collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts  (Read 3092 times)

Offline huntrights

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 1701
This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« on: December 02, 2011, 07:28:25 AM »
This Seattle Times article needs some undisputable wolf facts.  It appears the author is trying to appeal to the emotional side of people versus presenting actual facts.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2016881924_guest29mccredie.html

Consider posting your comments with wolf facts on the Seattle Times web site; the general population needs to see through the propaganda smokescreen.


« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 07:52:57 AM by jshunt »

Offline CAMPMEAT

  • CAMPMEAT
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 13347
  • Location: ARIZONA, A PLACE WHERE I DON'T WANT YOU LIVING !!
  • I love my gun rights in Arizona..
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2011, 07:39:32 AM »
Typical greenie writing about something he knows nothing about.
I couldn't care less about what anybody says..............

Offline wence5

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 975
  • Location: The Couve
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2011, 06:30:43 PM »
Typical greenie writing about something he knows nothing about.

 :yeah:
The worst day hunting is better than any day at work!

Offline denali

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 2212
  • Location: Tri Cities
    • https://www.facebook.com/bret.greene
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2011, 06:37:14 PM »
The paper misspelled his name, it should be Scott McClueless     :tree1:
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 08:52:22 PM by denali »
Honesty is the best policy,  but insanity is a better defense.

Offline MtnMuley

  • Site Sponsor
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 8686
  • Location: NCW
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2011, 06:38:56 PM »
You're forgetting what paper you're reading.   ;)

Offline wence5

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 975
  • Location: The Couve
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2011, 08:37:19 AM »
You're forgetting what paper you're reading.   ;)

That's the one I buy to wrap fish, and line the bird cage.  :chuckle:
The worst day hunting is better than any day at work!

Offline high country

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 5133
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2011, 09:09:25 AM »
It amazes me to no end the level of close mindedness that takes place in the subject of wolves. If wolves are so good at ballancing an ecosystem as most pro wolf types will profess, then why would they come out of the richest food base known only to travel to our area which has less food and more people?

Offline Elkaholic daWg

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 6060
  • Location: Arlington Wa / Rock n Roll-Kelly Hill
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2011, 09:16:23 AM »
 From that write up......

"But times have changed. A wilderness ethic runs strong through a majority of Washingtonians. According to a statewide poll, most people want to give wolves a fair shake, a chance to reclaim their ancestral homeland. It's the right and fair thing to do."

 And I see many places on this forum where hunters agree with greenies tactics, advocating  limiting access to areas (Colockum). Hating motorized  recreation (who have been under attack from greenies since Reagan was in office). These people would eat their young if it will further their (NOT your)agenda.

  Careful!
 What do we suppose a statewide poll on hunting would show? hound hunting? Baiting? Trapping?
  Anti----greenie =SAME BED
 In this  state we have already seen what  the initiative process can do to us.
Blue Ribbon Coalition
CCRKBA
SAF
NRA                        
Go DaWgs!!

Offline Dave Workman

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 2947
  • Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2011, 07:37:29 PM »
The thread was locked. It was filled with anti-hunting bullcrap.

 
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence

Offline huntrights

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 1701
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2011, 08:40:00 PM »
I heard that from another person who tried to comment.  The Seattle Times shut the comment period down pretty quick.

Offline CAMPMEAT

  • CAMPMEAT
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 13347
  • Location: ARIZONA, A PLACE WHERE I DON'T WANT YOU LIVING !!
  • I love my gun rights in Arizona..
Re: This Seattle Times article needs some wolf facts
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2011, 09:37:07 PM »
From that write up......

"But times have changed. A wilderness ethic runs strong through a majority of Washingtonians. According to a statewide poll, most people want to give wolves a fair shake, a chance to reclaim their ancestral homeland. It's the right and fair thing to do."

 And I see many places on this forum where hunters agree with greenies tactics, advocating  limiting access to areas (Colockum). Hating motorized  recreation (who have been under attack from greenies since Reagan was in office). These people would eat their young if it will further their (NOT your)agenda.

  Careful!
 What do we suppose a statewide poll on hunting would show? hound hunting? Baiting? Trapping?
  Anti----greenie =SAME BED
 In this  state we have already seen what  the initiative process can do to us.

Hit that nail on the head .................. :tup:
I couldn't care less about what anybody says..............

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

2025 Coyotes by Skillet
[Today at 07:09:22 PM]


Fun little Winchester 1890 project by Skillet
[Today at 06:56:17 PM]


Idaho General Season Going to Draw for Nonresidents by furbearer365
[Today at 05:25:25 PM]


Vail/general archery advice by JeffRaines
[Today at 10:51:27 AM]


Which Tuner? 99 Powerstroke by Cylvertip
[Today at 10:39:13 AM]


Heard of the blacktail coach? by Longfield1
[Today at 08:05:23 AM]


Anybody breeding meat rabbit? by HighlandLofts
[Today at 07:35:02 AM]


Resetting dash warning lights by jackelope
[Today at 07:18:27 AM]


Fawn dropped by Rainier10
[Today at 07:11:37 AM]


Please Report Problems & Bugs Here by Rainier10
[Today at 07:10:37 AM]


Back up camera by andersonjk4
[Today at 07:08:42 AM]


WDFW's new ship by Tbar
[Yesterday at 07:07:35 AM]


Cougar Problems Toroda Creek Road Near Bodie by Elkaholic daWg
[Yesterday at 06:10:59 AM]


Wolf documentary PBS by Roslyn Rambler
[May 30, 2025, 07:56:34 PM]


New York deer by MADMAX
[May 30, 2025, 07:38:44 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal