Post by: buckcanyonlodge on March 07, 2019, 06:13:08 AM
How about a special moose hunting season to deal with the moose????
https://www.foxnews.com/science/4-canadian-wolves-captured-air-dropped-in-us-national-park-to-help-restore-population
Post by: Axle on March 07, 2019, 06:41:21 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
"The National Park Service hopes to take 20 to 30 wolves to Isle Royale over the next several years." You can have ours! :tup:
Post by: greenhead_killer on March 07, 2019, 07:37:24 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on March 07, 2019, 07:43:16 AM
That's ridiculous.
It's looking more believable that the Wdfw would drop wolves off here.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 07, 2019, 08:19:46 AM
Post by: eastsidemallard74 on March 07, 2019, 09:17:00 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2019, 09:47:40 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2019, 09:49:41 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 11:44:48 AM
https://isleroyalewolf.org/
https://isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/wolves.html
I'm sure someone will attempt to torch me for this, but the place has been a giant science experiment for like 60 years.
What's got me wondering is if they're looking to give the almost non existent wolf pack a population bump, why would they send 3 males and 1 female? From a breeding standpoint, I'm not sure that makes sense.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 07, 2019, 11:51:50 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 12:03:37 PM
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
Post by: boneaddict on March 07, 2019, 12:07:33 PM
Post by: idaho guy on March 07, 2019, 12:13:45 PM
seems to me its kinda project over, start a new study.... otherwise it sure is a data skew in my mind
:yeah: Once they add more wolves they have ruined the study. I think the idea would be to study it without intervention. Not very scientific to get in there and mess with stuff until you get the results you wanted? they should transplant the moose to help their depleted herds not wolves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
Is it a matter of controlling the moose population or is it a matter of wanting to keep the science project going?
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
It's a matter of not understanding wildlife conservation. Trying to force animals to live somewhere they won't is contrary to everything we know about wildlife management. Clearly, an over abundance of food is available and the wolves either died or left the island as soon as an ice bridge allowed them to. I can almost guarantee that these 4 wolves will follow in the previous wolves' tracks. Our (or some people's) zeal for the resurgence of wolves in North America has blinded them to consequences and realities.
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 12:18:31 PM
Is it a matter of controlling the moose population or is it a matter of wanting to keep the science project going?
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
It's a matter of not understanding wildlife conservation. Trying to force animals to live somewhere they won't is contrary to everything we know about wildlife management. Clearly, an over abundance of food is available and the wolves either died or left the island as soon as an ice bridge allowed them to. I can almost guarantee that these 4 wolves will follow in the previous wolves' tracks. Our (or some people's) zeal for the resurgence of wolves in North America has blinded them to consequences and realities.
Inbreeding and health because of that I believe is what they said caused the decline in wolf numbers. You know...because they're on an island. The wolves are really well documented on that website. They pretty much know what happened to every one individually.
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 12:19:37 PM
seems to me its kinda project over, start a new study.... otherwise it sure is a data skew in my mind
Step 2 would be moose eradication...kinda like our ONP goats.
Post by: boneaddict on March 07, 2019, 12:21:51 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 12:23:24 PM
Is it a matter of controlling the moose population or is it a matter of wanting to keep the science project going?
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
It's a matter of not understanding wildlife conservation. Trying to force animals to live somewhere they won't is contrary to everything we know about wildlife management. Clearly, an over abundance of food is available and the wolves either died or left the island as soon as an ice bridge allowed them to. I can almost guarantee that these 4 wolves will follow in the previous wolves' tracks. Our (or some people's) zeal for the resurgence of wolves in North America has blinded them to consequences and realities.
Inbreeding and health because of that I believe is what they said caused the decline in wolf numbers. You know...because they're on an island. The wolves are really well documented on that website. They pretty much know what happened to every one individually.
Those are all things which affect an animal's ability to survive in a given habitat. Adding more wolves won't change the constants more than temporarily.
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 12:45:33 PM
God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.
Been there done that in ONP and Grand Teton with the goats in both places.
Ain't happening. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that.
The problem I think with that specific to these moose is they don't want to eradicate them. Management by hunting would have to be repetitive to manage population...not that that's a bad thing. I don't see the NPS being willing to do that.
Post by: jackelope on March 07, 2019, 12:46:15 PM
Is it a matter of controlling the moose population or is it a matter of wanting to keep the science project going?
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
It's a matter of not understanding wildlife conservation. Trying to force animals to live somewhere they won't is contrary to everything we know about wildlife management. Clearly, an over abundance of food is available and the wolves either died or left the island as soon as an ice bridge allowed them to. I can almost guarantee that these 4 wolves will follow in the previous wolves' tracks. Our (or some people's) zeal for the resurgence of wolves in North America has blinded them to consequences and realities.
Inbreeding and health because of that I believe is what they said caused the decline in wolf numbers. You know...because they're on an island. The wolves are really well documented on that website. They pretty much know what happened to every one individually.
Those are all things which affect an animal's ability to survive in a given habitat. Adding more wolves won't change the constants more than temporarily.
I was trying to agree with you. Maybe it didn't come across that way. Refer to the part about them being on an island.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 01:14:53 PM
Is it a matter of controlling the moose population or is it a matter of wanting to keep the science project going?
The last I read before the population boost, there were 2 wolves left and they were too inbred to continue healthy breeding.
It's a matter of not understanding wildlife conservation. Trying to force animals to live somewhere they won't is contrary to everything we know about wildlife management. Clearly, an over abundance of food is available and the wolves either died or left the island as soon as an ice bridge allowed them to. I can almost guarantee that these 4 wolves will follow in the previous wolves' tracks. Our (or some people's) zeal for the resurgence of wolves in North America has blinded them to consequences and realities.
Inbreeding and health because of that I believe is what they said caused the decline in wolf numbers. You know...because they're on an island. The wolves are really well documented on that website. They pretty much know what happened to every one individually.
Those are all things which affect an animal's ability to survive in a given habitat. Adding more wolves won't change the constants more than temporarily.
I was trying to agree with you. Maybe it didn't come across that way. Refer to the part about them being on an island.
Don't agree with me, buddy. I always get confused by that! I see now. Thanks.
Post by: flatbkman on March 07, 2019, 01:51:02 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 02:06:32 PM
I wonder if AOC\s New Green Deal will eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Dept. from using copters to catch, transport, and release wolves. It should and sounds like it may be the only good thing in that that proposal.
Helicopters will be gone unless they can operate on solar power.
Post by: idaho guy on March 07, 2019, 03:09:04 PM
seems to me its kinda project over, start a new study.... otherwise it sure is a data skew in my mind
Step 2 would be moose eradication...kinda like our ONP goats.
Or transplant the moose? I believe the rest of that areas moose are hurting. Instead of the wolves which their "study" provided evidence are not sustainable or viable there for the long run
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 03:12:27 PM
seems to me its kinda project over, start a new study.... otherwise it sure is a data skew in my mind
Step 2 would be moose eradication...kinda like our ONP goats.
Or transplant the moose? I believe the rest of that areas moose are hurting. Instead of the wolves which their "study" provided evidence are not sustainable or viable there for the long run
They can move all the moose they want. If they don't change the predator/prey ratio in the UP and Minnesota where they're moving the moose, the transplanted moose will just be killed and the population will dive again. Transplanting animals without changing the dynamics of the habitat is normally fruitless.
Post by: idaho guy on March 07, 2019, 03:17:21 PM
seems to me its kinda project over, start a new study.... otherwise it sure is a data skew in my mind
Step 2 would be moose eradication...kinda like our ONP goats.
Or transplant the moose? I believe the rest of that areas moose are hurting. Instead of the wolves which their "study" provided evidence are not sustainable or viable there for the long run
They can move all the moose they want. If they don't change the predator/prey ratio in the UP and Minnesota where they're moving the moose, the transplanted moose will just be killed and the population will dive again. Transplanting animals without changing the dynamics of the habitat is normally fruitless.
I agree 100%. But moving moose to areas even with existing wolves is WAY better than bringing in more wolves! At least you would be augmenting the population and looks like they may be able to hunt wolves again shortly
Post by: Axle on March 07, 2019, 05:33:42 PM
Should've built a wall.........Funny you should say this. I tuned into the Limbaugh program and Mark Steyn was filling in. I love listening to him! Anyway, Mark mentioned the same thing about the wall to keep the Canadian wolves out. He also mentioned how the wolves kill the moose by ripping them apart with their teeth and tearing them to shreds in an excruciating death (this is the way of the demoncrats).
Those who support the wolves are very evil people and their deeds are extremely sadistic and brutal at best.
Mark always has a way of rubbing stupid peoples' noses in the stinky evil they create too. Sure gets me laughing when he does.
God gave man the responsibility of managing the animals.
Giving deer over to wolves is not proper management. Bringing in a non-native wolf with worms and diseases is not proper management.
To make the moose not huntable and use the poor excuse of it being a 'park' is nothing short of evil.
Post by: GBoyd on March 07, 2019, 05:46:27 PM
This is a tiny, isolated national park that has been a center of a giant study looking at predator-prey dynamics. It's an interesting case because the moose and wolves exist together with very few other animals to complicate the situation. It's been going on for decades and is not costing Michigan hunters anything.
The wolf population has dropped and I imagine they're bring in new animals to boost the genetic diversity. It could be that the island will actually end up being too small to support wolves (or moose), but I'm sure that the bios just want to keep their study going longer.
Here's the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_and_moose_on_Isle_Royale
Post by: Axle on March 07, 2019, 07:49:50 PM
Quote
Guys, can we relax a bit here?No
No we can't
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Randysonia on March 08, 2019, 08:06:00 AM
I guess they don't know what a hunting season is.
They know! That's something they want to get rid of! >:(
Post by: jackelope on March 08, 2019, 08:23:12 AM
I guess they don't know what a hunting season is.
They know! That's something they want to get rid of! >:(
It's a national park.
:dunno:
Post by: idaho guy on March 08, 2019, 12:45:44 PM
Should've built a wall.........Funny you should say this. I tuned into the Limbaugh program and Mark Steyn was filling in. I love listening to him! Anyway, Mark mentioned the same thing about the wall to keep the Canadian wolves out. He also mentioned how the wolves kill the moose by ripping them apart with their teeth and tearing them to shreds in an excruciating death (this is the way of the demoncrats).
Those who support the wolves are very evil people and their deeds are extremely sadistic and brutal at best.
Mark always has a way of rubbing stupid peoples' noses in the stinky evil they create too. Sure gets me laughing when he does.
God gave man the responsibility of managing the animals.
Giving deer over to wolves is not proper management. Bringing in a non-native wolf with worms and diseases is not proper management.
To make the moose not huntable and use the poor excuse of it being a 'park' is nothing short of evil.
That pretty much sums it up! We need to get over the no hunting in parks. Hunting is a way more effective way to manage populations
Post by: Axle on March 08, 2019, 06:01:38 PM
It's a part of Earth. We are to manage that area like all other areas on Earth. Designating it as a 'park' is a damned poor excuse to prohibit hunting and therefore - let loose non-native, disease-carrying giant dogs! This is nothing short of the demoncrat's agenda to end all hunting. Their hope too is to also kill off most humans.I guess they don't know what a hunting season is.
They know! That's something they want to get rid of! >:(
It's a national park.
:dunno:
Post by: Goshawk on April 25, 2019, 08:30:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 25, 2019, 09:04:46 AM
Should've built a wall.........Funny you should say this. I tuned into the Limbaugh program and Mark Steyn was filling in. I love listening to him! Anyway, Mark mentioned the same thing about the wall to keep the Canadian wolves out. He also mentioned how the wolves kill the moose by ripping them apart with their teeth and tearing them to shreds in an excruciating death (this is the way of the demoncrats).
Those who support the wolves are very evil people and their deeds are extremely sadistic and brutal at best.
Mark always has a way of rubbing stupid peoples' noses in the stinky evil they create too. Sure gets me laughing when he does.
God gave man the responsibility of managing the animals.
Giving deer over to wolves is not proper management. Bringing in a non-native wolf with worms and diseases is not proper management.
To make the moose not huntable and use the poor excuse of it being a 'park' is nothing short of evil.
That pretty much sums it up! We need to get over the no hunting in parks. Hunting is a way more effective way to manage populations
I completely agree that when parks have over-population problems hunters should bu utilized as a cost effective method to correct the problem rather than using professional shooters and essentially wasting the animals.
Post by: Buzz2401 on April 25, 2019, 10:06:07 AM
That's like introducing smallpox in Seattle to help with the homeless problem.
I like that idea, but made something a little more effective like Anthrax crop dusted over the city.
Post by: Alchase on April 25, 2019, 11:09:04 AM
That's like introducing smallpox in Seattle to help with the homeless problem.
I like that idea, but made something a little more effective like Anthrax crop dusted over the city.
That would effect all those liberals as well as the homeless ............wait Fantastic idea! :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on April 25, 2019, 11:17:26 AM
God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.Congress has forbidden it under 16 USC 408k (enacted in 1942) which is a statute just pertaining to that park:
"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the said park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior."
So Congress said no hunting, but fishing is ok.
Post by: idaho guy on April 25, 2019, 03:11:25 PM
God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.Congress has forbidden it under 16 USC 408k (enacted in 1942) which is a statute just pertaining to that park:
"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the said park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior."
So Congress said no hunting, but fishing is ok.
So if congress said no hunting why would it be so hard for congress to say yes to hunting? If they objectively look at the situation they could make a good case to have a limited moose season? Way more effective than unleashing super wolves from the north. And if they want to actually manage the moose hunters can be regulated as to take wolves can not. Seems simple fix but maybe requires too much common sense? :dunno: They have pretty much ruined the "study" by adding in outside influence i.e more wolves so that can no longer be a valid reason either
Post by: optic2 on April 26, 2019, 12:57:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 28, 2019, 10:40:33 AM
God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.Congress has forbidden it under 16 USC 408k (enacted in 1942) which is a statute just pertaining to that park:
"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the said park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior."
So Congress said no hunting, but fishing is ok.
So if congress said no hunting why would it be so hard for congress to say yes to hunting? If they objectively look at the situation they could make a good case to have a limited moose season? Way more effective than unleashing super wolves from the north. And if they want to actually manage the moose hunters can be regulated as to take wolves can not. Seems simple fix but maybe requires too much common sense? :dunno: They have pretty much ruined the "study" by adding in outside influence i.e more wolves so that can no longer be a valid reason either
:yeah: x2
If only there was a group of people that would not only kill the moose for free, they would happily pay A LOT of money to do it.
:tup: :chuckle:
Post by: SuperX on April 30, 2019, 07:22:50 AM
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/science-and-nature/4605799-isle-royale-moose-devouring-forest
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 30, 2019, 07:36:25 AM
That 77 year-old statute was obviously conservationally short-sighted. Because there are no natural predators, the moose population is destroying the habitat. Congress could quite easily amend the statute to include herd culling. It would take little to determine the carrying capacity of that park and have a regulated yearly cull to ensure the integrity of the habitat. After all, the statute was passed to protect the park. Now that we know it's failed in its purpose, it would only make sense to take steps to fix it. Introducing wolves, which will only travel to the mainland on the next opportunity, is a mistake and a temporary band-aid. To transplant wolves, not only do they need an EIS for the park, they would need one for the eventual migration of those eaters to the mainland. This is a great example of how the government can take a simple problem and comes up with a fix that creates further problems.God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.Congress has forbidden it under 16 USC 408k (enacted in 1942) which is a statute just pertaining to that park:
"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the said park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior."
So Congress said no hunting, but fishing is ok.
Post by: buckfvr on April 30, 2019, 08:23:21 AM
I completely agree that when parks have over-population problems hunters should bu utilized as a cost effective method to correct the problem rather than using professional shooters and essentially wasting the animals.
[/quote]
Oh you mean like wdfw does with cougars here........
Post by: idaho guy on April 30, 2019, 05:55:49 PM
That 77 year-old statute was obviously conservationally short-sighted. Because there are no natural predators, the moose population is destroying the habitat. Congress could quite easily amend the statute to include herd culling. It would take little to determine the carrying capacity of that park and have a regulated yearly cull to ensure the integrity of the habitat. After all, the statute was passed to protect the park. Now that we know it's failed in its purpose, it would only make sense to take steps to fix it. Introducing wolves, which will only travel to the mainland on the next opportunity, is a mistake and a temporary band-aid. To transplant wolves, not only do they need an EIS for the park, they would need one for the eventual migration of those eaters to the mainland. This is a great example of how the government can take a simple problem and comes up with a fix that creates further problems.God forbid they open up a regulated hunt and manage them that way.Congress has forbidden it under 16 USC 408k (enacted in 1942) which is a statute just pertaining to that park:
"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the said park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior."
So Congress said no hunting, but fishing is ok.
It’s too simple I guess but again If they made the rule saying no hunting they can easily say YES we need a hunting season!! This drive s me crazy I understand no regular otc hunting but in certain situations like this not using hunters as a management tool is ridiculous.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 06:46:40 AM
Post by: SuperX on May 01, 2019, 07:28:28 AM
When I lived in Duluth, we used to skate on the lake and the ice was so crystal clear you could wipe a little window in the snow and look through it and see the bottom. It was pretty cool skating for miles in a straight line. The lake stopped freezing by the time I was out of HS.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 07:35:44 AM
Post by: SuperX on May 01, 2019, 07:42:31 AM
It's the present pro-wolf movement to which I refer. Hunter culling isn't even being considered and it should be. Using hunters as a tool of wildlife managers to control wildlife populations is the cornerstone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
Who wouldn't want to do a yearly hunt (needed to manage the herd via hunting long term) for moose that don't run from people! Unfortunate for us not to have hunting in Yellowstone too - we should be able to go in and take the excess animals, especially the bison and bears. It would be like shooting your neighbors dog while he's eating out of your garbage can, but some people like that.
Post by: buglebrush on May 01, 2019, 07:46:18 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 08:32:19 AM
It's the present pro-wolf movement to which I refer. Hunter culling isn't even being considered and it should be. Using hunters as a tool of wildlife managers to control wildlife populations is the cornerstone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
Who wouldn't want to do a yearly hunt (needed to manage the herd via hunting long term) for moose that don't run from people! Unfortunate for us not to have hunting in Yellowstone too - we should be able to go in and take the excess animals, especially the bison and bears. It would be like shooting your neighbors dog while he's eating out of your garbage can, but some people like that.
Culling is a necessary part of wildlife management wherever a species becomes overpopulated. That's why hunters are used to regulate overpopulation in the North American Conservation Model. It's been extremely successful for over 100 years in making and keeping our wildlife healthy. It may not be the same as hiking into the back country and stalking wary prey, but necessary, just the same. Are you advocating bringing in wolves because it would be unsporting to shoot these moose.? Please be specific in your answer.
Post by: buckfvr on May 01, 2019, 08:37:46 AM
What a farce management has become in this country. The long term goal is to eliminate hunting.
Closely followed by collecting guns........
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 01, 2019, 08:38:58 AM
And when 'they' need some actual management done, 'they' call in the APHIS (Wildlife Services) arm of the Dept of Ag. The Wildlife Services will go in an shoot all those animals or trap (do they still poison?) and whatever else. At some point the managers put the logical management above the emotion--they just have their own do it.It's the present pro-wolf movement to which I refer. Hunter culling isn't even being considered and it should be. Using hunters as a tool of wildlife managers to control wildlife populations is the cornerstone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
Who wouldn't want to do a yearly hunt (needed to manage the herd via hunting long term) for moose that don't run from people! Unfortunate for us not to have hunting in Yellowstone too - we should be able to go in and take the excess animals, especially the bison and bears. It would be like shooting your neighbors dog while he's eating out of your garbage can, but some people like that.
Post by: SuperX on May 01, 2019, 09:03:56 AM
Totally agree on culling, except we don't do that in a lot of our national parks. I would love to kill a moose, they aren't all that sporting to hunt during the rut even in the wilderness. I'd shoot it in a second. Keep in mind that the island has well over 2000 moose and is like 20 miles long. Culling would need to take like 1000-1500 moose to get to a balance that is sustainable on the island's carrying capacity without other predators.It's the present pro-wolf movement to which I refer. Hunter culling isn't even being considered and it should be. Using hunters as a tool of wildlife managers to control wildlife populations is the cornerstone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
Who wouldn't want to do a yearly hunt (needed to manage the herd via hunting long term) for moose that don't run from people! Unfortunate for us not to have hunting in Yellowstone too - we should be able to go in and take the excess animals, especially the bison and bears. It would be like shooting your neighbors dog while he's eating out of your garbage can, but some people like that.
Culling is a necessary part of wildlife management wherever a species becomes overpopulated. That's why hunters are used to regulate overpopulation in the North American Conservation Model. It's been extremely successful for over 100 years in making and keeping our wildlife healthy. It may not be the same as hiking into the back country and stalking wary prey, but necessary, just the same. Are you advocating bringing in wolves because it would be unsporting to shoot these moose.? Please be specific in your answer.
Taking that many would spoil the park for most who come to see wolves and moose. I'm OK not getting to shoot one on the island, I wish I had put in for the tag when they had a OIL draw, but I didn't think they would tank so badly. I used to see them on my road frequently, I haven't seen one since 2004, but I saw a track once in 2014. They should take the wolves from my land and move them to the island, seems like a win-win to me!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 09:22:09 AM
Post by: SuperX on May 01, 2019, 09:51:44 AM