Post by: wolfbait on March 13, 2017, 09:03:24 AM
http://www.lobowatch2.com/wolf-impact-1
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2017, 09:14:58 AM
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.
Post by: wolfbait on March 13, 2017, 05:55:03 PM
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......
Post by: idahohuntr on March 13, 2017, 06:13:23 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 13, 2017, 06:20:47 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: TVHunts on March 13, 2017, 06:56:12 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: hunter399 on March 13, 2017, 07:20:49 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 13, 2017, 08:38:41 PM
"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".
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 14, 2017, 07:27:54 AM
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. :dunno: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......
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.
Post by: wolfbait on March 14, 2017, 08:58:23 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on March 14, 2017, 09:19:10 AM
Post by: Special T on March 14, 2017, 09:33:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:15:10 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:17:50 PM
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 12:47:36 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:49:27 PM
"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.
I'll help, I doubt Bridges attended any rallies in Seattle or San Francisco. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 12:50:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:54:50 PM
Check votes for Trump in NE WA or in Idaho or other heavy Trump states verses W WA! ;)
Post by: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 01:04:31 PM
We had some wolf meetings in Colville, I doubt there were 10% in favor of wolves! You need to think outside the area you live to understand people in another areas!If you believe that statistics showing the number of people who support or oppose wolves taken at a rally opposed to wolves is somehow a meaningful representative of the general population, you are mistaken.
Check votes for Trump in NE WA or in Idaho or other heavy Trump states verses W WA! ;)
Do you really believe 9 out of 10 people in Washington are opposed to wolves?
Of course those in Colville are opposed to wolves, but when you are talking about the percentage of people in Washington who are opposed to wolves it will be a much smaller percentage.
I'm simply saying that the statement in that article is meaningless if it intended to represent the public's opinion about wolves, which it implies it does.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 14, 2017, 01:10:52 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 14, 2017, 02:13:11 PM
Dale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.
We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..
As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda.
If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.
Post by: buglebrush on March 14, 2017, 02:40:46 PM
We had some wolf meetings in Colville, I doubt there were 10% in favor of wolves! You need to think outside the area you live to understand people in another areas!If you believe that statistics showing the number of people who support or oppose wolves taken at a rally opposed to wolves is somehow a meaningful representative of the general population, you are mistaken.
Check votes for Trump in NE WA or in Idaho or other heavy Trump states verses W WA! ;)
Do you really believe 9 out of 10 people in Washington are opposed to wolves?
Of course those in Colville are opposed to wolves, but when you are talking about the percentage of people in Washington who are opposed to wolves it will be a much smaller percentage.
I'm simply saying that the statement in that article is meaningless if it intended to represent the public's opinion about wolves, which it implies it does.
Quite frankly, if you don't live where wolves are your opinion is absolutely worthless. The real question should be what percentage of the residents of areas that actually contain wolves are in favor of them? I believe at least 70-90% would be against them. Maybe we should start caring what Iowa corn farmers think about crab seasons in the Puget Sound? It's ridiculous. :sry:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 14, 2017, 03:01:12 PM
Dale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.
We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..
As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda.
If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.
Either way, it's a ridiculous statement. Distance yourself from BS and you'll be more credible.
Post by: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 03:07:25 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 14, 2017, 03:36:34 PM
time seems to clarify truthYes, yes it does.
I will just put this here: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.msg582727.html#msg582727 :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 03:44:53 PM
It seems pretty simple: if 9 out of 10 people oppose wolves, and furthermore if the only opinions that matter on the issue are those who live in Northeast Washington then it should be very easy to get the wolf plan changed since there's essentially no opposition. :tup:
I think I clearly stated the differences in the prevailing opinion regarding which areas people live! I don't think anyone has said, including the author, that the majority of residents living in urban areas are opposed to wolves. It appeared clear to me he was referring to gatherings in other areas where the residents who live with wolves don't want them and I think his numbers are very realistic. Like him or not, I think what you are arguing is different than the intent of the author's comments. :twocents:
time seems to clarify truthYes, yes it does.
I will just put this here: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.msg582727.html#msg582727 :chuckle: :chuckle:
Thankfully Idaho started managing wolves and turned the tide on wolf impacts in many areas.
Post by: jackelope on March 14, 2017, 03:49:09 PM
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents:
Ummm....it's PUGETROPOLIS!!
Get it straight!
Post by: jackelope on March 14, 2017, 03:52:37 PM
It seems pretty simple: if 9 out of 10 people oppose wolves, and furthermore if the only opinions that matter on the issue are those who live in Northeast Washington then it should be very easy to get the wolf plan changed since there's essentially no opposition. :tup:
I think I clearly stated the differences in the prevailing opinion regarding which areas people live! I don't think anyone has said, including the author, that the majority of residents living in urban areas are opposed to wolves. It appeared clear to me he was referring to gatherings in other areas where the residents who live with wolves don't want them and I think his numbers are very realistic. Like him or not, I think what you are arguing is different than the intent of the author's comments. :twocents:
You did, but Bridges didn't, and I believe that's the point that Bob is trying to make.
Post by: wolfbait on March 14, 2017, 03:58:56 PM
Dale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.
We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..
As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda.
If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.
Either way, it's a ridiculous statement. Distance yourself from BS and you'll be more credible.
Seems to me you are trying your darnedest to discredit Toby, I wonder why? Blabber on..........
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
I looked at the story again, the author clearly cites the great lakes states, the rocky mountain states, the southwest. All these states supported delisting, Arizona is even suing the feds! There is no question in my mind that the author is citing these areas and not any "tropolis"! :chuckle:
Figured I would avoid another spelling error! ;)
If I lived where the overwhelming majority of the masses want to force wolves on other areas where they don't live, I can see how you guys might think in a different perspective when you read the story. I can assure you it's very different with the majority in the wolf impacted states and other local areas like NE WA!
Post by: jackelope on March 14, 2017, 04:10:13 PM
jackelope, the rally you showed the photo of was in WY, I recognize the photo! Thank you for supporting my comment! :tup:
Read the caption.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."
At the wolf rally, people hate wolves. Makes sense that there wouldn't be an overwhelming population of wolf lovers at the anti wolf rallies in the anti wolf counties in the anti wolf states.
Post by: buglebrush on March 14, 2017, 04:18:07 PM
jackelope, the rally you showed the photo of was in WY, I recognize the photo! Thank you for supporting my comment! :tup:
Read the caption.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."
At the wolf rally, people hate wolves. Makes sense that there wouldn't be an overwhelming population of wolf lovers at the anti wolf rallies in the anti wolf counties in the anti wolf states.
I don't know what is so confusing about that statement. He is saying that" based on wolf rally numbers for and against wolves. BOTH kinds of rallies. The number of protesters outnumber those in favor 8 or 9 to 1. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 04:20:52 PM
jackelope, the rally you showed the photo of was in WY, I recognize the photo! Thank you for supporting my comment! :tup:
Read the caption.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."
At the wolf rally, people hate wolves. Makes sense that there wouldn't be an overwhelming population of wolf lovers at the anti wolf rallies in the anti wolf counties in the anti wolf states.
I don't know that 8 to 1 of all people in every state including WY, MT, ID, UT, NV, NM, AZ, MI, WI, MN, NC will oppose wolves, but I'm willing to make a sizeable bet that the majority in most of these states and at least most counties in these states are opposed to wolves and these states are literally all over the US! :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on March 14, 2017, 04:24:07 PM
jackelope, the rally you showed the photo of was in WY, I recognize the photo! Thank you for supporting my comment! :tup:
Read the caption.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."
At the wolf rally, people hate wolves. Makes sense that there wouldn't be an overwhelming population of wolf lovers at the anti wolf rallies in the anti wolf counties in the anti wolf states.
I don't know what is so confusing about that statement. He is saying that" based on wolf rally numbers for and against wolves. BOTH kinds of rallies. The number of protesters outnumber those in favor 8 or 9 to 1. :dunno:
I guess I'm missing the for AND against part.
I'll go read again and see where it clarifies that.
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 04:27:31 PM
jackelope, the rally you showed the photo of was in WY, I recognize the photo! Thank you for supporting my comment! :tup:
Read the caption.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."
At the wolf rally, people hate wolves. Makes sense that there wouldn't be an overwhelming population of wolf lovers at the anti wolf rallies in the anti wolf counties in the anti wolf states.
I don't know what is so confusing about that statement. He is saying that" based on wolf rally numbers for and against wolves. BOTH kinds of rallies. The number of protesters outnumber those in favor 8 or 9 to 1. :dunno:
:yeah: you are correct
Post by: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 04:36:57 PM
Post by: Curly on March 14, 2017, 04:39:09 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 14, 2017, 04:42:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 04:43:24 PM
Stereotyping and marginalizing those who don’t live in areas with wolf populations, even those who are opposed to them, seems like a poor way to wage a battle against wolves. But then again when 9 of 10 people are opposed to wolves who needs them anyway.
I'm not really understanding your comment, I clearly made a statement that I am not trying to do that, if you didn't understand then you certainly have my apologies for not being more clear. See below from page 1 of this topic, I was afraid someone would take this personal! :dunno:
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on March 14, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
I'm sure that second amendment rallies around the country show that those 4 guns outnumber those against guns 9 - 1
Missed the point.
There are anti-gun rallies and marches, compare those numbers to people holding 2a rallies and marches.
Don't go to a 2a rally and take a poll and thing it means something.
Post by: Curly on March 14, 2017, 05:20:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 14, 2017, 05:47:04 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2017, 06:25:46 AM
I'm not trying to discredit Toby. I don't even know him. I'm trying to elevate the conversation to a level that isn't only supported by anti-wolf people. This article as it is will have no positive effect on convincing pro-wolfers that action needs to be taken, like yesterday. If your conversation only speaks to you, why even have it? Fanatics or those who come off as fanatics rarely get their message across to anyone who's not already in their camp. If this conversation doesn't reach those outside our group, it's completely ineffective.Dale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.
We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..
As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda.
If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.
Either way, it's a ridiculous statement. Distance yourself from BS and you'll be more credible.
Seems to me you are trying your darnedest to discredit Toby, I wonder why? Blabber on..........
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 17, 2017, 06:30:11 PM
The Damage Wolves Are Inflicting On America
http://www.lobowatch2.com/wolf-impact-1
Here, compare that picture to this one. You know what this one isn't? It isn't a wolf kill, but a winter kill from this year on Kodiak. It's a good chance that the photo from Lobo Watch is also a winter kill. But it doesn't matter. Life in the wilderness is tough and there are a lot of ways to die. Once something dies, it gets cleaned up by whatever creatures come along. I found a dead deer on Afognak Is.,(part of the Kodiak group) that looked to be laying in it's bed sleeping. When I got close I could see a small hole in it's stomach where an ermine had eaten it's way inside and eaten a bunch of the inner organs. Birds feeding on a carcass leave it looking like this one or the one Lobo watch posted. Wolves and other large carnivores usually tear the carcass apart. Estimates coming from Kodiak this winter are that there has been a 25% or higher die off due to a bad winter, and much higher in some areas of the west side of the island.