Click on this link:
http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=ftpmb

The initial step for you will be to log in by typing in your password
in the appropriate blank and then click on the submit button.  Your
password is the first eight characters
of your Yahoo id.   If the new id was the same as the first eight
characters of another member then you were assigned a different id.
You were notified of the new id via an email sent to the addy you have
listed on the Yahoo membership list.   It is strongly recommended that
once things are working that you change your password using the
prompts on the log in page.

I have spoken with US Rep. Jean Schmidt and she advised me that field trialers
must engage is a letter or e-mail message to their reps or senators at the
national level is order for us to suceed is maintaining our usage of all wild
life areas.  No ands, ifs, or buts, period.

  Jim Cohen
1083 Lake Lorelei
Fayetteville, OH 45118
home # 513-875-2566
cell # 859-221-9207

The upside is, the dog is being run at a whole lot of CH. Competing
against the top dogs in the country. Personally, I would not have a dog
with a pro for any other reason. I can do the stuff you mentioned
myself (training and 4 or 5 CH a year) but I cannot go to 20 CH a year.
I know some cannot do the training for one reason or another, so they
utilize trainers in a different way, which is great. My main conflict
is time enough to attend the major trials. Also some judges are less
willing to use an amateur handler in an open stake.

New host seems to be working fine so you mat stop posting the test
messages now. You may continue just to see if works for you, but after
you do that please delete the message yourself.

Dont forget we now a forum for Hall of Fame.

I will continue tweaking the settings 'til all is complete which I
hope will be within a day or two, and then close the original site to
new posts.  It will remain up however for quite a while for folks who only
infrequently log in.

This morning the email setting was set to require email addies to be
added and shown with posts.

You're right I forgot to add the question to my post.  I am wanting to know
what the upsides are to being with these major circuit handlers?  I know the
obvious ones, as I previously stated.  I really didn't mean to "open a can of
worms" I am just asking questions.  So I will leave that comment where it lays!

Since previous post I have discovered that the below is incorrect

>If your Yahoo id had more than 8 characters it did not meet the tech
>specs for bulletinboards.com and you were assigned a different id.

It should be:

If the first 8 characters of your id was identical to the first 8
characters of the id of another member then you were assigned a
different id........

This morning and continuing for the next few days I will be
transferring the message board from Yahoo to bulletinboards.com.    It
will be done in steps rather than all at one time because it is easier
to rectify errors doing it stepwise than all at once.

The URL is http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=ftpmb

The initial step for you will be to log in by typing in your password
in the appropriate blank and then click on the submit button.  Your
password is the first eight characters of your Yahoo id.   If your
Yahoo id had more than 8 characters it did not meet the tech specs for
bulletinboards.com and you were assigned a different id. You were
notified of the new id via an email sent to the addy you have listed
on the Yahoo membership list.   It is strongly recommended that once
things are working that you change your password using the prompts on
the log in page.

Once logged in please try a test message to see if it works.  Rather
than you deleting it please let me do that so that I can determine if
things are working right

I have a couple dogs with a pro trainer/handler here in the
Midwest.  I am extremely happy with what he does and how my dogs are
treated and how they perform.  I would love to be able to send one
on the major circuit, but personally I don't see any advantages to
it.  My two were trialed just as much as those dogs are, granted
they weren't running in Championship stakes every week, but they did
run in four or five all year long.  Their performances were much
more consistent then most of the dogs that I see run on the major
circuit day in and day out.  They competed at the same level as
those dogs and I can have two of them with him for less then it
would cost me to have one with a pro on the major circuit. The only
upside I see to it is if they ran on the major circuit they would
run in 20 Championships instead of 4 or 5.  But, if I'm going to pay
someone to trial my dogs I like the fact knowing that my dogs are
getting worked more then once a week, and not just staked out or
stuck in a dog box for several days at a time!

Just my personal opinion.  Hopefully it doesn't open a can of worms!

Any one coming to Memphis for the purina awards?   If so look me up

Sorry, here is the link
http://obit.wilkirsonhatchbailey.com/obitdisplay.html?
id=545773&listing=Current

Dr. Guthire's wife Bettye passed away after a couragous battle with
cancer, this link will take you to her Memorial and flower
arrangements. For card's to family: Dr. Douglas Guthrie,  3200
Creekwood Circle, Waco, TX 76710

Sorry. From a policy and legal point of view, the only things that
matter here are the original Ohio DNR's Killdeer grant application's
details, its implementing management plan and any mutually agreed
upon changes. What you, anyone or some reporter says was, might have
been, or should have been the rationale for the acquistion doesn't
amount to hill on beans. Dig up that original correspondence and this
might me worth pursuing. Otherwise its only another baseless internet
assumption and opinion.
Bob
-

I shouldn't rely only on memory. Mark it down to another senior
moment. Pittman-Robertson Working Group's 2000 estimate of field
trialer's annual contribution to the P-R Fund was $22 million, not
$32 millon. Here's the detail for anyone wishing to update the figure
for inflation or other changes.
Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com http://saova.org


Do Field Trialers contribute to the P-R fund beyond their
contributions as hunters?


Yes, and in a big way. One organization, NSTRA, has noticed that even
though their format was specifically designed as a way for hunters to
augment and extend the hunting season, they have attracted a number
of participants who did not start out as hunters. Other field trial
organizations have had similar results, especially with women and
junior participants. Many who do hunt have actually greatly increased
their days spent training and field trialing. In areas where game
bird populations and accessible hunting grounds have been depleted by
factors such as large parcel farming, urban sprawl and the like,
field trialing serves as a substitute for a time honored tradition.
As we have lost use of other traditional venues for the purposes of
field trialing we have been fortunate to have had access to state
wildlife management lands.


Unlike the very short hunting seasons, field trialing may continue
during all seasons with events scheduled throughout the year and
training for these events is continuous. We believe that this
efficiency provides better usage of subject grounds. Field trialers
take their dog work seriously and as a result use far greater amounts
of consumables than non-trialers, many of whom typically spend little
or no time training their sporting dogs.

While the overwhelming majority of trialers are hunters, both hunting
and non-hunting trialers alike have greatly increased their
expenditure for non-hunting related consumables and have contributed
to P-R funding. For instance, a single retriever trial with 200
entries will use approximately 2,200 field trial blanks (88 boxes at
12.50/each) and 550 steel shotgun loads (22 boxes at $17.00 each).
The 110 boxes of ammunition retail for approximately $1,474, which is
all taxable P-R revenue.

In 1998, according to figures supplied by retrieving dog field
trialer groups, there were approximately 1014 field trials and test
events that used a total of 23,792 boxes of expensive steel shot and
78,352 popper loads. At an estimated price of $12.50 per box of
poppers and $17.00 per box of steel shot, this amounts to taxable,
annual non-hunting P-R revenue of about $1,506,308.00. A NSTRA trial
typically uses approximately 8 boxes of shot shells per event.
Accordingly, with 1,200 events scheduled each year, over 9,600 boxes
of shells are used. At an average price of $7.50 per box, that totals
about $72,008.00 in non-hunting P-R revenue each year. AKC (field
trials and hunt tests), NBHA, U.S. Complete Shooting Dog Association,
AFTCA and American Field Open Championship pointing dog field trials
and hunt tests use fewer shot shells per event on average than the
retrievers and NSTRA, but they still consume large amounts of non-
hunting P-R taxed shot shells and blank cartridges. According to
estimates from these groups, approximately 3,024 field trials and
hunt tests are conducted annually and when the shot shells and blank
cartridges are added they total about $222,174.00. The HRC and AKC
flushing breeds conduct about 443 field trials and tests and use
about 5,508 boxes of popper shells and 10,854 boxes of shot shells in
the process that have a total non-hunting P-R value of about
$150,255.00. NAVHDA conducts about 222 events each year with a total
of about 1665 dogs tested. This requires about 488 boxes of popper
loads and 444 boxes of shot shells with a non-hunting P-R expense of
about $9,437.00. When all the field trialers taxable P-R purchases
are combined, the total is a very significant $1,960,083. per year,
and this number is for consumables only. It does not include
purchases of firearms specifically dedicated to field trial
activities. By our best estimate, approximately one in 10 field
trialers purchase new shotguns each year specifically for non-hunting
P-R related field trials, tests and dog training. With 140,000
trialers actively participating, this amounts to the purchase of
1,400 shotguns each year, many of which are higher grade guns. We
estimate that the average gun costs about $700 so the total amounts
to another $980,000.00 of non-hunting related P-R purchases.

Many more shells are used with each dog in training as compared to
that dog' s field trialing consumption. A typical field trialer will
use about 10 times as many shells training as he uses each time the
dog is entered in a field trial, which adds an estimated $19,600,830.
in non-hunting related P-R purchases by field trialers. When the all
the numbers are combined, it is estimated that field trialer, non-
hunting related P-R taxable revenue totals approximately
$22,540,913.00, not an insignificant sum.

This figure is a very conservative one, since it is based only on
formally licensed events and fails to take account of the many
hundreds of fun trials, sanctioned trials and tests, and Quail
Unlimited and Pheasants Forever type shooting events. It is very easy
to see that field trialers are deserving of generous consideration.
Rather than being singled out among all users for exclusion from P-R
grounds, field trialers should be encouraged and supported.
Recreational shooters that don't hunt benefit from the Pittman-
Robertson shooting range program. Hunters that train hunting dogs
through field trials and tests and contribute millions of extra
dollars to the P-R aid program deserve at least equal consideration.

taxing something with out Representation is steeling
from the people. so where is the tax going and how are
they geting the tax and what is being taxed again!
special interest groups are many now. if the bird
watchers are not buying guns ammo and hunting lic's
(Which they should if they are in persuit of finding
game just like us) seems like our tax dollar's are
going into the wrong interest group.
What if the special intrest groups would have to pay a
price (Permit for bird watching?)
seems only right.
Randy we all need to talk personally to our congress
man about these problems befor this becomes a federal
issue.
Gary

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM, erickubiak <ekubiak@...> wrote:
> a chart that showed breeding different color pointers and what could be
expected form the
> breeding.

It's on this site. Click on "files" from the message board, or go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FieldTrialPointers/files/

and find PointerColorChart.pdf

--
Steven Hartman
pinefall@...

Some time ago I read an article that contained a chart that showed
breeding different color pointers and what could be expected form the
breeding.  For example it would show if you bread a male (orange and
white) to a female (lemon and white) what you could expect on average
for the pups color. It would show x% black and white & x% liver and
white... I have lost the chart and I am looking for any information on
what statistically can be expected as the color of pups from a given
breeding.  Any information would be appreciated.

I have a little 2 yr. old Brittany (bitch, spayed) that needs to get to her now
owner.  They live in Ripley, OH, an equal distance from Cincinati and
Louisville.

If you are going to the Punina Awards shindig in Olive Branch, MS next weekend,
going back through either Cincinati or Lexington, and could get her to her new
owner, I would be very appreciative.  I'll even chip in to help pay for gas.

Shoot me an email and we can make the arrangements.

Thanks, Ken Blackman

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In FieldTrialPointers@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Kane" <VHDOA@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> While this is nearly 100% a political problem, the mowing and horse
> issues needs to be dealt with much more directly.

Your right Bob, and with the Forest Service shutting down equestrian
trails all over the country it seem to be the trend.  On the other hand
the Forest Service is bending over backward to accommodate the mountain
bikers and even the 4-wheelrs.

I guess it's the Gloden Rule : Them that have the gold make the rules.

JGT

While this is nearly 100% a political problem, the mowing and horse
issues needs to be dealt with much more directly. This key challenge
hasn't changed in eight years, only been hidden from view. It would
pay Ohio trialers to fund some academic to study the impact of FT
mowing and horses on Midwestern grasslands. Nitpicking over bluestem
vs fescue and quoting non-germane text book fragments isn't going to
cut it. You've got the shutdown postponement. Use that time to
generate a technical case that politicians may use to support
continued dog games.
Bob

the enclosed is for data / trivia buffs.  the information is the
season ending metrics for trials, stakes, and entries.  I was
pleasantly surprised to see there was an increase in most categories.
  the total of 40 trials is the second highest since the 1993-1994
season when I started keeping records.  regards
--
Conrad Plevnic

The above (for Region 7) may be viewed in the field trial reports folder

http://www.fieldtrialpointer.net/fieldtrialreports.html

I think it can be established that field trials at KP and IC implied the use of
horses from the very beginning of purchases of KP and IC. Those back then didn't
know by not documenting horses were a part of FTing would be reason for future
downfall of FTing. What also wasn't considered back then was the effect that
changing grasslands to wetlands that weren't there previously would have the
latter affecting the former so succinctly in their highest quality competitive
factor? (horse).

   And then the State blames horses for not being compatible with
grasslands/wetlands when the desired means to their money funded end was never
logical or practical. What should have happened was maintain the SAME
PRE-EXISTING PERCENTAGES of upland/wetland habitats. Removing horses won't
change that ODOW is mismanaging PR funds by steadily removing pre=existing
upland habitat and doing those upland hunters who no longer, but did have
wonderful quail and pheasant country to hunt in....a huge disservice.

   How in the world can ducks unlimited focus on Killdeer when they went and
drained the lake ?

   Why haven't FTers been allowed to work with the State & disc up whatever
problem horse tracks do exist (not really applicable to IC even though it too is
swampy) which could include planting habitat for grasslands?

   What is ridiculous about the entire Killdeer equation is.....the State can not
accomplish their own stated goals grassland/wetlands without mowing, farming &
burning. FTers are not their problem. They are their problem. Haven't they
learned from their mistake which was to change the existing percentages of
wetland/upland habitat at KP and forcing the percentage change of ecologies to
irreverently juxtapose & intersect effectively ending one of the two
pre=existing habitat at Killdeer.

   Regardless of where Ohio FTing ends up, let's hope FTers have identified our
mistakes, not make them again & adequately prepare for all of our futures
regardless of registry or interest needs. We can not field trial without horses.
Period. I would trade facilities for GOOD grounds every day of the week. Yep,
gotta love those lovely facilities, but "real FTers do it in the field and with
horses too." (wink)

   Again, I am not trying to be incendiary. Just barnstorming potential useful
points. Whilst I write with forceful passion, in person I am soft spoken. a very
good listener, rarely peep & can be interrupted when I do. ;-) dlb


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Found this info on website called "Native Prairie Management" website

<http://users.cis.net/hamfam/prairie/html/entire_guide.html#Overview>

"In general, prairies thrive by occasional influence of grazing and
fire. Without such influences, the prairie grasslands progress by
succession to poor quality woodlands.  Grazing is a natural
phenomenon. Herbivores are an important component of the prairie
ecosystem. Their natural actions include: grazing, uprooting and
trampling vegetation, wallowing in mud holes, and creating hoof
depressions. They cause considerable damage to woody vegetation by
browsing, gnawing and rubbing. Grazing, like fire, probably was
fairly random and irregular, although sometimes locally intense and
repetitive."

Way back when I was in college (my major was in Agronomy, with a
minor in botany) I took several grad level classes in grassland
management... it has been my premise that the current arguements by
ODNR that horseback field trialing is "damaging" to grasslands
management is nothing but a line of crap.  Grasslands have evolved to
thrive under conditions of fire, trampling, and grazing.  The current
vegetation at Killdeer (mostly tall fescue) is one of the worse types
of vegetation to support prairie bird species.  If Killdeer is
managed for prairie grassland, the fescue should be sprayed with
Roundup and killed, the sod disked, and native prairie grasses
introduced.  Periodic buring should be conducted on a rotating
basis.  Horses should not only be permitted, but encouraged, with a
management plan to alternate disturbances from year to year (unless
ODNR wants to start raising a couple hundred buffalo).  Woodland
species should be discouraged, if not by wildlife management, then by
chemical, mechanical means, or burning.

Brad mentioned that there is some question about what type of grasses
are meant by "native".  If ODNR is not implying "prairie grasslands"
then the entire grassland management issue is without merit.
Managing Killdeer for tall fescue grassland management is nothing
more that running a wildlife management area for use as a football or
soccer field.  It wouldn't even be acceptable as a hay crop.  It
certainly isn't acceptable as a wildlife habitat, either for food or
cover.

The arguments of ODNR regarding grassland management are invalid in
their current position.

Al Fazenbaker

This is not a post to be interpreted as contentious or incendiary.
   Just information & points to consider or not.
   Words in capital letters are done so for accents or proper word titles, not
yelling.

   The State of Ohio is still not in the batter's box "legally" even when they
use the excuse that KP & IC were bought by PR Funds for the purpose of what they
were purchased for ;-) (mo)

   I have an article about Killdeer Plains from AMERICAN FIELD 1978 December that
tells the history of the creation/purchase of Killdeer Plains AND the creation
of the Associated Bird Dog Clubs of Ohio the very same day. The true key is Ohio
had FT people legally in place who were the guys making Ohio wildlife decisions
& worked with AF from the very beginning. In fact, the ABDCO club's first act
was to go look at their new FT grounds that very afternoon. And had the State
not introduced wetlands habitat into swampy upland habitat the ducks would be
totally unable to get a leghold on exempting Ohio field trialers from land that
was obviously to include upland field trialing as a part of its purpose from the
very beginning. Were they not field trialing in 1952 on horseback @ Killdeer?
They were at Indian Creek in 1952 according to my IC source. There was a
thousand dollar AF All-Age prize ran @ Indian Creek in 1952 immediately
following Indian Creek purchase. Does that also
  not imply that field trialing with horses was intended all along to be a part
of Indian Creek too?

   Ohio was almost entirely forest until/during Dannel Boone's time. It is in
that Killdeer article that whenever possible the land reverted back to forest &
that the farmers couldn't make it on the already cleared land because it ended
up being too wet at certain times of the year. Obviously it wasn't wet enough
year round or farming wouldn't even have thought to be tried in the first place.
It is also documented the game of choice at Killdeer at time of purchase was
quail not ducks. How can quail thrive as they did in "documented wetlands?"
Possibly more importantly how much acreage before you have "designated
wetlands".

   The State might think they are preserving wetlands but what they have really
done is destroy the occasionally swampy upland habitat that Killdeer WAS
PURCHASED FOR WHICH INCLUDED FTERS BECAUSE FTERS WERE OUR THEN LEGISLATORS. (how
I interpreted what I read). If FTing is removed from Indian Creek (on foot only
doesn't count as an AKC or AF field trial) then it will be overgrown enough to
hold a national grouse dog trial within five years. I bet they won't like that
either.

   Due to the obvious restrictions, I can't "publish" this Killdeer article which
would be a tremendous foothold in the latest debatement by the State of Ohio.
Others would like to read it and I would love to see it appear legally somewhere
in public. How can that be done? There are some real gems inside of it. There
has to be more literary historical gems lurking out there. Somebody might oughta
go dig up every one.

   And...how is it the State can go around so succinctly placing labels on
wildlife areas when it is clear when one goes to the usfws website what focus
they want State DNR's to have? What came first the chicken or the omelette? I'd
like to squirrel around in our past before 1952 & see when/why designated
wetlands became such a focus so soon. I can't help but feel the best answers for
today are somewhere in our printed past.

   For Killdeer fanciers I think the above mentioned article could be solid gold
to combat the State's latest points so they have to move to other points of
debatement. There surely exists more historical data of what Killdeer & Indian
Creek were purchased for.

   It certainly wasn't......for ducks.(mo)
   Diana




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob



   I haven't field trialed in WS, but would put the state of MS up there.
They provide Hell Creek WMA and Black Prairie WMA almost exclusively for
field trials.  Both area managers groom the grounds for game, help with the
dog wagon and state representatives come to our trials to THANK US for
coming to support the facilities.  These are two of the top All Age grounds
in the country.  Hell creek has stables, kennels, and a club house with a
kitchen fire place and all modern facilities.  Black Prairie has all the
same except kennels.  Hell Creek is all wild birds and the state is
contemplating trapping wild birds from Texas and transplanting them.  BP has
an excellent pre release program.  Both have ample grounds to run 3 one hour
course.  Please do not forget all the state has given to the game.



B

The difference is that Wisconsin's wildlife personnel are the most
supportive of field trialers of any state in the U.S. That's been the
case for at least the last 20 years. I say again, this isn't a
federal problem, so much a state one. Don't be susceptible to good
cop, bad cop routines. Life's never as simple as some would suggest.
Bob

Do the Ohio field trial dog clubs not have deals with the Ohio DNR regarding
maintaining the field trial grounds?
Here in WI, the field trial associations maintain the grounds. We do the
mowing, trimming or trees, removal of trees and stumps, plant feed strips,
etc. on designated work days. Yeah, sometimes the DNR will loan us their
equipment, but most of the Associations have guys who own better stuff to
use OR the associations buy the equipment themselves through the grounds
usage fees.

Yes, we still share the grounds with the public, but the public benefits
from having a really nice area, too. We are still at the mercy of the DNR,
though.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the Ohio thing....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ms. Michel Berner
Mira Vizslas, AKC Registered,  www.miravizslas.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In FieldTrialPointers@yahoogroups.com, "red_pups" <red_pups@...>
wrote:

Actually, for the first time in years, there was what appeared to be an
attempt to burn at Killdeer, on the south side of the road before you
get to the club house.

As far as the plan to manage for grasslands & wetlands, I think that
there is an answer to that. No one has really addressed the issue as to
what type of grassland even though some have used the word "native".
Managing for the grass that is there now which is proably about 90%
fescue will require very little effort. The same is true of managing
for wetlands. Area managers can sit back and let nature takes its
course with little or no effort required in the way of manpower or
resources. In many ways, it becomes much like managing a "wilderness
area. One man in an office can oversee millions of acres. Think about
this from the State's perspective! Field trial people expect, even
demand on occassion, that efforts such as mowing take place. That means
equipment, manpower & fuel. None of that is neccessary when the focus
becomes grassland & wetland management. All that is needed is to burn
once in a while, When leaving the office and the computer might be a
nice diversion. Just let the wet areas stay wet and let nature take
over. When the brush and trees begin to invade this area and they will,
all you have to do is say that this must be what nature intended and
the area probably wasn't meant to be grasslands anyway! This is already
happening at Indian Creek in a dramatic fashion. The deer and turkey
hunters will be happy as the numbers of those species will increase.
The state will be commended for doing a fine job of managing the
resource and all but a few disgruntled field trial people will be
complaining! Stopping this scenario will be a major challenge.

Brad Harter
>
> Randy's recent posting regarding Killdeer brings to mind a few
> ques> strategic plan or other long term plan in document form that is
being
> followed by ODNR regarding this management?  If so, I would like to
> be able to obtain a copy of this.  I'm curious about how the ODNR

Randy's point about USFWS and the states using alternative arguments
for banning field trialers from Pittman-Roberston supported grounds
is a valid one. Incompatible buildings and other structures, horses,
mowing, trialers not paying PR taxes, clubs racially discriminating,
conflicts with hunters and bird watchers, riding over plowed fields,
selling food at trials, unfilled dog holes, displaying sponsor's
banners and not erecting signage crediting the P-R Act have all been
alleged in the fight to shutdown the sport. Note that the knocks
against horses and mowing don't apply to retriever events, yet the
black dogs were also targeted in MI and banned in IN.

To gain a greater appreciation of this fight's roots and learn more
about the P-R Act and Pittman-Robertson Working Group, see the PRWG
statement prepared for Tom Honecker's delivery at
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/hon_0719.htm At the last minute, we were
told that there wasn't room for Tom on the Senate hearing witness
panel and converted his planned testimony into a written statement.
It's easier to read the statement in its original formatting at
Written PRWG Statement of Thomas Honecker.doc located at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FieldTrialPointers/files/

Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com http://saova.org

Randy's recent posting regarding Killdeer brings to mind a few
questions regarding the focus on "grasslands management."  Is there a
strategic plan or other long term plan in document form that is being
followed by ODNR regarding this management?  If so, I would like to
be able to obtain a copy of this.  I'm curious about how the ODNR is
couching "grassland management" in their planning.  The establishment
of grasslands/prairie ecosystems is a long term project.  It involves
the selective introduction of native prairie grasses, as well as
management techniques such as burning; I do not recall either of
these being done at Killdeer in recent times (other than some
switchgrass plantings).  Also, the statements regarding horses being
damaging to grasslands management is questionable... is there
scientific research that will back up these claims?  It's interesting
that native prairie grasses are tolerant of the impact of thousands
of buffalo and other range animals co-existing for thousands of years
prior to the introduction of the Europeans, yet the impact of horses
at field trials is considered damaging?  Have there been specific
listings of the type of damage? Is it ecological in nature
(evidence??) or aesthetic?  (evidence?)  I would be interested in the
procedures that need to be done to access these files and docuemnts.
This material is all a matter of public record, and I would be
interested in obtaining copies of these documents.

Al Fazenbaker

I have tried to transfer or import your memberships to the new site in
a the most seamless manner possible.  What has been accomplished follows.

The efforts to transfer has been successful in well over 900 of you.
Back on May 17 in message # 23196 I announced that you have to have a
yahoo id in order for the new host to import you to the new site.  All
but 18 of you have one.  I sent an email to those 18 folks letting
them know this.  Those didn't heed this alert and get a Yahoo id
(I cannot do this for you) were not imported to the new host's site.

Of the remaining over 900 of you there was a problem with the Yahoo id
for a dozen or so of you. Problem was new host limits passwords to 8
characters.   For those folks a new password (which you can later
change) was assigned.  This morning I emailed
your new password to you at your addy listed on the Yahoo board..
Some of you to whom the email was sent did not receive them because
the email bounced. Reasons given were:
disabled or discontinued account
mailbox not found
no such user
unknown or illegal alias
not our customer

To enable you to know if your my email bounced I have listed the
bounced emails in a file called bounced emails in file section.  Click
on it in the column on the left. It is text file in .rtf format.