Post by: Lowedog on September 19, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
I am amazed at the effort put forth by some people I think we know in the wolf wars to berate and belittle this one person on a small community bulletin board.
It is a lot of reading but interesting. I think I can connect some of the posters back to here. At least one of them used his same handle.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2010, 04:28:42 PM
Post by: mulehunter on September 19, 2010, 04:35:16 PM
Mulehunter :rolleyes:
Post by: Lowedog on September 19, 2010, 05:38:04 PM
I think many Washingtonians have been shielded by a lack of coverage by the liberal Washington media. Wait till it's time for the commission to adopt a wolf plan, there will be a lot more discussions. ;)
Are you Wolftruth?
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2010, 06:25:23 PM
I think many Washingtonians have been shielded by a lack of coverage by the liberal Washington media. Wait till it's time for the commission to adopt a wolf plan, there will be a lot more discussions. ;)
Are you Wolftruth?
What do you think? ;)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 19, 2010, 06:29:03 PM
I think many Washingtonians have been shielded by a lack of coverage by the liberal Washington media. Wait till it's time for the commission to adopt a wolf plan, there will be a lot more discussions. ;)
Are you Wolftruth?
What do you think? ;)
I'M with him!!
Post by: Lowedog on September 19, 2010, 06:52:59 PM
That Longshot fella sounds really familiar also.
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
by bobcat ( Pages 1 2 3 … 6 )
104 replies
3,701 views
Last post Today 6:16 PM by wolftruth
Really has to suck for WDFW, don't it? People who have been living with the illegally introduced wolves since 1995, and now they come in to help that longshot fella. The Methow Valley is getting a little more educated about what the wolves have done in other parts of the country. And WDFW are not looking to shiney once again. Going to get harder and harder for WDFW to run to the paper and say, "the deer herds have never been better" or "By the time we got to the cow it was just a pile of maggots". Damn that really has to suck! ;) :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2010, 07:30:42 PM
Is that cow you speak about wolfbait, the same cow that's in one piece on this web page? http://washingtonwolf.info/ (http://washingtonwolf.info/)
I remember the WDFW stating something like it was impossible to tell anything, but in the photo, it's in one piece with it's anus eaten out in typical wolf fashion. :dunno:
The wolf pics above the cow photo on that same web page are from a trailcam in the Methow Valley. Local people have proof that the wolves are more common than WDFW claims. There are also trail cam photos floating around NE Washington.
Post by: Lowedog on September 19, 2010, 07:52:58 PM
152 Wolves in the Methow
by bobcat ( Pages 1 2 3 … 6 )
104 replies
3,701 views
Last post Today 6:16 PM by wolftruth
Really has to suck for WDFW, don't it? People who have been living with the illegally introduced wolves since 1995, and now they come in to help that longshot fella. The Methow Valley is getting a little more educated about what the wolves have done in other parts of the country. And WDFW are not looking to shiney once again. Going to get harder and harder for WDFW to run to the paper and say, "the deer herds have never been better" or "By the time we got to the cow it was just a pile of maggots". Damn that really has to suck! ;) :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
After reading through some of those posts on that site I have to wonder if anyone really takes those wolf threads seriously. Sounds like that Longshot fella has built himself a reputation.
Quote from: Hawk
Right on Rose...
And Longshot, why are you so obsessed with Wolves? You really are kind of a joke now.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2010, 08:00:23 PM
From what I can see, the pro-management side has presented a multitude of factual news reports from communities which have been affected by wolves and the pro-wolf side has presented a whole lot of emotion. ;) :IBCOOL:
I am trying to look at this from a nuetral position, it seems an educated person without prejudice would go with the facts. :dunno:
Post by: mulehunter on September 19, 2010, 08:07:31 PM
152 Wolves in the Methow
by bobcat ( Pages 1 2 3 … 6 )
104 replies
3,701 views
Last post Today 6:16 PM by wolftruth
Really has to suck for WDFW, don't it? People who have been living with the illegally introduced wolves since 1995, and now they come in to help that longshot fella. The Methow Valley is getting a little more educated about what the wolves have done in other parts of the country. And WDFW are not looking to shiney once again. Going to get harder and harder for WDFW to run to the paper and say, "the deer herds have never been better" or "By the time we got to the cow it was just a pile of maggots". Damn that really has to suck! ;) :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Some people who join as New Member as H-W doesnt know what happen to those Cow and Birth Calf got killed last two spring ago by Lookout Wolves pack. Just want to post to share with you people. Some of them already heard about it.
Mulehunter
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2010, 08:14:43 PM
Is anyone going to say that this is not true.... :dunno:
middle fork 0001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0UGixipVRg#)
Post by: mulehunter on September 19, 2010, 08:19:08 PM
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2010, 09:47:13 PM
The truth is coming out regarding the effects of wolf mismanagement in the Rockies. It's all documented history now, I can't see how that can be argued. ;)
Is that cow you speak about wolfbait, the same cow that's in one piece on this web page? http://washingtonwolf.info/ (http://washingtonwolf.info/)
I remember the WDFW stating something like it was impossible to tell anything, but in the photo, it's in one piece with it's anus eaten out in typical wolf fashion. :dunno:
The wolf pics above the cow photo on that same web page are from a trailcam in the Methow Valley. Local people have proof that the wolves are more common than WDFW claims. There are also trail cam photos floating around NE Washington.
Proof of wolf kill may elude investigators
Canine tracks found near scene, but cow carcass was too old to determine actual cause of death
By Joyce Campbell
Federal and state wildlife officials say that while gray wolves may have been involved in the death of a cow near Twisp last week, proof will be difficult to obtain.
“By the time we got to the carcass it was too old for me to say yay or nay if it was killed by a wolf,” said Scott Fitkin, wildlife biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It was clearly fed on by something, but not much was left but a lot of maggots.” Fitkin and a USDA Wildlife Services agent inspected the carcass on Friday (May 22).
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2010, 09:56:52 PM
Post by: mulehunter on September 19, 2010, 10:00:10 PM
[/quote]
Proof of wolf kill may elude investigators
Canine tracks found near scene, but cow carcass was too old to determine actual cause of death
By Joyce Campbell
Federal and state wildlife officials say that while gray wolves may have been involved in the death of a cow near Twisp last week, proof will be difficult to obtain.
“By the time we got to the carcass it was too old for me to say yay or nay if it was killed by a wolf,” said Scott Fitkin, wildlife biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It was clearly fed on by something, but not much was left but a lot of maggots.” Fitkin and a USDA Wildlife Services agent inspected the carcass on Friday (May 22).
[/quote]
The only reason Scott fitkin get HIRED AS BIOLGOLIST PROWOLF with all LIES to save their money not to pay Rancher for their Loss Livestock and afraid they MAY to order Wolf Deperation Control! But........... I read He said as Scott Fitkin HIRED TWO FEILD AGENT SAMEDAY at Scene and to tracking Wolves pack use VHS Collar on two wolves that way FEILD AGENT can PUSH THEM out DIRECTION FROM THOSE Scene to say ITS NOT WOLVES. No Wonder why they are completely PROTECTING Wolves for USFWS......
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2010, 10:12:55 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 19, 2010, 10:17:19 PM
I am sure there are people who agree with either side but far more in the middle with no exposure to the facts yet.
From what I can see, the pro-management side has presented a multitude of factual news reports from communities which have been affected by wolves and the pro-wolf side has presented a whole lot of emotion. ;) :IBCOOL:
I am trying to look at this from a nuetral position, it seems an educated person without prejudice would go with the facts. :dunno:
I see a whole lot of emotion from the extreme fringes of both sides. Going to the lengths of joining a small community message board because you were summoned by one of your cohorts to try and discredit and even insult one member because they have a different view is a little extreme in my view. Especially when you consider that most of those doing so probably never heard of the Methow Valley.
It is also difficult to think of you as being neutral when you have stated in other discussions that you think that we should oppose wolves altogether.
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 05:52:38 AM
http://www.methowvalley.com/bb/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=11723&p=6 (http://www.methowvalley.com/bb/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=11723&p=6)
My home town is Dubois,Wyo. this little town is an hour from Jackson Hole . In 2003 there were 1,500 late cow Elk permits issued for this area , today 150. The Processing Plant in Dubois did a brisk business and employed alot of people . In 2008 they processed 10 cow Elk , last year 9. needless to say the fellow who owns the business is almost out of business.
I asked the gov of Wyo to declare Dubois an Ecological disaster. They have lost Timbering, Livestock, Tourism (because of Grizz) and now Hunting.
Wolves tend to stay away from where I run cattle, as I have said Wolves are against the Law in Wyo until the FED recognizes our Wolf Management Plan and they have been outlawed in my county of Fremont. what Wolves have made it this far were killed in less than ten days by the USFWS . A pack near Dubois was eliminated in 15 min, the Govt Hunter told me it was the most fun he had ever had. 14 Wolves Dead in 15 min. Over 1,400 Wolves have been killed since the Wolf insanity was started in "95" and we have still lost over 90,000 Elk. Wolf Deaths are only those that have been found or taken by FED. Elk Death loss includes Sluffed Calves and Calves killed based on historic calving numbers per hundred Cows and Baron Cows not able to breed because of no Bulls.
I did lose some calves a yr ago but the beauty of the Wolf from the Enviro's perspective is that when a Wolf is thru with a calf you can't find any evidence. I lost only 3 I'm fortunate but there are those who won't be so lucky. If I could make you understand how important it is to not enter into any agreement with the FED about Management of the Wolf I would have done my job. The Wolf is a mill stone and you don't want it around the neck of your state, you want it hanging around the neck of the FED.
Judge Molloy gave You all an opprotunity to see just exactly how the ESA has been used against the Western States. for years we have been saying that the ESA was being abused and was corrupt , Molloy proved it . So as a State you should "Outlaw " the wolf, he is not an Animal he is a Soldier in the "Green Army" and the "Green Army " has issued a Fatwa against the Good People of Wyo,Mont,Idaho , Washington and Oregon........hell they have issued a Fatwa against America.
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
Evidence The Wolf Movement Wants To End All Grazing On Public Lands
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles01/mike_phillips_wolf_reintroductio.htm (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles01/mike_phillips_wolf_reintroductio.htm)
(quote)
If you think about more liberal management on private land, it makes sense to consider what’s the situation on public land. I believe we can reduce or resolve wolf-livestock conflicts by managing wolves on public land more conservatively. Perhaps depredation on public land should never trigger a management action. Why, why should a cow take precedence over a wolf on public land? Those that support the cow would quickly discuss the economics of the situation -- that’s fair, but lets look at economics. When considering economics you've got to realize only about 3% of the beef consumed in the U.S. comes from cattle grazed on public lands. Moreover, recent research has shown that you can substantially reduce grazing on public lands without have a negative and significant impact on Western economies.
It’s certain that we could reduce or resolve wolf-livestock conflicts on public land if we reconsider grazing. We could maybe change grazing practices on public lands. For example, maybe we should retire some allotments. Maybe some allotments should be validated without the stocking of livestock. At the latter ranch the Turner organization in cooperation with the USFS is doing just that. Two allotments, 72,000 acres, they developed a plan that allows the allotments to be validated without livestock being stock. The principle management tool is prescribed fire, to keep the grasses in a desirable state. Of course the Leopold Wilderness, where these allotments occur, within the Gila National Forest is critically important to recovery of the Mexican Wolf especially if livestock use of the Gila can be reduced.
We should- if you wanna talk about wolves and livestock, you gotta talk about the Taylor Grazing Act. We should consider repealing or amending the Taylor Grazing Act. That certainly would facilitate a reconsideration of grazing on public land. You know 1934 when president Franklin Roosevelt singed the act into law, the idea was that public land could be improved by leasing it to ranchers who would make improvements and take care of the place. In reality, many studies have been conducted; many experts have concluded that the act has only succeeded in transferring millions of acres of public land to the private sector for a token fee. I-I- you gotta get into the Taylor Grazing Act if you wanna understand wolf-livestock conflicts. Did you know that permittees only pay about $1.35 per AUM -- animal unit month -- a cow and a calf for a month- or 5 sheep for one month, is the unit of consideration for the Taylor Grazing Act. $1.35 per AUM to graze on public land, yet the program costs $13-$15 to administer? Did you know that during 1999 fees for grazing on private, non-irrigated lands was $11 per AUM? Did you know that during the 1980s, 30,000 ranchers in 11 western states, grazed cattle on approximately 300,000,000 acres of public land? That’s 16% of the land surface of the continental U.S. That’s an area that stretches from Maine to Florida. Now I could continue with the "Did you know that?" questions about the Taylor Grazing Act, but I think the point is made. The Taylor Grazing Act is tantamount to a big public giveaway of public land. Modifying or repealing the act would certainly change the way public land is used and that would reduce wolf-livestock conflicts.
That said; know that any effort to think about the Taylor Grazing Act is going to be met with keen opposition. Colleagues of the Sierra Club informed me that when Dr. Debra Donahue, a law professor from the University of Wyoming, published her recent book entitled, The Western Range Revisited, the Wyoming Senate president, Jim Twyford, began drafting a bill eliminating the University’s College of Law. The stakes are high and change is an uphill battle.
Nonetheless, considering grazing on public land is extremely important because, quite simply, the millions of acres of public land in the west represent the very best last place for wolves. Social tolerance ultimately defines the capacity of a landscape to support wolves. Social tolerance has been and always will be greatest on public land. Any campaign to advance wolf recovery on public land will be met with great opposition. That’s a certainty.
And finally, I think we can reduce wolf-livestock conflicts, we can resolve wolf-livestock conflicts, by considering the size of the footprint that attends every decision that we make. You know, it’s been estimated that humans have wasted 25% of the world’s topsoil and 20% of the We've. lands. We cut 33% of the forest. We’ve established the annual habit of consuming 45% of the net photosynthetic productivity and 55% of the available fresh water. Our habits as consumers are creating a world where there’s little room for wolves or anything else for that matter.
We are voracious consumers, even of costly items. And one of the most costly- socially, ecologically, and physically is beef. Some facts from Jeremy Rifkin’s book entitled, Beyond Beef -- you gotta see these facts.
Some 100,000 cows are slaughtered everyday in the U.S. Americans consume 23% of all beef in the world. Beef is the most dangerous food in pesticide contamination, ranks second- I'm sorry, in herbicide contamination; Ranks second in pesticide contamination; Ranks third in insecticide contamination.
You know it takes 9 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef in a feedlot steer? You know a middle-class American adult consumes 2,000 pounds of grain each year, 80% in the form of cattle or some other livestock. An Asian adult, in contrast, consumes 300-400 pounds of grain.
The consumption of grain fed beef by a privileged few -- while millions go without the minimum daily caloric requirements -- is a crisis of epic proportions.
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
Taken from his blog here... http://blog.freecoyote.com/ (http://blog.freecoyote.com/)
His website... http://www.freecoyote.com/Home_Page.html (http://www.freecoyote.com/Home_Page.html)
Quote
EARTH WORSHIP ; A RELIGION OF DEATH
I was a senior in high school in 1968, I watched the world on a black and white TV and made up my mind that I would not go to Vietnam. I saw the protesters, I knew the protesters and I believed that the war was wrong. As it turned out I did not have to go to Vietnam. Nixon ended the War and I felt a sense of accomplishment, my generation had stopped a War,we had saved lives,we had changed the world.
Liberals stopped the Vietnam War but somewhere in all the protesting,demonstrating and activism they became addicted to " Social Disobedience".The accomplishment of stopping the Vietnam War spawned thousands of Revolutionaries. After the Vietnam War they were everywhere, and no where, they stalked the land looking for causes, like 'Junkies looking for a fix"". They became "Lost Souls", who loved Revolution for Revolutions sake.They became Little Castro's trapped in the Cuba of their mind, unfortunately they were among us and not in Cuba.
After Vietnam these advocates for change needed a cause,needed a fix , they decided to save the Earth . These advocates for change challenged all the social standards none more so than the institution of religion, but man needs order and seeks communion. So whether consciously or unconsciously these advocates for change created a new religion based on the belief that the chaos of wilderness is in fact holy. This belief relieves man of any responsibility for the chaos of wilderness and in fact makes him a criminal for trying to subdue the chaos of wilderness in any way.
This worship of chaos plays into the very heart of man and so strikes a chord in all the young who look at a world run a muck and want to run away,but no one here gets out alive. Responsibility is unavoidable and nature is not God, God is not nature. The natural world is our responsibility, man is the" balance of nature", no other organism on planet Earth has the capacity to understand this concept. Earth worship believes that man should extract himself from nature, that left alone nature will balance itself. That is like believing that if you wait long enough you will become a virgin again.
Earth worship opened Pandora's box, the push to save the planet became the new religion. Religious sects sprang up over night " The Sierra Club", PETA etc. all churches, all passing the plate. These organizations fed the fires of revolution that still burned in the bellies of those still hung over from the "60's".
Women demanded equality, gays and lesbian's came out of their closets the "old moral values" , sank like the Titanic into the cold sea of indifference. The rules no longer applied we had "broke on through to the other side", we were living in Jim Morrison's mind. But for every action there is an equal and positive reaction", Aids is that positive reaction, suddenly we were reminded that we are not above it all. Aids sobered the world, another Door of perception was opened, however this Door was different. Aldous Huxley's "Doors of Perception" suddenly became" Doors of Reception". We were introduced to the impossibilities the possibilities that had seemed endless were at an end.
Faith in anything demands discipline on the part of the believer and the believed. Faith is homage paid as recognition of position. What ever you are paying homage to must maintain that superior position.
What happened in earth worship was that pristine wilderness was interpreted as divine. But whether you are worshiping virgin wilderness or virgins the superior position of either can only be maintained by containing man. Man cannot create wilderness but he can de-flower it .The chaos of wilderness has only one master ,that is Man .The jungle has only one master, that is man. Sooner or later the faithful want to be more than just a congregation of custodians.
The discipline of the disciple is paramount in any religion, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Earth Worshipers all have their disciples. But it is a fundamental truth that disciples need something to worship and it is also a fundamental truth that what ever they choose to worship must be worthy of their adoration. With the Jewish and Christian faiths Life holds the Superior Position. With Earth Worship, Death, and Islam? Death. Islam could stop the Suicide Bombers today if it wanted to. They choose to do nothing, they choose death.
When Yellowstone Park burned, that next spring there were thousands of deaths from starvation not to mention the deaths in the fire itself.Then came the Wolf, in the year 2000 there were 19,000 Elk in the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd by 2003 that herd had been reduced to 9450 today they hover around 7000. Christians wouldn't support this kind of devastation. Jews wouldn't support this kind of devastation. It runs contrary to everything that they believe in.
What is the responsibility of the Chaos in Wilderness? It is not the same responsibility that is expected of the Order that is found in Judaism and Christianity. The Chaos of Islam can be seen in the madrassa's; the mind numbing prayers of brain washing that leads them by their hearts to do the unthinkable. Because for them Life is unimaginable, this is death.
Earth Worship and Islam have a problem with Creation, one is secular the other religious. Earth Worship can see nothing beyond the creation. It is very one dimensional much like those who thought the world was flat. They can not conceive of a Creator. Islam can conceive of a Creator they just have a problem with who the Creator prefers. So they kill everybody to show their displeasure and in so doing prove why they are not the Chosen People.
Earth Worshipers have embraced the wolf . Never mind the negative connotations that come with the Wolf. Never mind that he has not attained any Superior Position that is Positive. Just recognize his Omnipotence as an Angel of Death . Islam has embraced the Suicide Bomber another Angel of Death, both of these religions have done so out of frustration and hatred.
The Wyoming I grew up in was perfect, we had timbering, we had wildlife, we had livestock, sheep and cattle. While we had been caring for Wyoming both the East and West coast were being Raped. When they were through with Raping their parts of America they started on us and that is where we are today. The terror that the wolf brings is not imagined, the hatred that he represents for the people that he has been unleashed upon is not imagined either. You don't unleash a Wolf on your neighbor. No one except a muslim would do to his neighbor what these people have done to us is not Christian.
Islam has fought many battles with the Jews and every time they have gotten their asses kicked .They are frustrated beyond reason they can not admit they are WRONG. Much like the Earth Worshipers who burn our forests and have killed and are killing thousands of Deer,Elk,Moose they can see the destruction but won't admit they are WRONG , both traffic in Death.
Now if you smoke Pot you can add 6000 Dead Mexicans to your bone pile, that is the estimated number of Mexicans killed trying to get you your weed last year. So if you are a Wolf Lover, Smoke Pot and are Pro-Choice you are standing in a pile of bones that the Buffalo are starting to remember and most important of all no one will call you Christian, but a Muslim might call you Brother.
Todd Fross
Freecoyote.com
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2010, 10:31:41 AM
I believe that hunters have a sense of purpose.... and hunting is not the main focus but rather a tool for teaching ourselves and others...
I think it is unfortunate that We hunters have 1 irreconcilable difference with many environmentalists.. We believe that natural resources are renewable and can be managed for a grater benefit for everyone... "We can make the pie bigger so more can have a slice." This is in direct confrontation with our environmental brethren...Whom believe that our presence/existence detracts from the greatness of it all.
Balancing the carrying capacity of the land and increasing it were possible is the goal of most hunter conservationists... There nothing less satisfying than beautiful scenery that is void of wild things. Many of us hunters have been to these places of beauty, but the eeriness of the silence and void of animals make us uneasy..
I believe changing that irreconcilable difference must come by us hunters by filling the void of many "Dirt Worshipers" by sharing the positive experiences of the hunt.
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 01:18:17 PM
I am sure there are people who agree with either side but far more in the middle with no exposure to the facts yet.
From what I can see, the pro-management side has presented a multitude of factual news reports from communities which have been affected by wolves and the pro-wolf side has presented a whole lot of emotion. ;) :IBCOOL:
I am trying to look at this from a nuetral position, it seems an educated person without prejudice would go with the facts. :dunno:
I see a whole lot of emotion from the extreme fringes of both sides. Going to the lengths of joining a small community message board because you were summoned by one of your cohorts to try and discredit and even insult one member because they have a different view is a little extreme in my view. Especially when you consider that most of those doing so probably never heard of the Methow Valley.
It is also difficult to think of you as being neutral when you have stated in other discussions that you think that we should oppose wolves altogether.
Lowedog,
You completely misunderstood, I am definitely not nuetral on the wolf issue. I beleive wolves need to be closely managed and not allowed to overpopulate. :chuckle:
I was trying to imagine if a person was nuetral, how would they look at the arguments presented. (I would think they would choose the side which had common sense facts supporting their claims.)
Someone needs to step up and inform people what is occuring in Idaho and Montana, the greenies have no qualm presenting their side of the story. Had the greenies not started this whole wolf fiasco, none of us would be wasting so much time trying to preserve what is left of our big game herds in the west. (that does really matter to some of us)
FYI - I find the wolf issue in the Methow just as important as in Colville, or in Idaho, MT, or Wyoming. As FreeCoyote pointed out "we are all in this together". These wolves are an interstate population that will multiply and destroy our game herds everywhere if we dont manage them. :twocents:
CosmicRose managed to remove the post because we were making the greenies look bad, but there most likely will be another wolf thread, I will post the link so you can follow.
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 02:20:52 PM
CosmicRose managed to remove the post because we were making the greenies look bad, but there most likely will be another wolf thread, I will post the link so you can follow.
The only ones who looked bad were the people that converged on that forum to discredit and flame one person who has different views than they do. That was pretty pathetic. Perhaps if your friends weren't so far out on the extremist side of the anti wolf movement you could get across to people like CosmicRose. Besides you, your friends and CosmicRose no one else was involved in that conversation. ( if you could call it a conversation) The only reason I found it is that I followed the link from your facebook cause. Maybe it was deleted because it was bordering on harassment? :dunno:
FYI - I find the wolf issue in the Methow just as important as in Colville, or in Idaho, MT, or Wyoming. As FreeCoyote pointed out "we are all in this together". These wolves are an interstate population that will multiply and destroy our game herds everywhere if we dont manage them. :twocents:
You, your friends and myself are definitely not all in this together.
Post by: finnman on September 20, 2010, 02:31:55 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 02:35:18 PM
Quote
You, your friends and myself are definitely not all in this together.
Again you misunderstood, I did not mean "we" are together on the issue, obviously "we" are not.
I meant we are all going to get wolves, you, me, the others who posted (including cosmic rose), and anyone else who lives in any state close to wolf country.
Lowedog as hard as it may be for you to understand this, I used to think as recently as this spring that a managed population of wolves would be acceptable. I am fast learning that I am probably going to be forced to be completely against wolves because the other side does not want to meet in the middle.
One of these days you may realize this if you study the issue. The other side wants wolves to replace all hunters and they do not want a compromise. ;)
THAT IS ANOTHER FACT, whether you like it or not. :twocents:
I do not plan on handing them our game herds and our lifestyle on a silver platter to butcher as they please.....
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 02:49:22 PM
And finnman, is that the best you got? :rolleyes:
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 03:01:28 PM
Post by: coop2424 on September 20, 2010, 03:12:30 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 03:14:58 PM
Lowedog... I would like to know where you stand on the subject. If you do not agree with either side (Pro-wolf or proper management) Is there another side that I am not seeing here with all the wolf discussions?
he's pro wolf... he just won't come out and say it. he say's he's in the middle but everytime someone brings up a wolf issue there he is taking the pro wolf side...
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 03:19:18 PM
I'm not sure I see how I am "using wolves", or how anyone else is "using wolves" when we simply want to live a peaceful life without them.
But since wolves have been forced upon us, my intention is to inform people about what wolves do, and to back up what I say with facts. :)
Here's a new link for you to watch, and feel free to participate, it's a public forum.
Will Wolves Impact The Methow Valley?
http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html (http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 20, 2010, 03:38:02 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 20, 2010, 04:18:23 PM
Bearpaw it's no use arguing with a :tree1:
Lowedog... I would like to know where you stand on the subject. If you do not agree with either side (Pro-wolf or proper management) Is there another side that I am not seeing here with all the wolf discussions?
he's pro wolf... he just won't come out and say it. he say's he's in the middle but everytime someone brings up a wolf issue there he is taking the pro wolf side...
The problem with these conversations is that there is no 2 sides when the anti-wolf crowd gets involved here. You're either with them or you suck and you're pro-wolf. I tried for a while and it's useless. I haven't posted on a wolf topic on here in a while and this will be my last. The anti-wolf side on here like wolfbait are not interested in any other side of the discussion except their own. I would guarantee you that Lowedog is not pro-wolf...probably more along the same lines as me. I would almost guarantee that he thinks along the lines of logical thinking. Thoughts like if we want to work towards delisting, the wolf sightings need to be reported and not blown off like most do.
Some of you guys should open your eyes a little and think logically and patiently.
All the talk about illegally transplanted wolves yet nobody has ever produced proof of it yet and it's been going on for a couple years. Quit flapping your gums about illegally transplanted wolves unless you have some proof. We were promised it a couple years ago and still nothing. Your arguments are pointless till there is proof.
I'm all for delisting and management by hunting and other more effective means for the record, but we got to get together on this and not call everyone a tree hugger or a pro-wolf'er everytime they disagree with the kill-em-all crowd.
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
Lowedog... I would like to know where you stand on the subject. If you do not agree with either side (Pro-wolf or proper management) Is there another side that I am not seeing here with all the wolf discussions?he's pro wolf... he just won't come out and say it. he say's he's in the middle but everytime someone brings up a wolf issue there he is taking the pro wolf side...
grundy, its nice that you want to speak for me but maybe you should read some of my posts on the subject before you do so you might actually know what you are talking about.
If you can show me where I have taken a pro wolf side on this please do so.
coop, I am pro management which to me does not mean eradication. If you have read much of Bearpaws and others position they want no wolves which would mean eradication. I think they need to be delisted and that the latest ruling by Malloy has turned the ESA into a farce that is now used as a political tool. I think each state should be given the right to manage wolves how they see fit.
Lowedog, I am very sorry if you feel I have bullied you, that was not my intention. :bdid:
I'm not sure I see how I am "using wolves", or how anyone else is "using wolves" when we simply want to live a peaceful life without them.
But since wolves have been forced upon us, my intention is to inform people about what wolves do, and to back up what I say with facts. :)
Here's a new link for you to watch, and feel free to participate, it's a public forum.
Will Wolves Impact The Methow Valley?
http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html (http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html)
Bearpaw, I don't feel I have been bullied by you or anyone else. I actually shouldn't lump you in with some of those that you associate with on the wolf issue. If anyone read through the posts on the link I provided they would probably have seen what I am referring to about bullying and insults. To me that is just a pathetic tactic to use to try and get your point across and will push more "neutral" people away from your point of view. This FreeCoyote (Todd Fross) admitted that he was summoned there to "deal" with CosmicRose. These people from other states went out of their way to join this small community bulletin board to insult and harass some woman that lives in the Methow just because she doesn't share their point of view.
I have to admit though that I didn't see any insults from you Bearpaw. You did actually post up strong eveidence.
That was my whole point of this thread. It is said all the time that the greenies are the extremist. In my point of view there are some pretty extreme people on both sides.
If people want to eradicate introduced wolves then so be it. There were wolves already established in some areas so how are you going to differentiate which are which? Regarding the wolves in the Methow, until someone proves that wolves were or are being introduced there then I will have to assume that those wolves came there naturally from BC.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 20, 2010, 04:25:53 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 05:12:43 PM
Bearpaw it's no use arguing with a :tree1:Lowedog... I would like to know where you stand on the subject. If you do not agree with either side (Pro-wolf or proper management) Is there another side that I am not seeing here with all the wolf discussions?
he's pro wolf... he just won't come out and say it. he say's he's in the middle but everytime someone brings up a wolf issue there he is taking the pro wolf side...
The problem with these conversations is that there is no 2 sides when the anti-wolf crowd gets involved here. You're either with them or you suck and you're pro-wolf. I tried for a while and it's useless. I haven't posted on a wolf topic on here in a while and this will be my last. The anti-wolf side on here like wolfbait are not interested in any other side of the discussion except their own. I would guarantee you that Lowedog is not pro-wolf...probably more along the same lines as me. I would almost guarantee that he thinks along the lines of logical thinking. Thoughts like if we want to work towards delisting, the wolf sightings need to be reported and not blown off like most do.
Some of you guys should open your eyes a little and think logically and patiently.
All the talk about illegally transplanted wolves yet nobody has ever produced proof of it yet and it's been going on for a couple years. Quit flapping your gums about illegally transplanted wolves unless you have some proof. We were promised it a couple years ago and still nothing. Your arguments are pointless till there is proof.
I'm all for delisting and management by hunting and other more effective means for the record, but we got to get together on this and not call everyone a tree hugger or a pro-wolf'er everytime they disagree with the kill-em-all crowd.
I have never once said they were transplanted in Washington. But they are here now. The only thing patience is going to get you is a repeat of Idaho. The next thing you know we will be in the same position fighting reactively to a already bad situation . We have to be proactive. To each his own but don't think for a minute that sitting back and doing nothing is going to help anything.
Post by: Dave Workman on September 20, 2010, 05:14:30 PM
Quote
The only reason Scott fitkin get HIRED AS BIOLGOLIST PROWOLF with all LIES to save their money not to pay Rancher for their Loss Livestock and afraid they MAY to order Wolf Deperation Control! But........... I read He said as Scott Fitkin HIRED TWO FEILD AGENT SAMEDAY at Scene and to tracking Wolves pack use VHS Collar on two wolves that way FEILD AGENT can PUSH THEM out DIRECTION FROM THOSE Scene to say ITS NOT WOLVES. No Wonder why they are completely PROTECTING Wolves for USFWS......
Mulehunter
As for wolves, this has the makings of a disaster and others can probably speak to this better than me, but it appears that the WDFW is gradually working toward a management scenario in which they severely restrict hunting in order to provide a prey base for the wolves.
It would not bother me at all if the wolves suddenly went back to the Mother Ship. They are not endangered. There are thousands of them and the fact that most of them live in Canada is T.S. :crap:
Those who want wolves by the thousands are :liar:
I suspect, without evidence, that these animals were illegally introduced, perhaps as far back as a decade or more when the Clinton admin was illegally diverting USFWS-managed Pittman Robertson funds for all kinds of crap that had nothing to do with federal aid to wildlife programs.
Post by: jackelope on September 20, 2010, 05:23:03 PM
Bearpaw it's no use arguing with a :tree1:Lowedog... I would like to know where you stand on the subject. If you do not agree with either side (Pro-wolf or proper management) Is there another side that I am not seeing here with all the wolf discussions?
he's pro wolf... he just won't come out and say it. he say's he's in the middle but everytime someone brings up a wolf issue there he is taking the pro wolf side...
The problem with these conversations is that there is no 2 sides when the anti-wolf crowd gets involved here. You're either with them or you suck and you're pro-wolf. I tried for a while and it's useless. I haven't posted on a wolf topic on here in a while and this will be my last. The anti-wolf side on here like wolfbait are not interested in any other side of the discussion except their own. I would guarantee you that Lowedog is not pro-wolf...probably more along the same lines as me. I would almost guarantee that he thinks along the lines of logical thinking. Thoughts like if we want to work towards delisting, the wolf sightings need to be reported and not blown off like most do.
Some of you guys should open your eyes a little and think logically and patiently.
All the talk about illegally transplanted wolves yet nobody has ever produced proof of it yet and it's been going on for a couple years. Quit flapping your gums about illegally transplanted wolves unless you have some proof. We were promised it a couple years ago and still nothing. Your arguments are pointless till there is proof.
I'm all for delisting and management by hunting and other more effective means for the record, but we got to get together on this and not call everyone a tree hugger or a pro-wolf'er everytime they disagree with the kill-em-all crowd.
I have never once said they were transplanted in Washington. But they are here now. The only thing patience is going to get you is a repeat of Idaho. The next thing you know we will be in the same position fighting reactively to a already bad situation . We have to be proactive. To each his own but don't think for a minute that sitting back and doing nothing is going to help anything.
1-Nobody said it was you who was talking about them being illegally transplanted.
2-Nobody said anything about sitting back and doing nothing.
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 05:32:40 PM
I THINK YOU WENT FISHING FOR IT.....
That woman cosmic rose was no more innocent than longshot. She did more than her share of antagonizing and longshot let a lot of it go by, when she was showed up by some hard facts from other states, then she tried to throw a guilt trip on us, which you apparently fell for. The thread is gone, but she was as guilty as anyone for antagonizing others, she was after longshot in nearly every post.
The "whatever is acceptable word to call" groups will not meet in the middle. They call us killers and attack us all the time. I get email from the greenies every day http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48806.msg701756.html#msg701756 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48806.msg701756.html#msg701756) (those are only the few that I choose to show everyone)
I don't ask them to watch my videos, it's their choice, and then they threaten me. I don't watch their videos and then threaten to shoot them.
So get out of our faces that we are somehow bullying the greenies, they are the ones sending email every day threatening to shoot people. They are the ones attacking hunting and promoting wolves (which they have no intention of ever managing) to kill off our game herds so they can end hunting.
(that is where it's headed, they even say it's their goal)
I really think you need to think about how it appears to the guys you are critisizing. :twocents: :) :) :) :)
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 05:37:38 PM
Lowedog I think you went on a witch hunt with this thread from the beginning and I let it go. I played your game as nicely as anyone would, but then when you sounded like a greenie protecting a greenie, you sucked some of the guys into calling you a greenie, so you have no sympathy from me. :twocents:
I THINK YOU WENT FISHING FOR IT.....
That woman cosmic rose was no more innocent than longshot. She did more than her share of antagonizing and longshot let a lot of it go by, when she was showed up by some hard facts from other states, then she tried to throw a guilt trip on us, which you apparently fell for. The thread is gone, but she was as guilty as anyone for antagonizing others, she was after longshot in nearly every post.
The "whatever is acceptable word to call" groups will not meet in the middle. They call us killers and attack us all the time. I get email from the greenies every day http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48806.msg701756.html#msg701756 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48806.msg701756.html#msg701756) (those are only the few that I choose to show everyone)
I don't ask them to watch my videos, it's their choice, and then they threaten me. I don't watch their videos and then threaten to shoot them.
So get out of our faces that we are somehow bullying the greenies, they are the ones sending email every day threatening to shoot people. They are the ones attacking hunting and trying to plant wolves (which they have no intention of ever managing) to kill off our game herds so they can end hunting.
(that is where it's headed, they even say it's their goal)
I really think you need to think about how it appears to the guys you are critisizing. :twocents: :) :) :) :)
Very well put!
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 05:48:38 PM
Quote
Wolves have their place in Washington state....
Buried in a ditch.
LOL.
I believe the USFWS has exemplified along with the federal court systems their complete abuse of authority, an inability to protect citizens' rights, property and best interest when it comes to wolves. Whether it is moving the goal line as the wolf recovery started until now, inability to accurately forecast the impact on existing wildlife populations, inability to contain or estimate wolf damages, or subversion of law and morals. Including in and out of the courts. All are prime examples of what has been done wrong when it comes to wolf re-introduction.
Even discarding the thought that wolves are planted, relocated or whatever... we can see how the government has failed in many ways. Including working between state and federal agencies. That line has been the source of many problems in the past.
The wolf is not an endangered species and I generally concur with the idea (as it is a stated goal) that pro wolf organizations plan to use this tool/reintroction of wolves to end hunting.
Since wolves cannot be delisted and since they are also not really endangered then I don't see how someone could call another a poacher if they took down a wolf. Especially if they do not know the entire circumstances. At any rate you can "what if" that idea until you are dead. It's kind of a name calling argument if you will.
Post by: mulehunter on September 20, 2010, 05:54:29 PM
QuoteThe only reason Scott fitkin get HIRED AS BIOLGOLIST PROWOLF with all LIES to save their money not to pay Rancher for their Loss Livestock and afraid they MAY to order Wolf Deperation Control! But........... I read He said as Scott Fitkin HIRED TWO FEILD AGENT SAMEDAY at Scene and to tracking Wolves pack use VHS Collar on two wolves that way FEILD AGENT can PUSH THEM out DIRECTION FROM THOSE Scene to say ITS NOT WOLVES. No Wonder why they are completely PROTECTING Wolves for USFWS......
Mulehunter
I caught you dave workman said you didnt understand this. before Jackelope change your post... Yes I need to re- read before click sent... Here I will say again better this time.
Yes I spell wrong I will correct Field....
First of all.
Guy from Okanagon County Officer name CAL the Gamedept said ITS WOLF KILL..... when He arrival But Biologlist arrival later and DISAGREED WITH OTHER OFFICER CAL.... So Scott Fitkin contact two field agents to get their Wolves Collar signal by use Tracking Radio and Antenna and they went up in mountain. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE WORKING IN MOUNTAIN.... Obviouly they knew Wolves are VERY CLOSE to those Cow kill. So what happen those Field Agent zipper mouth start to walking out toward to where Pack are by use Antenna and keep pushing and pushing and going whole the day and few days later.... They came back with RESULT of saying Wolves arent around here. GO figure...... No wonder why Scott fitkin doesnt want to HELP LARRY with their LOSS COW and Birth Calf. Plus I believe Scott Fitkin Loves his job and his FIRST Wolves Pack in MANY MANY YEARS as CAREER and doesnt want to get order Wolf Deperation Control to removel Pack.
Seem like they are thinking very smart thing to fool ALL OF US!
Mulehunter
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 05:56:25 PM
Quote from: Ray link=top :Pic=57264.msg705481#msg705481 date=1285030118
A good friend shared this comment with me recently:QuoteWolves have their place in Washington state....
Buried in a ditch.
LOL.
I believe the USFWS has exemplified along with the federal court systems their complete abuse of authority, an inability to protect citizens' rights, property and best interest when it comes to wolves. Whether it is moving the goal line as the wolf :chuckle:recovery started until now, inability to accurately forecast the impact on existing wildlife populations, inability to contain or estimate wolf damages, or subversion of law and morals. Including in and out of the courts. All are prime examples of what has been done wrong when it comes to wolf re-introduction.
Even discarding the thought that wolves are planted, relocated or whatever... we can see how the government has failed in many ways. Including working between state and federal agencies. That line has been the source of many problems in the past.
The wolf is not an endangered species and I generally concur with the idea (as it is a stated goal) that pro wolf organizations plan to use this tool/reintroction of wolves to end hunting.
Since wolves cannot be delisted and since they are also not really endangered then I don't see how someone could call another a poacher if they took down a wolf. Especially if they do not know the entire circumstances. At any rate you can "what if" that idea until you are dead. It's kind of a name calling argument if you will.
You have a very smart friend :chuckle: and you pretty much nailed it with the governments complete inability to manage these wolves properly. :bash:
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 05:59:10 PM
Quote
Scott Fitkin Loves his job and his FIRST Wolves Pack in MANY MANY YEARS as CAREER and doesnt want to get order Wolf Deperation Control to removel Pack.
I don't know this fellow and I am not slandering him. Aside from him I know that there are those inside the government who see to it that their job security is well guarded and will find many ways to guard their careers. That's not an outlandish claim.
Post by: mulehunter on September 20, 2010, 06:05:49 PM
QuoteScott Fitkin Loves his job and his FIRST Wolves Pack in MANY MANY YEARS as CAREER and doesnt want to get order Wolf Deperation Control to removel Pack.
I don't know this fellow and I am not slandering him. Aside from him I know that there are those inside the government who see to it that their job security is well guarded and will find many ways to guard their careers. That's not an outlandish claim.
True... If It were MY Career and I would support CAL and work together, and I would ask Govt to give fund to larry with Very CUTE amount of 3,000 or 6,000 dollar for their loss two. I guess He isnt Honest GOVT Officer. Anyway No wonder why he is very SECURITY with Wolves!
Mulehunter
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 06:14:45 PM
You and your buddies are the ones on the witch hunt. You go around to message boards spewing your rhetoric and just expect people to fall in line and say *censored* like SSS.
I did go fishing for it. Like I said I followed a link from your Facebook cause, when i went there to check it out, and what do I see but a bunch of bullying and attacking of someone on another forum who doesn't agree with you. The funny thing is that you and your chronies think you were getting the better of her. :chuckle: That woman lives in that community along with longshot, who cares if they bicker back and forth?
If you don't like getting *censored* from wacko anti hunters then don't post videos on youtube. That place is a cesspool for people like that.
If you want to tell me to get out of your faces about bullying then get out my face with your anti wolf rhetoric. It has become old and stagnant.
And besides you and your cohorts who am I criticizing? You really think I care how I appear to your extremist buddies? :twocents: :) :) :) ;) ;) ;)
Post by: wolfbait on September 20, 2010, 06:20:09 PM
FreeCoyote Today 3:43 PMFreeCoyote
Member
Offline
Registered: 09/18/10
Posts: 13
Re: Only Wolves in the MethowWow ! Mr. Ott Not to take us on his mental Wanderings about wolves , there is only museings here .....where is the Meat ?
I really had Old Rose walkin' fast, backwards. Her diatribe was Devolving into a mystic Karma, Carmel, Lotte' , stammer......but back to business.
I would like anyone to divide the amount of Elk killed between 2007, when I was wittness to 17,500 Elk in Jackson Hole and 2010 when I saw 4,200 Elk in Jackson Hole by the 15-16 Deer formula that Mr Ott has supplied us with . Now a deer will weigh 90 lbs if it is a white tail or maybe 100 if it is a Muley. One Elk will constitute 9-10 Deer.............Wow ! there are alot of wolves in Jackson Hole ! Now divide fetuses ripped from Cow Elk and the Elk is left untouched and calves that have out run the Grizz, into the mix and you see that there are even more wolves.
There is nothing romantic about the Wolf , in Germany the Citizens of Aushwitz were brought out to see the concentration camps that they denied knowing anything about. I call this the Aushwitz Syndrome........does this remind you of anyone ?
There are parallels in History and Environmentalists are coming up Nazi !
http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html (http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html)
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 06:20:57 PM
Quote
If you don't like getting *censored* from wacko anti hunters then don't post videos on youtube. That place is a cesspool for people like that.
I don't believe putting hunting videos on YouTube is an open invitation for threats of violence. Would you care to explain how it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on YouTube? It seems to me that part of a valid business model would be to openly promote your products in various media outlets. And that you should be free and legal to do so, within reasonable boundaries and without threats of violence for doing so.
Post by: coop2424 on September 20, 2010, 06:27:04 PM
QuoteIf you don't like getting *censored* from wacko anti hunters then don't post videos on youtube. That place is a cesspool for people like that.
I don't believe putting hunting videos on YouTube is an open invitation for threats of violence. Would you care to explain how it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on YouTube? It seems to me that part of a valid business model would be to openly promote your products in various media outlets. And that you should be free and legal to do so, within reasonable boundaries and without threats of violence for doing so.
x2
When the threats are personal and to their family that is when it is taking it to a whole new level!!
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 06:30:13 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 06:46:02 PM
QuoteIf you don't like getting *censored* from wacko anti hunters then don't post videos on youtube. That place is a cesspool for people like that.
I don't believe putting hunting videos on YouTube is an open invitation for threats of violence. Would you care to explain how it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on YouTube? It seems to me that part of a valid business model would be to openly promote your products in various media outlets. And that you should be free and legal to do so, within reasonable boundaries and without threats of violence for doing so.
Did I say I think it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on youtube? I watch them all the time and I read the crap those people spew on there. It is somewhat like what the anti wolf crowd does when you don't fall in line.
I believe those examples of hatred and physical threat displayed openly on YouTube or in emails also give us insight as to who and what kind of minds are behind the core of the pro-wolf movements. Their display or own form of bullying. I'd say it is an act of bullying and or harassment of hunters into the state of mind that they cannot openly share their experiences on that format/venue (YouTube).
My whole reason to start this thread was because of extremist behavior. Did you get a chance to read the original thread that I linked to? Point being that there are extremist on both sides of the issue.
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2010, 06:57:51 PM
QuoteIf you don't like getting *censored* from wacko anti hunters then don't post videos on youtube. That place is a cesspool for people like that.
I don't believe putting hunting videos on YouTube is an open invitation for threats of violence. Would you care to explain how it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on YouTube? It seems to me that part of a valid business model would be to openly promote your products in various media outlets. And that you should be free and legal to do so, within reasonable boundaries and without threats of violence for doing so.
Did I say I think it is a bad idea to put hunting videos on youtube? I watch them all the time and I read the crap those people spew on there. It is somewhat like what the anti wolf crowd does when you don't fall in line.I believe those examples of hatred and physical threat displayed openly on YouTube or in emails also give us insight as to who and what kind of minds are behind the core of the pro-wolf movements. Their display or own form of bullying. I'd say it is an act of bullying and or harassment of hunters into the state of mind that they cannot openly share their experiences on that format/venue (YouTube).
My whole reason to start this thread was because of extremist behavior. Did you get a chance to read the original thread that I linked to? Point being that there are extremist on both sides of the issue.
Except I've never heard an anti wolfer threaten to kill another human being... I think you are comparing apples to oranges. We want the wolves gone they want US gone... and you are defending them? I'm sorry but I value a human life way more then a dumb wolf's...
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 06:59:45 PM
Did I need to read the original topic to understand what is going on? I don't think I am that misinformed about matters to not make intelligent responses here.
Overall your tone is grossly arrogant on this topic in several ways. It is no surprise to me and I am coming into the discussion to basically call you out on that. It worked. You are proving to be the pot stirrer and look more like an extremist to me than some others here. You basically ridicule others for creating their own websites, and venues for sharing their ideas and spreading their information. As if it some bullying crime to do so. The bullies are people like you who do not tolerate others who have invested time, effort and resources to create these venues which you say are in your face. Don't read it or open it if you don't agree. I don't like everything written here and choose to open and read what I want. So what do you do? You jump in their face and start calling them extremist. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle.
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 07:45:34 PM
I will admit to stirring the pot on this. I simply wanted to show what we have going on with the people who are constantly telling us that we have our heads in the sand on this issue. Who are constantly telling us how the extremist on the pro wolf side are shoving wolves down our throats. To me it was an extremist move to have several people from the anti wolf crowd join that forum to basically belittle and berate this one person who was posting her views on the topic.
Some of these people have come on here and insulted and berated others for having different views than their own.
Show me where I have ridiculed anyone for having their own websites. I posted a link to a blog of one of the founders of SWW and said "an extremist viewpoint? You decide." If people are being asked to join forces with certain groups shouldn't they know who is behind them? What led me to that blog? His posts towards the woman in the link I posted.
If you want to view me as an extremist for that then so be it. If you are telling me cease and desist...it's your website and you got it.
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 07:55:11 PM
I reiterate that you are arrogant. This remark speaks for itself.
Quote
Ray, if you didn't read what was going on at the link I posted then I really don't think you are informed enough to make the remarks you have.
So basically you say two wrongs make a right here:
Quote
I will admit to stirring the pot on this. I simply wanted to show what we have going on with the people who are constantly telling us that we have our heads in the sand on this issue. Who are constantly telling us how the extremist on the pro wolf side are shoving wolves down our throats. To me it was an extremist move to have several people from the anti wolf crowd join that forum to basically belittle and berate this one person who was posting her views on the topic.
Additionally your attempt is simply to discredit others but you stoop to low levels and have compromised your own credibilty in doing so.
You have basically left open ended statements several times without providing more information as to the meaning of what you say at times. As a result many here are starting to interpret you as the extremist and question your motives, credibility and standing. You did it. Not me. Just calling it like I see it.
Quote
I posted a link to a blog of one of the founders of SWW and said "an extremist viewpoint? You decide." If people are being asked to join forces with certain groups shouldn't they know who is behind them? What led me to that blog? His posts towards the woman in the link I posted.
Forgive if I am mistaken but it seems you imply that anyone who supports a wolf management which means eliminating wolves which might do the state game populations in or which might be destructive to their property as poachers and unjust in their actions. Since when is it extreme for Americans to expose the governmental abuse, inaction, and mismanagement of wolves? And then take matters into their own hands when their government fails them? You make many of such critics out as extremist and fringe of the crowd when it comes to hunters. But you are clearly not the arbiter of those measures. Yet you assert yourself and your position as centrist, rational and sound. However at the same time call on people to make their own decisions. Sounds kind of stange to me. But hey, I not informed enough to make remarks on wolves. LOL
Post by: Lowedog on September 20, 2010, 08:32:30 PM
Cease and desist? C'mon.
I reiterate that you are arrogant. This remark speaks for itself.QuoteRay, if you didn't read what was going on at the link I posted then I really don't think you are informed enough to make the remarks you have.
So basically you say two wrongs make a right here:QuoteI will admit to stirring the pot on this. I simply wanted to show what we have going on with the people who are constantly telling us that we have our heads in the sand on this issue. Who are constantly telling us how the extremist on the pro wolf side are shoving wolves down our throats. To me it was an extremist move to have several people from the anti wolf crowd join that forum to basically belittle and berate this one person who was posting her views on the topic.
Additionally your attempt is simply to discredit others but you stoop to low levels and have compromised your own credibilty in doing so.
You have basically left open ended statements several times without providing more information as to the meaning of what you say at times. As a result many here are starting to interpret you as the extremist and question your motives, credibility and standing. You did it. Not me. Just calling it like I see it.QuoteI posted a link to a blog of one of the founders of SWW and said "an extremist viewpoint? You decide." If people are being asked to join forces with certain groups shouldn't they know who is behind them? What led me to that blog? His posts towards the woman in the link I posted.
Forgive if I am mistaken but it seems you imply that anyone who supports a wolf management which means eliminating wolves which might do the state game populations in or which might be destructive to their property as poachers and unjust in their actions. Since when is it extreme for Americans to expose the governmental abuse, inaction, and mismanagement of wolves? And then take matters into their own hands when their government fails them? You make many of such critics out as extremist and fringe of the crowd when it comes to hunters. But you are clearly not the arbiter of those measures. Yet you assert yourself and your position as centrist, rational and sound. However at the same time call on people to make their own decisions. Sounds kind of stange to me. But hey, I not informed enough to make remarks on wolves. LOL
Again, think of me what you will. No skin off my back. You calling me arrogant is, like you say, the pot calling the kettle black.
You suggesting that I think 2 wrongs make a right is ironic when you imply that breaking the law is fine as long as you feel that it is justified in that your government is failing you. Wouldn't it be more like the American way to try and change the laws instead of breaking them?
Where have I implied that anyone who supports a wolf management which means eliminating wolves as poachers and unjust in their actions? I have said that I don't support that plan, if you think that means anything else than pertaining to myself then you are reading too much into my statements.
I have posted on one occasion recently in response to someone saying something along the lines of call me a poacher if you want but that they would shoot a wolf if they get one in their sites that it reflects poorly on the membership of this website. I guess I should recant that statement because that is just my opinion.
And my comment about if you hadn't read what was going on at that link I posted then I really don't think you were informed enough to make the remarks you had, had nothing to do with wolves. It had to do with the type of harassment I perceived to be going on there. You are a very smart man and I presume you are very knowledgeable with what is going on with wolves.
I will back off now. This isn't my first rodeo. LOL
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 08:46:59 PM
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Idaho_Requests_USFWS_MOA.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Idaho_Requests_USFWS_MOA.pdf)
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 09:10:57 PM
You've tapdanced all around but that's what your problem is. You want to say just enough to stir the pot. The amount of arrogance which you carry on repeatedly in your post is just short of insulting. In fact you stated several times that I was not informed enough to discuss wolf matters. As if one needs higher education to respond. What an moronic claim. When confronted twice you finally offer up an alternative (just enough to stir the pot as stated above)but supposedly less insulting. You know that is false and arrogant as well as I do. What I mostly sense when I read such gibberish barfed on the computer screen is that you have a harder time compromising when you might be slightly wrong or even when someone gets an edge against you on an argument. You just hold fast to poor statements like that. I don't know if it is very clear to you. Not my problem.
My statement about your arrogant positions on wolf discussions is not the pot calling the kettle. I have not discredited your remarks with flat statements that you are not informed enough to discuss wolf topics. Think before you type. It might help your cause and save you some face. LOL
I'll lay off for now but I would advise that you consider whether or not your methods are as extreme and unsound as your "opponents" on this subject.
Post by: mulehunter on September 20, 2010, 09:13:36 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2010, 09:31:46 PM
Quote
You suggesting that I think 2 wrongs make a right is ironic when you imply that breaking the law is fine as long as you feel that it is justified in that your government is failing you. Wouldn't it be more like the American way to try and change the laws instead of breaking them?
Let me expand on the differences between the law and morals when it comes to this criticism which is off target and inaccurate.
First of all the law is often an attempt at a public consensus to solving a problem. Often that consensus is reached by a moral standard or agreement of some sort. Laws are not infallible and cannot replace moral actions. They are merely attempts at doing so (obviously not all laws though).
Therefore when a law becomes grossly unjust there will be a period of time where the revision of law has not taken place but the law is the source of contempt. Basically the law becomes invalid, off target and even source of injustice; either in whole or part or by some unforseen side effect.
Now the country we live in was founded on some certain principles. That was land ownership and personal property belonging to the citizens. Not a totalitarian government which forces it's wishes onto the people. So when the government institutes a law which is destructive to the personal property or even public property it will again be a source of negativity. It has been often the reason for people to become rebellious. Such as during the Prohibition era. Another disaster which was legally enforced and which was finally dismissed. Some examples take longer than others to come to conclusion. I believe this wolf issue is still in turmoil and that our system has not reached the final stages of revising the laws and powers of the government when it comes to this subject. Therefore I don't believe it is ironic as you assert. The law must simply be revised so that it is not intrusive, abusive or otherwise a detriment to the rights of the people. Therefore we know this law is unjust, immoral... at least in part or by side effect. Conclusion - it is reasonable to take the law into your own hands in some circumstances without tainting your credibility or subjecting yourself to "irony" as you say. The American way is not to sit back and wait for your government to make it right. If it was, we would not be a unique country with self motivated do it yourself people.
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2010, 09:58:56 PM
Post by: steen on September 20, 2010, 10:02:07 PM
Post by: coop2424 on September 20, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
My biggest gripe is I have not seen any meat and potato arguments from the pro wolf side... Wa Coyote has provided a little info, but the rest is just hypothetical "devils advocate" scenarios.... The more i read about the wolf issue the more i feel like I've just had an argument with my wife... Lots of how come you feel this way, it should be that way,etc... I wish someone that CLAIMS to be a pro wolfer would have the stones to bring their facts to the debate.... I would feel much more satisfied getting many ass kicked in an argument by a worthy opponent... I feel like throwing up my hands, talking in circles about wolves. It's just like at the end of the argument with my wife; no new facts, I'm still pissed off and ya some how I'm still wrong.. :bash:
haha isn't that the truth. That is exactly how I feel also...
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
My biggest gripe is I have not seen any meat and potato arguments from the pro wolf side... Wa Coyote has provided a little info, but the rest is just hypothetical "devils advocate" scenarios.... The more i read about the wolf issue the more i feel like I've just had an argument with my wife... Lots of how come you feel this way, it should be that way,etc... I wish someone that CLAIMS to be a pro wolfer would have the stones to bring their facts to the debate.... I would feel much more satisfied getting many ass kicked in an argument by a worthy opponent... I feel like throwing up my hands, talking in circles about wolves. It's just like at the end of the argument with my wife; no new facts, I'm still pissed off and ya some how I'm still wrong.. :bash:
haha isn't that the truth. That is exactly how I feel also...
Now that new data is available showing the effects of wolves, other scietists atre stepping forward with previous data that was covered up, and it is common knowledge that the former Idaho director violated laws passed by the Idaho lagislature to let the USFWS bring in wolves, there's not much solid arguments for the pro-wolfers to make, that's why the debate seems so lopsided. I would not want to have to support their position, all they have is emotion. :chuckle:
This was not directed at anyone here, I am talking about the real greenies.
Post by: jmoyer2 on September 20, 2010, 10:52:02 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 21, 2010, 07:09:43 AM
I, Jonesy (Maury Jones), was personally involved in the legislation trying to craft a Wyoming wolf management plan that would be acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Our legislators and our governor specifically lamented that the feds would not tell us what we had to have to get it approved. We literally begged the USFWS to tell us what we needed in our plan. They would not, perhaps because they were aware of a recent Supreme Court Ruling.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer, or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S 898 (1997)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html)
So we crafted the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan based on the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Impact Statement, and the Final Rule for Introduction of the Grey Wolf. 10 of 11 wolf experts approved of Wyoming's plan saying that it would adequately protect 150 wolves (the minimum required was 100). In spite of that, the USFWS ignored the experts and disapproved of the Wyoming plan, because we only protected wolves in the northwest corner of the state, not the whole state. We didn't want wolves in the rest of the state, as it is not suitable habitat for them and thus they would prey on livestock to a great degree. The EIS and the Final Rule specifically said that most of Wyoming was not suitable habitat for wolves, therefore Wyoming was only doing what the law said.
So all this about Wyoming being the problem is NOT TRUE!!! The blame lies squarely on the USFWS and the wolf-worshippers who run the show.
The final solution is for the states, Wyoming specifically, to openly defy the feds and their attempts to control our management of OUR wildlife, by declaring that we, and we alone, own the wildlife in our state and will do what we damned well please with it.
We must REFUSE to allow their federal dog to destroy our huntable populations of wildlife. See the attachment.
http://tinyurl.com/2da47py (http://tinyurl.com/2da47py)
Jonesy
This is what it will take to Stop the FED , YOU must grow a Pair !
Quote Post 22
Posts [ 21 to 22 of 22 ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: Ray on September 21, 2010, 07:15:56 AM
Quote
Wa Coyote has provided a little info, but the rest is just hypothetical "devils advocate" scenarios.
Or just hyperbole and spin.
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 21, 2010, 03:12:10 PM
I attached a small blurb on U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy and how he blocked scheduled wolf hunts.
Post by: GlennGTR on September 21, 2010, 06:27:22 PM
Post by: denali on September 21, 2010, 06:55:15 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 21, 2010, 06:59:17 PM
Thanks Wolfbait ... Great post it is pretty obvious what has happened in Idaho when they decided to " play along"
ditto that.....
Post by: bearpaw on September 21, 2010, 07:06:04 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,57411.msg706569.html#msg706569 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,57411.msg706569.html#msg706569)
Post by: Special T on September 21, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 21, 2010, 09:54:30 PM
whats the back story on the photo... or the release of it?:yeah: