quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Tony, exactly why I have been saying, just leave the cats alone! Govt involvement, will only lead to more govt involvement, IMO.

On the contrary. And if you really knew anything about what has been going on in regards to the border, you would also know why both Bill and I said that this message is dead on:

Here's another view, one that I also share, that Larry Audsley, a knowledgeable Arizona sportsman's activist, posted on another site. "Macho B" is the name given to the much publicized jaguar that died after being darted. -- Bill Quimby

"Macho B should have been collared several years earlier when he was younger and healthier. That might have told the Jaguar Recovery Team whether and where there was a breeding female in the region, probably in Mexico if there was one. Without any breeding females in the picture, a lone jaguar is just a conversation piece. It can't help sustain the species any more than the occasional male mountain lion that turns up in the Midwest will help restore mountain lions to the Midwest.

"Any time you capture and collar an animal there is some risk that it will die. That's true of bighorn sheep, pronghorn and other species that are captured for collaring and sometimes transplanting. That's just the way it is. The death of one jaguar out of the thousands living in Mexico, Central American and South America combined is not significant to the future of the species. What is significant is whether US borderlands have a breeding population and thus could play a role in keeping the species going. The last four jaguars found in Arizona have all been males.

"There are certain interests that do not want AGFD involved with jaguars, nor do they want further scientific investigation of jaguars along the border. What they want is to use the Endangered Species Act to control land use and activities there. When Macho B first came to our attention, wildlife biologists wanted to capture and collar it in the hope that the timing and duration of its movements could reveal whether and where it had a lady friend. They encountered fierce opposition from non-profits who did not want that question pursued. I believe it's because they didn't want to risk having it determined that he was simply an itinerant or expatriate male, such as we often see in mountain lions, and that its presence here does not signify a self-sustaining population. These non-profits wanted to quit while they were ahead. The mere prospect of jaguars of southern Arizona gives them enough to put jaguar images on their letterheads, raise funds and clamor for a recovery zone with all its attendant restrictions.

"USFWS should attempt to capture and collar this animal. If it dies, so be it. It's the animal welfare enthusiast who worries about one animal. True conservationists and ecologists concern themselves with entire species. Whether there is a breeding population near the border should be the basis for whether USFWS establishes a "Jaguary Recovery Zone" there. The agency is presently considering doing just that, and in my opinion their decision should hinge on whether they can locate a female near the border. If not, jaguar recovery along the border is merely an illusion and a hoax. And as noted jaguar expert Alan Rabinowitz has said, establishing a jaguar recovery zone in an area of the US that offers no hope of contributing to recovery can actually hurt the jaguar's future by diverting funds and misleading people into thinking the species is being helped when it really isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Tony - I'm trying to follow you, but it seems you're saying two different things at the same time?

In one instance, you seem to be against the study because it will only give more fodder to AZ rep - Raul Grijalva, for example?

Then when I say to leave the "cats" alone, you say just to the contray, and site why you support the study? That's what I am confused about, or maybe I am mis-understanding your point, that's all!

Look man, I'm not telling you that you don't know anything, or coming at you personally, not sure why you are doing that in return? If the AGFD has been removed from the study, the Homeland Security is in charge (Homeland Security - Highly qualified wildlife experts), federal tax payers are fitting the bill for $771,000.00, and the state's governor are against it, what benefit will the Arizona jaguar receive? Should the Feds be spending $771,000 on a "cat" study (ya, right), under the current economic climate facing the federal deficit? I for one, say no!

One thing I do know, is the federal govt (current admin) is ONLY looking to create more/bigger govt, and govt control. It would seem to me that a federal agency like HOMELAND SECURITY, will not have Arizona's, the cat's, or the local hunters/private, public land use, best interest in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Tony - I'm trying to follow you, but it seems you're saying two different things at the same time?

In one instance, you seem to be against the study because it will only give more fodder to AZ rep - Raul Grijalva, for example?

Then when I say to leave the "cats" alone, you say just to the contray, and site why you support the study? That's what I am confused about, or maybe I am mis-understanding your point, that's all!

Look man, I'm not telling you that you don't know anything, or coming at you personally, not sure why you are doing that in return? If the AGFD has been removed from the study, the Homeland Security is in charge (Homeland Security - Highly qualified wildlife experts), federal tax payers are fitting the bill for $771,000.00, and the state's governor are against it, what benefit will the Arizona jaguar receive? Should the Feds be spending $771,000 on a "cat" study (ya, right), under the current economic climate facing the federal deficit? I for one, say no!

One thing I do know, is the federal govt (current admin) is ONLY looking to create more/bigger govt, and govt control. It would seem to me that a federal agency like HOMELAND SECURITY, will not have Arizona's, the cat's, or the local hunters/private, public land use, best interest in mind?

I'll try again.

The study I'm against is the one that was just funded by HOMELAND SECURITY to HAVE the LEFTIST LEANING U of A do nothing more than monitor the new jaguar with cameras. This is nothing more than a POLITICAL move that will do two things:

1. Attempt to foil any further efforts to install a border fence because it MIGHT impede the movement of either this jaguar or others.

2. It will provide Raul Grijalva, a staunch advocate FOR illegal immigrants, and the Center For Biological Diversity (one of the non-profits Audsley cites), all the reason they need to not only scuttle the fence but to SHUT DOWN access along the border in one way or another.

BOTH of these have been going about just this for several years, and in fact, the CBD had a lawsuit against the AGFD already in the works over the death of Macho B until TWO long and thorough investigations and the COURTS cleared it of any wrong doing.

And you would have known that had you read the interviews, which are transcribed word for word and not filtered through press releases and news articles. But after reading your facetious comments a bit a above, it's obvious you still haven't read them. That's why I made no further comment.

Now, I am all for jaguar research conducted by the AGFD because they are on MY side and have an interest in wildlife management. The same for the USF&WS to a lesser degree. In other words, I am NOT for a "leave the cats alone" response.

Hope that clears it up for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
As for the USFWS/AGFD, ok so we disagree. However, I would much rather see these agencies doing the studies, rather than Homeland Security. Your reasoning as to why that would be bad, begs this question. Is there really any other reason in the world, that HOMELAND SECURITY would be authorized to operate the study in the first place???? Seems to me, the writing is already on the wall, unfortunately!