an expansion of its duties.

I proved the exact opposite, and it is worth pointing out that this agency works for the public rather than telling the public what to do. The expanded role the public put upon them through the legislature required obtaining funding beyond that provided by user fees.

The department's annual budget totals approximately 13 to14 million dollars which is primarily funded by user-based fees such as license and excise taxes on gasoline and on hunting and fishing equipment.

Right, which contradicts nothing I've said. It was once FULLY funded by user fees and no longer is.

See that word "primarily"? That means no longer FULLY funded by user fees. Necessitated by taking on just the kind of duties the person I was responding to said would not occur.

Taking you of ignore was a mistake.

 

[Jodie]

Because I asked a simple question? I thought it was a legitimate question about how you responded to a statement that Vermont was severely underfunded. Excise taxes usually go towards more than one designated recipient, but as it states above, for 2012 the department remains underfunded.

The changes made to Vermont's funding didn't have anything to do with cryptids, but was a mechanism to increase revenue to meet current demands. The name change better reflects what the department was actually already doing rather than as a means of justifying the expansion of their responsibilities according to what I read.

 

[Drewbot]

Almost every department in State Government is underfunded.

So they cover up their respective BIGFOOT DISCOVERIES, so they don't have to ask for more money? That is a Silly argument. What a great great way to get more money legistlated to them. Simply state that they have found cougars and BOOM more money.
The conspiracy to cover them up makes no sense.

You really think Universities would publicize a way to reduce the cost of education? I'll bet if they could promise an excellent job to all graduates, they could charge MORE though. Unfortunately, they are covering up the secret for all college grads to get good jobs, because they don't have the money for it. WTH?