The Damage Wolves Are Inflicting On America

[wolfbait]

The Damage Wolves Are Inflicting On America

http://www.lobowatch2.com/wolf-impact-1

[pianoman9701]

I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild".

I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.

[wolfbait]

I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild".

I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.

I have read many articles on the wolf corruption over the years, and this was another exceptional one by Toby Bridges.


"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1." 


In the "Wolf Rallies" P-man, not the country or world as a whole.  Carry on......

[idahohuntr]

There is little or no credibility among people like Toby Bridges or Jim Beers.  They will never go anywhere with their tinfoil hat theories other than rile up a small group of fellow conspiracy theorists.  Just a fact of life folks like wolfbait should come to terms with.  Even in a Trump administration these guys won't see an ounce of traction. 

[wolfbait]

There is little or no credibility among people like Toby Bridges or Jim Beers.  They will never go anywhere with their tinfoil hat theories other than rile up a small group of fellow conspiracy theorists.  Just a fact of life folks like wolfbait should come to terms with.  Even in a Trump administration these guys won't see an ounce of traction. 

I will take Toby Bridges and Jim Beers word on wolves long before I would believe anything you have to say on the subject, in fact those two have probably forgotten more about wolves etc. then you will ever know, especially with the schooling of today.

[TVHunts]

There is little or no credibility among people like Toby Bridges or Jim Beers.  They will never go anywhere with their tinfoil hat theories other than rile up a small group of fellow conspiracy theorists.  Just a fact of life folks like wolfbait should come to terms with.  Even in a Trump administration these guys won't see an ounce of traction. 

And your the authority how? What qualifies you to discredit them?  I can only hope this administration has the grit to push back on any federal funded wolf related projects.

[hunter399]

Read the two article,some or all of it may be true.But can't change the past,and the introduction of wolves in the 90's.In politics there's always dirty money is this a shock to anybody.Nobody is gonna get in trouble for useing Pittman funds,do I think it's right NO,But people should be more concerned to put better wolf management in play now instead of worrying about the past.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

These articles sound just like anti 2nd Amendment when they talk about how dangerous guns are. They throw enough dung and hope some will stick in the minds of the people they are trying to influence. (brainwash would be a better word)

"Larger more aggressive wolves" is akin to "dangerous assault rifles".  More aggressive than what? Any animal that hunts for it's dinner has to be aggressive. Dogs are aggressive. Dogs kill more other animals "for fun" than all the predators in the USA. I don't see Toby Bridges creating a web site for the eradication of dogs.

People who want to be scared, will be by all this nonsense, about wolves or "assault rifles".

[pianoman9701]

I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild".

I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.

I have read many articles on the wolf corruption over the years, and this was another exceptional one by Toby Bridges.


"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1." 


In the "Wolf Rallies" P-man, not the country or world as a whole.  Carry on......

It doesn't say "in the rallies". But if it did, that's even more ridiculous. All it would then be saying is that anti-wolf people are anti-wolf people. There's a no chit statement.

I'm not a pro-wolfer. But, using crap like this to argue your point just makes you look fanatical. I do have to take issue with the poster who discredits Jim Beers, however. He was part of the program and knows the backroom dealings and blind eyes that took place to bring wolves into Yellowstone.

[wolfbait]

Read the two article,some or all of it may be true.But can't change the past,and the introduction of wolves in the 90's.In politics there's always dirty money is this a shock to anybody.Nobody is gonna get in trouble for useing Pittman funds,do I think it's right NO,But people should be more concerned to put better wolf management in play now instead of worrying about the past.

History is important, one of the main reasons we are in this mess is people were brain washed into thinking wolves were a good thing.

How does a state get a "good" wolf plan when wolves have to be controlled? Hunting wolves as a big game animal will never control wolves, it will only prolong the outcome.

[JLS]

Is this the same Toby Bridges who made up the story about running over the wolf with his mini van?  Maybe he should get out and hit the blacktop more, and bring numbers down.

[Special T]

I'd put my truck In a ditch to hit a wolf... does that count?

[bearpaw]

I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild".

I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.

The ratio of people opposed to wolves depends where you live! In NE WA counties (Stevens, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan) I'd be willing to bet 75% are opposed to wolves. Where my son lives in Idaho I'll bet it's 90% opposed to wolves. I think the author lives in NW Montana, it's very likely 90% opposed to wolves in his county. This is the reason many people in E WA would like to be separated from W WA. 

[bearpaw]

I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild".

I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.

The ratio of people opposed to wolves depends where you live! In NE WA counties (Stevens, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan) I'd be willing to bet 75% are opposed to wolves. Where my son lives in Idaho I'll bet it's 90% opposed to wolves. I think the author lives in NW Montana, it's very likely 90% opposed to wolves in his county. This is the reason many people in E WA would like to be separated from W WA. 

Just to clarify, my comment is not pointed against friends and hunters in W WA, the comment is directed toward the pegetropolis liberal majority who want NE WA to live with wolves but don't want wolves in their own backyard.

[Bob33]

"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."

If the sample is drawn from individuals at a rally against wolves, I would expect a high percentage to be against wolves. How that pertains to the general public's opinion about wolves escapes me.