# Damned wolves and their worshipers.



## deeker

This should make the anti hunting nut jobs happy.

http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/


----------



## dingeryote

That's just horrible.

We need to have president Obama move those mean wolves to New York and New Jersey where there aren't any Elk and lots of Mice for them to eat like good wolves do.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## deeker

dingeryote said:


> That's just horrible.
> 
> We need to have president Obama move those mean wolves to New York and New Jersey where there aren't any Elk and lots of Mice for them to eat like good wolves do.
> 
> Stay safe!
> Dingeryote



I would sign on to help with that one....don't forget DC too!!!!


----------



## lmalterna

I love wolves, but I don't tell other people what to do in their back yard.

I live with nature but nature also has to live with me 

2Door


----------



## deeker

lmalterna said:


> I love wolves, but I don't tell other people what to do in their back yard.
> 
> I live with nature but nature also has to live with me
> 
> 2Door



My dads oldest brother, raised many of the animals used in the original "Grizzly Adam's" shows, and several other westerns. I was lucky to bottle feed baby: bobcats, coyotes, foxes, raccoons even a couple of badgers. He had a rather large wolf he named "Lobo" that would go completely ape when my father was around....

Even got to handle a cougar called "Yak Yak" at schools when he would tour with some of his animals.

Wolves and I are NOT one. I don't have much of a problem with eradicating raccoons either. They do a lot of damage to haystacks, domestic animals..as well as our pheasant and waterfowl populations.

Sorry for the soap box.

Kevin


----------



## les-or-more

Deeker, you forgot one to erradicate,BEAVERS.


----------



## indiansprings

Looks like it is time to have a bounty on wolves until they get the numbers down, we're their only predators. They are having a major impact on mule deer as well. Problem is they are so hard to hunt, trapping/posion may only be the only effective means in such a large geographical that is remote.
I'd love to go out and hunt them.


----------



## deeker

les-or-more said:


> Deeker, you forgot one to erradicate,BEAVERS.


----------



## luckycutter

Clearly there needs to be a balance. Like what was there a few hundred years ago before man kind came in and screwed things up. Getting an accurate count on wild animals is difficult so I would not focus too much on the actual numbers. 

If it has been found that there are too many wolves in the area then they need to be culled. At best that will be a difficult balancing act to find and maintain. However removing all the wolves would be stupid. They are needed to cull the weak animals from the herd so the herds remains strong. Hunters nearly always go for the biggest/strongest animals so hunting alone does not do the job of ensuring only the best animals survive for next year. Secondly, Coyotes have been found to take over where wolves have ben eradicated. Coyotes multiply more rapidly than wolves and are also much more difficult to eradicate.


----------



## whitemountain

Wolves are beautiful animals that have their place.

I live an area of reintroduction of the Mexican Grey Wolf. We have not as of yet seen the decimation of wild big game herds, but the wolf population is still relatively low here. I expect that as the protected wolf population continues to grow there will be more and more interaction between humans and wolves. There has already been significant loss of cattle through the region.

Contrary to an above post it is not just the weak or sick prey animals that are taken by wolves. In fact it is often just the opposite. They often will prey upon pregnant females eating the womb and its contents exclusively. Leaving the carcass of the once healthy/now deceased mother.

If wolf repopulation is going to be our rule, make it the rule. Introduce healthy packs into all areas of previous habitation. This would include area like central park, in fact most of urban New York, the Virginias, Great portions of the New England States, etc. 

I appreciate the above post when he says don't tell me what to do in my back yard and I'll do the same. It is entirely to easy to legislate and fund, from a distance, goverment programs when it doesn't really affect you or your family.


----------



## deeker

whitemountain said:


> Wolves are beautiful animals that have their place.
> 
> I live an area of reintroduction of the Mexican Grey Wolf. We have not as of yet seen the decimation of wild big game herds, but the wolf population is still relatively low here. I expect that as the protected wolf population continues to grow there will be more and more interaction between humans and wolves. There has already been significant loss of cattle through the region.
> 
> Contrary to an above post it is not just the weak or sick prey animals that are taken by wolves. In fact it is often just the opposite. They often will prey upon pregnant females eating the womb and its contents exclusively. Leaving the carcass of the once healthy/now deceased mother.
> 
> If wolf repopulation is going to be our rule, make it the rule. Introduce healthy packs into all areas of previous habitation. This would include area like central park, in fact most of urban New York, the Virginias, Great portions of the New England States, etc.
> 
> I appreciate the above post when he says don't tell me what to do in my back yard and I'll do the same. It is entirely to easy to legislate and fund, from a distance, goverment programs when it doesn't really affect you or your family.



:agree2:

I have no problem with Mexican Grey wolves. 

I do know that wolves DO NOT PREY ON THE WEAK, exception being a very small percentage of the time.

Cougars prey almost exclusively on buck deer, bighorn sheep (rams) bull elk and other large healthy animals, and small game. They live in the remote areas...where the trophy animals live.

Wolves hamstring live animals....and eat them while the victim is alive, for days.

Sick and injured animals, don't have the best tasting meat nor do they smell good....usually from infections....and guess what wolves prefer??

Yotes are smarter, and do a lot less damage to livestock and to wildlife.

When a yote takes down an animal....they KILL it.


----------



## ZeroJunk

All and all I have probably spent 30 weeks in the Bob Marshall widerness, mostly bow hunting for elk. You know the wolves are there becasue you see their tracks. I saw three wolves one time about 500 yards away about 10 miles up the north fork of the Sun River below Sulfur Mountain. Even at that distance they spotted me and ran in to the trees. I can see why it would be hard to do much with them using traditional hunting methods.


----------



## Metals406

luckycutter said:


> Clearly there needs to be a balance. Like what was there a few hundred years ago before man kind came in and screwed things up. Getting an accurate count on wild animals is difficult so I would not focus too much on the actual numbers.
> 
> If it has been found that there are too many wolves in the area then they need to be culled. At best that will be a difficult balancing act to find and maintain. However removing all the wolves would be stupid. They are needed to cull the weak animals from the herd so the herds remains strong. Hunters nearly always go for the biggest/strongest animals so hunting alone does not do the job of ensuring only the best animals survive for next year. Secondly, Coyotes have been found to take over where wolves have ben eradicated. Coyotes multiply more rapidly than wolves and are also much more difficult to eradicate.



We had wolves here before they were "reintroduced". We had a pack of native wolves behind our place in the 1980's. They kept to themselves, didn't hurt herd numbers, and were rarely seen around humans.

These "introduced" wolves are a hybrid. They're bigger, meaner, and don't have any natural predators besides us. I've watched local video of one of these new wolves trying to kill a Grizz cub, right in front of it's mother. It had absolutely no fear of the sow, and was damn near as big.

The correct term for these wolves is "introduced", as they were never here in the first cotton-picken place. They joy kill constantly, waste food resources, and are detrimental to domestic herds. 

Then the Fin & Fur has the nutsack to waste more of our money "culling" wolves right after they bring them in. . . What a load of crap.

To parrot what Deek said, they don't kill the weak and old, that's from Disney cartoons. . . They kill whatever the hell they want, whenever they want.

These wolves are absolutely destructive to our local wildlife, our farms and ranches, and our economy. 

All these bleeding heart folks that wanna call them everything they ain't, should have a couple plopped in their back yard. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hunting for the past 4 years has sucked. . . You can tell that the deer and elk numbers are down. You can drive up a drainage and see wolf tracks on every road.

Idaho reported a huge elk herd reduction from wolves.

Great-Grandpappy knew what was up when he started putting a bullet in the wolves heads. But the greenies and Government have to constantly meddle where they don't belong, because they have to "manage" everything. I guess they haven't figured out the world turned just fine before their mothers farted them out'a their wombs.

:rant:


----------



## ShoerFast

Some say wolves stay where you put them....

link:

Some say wolves only kill to eat......






Predation by reintroduced wolves
Uneaten cattle​
Some say wolves eat what they kill.....





Wolve slaughter, barely eaten​
Some say wolves do not come near people....





Backyard dog
killed by wolves​

Truth is wolves are ruthless killers, and they are good at it....






Need more be said?​


----------



## luckycutter

deeker said:


> :agree2:
> 
> I have no problem with Mexican Grey wolves.
> 
> I do know that wolves DO NOT PREY ON THE WEAK, exception being a very small percentage of the time.
> 
> Cougars prey almost exclusively on buck deer, bighorn sheep (rams) bull elk and other large healthy animals, and small game. They live in the remote areas...where the trophy animals live.
> 
> Wolves hamstring live animals....and eat them while the victim is alive, for days.
> 
> Sick and injured animals, don't have the best tasting meat nor do they smell good....usually from infections....and guess what wolves prefer??
> 
> Yotes are smarter, and do a lot less damage to livestock and to wildlife.
> 
> When a yote takes down an animal....they KILL it.



We have cougars just outside of town. Their preferred meal? dog on a chain. I have been followed by cougars and I in no way resemble a "trophy animal". Oregon has very few wolves but an outrageous number of coyotes which have done a number on big game. Some years about 50% of the elk calves dropped are coyote food. I used to have a picture of a pack, "assisting" in the birth. Any line about coyotes not being a problem to livestock is a crock.


----------



## luckycutter

ShoerFast said:


> Some say wolves stay where you put them....
> 
> link:
> 
> Some say wolves only kill to eat......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predation by reintroduced wolves
> Uneaten cattle​
> Some say wolves eat what they kill.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolve slaughter, barely eaten​
> Some say wolves do not come near people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backyard dog
> killed by wolves​
> 
> Truth is wolves are ruthless killers, and they are good at it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need more be said?​



Wolves are a lot like people. They go out in the woods and do what they damned well please and yes,wolves are very good at what they do. That is just part of being on the top of the food chain.


----------



## ShoerFast

luckycutter said:


> Wolves are a lot like people. They go out in the woods and do what they damned well please and yes,wolves are very good at what they do. That is just part of being on the top of the food chain.



Pfftttt!


I am the top of the food chain.


----------



## luckycutter

whitemountain said:


> Wolves are beautiful animals that have their place.
> 
> I live an area of reintroduction of the Mexican Grey Wolf. We have not as of yet seen the decimation of wild big game herds, but the wolf population is still relatively low here. I expect that as the protected wolf population continues to grow there will be more and more interaction between humans and wolves. There has already been significant loss of cattle through the region.
> 
> Contrary to an above post it is not just the weak or sick prey animals that are taken by wolves. In fact it is often just the opposite. They often will prey upon pregnant females eating the womb and its contents exclusively. Leaving the carcass of the once healthy/now deceased mother.
> 
> If wolf repopulation is going to be our rule, make it the rule. Introduce healthy packs into all areas of previous habitation. This would include area like central park, in fact most of urban New York, the Virginias, Great portions of the New England States, etc.
> 
> I appreciate the above post when he says don't tell me what to do in my back yard and I'll do the same. It is entirely to easy to legislate and fund, from a distance, goverment programs when it doesn't really affect you or your family.



Thanks. You have proved my point. the very young and pregnant females ARE the weak for at least a time. A wolf is rarely going to chase down a raging 6X6 bull elk in its prime when there are birthing cows and young calves all around.


----------



## ShoerFast

luckycutter said:


> Thanks. You have proved my point. the very young and pregnant females ARE the weak for at least a time. A wolf is rarely going to chase down a raging 6X6 bull elk in its prime when there are birthing cows and young calves all around.



You really study this a lot?

Opportunistic? yes.

Blood thirsty? yes. 

Only take the weakest? no.

Here they have a calf down, but continue chase on a healthy mature buffalo.

link:


----------



## BuddhaKat

I don't see what the big deal is if a single species goes extinct. Extinctions have been going on for only a microsecond less time than life has been on this planet.


----------



## ShoerFast

BuddhaKat said:


> I don't see what the big deal is if a single species goes extinct. Extinctions have been going on foe only a microsecond less time than life has been on this planet.



The hybrids is not a naturally evolved species. They are a mistake that has been sold as 'nature' to activist.


----------



## Metals406

ShoerFast said:


> The hybrids is not a naturally evolved species. They are a mistake that has been sold as 'nature' to activist.



Exactly. . .


----------



## BuddhaKat

ShoerFast said:


> The hybrids is not a naturally evolved species. They are a mistake that has been sold as 'nature' to activist.


----------



## Metals406

BuddhaKat said:


>


----------



## whitemountain

luckycutter said:


> Thanks. You have proved my point. the very young and pregnant females ARE the weak for at least a time. A wolf is rarely going to chase down a raging 6X6 bull elk in its prime when there are birthing cows and young calves all around.



I don't believe I've proven anything. What I've done is shared a thought process.


----------



## scotclayshooter

I took this a few miles away thankfully only in a wildlife park for now.....

http://www.wolvesandhumans.org/wolves/wolf_reintroduction_to_scotland.htm



> Schemes such as Paul Lister’s vision for the Alladale Estate north of Inverness - to transform a 23,000 acre (9,300 hectares, or 37 square miles) sporting estate into a wilderness wildlife reserve that supports a balanced and rich ecosystem with a ‘controlled reintroduction’ of top carnivores in a fenced environment - may be the way forward. An area of Scotland would begin the process of ecological recovery without the cost to other land users in Scotland of a general reintroduction; this seems a far better alternative to a premature release into an environment where people have not had to live with wolves for three hundred years.
> 
> Alladale could be a flagship for eco-tourism in the Highlands, providing proof that wolves and other charismatic ‘megafauna’ will draw visitors to the region, providing income for local businesses and jobs for local people. Other estate owners will be watching to see if there is money to be made from the presence of wolves. With sheep farming significantly reduced, this could result in very different attitudes among landowners and locals to the return of wolves and other locally extinct animals, which in turn will encourage Scottish Natural Heritage to look again at our obligation under the EU Habitats Directive to consider the possibility of returning species such as the wolf and lynx.


----------



## indiansprings

Conservationist are all about let nature take it's course, let the wolf hunt and kill like nature intended it too. But........when it comes to natures ultimate hunter, yes, you and I they scream for no hunting, no keeping nature in balance. Yet hunter's and sportsmen want hunting regulations to keep herds healthy, keep them in balance with their food sources, keep the animals healthy and pump billions back in to conservation efforts through hunting permits and federal taxation on hunting and fishing items. Let the ultimate predator loose on the wolves and we'll have the population under control in no time. The western states that have the wolves are going to have to make a economic decision, they make millions off of elk hunters, mule deer hunter and other sportsmen. These states local economy also depends on hunters, motels, camp grounds, restraunts, retailers all thrive during big gamn seasons, you start closing these and cutting the number of permits back and there will be a huge economic backlash. The wolf won't be so damned important when businesses and state revenues start to slide. It will become game on, hunting season will be opened on the wolf, only in the national parks will they be allowed to decimate elk, buffalo, mule deer and all lesser species. I'd rather look at elk, bighorn sheep, bison in parks than spend a day looking for a glimpse of a wolf. In Yellowstone my wife and twins were a couple hundred yards ahead of me and the oldest son on a trail and they had a pack of about six to eight wolves run within a 100 yards of them. They thought it was pretty cool, I just thought of the potential consequenses, although illegal at the time, the rest of our hikes included a concealed weapon as family safety comes before the safety of an animal.


----------



## deeker

indiansprings said:


> Conservationist are all about let nature take it's course, let the wolf hunt and kill like nature intended it too. But........when it comes to natures ultimate hunter, yes, you and I they scream for no hunting, no keeping nature in balance. Yet hunter's and sportsmen want hunting regulations to keep herds healthy, keep them in balance with their food sources, keep the animals healthy and pump billions back in to conservation efforts through hunting permits and federal taxation on hunting and fishing items. Let the ultimate predator loose on the wolves and we'll have the population under control in no time. The western states that have the wolves are going to have to make a economic decision, they make millions off of elk hunters, mule deer hunter and other sportsmen. These states local economy also depends on hunters, motels, camp grounds, restraunts, retailers all thrive during big gamn seasons, you start closing these and cutting the number of permits back and there will be a huge economic backlash. The wolf won't be so damned important when businesses and state revenues start to slide. It will become game on, hunting season will be opened on the wolf, only in the national parks will they be allowed to decimate elk, buffalo, mule deer and all lesser species. I'd rather look at elk, bighorn sheep, bison in parks than spend a day looking for a glimpse of a wolf. In Yellowstone my wife and twins were a couple hundred yards ahead of me and the oldest son on a trail and they had a pack of about six to eight wolves run within a 100 yards of them. They thought it was pretty cool, I just thought of the potential consequenses, although illegal at the time, the rest of our hikes included a concealed weapon as family safety comes before the safety of an animal.



Great post!!!!


----------



## luckycutter

ShoerFast said:


> You really study this a lot?
> 
> Opportunistic? yes.
> 
> Blood thirsty? yes.
> 
> Only take the weakest? no.
> 
> Here they have a calf down, but continue chase on a healthy mature buffalo.
> 
> link:



No one said wolves "exclusively" take the weak. As an alpha predator they do enjoy the benefits and that includes hunting for the shear enjoyment of it. That behavior also keeps their skills sharp for when they need it. On the other hand when was the last time you heard a hunter say," WOW! That elk has the biggest rack I have ever seen. Could even be a record for B&C, but I will shoot this scraggly forked horn over here instead."


----------



## luckycutter

BuddhaKat said:


> I don't see what the big deal is if a single species goes extinct. Extinctions have been going on foe only a microsecond less time than life has been on this planet.



There are two things to consider here. First when nature is in a balance the removal of one species may have a profound impact on the entire system. The impact could be slight or it could be devastating. Until the species is removed no one knows the extent of the damage or if it can be reversed. Secondly, diversity is a major key in perpetuating life. The greater the variation and number of gene pools directly equates to a greater chance that something will survive a calamity. Lastly, most of the extinctions have been "natural". Man made extinctions are a different category.


----------



## luckycutter

ShoerFast said:


> Pfftttt!
> 
> 
> I am the top of the food chain.



Unlike a mouse or a duck , a wolf may contest your position. I could throw you, weaponless, in a pack of wolves and when your pack makes a kill we will see who gets to eat first. It may be you, but again it may not be.


----------



## BuddhaKat

luckycutter said:


> There are two things to consider here. First when nature is in a balance the removal of one species may have a profound impact on the entire system. The impact could be slight or it could be devastating. Until the species is removed no one knows the extent of the damage or if it can be reversed. Secondly, diversity is a major key in perpetuating life. The greater the variation and number of gene pools directly equates to a greater chance that something will survive a calamity. Lastly, most of the extinctions have been "natural". Man made extinctions are a different category.


I certainly see the benefit in wildlife and forest management, but the absolute fact is, once the Spotted Owl or the Cheetah population got to a certain 'low' point, their impact on the environment, one way or another, still didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Something still ate the mice and squirrels and the little critters running around on the savanna. If they dropped off the face of the Earth, the Earth still keeps on spinning, just as it always has when the millions and millions of plants and animals went extinct over time.

Humans are the dominant species on the planet. We may not be the most abundant, but we are, without question, on top. Earth is a resource. We make our shelter from what it provides. We eat from what it provides. We shouldn't abuse it, but I can't see the farmers in California's San Joaquine Valley going out of business because they can't get the water they need fro their crops because some stupid fish that is no longer relevant to the ecosystem. It's not a significant food source for other predators, nor does it do much for local for mosquito control. It's toast. It doesn't matter anymore. It seems to me that stupid little smelt is doing more harm for the environment than good because the few that are left are standing the way of tens of thousands of jobs and the ability for most of us to put reasonable priced food on the table.

Spotted Owls are pretty, but nature apparently didn't consider them all that important, because they simply couldn't adapt to change. That's the secret. Adapt or die. It's the same rule for humans. The only thing is, we're pretty good at adapting.


----------



## lmalterna

Buddakhat,
I love dicussions and you touched on something that not many poeple realize- SOME animals do adapt their environment to suit thier needs instead of adapting to accept the environment. Man is the greatest at adapting their environment... we turn swamps into solid ground, deserts into yards, recontour mountains for airports and roads. Like the beaver that floods creeks into wtelands- we see potential and bend nature to suit us.

Many creatures cannot do this. Some, like the Tarsir in the Philippines colonize in pockets- 1 small valley- if relocated even just a few miles, they will starve themselves, even if the same food is available. So while we makes the changes we need, we impart changes that they cannot accept...

Right or Wrong?? I don't go there. I just think it is amazing to watch nature at work- how we react to it and how it reacts to our influence. A rattlesnake in an un populated area gets the right of way from me. One around homes and children gets the shovel....just keeping it in perspective.

2Door


----------



## ShoerFast

luckycutter said:


> Unlike a mouse or a duck , a wolf may contest your position. I could throw you, weaponless, in a pack of wolves and when your pack makes a kill we will see who gets to eat first. It may be you, but again it may not be.



You could throw me in with a pack of wolves, but a very good chance the ol-shoer would return the favor by putting the nearest liberal in a head-lock and bring him with? 

Just to give you a clue, I'm going to be smacking rocks together till I find one that will take an edge, and put it on the end of a stick once I get it to a point. 

When I and my pack are done eating, then the liberals can eat with the rest of the moochers and scavengers. 

Unlike my wolf brothers, I will kill enough to eat, cutting moochers and scavengers out of the loop, why waist game on them?


----------



## deeker

ShoerFast said:


> You could throw me in with a pack of wolves, but a very good chance the ol-shoer would return the favor by putting the nearest liberal in a head-lock and bring him with?
> 
> Just to give you a clue, I'm going to be smacking rocks together till I find one that will take an edge, and put it on the end of a stick once I get it to a point.
> 
> When I and my pack are done eating, then the liberals can eat with the rest of the moochers and scavengers.
> 
> Unlike my wolf brothers, I will kill enough to eat, cutting moochers and scavengers out of the loop, why waist game on them?



:agree2:


----------



## lmalterna

"then the liberals can eat with the rest of the moochers "


LOL!! Liberals taste like chicken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2Door


----------



## Metals406

indiansprings said:


> Conservationist are all about let nature take it's course, let the wolf hunt and kill like nature intended it too. But........when it comes to natures ultimate hunter, yes, you and I they scream for no hunting, no keeping nature in balance. Yet hunter's and sportsmen want hunting regulations to keep herds healthy, keep them in balance with their food sources, keep the animals healthy and pump billions back in to conservation efforts through hunting permits and federal taxation on hunting and fishing items. Let the ultimate predator loose on the wolves and we'll have the population under control in no time. The western states that have the wolves are going to have to make a economic decision, they make millions off of elk hunters, mule deer hunter and other sportsmen. These states local economy also depends on hunters, motels, camp grounds, restraunts, retailers all thrive during big gamn seasons, you start closing these and cutting the number of permits back and there will be a huge economic backlash. The wolf won't be so damned important when businesses and state revenues start to slide. It will become game on, hunting season will be opened on the wolf, only in the national parks will they be allowed to decimate elk, buffalo, mule deer and all lesser species. I'd rather look at elk, bighorn sheep, bison in parks than spend a day looking for a glimpse of a wolf. In Yellowstone my wife and twins were a couple hundred yards ahead of me and the oldest son on a trail and they had a pack of about six to eight wolves run within a 100 yards of them. They thought it was pretty cool, I just thought of the potential consequenses, although illegal at the time, the rest of our hikes included a concealed weapon as family safety comes before the safety of an animal.



You nailed it. . .

My old man told a Montana Fin & Fir guy one time, _"You need to add the Mosquito to the Big Game list."_ The guy asked, _"What'dya mean?"_ Dad says, _"Well, with the way you guys manage everything. . . There'd only be one Mosquito left."_ 

The guy didn't think it was funny. . . Even though it was true.


----------



## ShoerFast

Metals406 said:


> You nailed it. . .
> 
> My old man told a Montana Fin & Fir guy one time, _"You need to add the Mosquito to the Big Game list."_ The guy asked, _"What'dya mean?"_ Dad says, _"Well, with the way you guys manage everything. . . There'd only be one Mosquito left."_
> 
> The guy didn't think it was funny. . . Even though it was true.



+1 Gotcha!


----------



## LarryTheCableGuy

ShoerFast said:


> You could throw me in with a pack of wolves, but a very good chance the ol-shoer would return the favor by putting the nearest liberal in a head-lock and bring him with?
> 
> Just to give you a clue, I'm going to be smacking rocks together till I find one that will take an edge, and put it on the end of a stick once I get it to a point.
> 
> When I and my pack are done eating, then the liberals can eat with the rest of the moochers and scavengers.
> 
> Unlike my wolf brothers, I will kill enough to eat, cutting moochers and scavengers out of the loop, why waist game on them?



*Hi Kevin!!*

*Hear the crickets chirping?*



.


----------



## Metals406

luckycutter said:


> There are two things to consider here. First when nature is in a balance the removal of one species may have a profound impact on the entire system. The impact could be slight or it could be devastating. Until the species is removed no one knows the extent of the damage or if it can be reversed. Secondly, diversity is a major key in perpetuating life. The greater the variation and number of gene pools directly equates to a greater chance that something will survive a calamity. Lastly, most of the extinctions have been "natural". Man made extinctions are a different category.



My first question would be, "Who gets to decide what a 'balance' is?" That would be a very subjective term, relative to a point of view. 

On the same side of the coin, the _introduction_ of one species may have a profound impact on the entire system. The impact could be slight or could be devastating. . . Until the species is _introduced_, no one knows the extent of the damage or if it can be reversed. 

And lastly, your statement I highlighted in red, really shows where you're at. You seem to have drank the Kool-Aid when it comes to perpetuating the New Age propaganda, that humanity isn't "natural". Humans are indeed natural. . . We're a mammal, we belong to a genus, and we function as an integral part of the ecosystem.

To say that "man-made" extinctions aren't "natural", is a complete contradiction. It also paints you into a corner on species _introduction_, for then they would have to be classified as "unnatural" as well. . . Considering humans would be the ones doing the introducing.


----------



## ShoerFast

luckycutter said:


> No one said wolves "exclusively" take the weak. As an alpha predator they do enjoy the benefits and that includes hunting for the shear enjoyment of it. That behavior also keeps their skills sharp for when they need it. On the other hand when was the last time you heard a hunter say," WOW! That elk has the biggest rack I have ever seen. Could even be a record for B&C, but I will shoot this scraggly forked horn over here instead."



Certified Professional Big Game Guide here. 

How for do you think you would get in my camp saying your going to drop one at random to keep your 'skills sharp' ?

Far more often then not a hunter takes game that is 'legal' by a minimum level of maturity, other then one in his prime. Every state I hunt in has antler restrictions, and drawings, lottery and special hunts for non-antlered deer, elk, moose and prong-horn. Big-horn sheep and mountain goats are male only every where I know them to be hunted. 

But you have established a very important FACT about proper game management, and taking the males of a species. You have mentioned that wolves avoid them. 

It is a very clear fact that healthy heard only need a small percentage of the population to be mature males, the rest are a burden on the resources. 

You had better hope they do not do a study on how many male liberals they need to maintain the entitlement-gene? 

Not only is the harvest of antlered males a proper first steep in heard thinning/management, establishing minimum antler maturity requirements a steep in positive identification, that brings out a better sportsman. 

Culling is a sportman's highest objective, it is far more popular then you might think. 

Wolves, and their worshipers do not seem to understand the first thing about conservation?


----------



## BuddhaKat

luckycutter said:


> Unlike a mouse or a duck , a wolf may contest your position. I could throw you, weaponless, in a pack of wolves and when your pack makes a kill we will see who gets to eat first. It may be you, but again it may not be.


Why would you want to cause the needless death of a few wolves? I thought you wanted to protect them?

If unarmed men were so easy to kill, there wouldn't be many of us left. Women and children would have been the first to go.


----------



## luckycutter

ShoerFast said:


> You could throw me in with a pack of wolves, but a very good chance the ol-shoer would return the favor by putting the nearest liberal in a head-lock and bring him with?
> 
> Just to give you a clue, I'm going to be smacking rocks together till I find one that will take an edge, and put it on the end of a stick once I get it to a point.
> 
> When I and my pack are done eating, then the liberals can eat with the rest of the moochers and scavengers.
> 
> Unlike my wolf brothers, I will kill enough to eat, cutting moochers and scavengers out of the loop, why waist game on them?



If that is the best you can do you might want to stay in the political section.


----------



## luckycutter

BuddhaKat said:


> I certainly see the benefit in wildlife and forest management, but the absolute fact is, once the Spotted Owl or the Cheetah population got to a certain 'low' point, their impact on the environment, one way or another, still didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Something still ate the mice and squirrels and the little critters running around on the savanna. If they dropped off the face of the Earth, the Earth still keeps on spinning, just as it always has when the millions and millions of plants and animals went extinct over time.
> 
> Humans are the dominant species on the planet. We may not be the most abundant, but we are, without question, on top. Earth is a resource. We make our shelter from what it provides. We eat from what it provides. We shouldn't abuse it, but I can't see the farmers in California's San Joaquine Valley going out of business because they can't get the water they need fro their crops because some stupid fish that is no longer relevant to the ecosystem. It's not a significant food source for other predators, nor does it do much for local for mosquito control. It's toast. It doesn't matter anymore. It seems to me that stupid little smelt is doing more harm for the environment than good because the few that are left are standing the way of tens of thousands of jobs and the ability for most of us to put reasonable priced food on the table.
> 
> Spotted Owls are pretty, but nature apparently didn't consider them all that important, because they simply couldn't adapt to change. That's the secret. Adapt or die. It's the same rule for humans. The only thing is, we're pretty good at adapting.



Adaptation is one of the keys but baring a catastrophe like a meteor impact, mankind can change the conditions far quicker than nature usually does which gives many species not enough time to adapt. Some species simply can not overcome what man has done. Furthermore, we are still pretty clueless about many species and their actual role in our environment. We have not even found and classified all the species we have left.


----------



## luckycutter

Metals406 said:


> My first question would be, "Who gets to decide what a 'balance' is?" That would be a very subjective term, relative to a point of view.
> 
> On the same side of the coin, the _introduction_ of one species may have a profound impact on the entire system. The impact could be slight or could be devastating. . . Until the species is _introduced_, no one knows the extent of the damage or if it can be reversed.
> 
> And lastly, your statement I highlighted in red, really shows where you're at. You seem to have drank the Kool-Aid when it comes to perpetuating the New Age propaganda, that humanity isn't "natural". Humans are indeed natural. . . We're a mammal, we belong to a genus, and we function as an integral part of the ecosystem.
> 
> To say that "man-made" extinctions aren't "natural", is a complete contradiction. It also paints you into a corner on species _introduction_, for then they would have to be classified as "unnatural" as well. . . Considering humans would be the ones doing the introducing.



Who gets to decide is a good question. I say there should be a lot of input from many who have a vested interest and can make an informed decision. If we are talking federal land many should have a say.

2) Historically, wolves have been there before. They have been wiped out by man and reintroduced by man. It is not like they have introduced wolves where they never have been so you really do not have an argument here. I can cite cases where introduction of species where they never have existed and it turned out to be a very wrong thing.

3) This is more of a philosophical difference than a kool aid one. Again, aside from a catastrophic event. Man has changed the landscape faster in the last 200 years than what has happened in thousands. Man alone has been responsible for the decimation/near extinction of countless species and these species would in all likely hood have existed far into the future if not for the actions of man. Yes, mankind is part of the system but we generally try to make the system work for us and blindly throw things out of whack rather than trying to work within the system. For instance, When we throw up a dam and all the salmon in that run die off because they can no longer reach their spawning grounds. I would not call that a mother nature induced event. Those salmon became extinct because man put a dam up.


----------



## BuddhaKat

luckycutter said:


> Adaptation is one of the keys but baring a catastrophe like a meteor impact, mankind can change the conditions far quicker than nature usually does which gives many species not enough time to adapt. Some species simply can not overcome what man has done. Furthermore, we are still pretty clueless about many species and their actual role in our environment. We have not even found and classified all the species we have left.


Meaning what exactly? Not being able to adapt fast enough simply means not being able to adapt. You either do or you don't. There's lots of things that can bring about the rapid extinction of mankind. A meteor or nuclear winter would knock us out in a generation. A disease is probably more likely. We either adapt in time or blink out. It's the way things are. Right now we're the apex of life on this planet. It's ours to make flourish to our liking or ruin for ourselves. Sensible stewardship is prudent, but only because we wish to continue the status quo. Should we poison the ocean and kill all the life there. Better acquire a taste for Soylent Green if we do. But will the ecology be destroyed if the Polar Bears go away? Spotted Owls? Redwoods? What would happen if there weren't anymore Redwoods? Well, we would have forests without any Redwoods, nothing more. Maybe the rare Redwood Boring Bark Beetle will die along with them, but other than that, nothing. Mother Earth won't even notice the pollution we've spewed or even that the last one of us died. She'll just keep on creating new life, new species, and retiring the old ones when they no longer amuse her.


----------



## luckycutter

BuddhaKat said:


> Why would you want to cause the needless death of a few wolves? I thought you wanted to protect them?
> 
> If unarmed men were so easy to kill, there wouldn't be many of us left. Women and children would have been the first to go.



Look at all the autocracies committed against women and children in Africa. Still lots of them left despite their enemies best efforts.

I never said I wanted to protect the wolves. I just want a balance.


----------



## LarryTheCableGuy

luckycutter said:


> If that is the best you can do you might want to stay in the political section.



Well alrighty...

And if luckycutter was tossed in with the wolves what would HE do? Lobby for an entitlement program so that all of the wolves get fed fairly & evenly so that they don't bite lil' ol luckycutter?

opcorn:


.


----------



## Metals406

luckycutter said:


> Who gets to decide is a good question. I say there should be a lot of input from many who have a vested interest and can make an informed decision. If we are talking federal land many should have a say.



I think the only folks that should have a say are the ones directly effected by poorly run bureaucracies and ignorant schmucks. That's the folks at ground zero. If you aren't part of the area effected by wolf introduction -- go mow your lawn, or write grandma a letter -- you don't have an opinion.



> 2) Historically, wolves have been there before. They have been wiped out by man and reintroduced by man. It is not like they have introduced wolves where they never have been so you really do not have an argument here. I can cite cases where introduction of species where they never have existed and it turned out to be a very wrong thing.



Actually, I do have an argument here. . . You keep using the term reintroduced or reintroduction, clearly I have shown that this hybrid species is something new -- thus introduced.

And again, wolves were here before the new hybrids were plopped in our laps. . . Just because some jackass in an office didn't know they were there, doesn't mean they weren't.



> 3) This is more of a philosophical difference than a kool aid one. Again, aside from a catastrophic event. Man has changed the landscape faster in the last 200 years than what has happened in thousands. Man alone has been responsible for the decimation/near extinction of countless species and these species would in all likely hood have existed far into the future if not for the actions of man. Yes, mankind is part of the system but we generally try to make the system work for us and blindly throw things out of whack rather than trying to work within the system. For instance, When we throw up a dam and all the salmon in that run die off because they can no longer reach their spawning grounds. I would not call that a mother nature induced event. Those salmon became extinct because man put a dam up.



You think being a mammal, animal, and part of the ecosystem is philosophical?? I call it hard fact.

Can you prove that other animal species have not been made extinct by other animals besides humans? Is "natural selection" more natural than that done by the hand of man? If one is of nature, part of nature, sustained by nature, living in nature. . . Is it not natural as well?

And yes, we blindly throw things out of whack. . . Like introducing a wolf species into an ecosystem that never had hybrid wolves before. . . That is indeed wacky.


----------



## luckycutter

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> Well alrighty...
> 
> And if luckycutter was tossed in with the wolves what would HE do? Lobby for an entitlement program so that all of the wolves get fed fairly & evenly so that they don't bite lil' ol luckycutter?
> 
> opcorn:
> 
> 
> .



Wrong again, but you must be used to that by now.


----------



## luckycutter

BuddhaKat said:


> Meaning what exactly? Not being able to adapt fast enough simply means not being able to adapt. You either do or you don't. There's lots of things that can bring about the rapid extinction of mankind. A meteor or nuclear winter would knock us out in a generation. A disease is probably more likely. We either adapt in time or blink out. It's the way things are. Right now we're the apex of life on this planet. It's ours to make flourish to our liking or ruin for ourselves. Sensible stewardship is prudent, but only because we wish to continue the status quo. Should we poison the ocean and kill all the life there. Better acquire a taste for Soylent Green if we do. But will the ecology be destroyed if the Polar Bears go away? Spotted Owls? Redwoods? What would happen if there weren't anymore Redwoods? Well, we would have forests without any Redwoods, nothing more. Maybe the rare Redwood Boring Bark Beetle will die along with them, but other than that, nothing. Mother Earth won't even notice the pollution we've spewed or even that the last one of us died. She'll just keep on creating new life, new species, and retiring the old ones when they no longer amuse her.



Usually when mother nature changes she does so in a much slower fashion. That is what other species have relied upon. Man is the only species that can change a local environment over night. People are not after the status quo. they want to bend the earth over for the fast and easy and those results do not always pan out for the best.


----------



## luckycutter

Metals406 said:


> I think the only folks that should have a say are the ones directly effected by poorly run bureaucracies and ignorant schmucks. That's the folks at ground zero. If you aren't part of the area effected by wolf introduction -- go mow your lawn, or write grandma a letter -- you don't have an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do have an argument here. . . You keep using the term reintroduced or reintroduction, clearly I have shown that this hybrid species is something new -- thus introduced.
> 
> And again, wolves were here before the new hybrids were plopped in our laps. . . Just because some jackass in an office didn't know they were there, doesn't mean they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> You think being a mammal, animal, and part of the ecosystem is philosophical?? I call it hard fact.
> 
> Can you prove that other animal species have not been made extinct by other animals besides humans? Is "natural selection" more natural than that done by the hand of man? If one is of nature, part of nature, sustained by nature, living in nature. . . Is it not natural as well?
> 
> And yes, we blindly throw things out of whack. . . Like introducing a wolf species into an ecosystem that never had hybrid wolves before. . . That is indeed wacky.



Cute response but the fact is that every citizen has ownership of our national parks and all federal lands. Therefore on matters such as this all Americans are affected and have a say. Your argument is like one who moves near an airport then gripes about the noise when they put a new runway in. 

Can you prove that any other species besides man has exterminated another? What we have here is a stand off because we simply do not have enough data to say one way or another. Would it be so wrong to try to collect all the data we could before playing God and saying we do not need this or that species.

There is no question man is a species and part of the environment. Since man is the only species that has the ability to change the environment as well as knowing we can do so, I say that puts us in a different category than the other species on this earth. I say man is working with a different set of rules than the other species and that is where you and I philosophically disagree.


----------



## Metals406

luckycutter said:


> Cute response but the fact is that every citizen has ownership of our national parks and all federal lands. Therefore on matters such as this all Americans are affected and have a say. Your argument is like one who moves near an airport then gripes about the noise when they put a new runway in.
> 
> Can you prove that any other species besides man has exterminated another? What we have here is a stand off because we simply do not have enough data to say one way or another. Would it be so wrong to try to collect all the data we could before playing God and saying we do not need this or that species.
> 
> There is no question man is a species and part of the environment. Since man is the only species that has the ability to change the environment as well as knowing we can do so, I say that puts us in a different category than the other species on this earth. I say man is working with a different set of rules than the other species and that is where you and I philosophically disagree.



Every citizen has ownership of our National Parks and Federal Land?? I dare ya to go down and claim your stock then.

We don't own squat. . . The Feds control it all with an iron fist. . . Apart from the rule of law and the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Feds overstepping their lawful powers much? Much too much.

I've said my piece. . . Enjoy the Kool-Aid!!


----------



## LarryTheCableGuy

luckycutter said:


> Usually when mother nature changes she does so in a much slower fashion. That is what other species have relied upon. Man is the only species that can change a local environment over night...


*
MOUNT ST. HELENS???*

Ever hear of that one? Ma nature does stuff like that all of the time "in the big picture".


.


----------



## Burvol

Call me a redneck, or a hillbilly log cutter, I don't care. I went to college at night while cutting timber in the day. Could about wipe my arss with that degree in my office, although it has my name on it and is in a cool frame. My degree in that frame is about like wolves back in the west, sounds nice, might look cool, but is very unfucntional. Hunters could manange _The Entire Herd_, quite easily. Are you telling me you would have a hard time selling leftover tags? I think not. Hell, I'll buy 5 deer and 3 elk tags myself, and not waste a scrap of meat. Everyone likes the way I take care of my game, and I have a lot of friends and some family who know what good meat is that don't hunt. Wolves are not even welcome in Alaska anymore. I met "rockstars" LOL in villages that had numerous wolf pelts for sale. "You run the wolves out, you'll be a hero to these people and their caribou/moose meat needs." I was told that by a couple of elders in SW bush country. How about Grizz and Brownies??? They shoot them by the dozen and leave to rot a month or two before huckleberry season starts, just because they are sick and tired of the damn things screwing up their berry harvests, mostly getting attacked and having to shoot them under charge! These are the same people the libs cuddle and defend their lifestyle. I laughed!! I was almost appaled. But when I saw how many bears I ran into, the amount of wolves, and the diminishing resources, I took the side of the people. 

I was lucky enough to come upon two very large wolves of the most beautiful color, white/silver streaked, fishing for coho in a creek in AK. I never knew wolves fished. Bastards! They're after my salmon now! LOL Pretty much every hunter and logger I know is going to shoot any wolf spotted in our region, a test ground for replants. They are suppose to arrive this summer. I don't know how anyone or any _SPORTSMAN_ can sit back and let the government cull our herds with wolves. It's pretty clear to me; they are trying their damndest to drive us all away from what we love to do. 
Libs want everyone to live in a big metro area, walk or ride a bike to a mass transite center, then get on some type of commuter train. And nature? Behind glass. No hunting, no fishing, just observe and worship it. The bible tell us we have dominion over the animals, so I think I will shoot me a wolf or two, LOL.


----------



## BuddhaKat

luckycutter said:


> Usually when mother nature changes she does so in a much slower fashion. That is what other species have relied upon. Man is the only species that can change a local environment over night. People are not after the status quo. they want to bend the earth over for the fast and easy and those results do not always pan out for the best.



Nature has a proclivity for slow change, until it decides otherwise. Evolutionary adaptation typically takes millions of years, but while it can take millions of years to create a new species that lives in a confined ecosystem, it can all be wiped out in a microsecond by a disease or fire or flood or other natural disaster. Nature moves at natures speed. Extinction is just one way that nature keeps on rolling along. When the very last T-Rex keeled over, something came along and ate it. So who was stronger, the T-Rex or the maggots that ate it to the bone?


----------



## luckycutter

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> *
> MOUNT ST. HELENS???*
> 
> Ever hear of that one? Ma nature does stuff like that all of the time "in the big picture".
> 
> 
> .



You might want to look up the word "usually". An explosive eruption like Mt ST. Helens 1980 (yes I was there when it happened and saw it from a prudent distance) does not happen every day. What happens far more often is a series of slow and gradual changes. Secondly, The asteroid I mentioned in an earlier post kind of trumps your puny volcano. Good lord man do try to keep up.


----------



## LarryTheCableGuy

luckycutter said:


> You might want to look up the word "usually". An explosive eruption like Mt ST. Helens 1980 (yes I was there when it happened and saw it from a prudent distance) does not happen every day. What happens far more often is a series of slow and gradual changes. Secondly, The asteroid I mentioned in an earlier post kind of trumps your puny volcano. Good lord man do try to keep up.



How about the hundreds if not thousands of fires that tear through wildlands every year...

Floods...

Trying to give you some hints here. There a millions of acres that Ma Nature changes in a heartbeat every year. Don't be so stubborn. 


.


----------



## ShoerFast

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> How about the hundreds if not thousands of fires that tear through wildlands every year...
> 
> Floods...
> 
> Trying to give you some hints here. There a millions of acres that Ma Nature changes in a heartbeat every year. Don't be so stubborn.
> 
> 
> .



It's rare that we see city dwelling 'intellectuals' get their ass handed to him like we have see the socialist luckycutter get his ass handed to him! 

Not only has the evidence been overwhelming, factual, and by eye witnesses. 

And the ideas presented by said 'intellectual' contradict his own statements and ideas. His true agenda has been just plain disgusting, to say the least. 

Other then just sitting back and watch said 'intellectual' play with his narcissistic belief of self justified victory. We should be taking notes on how absolutely 'wrong' some one could be! 

Idaho's wolf hunt has been extremely successful last year, Alaska has been seeing a comeback in heard counts with proper wolf control. Montana also understands the decimation. 

Regardless how fired up someone is to fire off lies to promote their agenda, wolves will be dealt with as the experts believe is fit. 

As we speak my brothers the wolves are out killing ruthlessly, sealing their fate. 

Many could guess that the socialist luckycutter has never spent any time near or around wolves?

edit: Hi Steve!!!


----------



## deeker

If no permit/season is available for the wolf, shoot them in the guts.

They will run off and be torn to shreds/killed by the "pack", with no troublesome bullet to be found.


----------



## ShoerFast

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> How about the hundreds if not thousands of fires that tear through wildlands every year...
> 
> Floods...
> 
> Trying to give you some hints here. There a millions of acres that Ma Nature changes in a heartbeat every year. Don't be so stubborn.
> 
> 
> .



That 'save the tree' crowd sure has shown us how stupid they are!

Save the tree, but they burn anyway. Save the prairie-dog, never mind they carry bubonic-death ! 

Save the wolf, but they murder anything that bleeds! 

The real study should be on luckycutter types.


----------



## deeker

Does the (puppy and kitten killing) anti hunting "humane society", protect liberals???

If so, another reason to dismantel the HS of the USA.


----------



## luckycutter

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> How about the hundreds if not thousands of fires that tear through wildlands every year...
> 
> Floods...
> 
> Trying to give you some hints here. There a millions of acres that Ma Nature changes in a heartbeat every year. Don't be so stubborn.
> 
> 
> .



How many species became extinct from these minor events? That is the qualifier here.


----------



## luckycutter

deeker said:


> Does the (puppy and kitten killing) anti hunting "humane society", protect liberals???
> 
> If so, another reason to dismantel the HS of the USA.



There is something we can agree on. I would be most overjoyed if the HS becomes extinct and takes groups like PETA with them.


----------



## luckycutter

ShoerFast said:


> It's rare that we see city dwelling 'intellectuals' get their ass handed to him like we have see the socialist luckycutter get his ass handed to him!
> 
> Not only has the evidence been overwhelming, factual, and by eye witnesses.
> 
> And the ideas presented by said 'intellectual' contradict his own statements and ideas. His true agenda has been just plain disgusting, to say the least.
> 
> Other then just sitting back and watch said 'intellectual' play with his narcissistic belief of self justified victory. We should be taking notes on how absolutely 'wrong' some one could be!
> 
> Idaho's wolf hunt has been extremely successful last year, Alaska has been seeing a comeback in heard counts with proper wolf control. Montana also understands the decimation.
> 
> Regardless how fired up someone is to fire off lies to promote their agenda, wolves will be dealt with as the experts believe is fit.
> 
> As we speak my brothers the wolves are out killing ruthlessly, sealing their fate.
> 
> Many could guess that the socialist luckycutter has never spent any time near or around wolves?
> 
> edit: Hi Steve!!!



Unfortunately what is not so rare is your total lack of perception. We do not have to go any farther than your post to see just how wrong a person can be. You have become a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black. Lets present a few facts:

1) I do not live in the city. 
2) I have spent time with wolves and I fully understand that they are wild animals. Contrary to what you are stewing on, I am in support of culling wolves from certain areas when needed. I am just not agreeing to making them extinct. (see post #9 if you are able) 
3) Not agreeing with you on issues does not make anyone a socialist. Seriously, save that crap for the political thread. You are only showing the world how small minded you are when you have to continuously run home to mamma and bring out the political card on every thread.
4) You can keep up the wolves are killers rhetoric all you want. It just makes you look silly. They are animals and that is what they do. Their behavior has worked for them and their prey since long before man came around. That is what mother nature calls success. However if you want to focus on true killers you need only to look at yourself, me and the rest of mankind. Our presence has made a more profound effect on other species than wolves ever will. Wolves do not hold a candle to the savagery man has brought forth on this earth. 
5) If you are really afraid for the safety of the deer and elk your efforts would be better off eliminating poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and of course, a few less coyotes would not hurt either. If you bother to crunch the numbers, you will find that more of the animals you are trying to protect die from these causes than from the few wolves we have.


----------



## Burvol

I take it back. You are a socialist. LOL


----------



## ShoerFast

luckycutter said:


> Unfortunately what is not so rare is your total lack of perception. We do not have to go any farther than your post to see just how wrong a person can be. You have become a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black. Lets present a few facts:
> 
> 1) I do not live in the city.
> 2) I have spent time with wolves and I fully understand that they are wild animals. Contrary to what you are stewing on, I am in support of culling wolves from certain areas when needed. I am just not agreeing to making them extinct. (see post #9 if you are able)
> 3) Not agreeing with you on issues does not make anyone a socialist. Seriously, save that crap for the political thread. You are only showing the world how small minded you are when you have to continuously run home to mamma and bring out the political card on every thread.
> 4) You can keep up the wolves are killers rhetoric all you want. It just makes you look silly. They are animals and that is what they do. Their behavior has worked for them and their prey since long before man came around. That is what mother nature calls success. However if you want to focus on true killers you need only to look at yourself, me and the rest of mankind. Our presence has made a more profound effect on other species than wolves ever will. Wolves do not hold a candle to the savagery man has brought forth on this earth.
> 5) If you are really afraid for the safety of the deer and elk your efforts would be better off eliminating poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and of course, a few less coyotes would not hurt either. If you bother to crunch the numbers, you will find that more of the animals you are trying to protect die from these causes than from the few wolves we have.



Your crawdading now!

Your city views and agendas make you a pure socialist. 

Your stance is contrary to what the experts have come up with, when called on it now your for it? 

1) "_I do not live in the city_." Your views are contrary to ranchers, sportsman and most that live a rural lifestyle. 

2) "_I have spent time with wolves and I fully understand that they are wild animals. Contrary to what you are stewing on, I am in support of culling wolves from certain areas when needed. I am just not agreeing to making them extinct._" This is pure bull####, most here do not believe you 'have spent time with wolves' , not for a second, if you have, you would have picked up on how out of place these reintroduced wolves are a *hybrid* mistake. . Most wolf worshipers think they have common bond with wolves as a need to feel set free, a mental disorder of sorts. It's my belief that you suffer this disorder. Being from a state that has a natural wolf population, I doubt that they could ever become 'extinct' you toss that word around to add impishness to your agenda. Take a tree out of it's natural environment and transplant it in different environment and it will not grow the same. Cross-breed that very tree and put it back where is was and you have something different again. That total concept escapes you regardless how many times it's been explained to you and you still call it nature, that is a very urban trait. 

3) _"Not agreeing with you on issues does not make anyone a socialist. Seriously, save that crap for the political thread. You are only showing the world how small minded you are when you have to continuously run home to mamma and bring out the political card on every thread._" Tossing the words 'run home to momma' in there makes you look more the idiot in this thread then you are, as most have come to the conclusion that you may have peaked at the bottom? Trust me, you are a socialist or leftist in your thinking. Instead of leaving a subject that is not a concern of yours alone, you 'feel' you are entitled to imposing your views on others. Now understand it is you by imposing your opinion that made this political, it's because ill-informed like yourself pipe up brings others to bring their views. Trust me here, your a pure socialist. 

4) "_You can keep up the wolves are killers rhetoric all you want. It just makes you look silly. They are animals and that is what they do. Their behavior has worked for them and their prey since long before man came around. That is what mother nature calls success. However if you want to focus on true killers you need only to look at yourself, me and the rest of mankind. Our presence has made a more profound effect on other species than wolves ever will. *Wolves do not hold a candle to the savagery man has brought forth on this earth.*_" This is perhaps the biggest things the socialist think they have going for them? Feel guilty because of what 'mankind' has become! Is it a curse, or a blessing to struggle for a living? 
_
Gen: 3-17 "All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it." _​
I for one will have ZERO guilt for mankind or the savages we are. 

5) "_If you are really afraid for the safety of the deer and elk your efforts would be better off eliminating poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and of course, a few less coyotes would not hurt either. If you bother to crunch the numbers, you will find that more of the animals you are trying to protect die from these causes than from the few wolves we have"_

You think this is what this thread is a about? 

Not for one second can one man ask another to not protect HIS property. 

If a rancher loses cattle, it is his struggle to eliminate the source or reason for the loss. 

If a Shepperd is losing lambs, what good would he be if he did nothing and said it was just nature? 

If I do not have enough elk or deer to hunt, something was taken from me, you expect me to do nothing? 

This thread is not about nature, it is about a *hybrid* reintroduced wolf that has no place in nature, they are no longer natural.


----------



## BuddhaKat

Maybe he's trying to pass himself off as Dances with Wolves to feel closer to the Indians?


----------



## Metals406

ShoerFast said:


> This thread is not about nature, it is about a *hybrid* (fixed)introduced wolf that has no place in nature, they are no longer natural.



:agree2:


----------



## ShoerFast

Metals406 said:


> :agree2:



Thank you for the fix! I stand corrected. 

These hybrid land-sharks has been 'introduced' in a land that they do not belong in.


----------



## ShoerFast

BuddhaKat said:


> Maybe he's trying to pass himself off as Dances with Wolves to feel closer to the Indians?



Maybe?

Maybe him name should be Lucky-Dances-with-Fib?


----------



## Metals406

luckycutter said:


> Unfortunately what is not so rare is your total lack of perception. We do not have to go any farther than your post to see just how wrong a person can be. You have become a shining example of the pot calling the kettle black. Lets present a few facts:
> 
> 1) I do not live in the city.
> 2) I have spent time with wolves and I fully understand that they are wild animals. Contrary to what you are stewing on, I am in support of culling wolves from certain areas when needed. I am just not agreeing to making them extinct. (see post #9 if you are able)


I know I said I was done, but I lied. LOL

You seem to be missing the point. . . You say you are for culling the wolves? At what cost and to who? A fundamental concept of Economics, is in order to give something to someone, it must first be taken from someone else.

You see, in order for the Government employees to be paid to cull the wolves (that they introduced without proper public feedback or by vote), the money they get paid must be taken from someone else. We are indebted to pay for all this silliness. . . In order for it to be proper and fair, they would have to volunteer their time and money to cull the packs'.

This of course would be the right, and responsible thing for them to do. They would have to hold themselves accountable for something they did. I certainly didn't introduce a hybrid wolf species in my back yard, so I have no moral, financial, or ethical obligation to manage them.

So you see, their mistake should be their problem. . . But Socialists' make it everyone's problem -- they have no personal responsibility for their actions -- nor do they hold themselves accountable.

I'd encourage you to look up the Mysis Shrimp introduction into Flathead Lake and it's waterways. One state biologist decimated the salmon population there, and then held himself to no account. Yet if you or I did the same thing, we'd face huge fines and jail time. . . If you're an employee of the Gub'Ment, you're above reproach and the law. The only time someone is actually reprimanded is when there's a big enough public outcry. . . Then of course the Gub'Ment employee has to do 30 hours of community service. 



> 3) Not agreeing with you on issues does not make anyone a socialist. Seriously, save that crap for the political thread. You are only showing the world how small minded you are when you have to continuously run home to mamma and bring out the political card on every thread.
> 4) You can keep up the wolves are killers rhetoric all you want. It just makes you look silly. They are animals and that is what they do. Their behavior has worked for them and their prey since long before man came around. That is what mother nature calls success. However if you want to focus on true killers you need only to look at yourself, me and the rest of mankind. Our presence has made a more profound effect on other species than wolves ever will. Wolves do not hold a candle to the savagery man has brought forth on this earth.



Ahhhh, the old standby 'Demonize all things human' New Age greenie technique. I am very well versed and familiar with it, as it is overused and one of the main 'points' green groups use over and over again. People are evil, Mother Earth (Gaia) is God, we need to worship and revere creation as a deity. . . Animals and nature should rule over humanity.

I have just one problem with that. . . It goes against everything God has ordained as Truth.

You say you're a country boy. . . I don't buy it. You sound just like a city boy that has gone 'native', and claims the country lifestyle.

If you were truly a rancher, farmer, etc. . . You're views would have alienated and ostracized you from your community long ago.



> 5) If you are really afraid for the safety of the deer and elk your efforts would be better off eliminating poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and of course, a few less coyotes would not hurt either. If you bother to crunch the numbers, you will find that more of the animals you are trying to protect die from these causes than from the few wolves we have.



Ahhh, again the old tricks of the New Age trade. A little slight of hand, some clever wording. . . And the focus is moved from fact to fiction. 

Let's dissect what you are saying shall we?

*You begin with:* "If you are really afraid for the safety of the deer and elk". . .

You use a redirect technique here. You want to impart to the reader that they are "afraid", and thus the must fear for the safety of deer and elk. When a point of fact is we are not afraid at all, and certainly not for deer and elk. . . This technique is used to redirect away from the wolves being a problem, and makes humans the problem as we are "afraid".
*
You continue with:* ". . . your efforts would be better off eliminating poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and of course, a few less coyotes would not hurt either."

Here you redirect again -- by listing ways in which we can focus on what the magician want us to focus on. Unfortunately, your 'answers' are all but unsolvable. There is no real time way to eliminate poaching, vehicle/animal collisions, disease, and coyotes. If any of these things were viable, they would have been done long ago. . . But it would certainly keep people busy chasing their tails, instead of staying on task -- that task of course being hybrid wolves.

You finish off the sentence with another nice redirect. . . Getting us to focus on coyotes as a 'real' problem, and not wolves.

Your pièce de résistance is when you try and make us feel dumb for not 'crunching numbers'. You imply that if we were to only look, all of the other things do more damage than wolves.

One problem, you site no real data proving that those things do more damage to an ecosystem than wolves. It's also another attempt to redirect away from the topic. . . Which again, IS WOLVES. You also don't live within the ecosystem that is effected by the introductions. You have no dog in the fight, and your 'experience with wolves' seems to be pure conjecture.

Raise your hand if you've had wolves run through your field 500 Yds. from your back door. . . Did you raise your hand? . . I did. You see, I'm living with the wolf problem. . . You're just reading about it.


----------

