Post by: SWHUNTER on December 28, 2011, 10:50:38 AM
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2011, 11:05:31 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 28, 2011, 11:07:38 AM
Post by: Curly on December 28, 2011, 11:08:36 AM
If they did get them, hopefully they aren't telling anyone.............. :twocents:
Post by: washelkhntr on December 28, 2011, 11:08:56 AM
:chuckle:
Post by: buglebuster on December 28, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.And why is that :chuckle:
:chuckle:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 28, 2011, 11:22:04 AM
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.
:chuckle:
Smoking a pack a day, in this context, would be a good start :tup:
Post by: NWBREW on December 28, 2011, 11:22:55 AM
Post by: Gobble Gobble on December 28, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
Quote
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.
Pun intended :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 28, 2011, 11:54:54 AM
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.
:chuckle:
Smoking a pack a day, in this context, would be a good start :tup:
:yike: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 28, 2011, 11:55:35 AM
It is just a rumor.........nothing to see here....move along. :chuckle:
:yeah: these aren't the droids you're looking for. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: JohnVH on December 28, 2011, 02:26:39 PM
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.
:chuckle:
Smoking a pack a day, in this context, would be a good start :tup:
BAHAHAHAAA, that was awesome! :yeah:
Post by: bugs n bones on December 29, 2011, 01:26:11 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2011, 01:31:57 PM
Post by: bone collector 12 on December 29, 2011, 01:41:23 PM
If they did i think they have been removed from Santas Naughty list, they redeemed themselves:yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: seth30 on December 29, 2011, 01:46:03 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on December 29, 2011, 01:47:50 PM
It is just a rumor.........nothing to see here....move along. :chuckle:
:yeah:
Let's try to not publicize it if this happens. No good will come of it
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2011, 02:04:29 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on December 29, 2011, 02:08:38 PM
Post by: NWBREW on December 29, 2011, 02:15:11 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 29, 2011, 10:27:13 PM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents::yeah:
Post by: wsucowboy on December 29, 2011, 10:30:10 PM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents::yeah:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on December 29, 2011, 11:58:22 PM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents:
Blah, blah, blah...........c'mon papa smurf. The guys are just blowing off a little steam. Have a sense of humor. Rumors are just that, rumors. No hard core evidence here. So what if big brother reads this! WE, in this country are inocent until PROVEN guilty. Everybody in this day and age are so pariniod..............
Post by: SWHUNTER on December 30, 2011, 04:51:17 AM
So it mentions the rumor in this article. I wonder if the WDFW read the rumor on hunting WA, and is now investigating?
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2011/12/29/washington-wolf-killed-in-idaho-last-week-final-2011-population-estimate-due-out-in-early-jan/
Post by: DoubleJ on December 30, 2011, 06:48:57 AM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents:
Blah, blah, blah...........c'mon papa smurf. The guys are just blowing off a little steam. Have a sense of humor. Rumors are just that, rumors. No hard core evidence here. So what if big brother reads this! WE, in this country are inocent until PROVEN guilty. Everybody in this day and age are so pariniod..............
Not paranoid, just would rather not deal with the hassle at all
Post by: trophyhunt on December 30, 2011, 06:52:11 AM
:brew: :4w: :llam: :salute::yeah: :yeah:
Post by: trophyhunt on December 30, 2011, 06:57:55 AM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents:I support any effort to save our wildlife! whether it's catching poachers, changing the tribal hunting wrongs or killing out of control predators or one's that will soon be out of control. The state for some reason thinks it's a good idea to have 13(I believe it's 13) breeding pairs :bash: :bash:. I hope all the wolves get shot if you ask me!
Post by: boneaddict on December 30, 2011, 06:59:32 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 30, 2011, 07:14:28 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 30, 2011, 07:17:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2011, 07:20:34 AM
Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My :twocents:
Blah, blah, blah...........c'mon papa smurf. The guys are just blowing off a little steam. Have a sense of humor. Rumors are just that, rumors. No hard core evidence here. So what if big brother reads this! WE, in this country are inocent until PROVEN guilty. Everybody in this day and age are so pariniod..............
It's not about having a sense of humor. It's about continuing to have the public's support for our lifestyle and passion; spending time in the woods hunting animals. When we come off as a bunch of law-breaking, blood thirsty, wolf-hating killers, the other 93% of the public who doesn't hunt ends up listening to the 1% of the animal rights wackos who say we're blood thirsty, law-breaking, wolf-hating killers. We lost our privileges to bait and hound back in 1996 because the animal rights wackos were able to get this message across to the majority. Hunters need to learn how to market the benefits of hunting, scientific game management, and conservation to the majority of voters. The type of rhetoric thrown about in this thread and others is really terrible marketing. Meanwhile, the HSUS and the Defenders of Wildlife are doing a great job of it and are winning the hearts and minds of the majority by using our own words against us. Why give them this advantage?
Post by: Huntbear on December 30, 2011, 07:53:14 AM
That said, I am happy as hell if there are 2 dead wolves in this state! Oh wait, what area was this in? Does the WDFW even acknowledge wolves in this location? They may be big coyotes or feral dogs for all we know. :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2011, 08:11:57 AM
I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing. However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 30, 2011, 08:18:05 AM
Does the WDFW even acknowledge wolves in this location? They may be big coyotes or feral dogs for all we know. :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:For those who are woefully uninformed about Washington's wolves, from the front page of the Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
Post by: Lowedog on December 30, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing. However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.
:tup: :tup:
Post by: SWHUNTER on December 30, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 30, 2011, 10:46:44 AM
I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing. However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.
The response should be that wolves can and do travel long distances for no reason when they feel like it. There was the outcry that all the wolves in the NE were killed by people only to find these same wolves in the Teanaway. Now, the same "Sky is Falling" outcry without verifiable proof. I don't want them slaughtered. I want them delisted. There is a big difference. They are not endangered. They are not rare. They do not deserve ESA status. Same old same old common sense here that nobody listens to. This argument was and is not about hunting vs. anti-hunting. It is not about the perception of hunting. It is about using the power of ESA. That power should not exist in it's current form. It should be in a form that actually works. :nono:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2011, 10:55:13 AM
I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing. However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.
The response should be that wolves can and do travel long distances for no reason when they feel like it. There was the outcry that all the wolves in the NE were killed by people only to find these same wolves in the Teanaway. Now, the same "Sky is Falling" outcry without verifiable proof. I don't want them slaughtered. I want them delisted. There is a big difference. They are not endangered. They are not rare. They do not deserve ESA status. Same old same old common sense here that nobody listens to. This argument was and is not about hunting vs. anti-hunting. It is not about the perception of hunting. It is about using the power of ESA. That power should not exist in it's current form. It should be in a form that actually works. :nono:
I don't at all disagree with you, Jay. My reference was to extreme comments regarding support for the illegal killing of wolves, of which they are a few on this thread and many others throughout HuntWA. We will get little support from the majority of the public in our campaign to delist wolves or end the absurdity of the ESA if we're cast as bigger extremists than the antis. We need to communicate more effectively, plain and simple.
Post by: passing-thru on December 30, 2011, 11:40:32 AM
Post by: Snapshot on December 30, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing. However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.
:yeah:
Post by: JJB11B on December 31, 2011, 02:41:05 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 31, 2011, 06:07:02 AM
Ill leave it to this...It's too bad that wolves don't spend as much time in the road as mule deer......:yeah:
Post by: idahoelkhunter300wby on December 31, 2011, 06:30:18 AM
Man I love Washington. Go Christine!
Post by: stuckalot on December 31, 2011, 08:23:17 AM
[/quote]
Hunters need to learn how to market the benefits of hunting, scientific game management, and conservation to the majority of voters. [/quote]
Personally I'm tired of this attitude, I've read this drivel for 20+ years, "don't tell people that it is in our genes to hunt, that it is part of our culture, that we have dominion over the animals, and that we have the right to manage those animals to OUR benefit, animals don't have rights!" That's why we're here now, once we have wolves there is no need for "scientific game management"! We've dug our own grave!
Post by: haugenna on December 31, 2011, 08:55:23 AM
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 09:03:35 AM
Hunters need to learn how to market the benefits of hunting, scientific game management, and conservation to the majority of voters. [/quote]
Personally I'm tired of this attitude, I've read this drivel for 20+ years, "don't tell people that it is in our genes to hunt, that it is part of our culture, that we have dominion over the animals, and that we have the right to manage those animals to OUR benefit, animals don't have rights!" That's why we're here now, once we have wolves there is no need for "scientific game management"! We've dug our own grave!
[/quote]
You apparently didn't understand my comments. Please re-read them. I never said to not tell people about our hunting culture or to deny that hunting is part of our being. I never said I care anything about animal rights.
Quite the opposite. I think non-hunters need to be reminded by us about the history, conservation, and benefits of hunting and game management, and how hunting is a part of our evolution and being. I was saying that when we publicly endorse illegal activities, we run the risk of losing our privileges. We have to learn how to educate people about hunting without making them think we're more extreme than the animal rights wackos.
Get all pissy if you want to, Stuckalot, but you don't need to convince hunters of your beliefs. That 7% of the population already agrees with you. It's the other 93% that could go either way. And, if your stance of "I'm tired of this attitude, I've read this drivel for 20+ years" makes you not care to communicate effectively with and educate non-hunters about the truth with regards to hunting and conservation, the animal rights wackos will certainly step in and push their version instead.
Getting non-hunting people to understand and support what we do won't be accomplished by telling them we're going to poach an endangered species whether they like it or not. It's going to be done by educating in a non-confrontational manner.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 09:09:07 AM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both. Any state or federal employee who would publicly state they have not and does anyway would find a quick end to their career. They have to go through the NEPA process, public commenting, trapping, quarantine, which all take huge amounts of money that's not budgeted. It's not happening in WA, has not happened, and probably will never happen. You need to read more about the plan and the history of wolves in WA. We have plenty of problems with the wolf plan without making stuff up.
We know this week, that a single wolf traveled over 300 miles and entered CA. It's not at all difficult to believe a wolf can move 50 miles into WA from ID or Canada.
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2011, 09:15:19 AM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
I wonder why "it knocks his socks off"? Why is it so hard to believe that the Teanaway would be a likely spot for wolves to have pups?
Post by: stuckalot on December 31, 2011, 09:16:24 AM
Post by: high country on December 31, 2011, 09:25:46 AM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
I wonder why "it knocks his socks off"? Why is it so hard to believe that the Teanaway would be a likely spot for wolves to have pups?
Because he is a biologist. Biologists only know what they study. Wolves in semi urban areas have not been studied. Most sited data comes from a park or areas with huge numbers of caribou. I think the next decade will rewrite science in regards to wolf studies.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 09:27:09 AM
I want to ask you how much time you've spent studying hunting and hunting culture, other than to say "it's in our genes". Do you know the details of the Pittman Robertson Act, when it was passed and when it was amended? Do you know how much money has been raised by it? Do you know how its money is collected? Do you know what the percentage of hunters is to the general population in the US or what it was in the 1970s? Do you realize that we have about half the number of hunters that we had back then? How about the Lacey Act? Do you know when it was passed and by whom? What it created and what it prohibited? Do you know the population of elk in WA? Do you know what it was in 1900? Do you know all of the provisions of the Wolf Plan? Do you know how many whitetail deer there are in the US as opposed to their number in 1900? These are important facts and figures that every hunter concerned about our sport should know.
If you don't know these things intimately, you can't expect to educate people who don't know anything about hunting and bring them to support us in the voting booth. If you do, good for you. Start using it. This is the crux of my point. When we're uneducated about the culture of hunting, we can't expect to educate the non-hunters to support us. The good ole boy attitude of "screw them, I'm going to do what I want" isn't going to work anymore. It's going to kill our sport
I watched a movie last night and during every single commercial break they had an HSUS commercial, full of half-truths and outright lies, pulling at the heartstrings of everyone watching. If you don't know what the HSUS really is and are able to tell someone who thinks they should send in a donation, they're going to keep growing and fighting hunting and winning. These people are serious about ending hunting forever. How serious are you about keeping it alive?
Post by: haugenna on December 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both. Any state or federal employee who would publicly state they have not and does anyway would find a quick end to their career. They have to go through the NEPA process, public commenting, trapping, quarantine, which all take huge amounts of money that's not budgeted. It's not happening in WA, has not happened, and probably will never happen. You need to read more about the plan and the history of wolves in WA. We have plenty of problems with the wolf plan without making stuff up.
We know this week, that a single wolf traveled over 300 miles and entered CA. It's not at all difficult to believe a wolf can move 50 miles into WA from ID or Canada.
1 wolf looking for a mate will travel all over. Why would an entire pack relocate? I doubt the state has relocated them, but it is possible someone did.
Post by: haugenna on December 31, 2011, 10:16:32 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: BurleyDog on December 31, 2011, 10:17:44 AM
Its scary to see the comment about how the washington hunting forum condones poaching.... :bash:
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2011, 10:20:33 AM
Seems much more logical to me that some of the Lookout pack headed south and hooked up with wolves in the Teanaway to form a new pack.
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2011, 10:20:49 AM
Is this the wolf you were talking about?
:chuckle: :chuckle:
That is hilarious. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 10:38:48 AM
I read the article about the WA wolf killed in Idaho.
Its scary to see the comment about how the washington hunting forum condones poaching.... :bash:
It doesn't say that. It says there are comments from some on the forum who condone it. There are also strong comments from two site administrators and myself who oppose poaching in any form and will cooperate with authorities to stop it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 10:43:57 AM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both. Any state or federal employee who would publicly state they have not and does anyway would find a quick end to their career. They have to go through the NEPA process, public commenting, trapping, quarantine, which all take huge amounts of money that's not budgeted. It's not happening in WA, has not happened, and probably will never happen. You need to read more about the plan and the history of wolves in WA. We have plenty of problems with the wolf plan without making stuff up.
We know this week, that a single wolf traveled over 300 miles and entered CA. It's not at all difficult to believe a wolf can move 50 miles into WA from ID or Canada.
1 wolf looking for a mate will travel all over. Why would an entire pack relocate? I doubt the state has relocated them, but it is possible someone did.
It has been alleged that wolves have been released by private individuals. If they're caught, the fines and jail time are steep.
Young wolves do leave established packs to start their own. Packs normally number between 10-25 animals. As pups are born and grow into adults, they may challenge the alphas and either banish the alphas or be banished themselves to begin new packs. They have to move great distances so they're not attacked for invading the territory of an existing pack. Radio-collared wolves have been tracked many hundreds of miles into WA to set up new packs.
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2011, 10:45:49 AM
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2011, 10:52:58 AM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
You mean the post with the map of the route that the wolf took? You don't think there is room for joking? Or are you talking about a different post???
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 10:55:40 AM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
You mean the post with the map of the route that the wolf took? You don't think there is room for joking? Or are you talking about a different post???
I also saw that as a joke. Maybe slightly tasteless in light of the publicity we're receiving, but a joke just the same. I did find it interesting that the path he took actually spelled out real words! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 31, 2011, 10:56:35 AM
I read the article about the WA wolf killed in Idaho.
Its scary to see the comment about how the washington hunting forum condones poaching.... :bash:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html
(((STOP BEING A TROLL!!!))) :mod_smackdown:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 31, 2011, 11:06:24 AM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
Honestly Lowedog, can't you appriciate how there is a stance that supports wolf management? People took the time to write and post Offical Government stances on wolf introduction. Do we really have to attack the site monitors here? Have you ever considered ignoring wolf threads? (Just a thought.)
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2011, 11:09:54 AM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
You mean the post with the map of the route that the wolf took? You don't think there is room for joking? Or are you talking about a different post???
I also saw that as a joke. Maybe slightly tasteless in light of the publicity we're receiving, but a joke just the same. I did find it interesting that the path he took actually spelled out real words! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Getting non-hunting people to understand and support what we do won't be accomplished by telling them we're going to poach an endangered species whether they like it or not. It's going to be done by educating in a non-confrontational manner.
Even if meant as a joke it reflects poorly on members of this forum and the hunting community as a whole. We all know that this forum is watched and recorded by those who would love to abolish hunting completely. If it were ever to come to a public vote on whether or not wolves should remain a protected species in WA don't think for one second that all the SSS and other posts suggesting wolves should be shot on sight aren't going to be used to pursued the non hunting voters to keep them from ever being managed. It worked to vote out hound hunting by showing videos of bears being shot out of trees and hounds jumping on them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 11:12:18 AM
Post by: deleted BGS on December 31, 2011, 11:13:12 AM
Post by: wraithen on December 31, 2011, 11:15:38 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2011, 11:18:25 AM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
Honestly Lowedog, can't you appriciate how there is a stance that supports wolf management? People took the time to write and post Offical Government stances on wolf introduction. Do we really have to attack the site monitors here? Have you ever considered ignoring wolf threads? (Just a thought.)
Why should I ignore wolf threads? I honestly don't see how what I said is attacking the site monitors.
I have been a member of this site since the beginning and am very passionate about hunting. I feel I should be able to give my opinion as much as anyone else. I also support wolf management and feel like those types of post do nothing but undermine our chances of ever achieving the opportunity to ever manage wolves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
If they bring any hunting initiative to the polls we lose no matter what. They have the funding and the commercials and the majority. Get over out public image. They will find a way that makes us look like drunk a holes that love to act like serial killers in training.
So give up then and don't try to promote a positive public image of something that's really positive? Sorry Wraithen, not going to give up. I like hunting too much and am willing to fight for it. And the antis don't have anywhere near the majority, just the funding. Animal rights activists only represent about 1% of our population.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 31, 2011, 11:23:34 AM
WhyIt is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
Honestly Lowedog, can't you appriciate how there is a stance that supports wolf management? People took the time to write and post Offical Government stances on wolf introduction. Do we really have to attack the site monitors here? Have you ever considered ignoring wolf threads? (Just a thought.)
Why should I ignore wolf threads? I honestly don't see how what I said is attacking the site monitors.
I have been a member of this site since the beginning and am very passionate about hunting. I feel I should be able to give my opinion as much as anyone else. I also support wolf management and feel like those types of post do nothing but undermine our chances of ever achieving the opportunity to ever manage wolves.
Lowedog, I think you are very educated on the wolf issue. But is a post is made and not stripped in 30 minutes does not mean admistraitors condone it any more than the entire H-W regardless of what it is. I posted the "Offical Wolf Poaching Stance" in the form of a link. I took the post you refer to as satire and don't think we need to start a flame war over it. That was not my intent. There is nothing wrong with using the ignore button for topics that upset a person, that was my point.
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2011, 12:11:39 PM
WhyIt is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
Honestly Lowedog, can't you appriciate how there is a stance that supports wolf management? People took the time to write and post Offical Government stances on wolf introduction. Do we really have to attack the site monitors here? Have you ever considered ignoring wolf threads? (Just a thought.)
Why should I ignore wolf threads? I honestly don't see how what I said is attacking the site monitors.
I have been a member of this site since the beginning and am very passionate about hunting. I feel I should be able to give my opinion as much as anyone else. I also support wolf management and feel like those types of post do nothing but undermine our chances of ever achieving the opportunity to ever manage wolves.
Lowedog, I think you are very educated on the wolf issue. But is a post is made and not stripped in 30 minutes does not mean admistraitors condone it any more than the entire H-W regardless of what it is. I posted the "Offical Wolf Poaching Stance" in the form of a link. I took the post you refer to as satire and don't think we need to start a flame war over it. That was not my intent. There is nothing wrong with using the ignore button for topics that upset a person, that was my point.
:tup: Got it. Happy new year!
Post by: GrainfedMuley on December 31, 2011, 12:41:54 PM
I read the article about the WA wolf killed in Idaho.
Its scary to see the comment about how the washington hunting forum condones poaching.... :bash:
NOBODY here on this forum condones ANY poaching. WTF ar you talking about? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 31, 2011, 12:50:44 PM
I think what the antis like the most is to see us infighting :( for goodness sake, how many pages are we going to argue amongst ourselves about something that appears to never have even happened?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 02:11:29 PM
If they bring any hunting initiative to the polls we lose no matter what. They have the funding and the commercials and the majority. Get over out public image. They will find a way that makes us look like drunk a holes that love to act like serial killers in training.
Then it behooves us to not give them ammunition to use against us for free. The fact is, most of the public is ambivalent about hunters. There is no reason to give them a reason to change that. We are in a battle for credibility and yes, every little thing we do or say in public will be used against us.
Let the anti's be the crazy ones. Let them tell kids that hunting and fishing is murder. Most of the public doesn't agree with that because most of the public eats meat and fish. Give them enough time and they will P O most of the public. We don't need to counteract them with dumbness of our own. We need to be the reasonable ones.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 02:13:24 PM
Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time.
Amen brother!
Post by: huntnphool on December 31, 2011, 03:13:03 PM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both.
:chuckle: so what you are saying it is out of the realm of possibility for them to lie? I seem to remember a statement from as high as it goes, our commander n chief, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
I'm not saying for a fact that they planted wolves but if you are naive enough to think your "letters" prove they didn't then i think you need a dose of reality. If the POTUS can lie to us, surely WDFW can as well.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2011, 03:55:12 PM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
Considering the documented wolf that just made it to California, it isn't beyond the realm of belief that a breeding pair could be that far from other documented packs. There may be more than one wolf in Cal, this one could have been traveling with other non radio collared wolves, or other non collared wolves may have gone there before now or soon after, and they may have a breeding pair before they know it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2011, 04:22:19 PM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both.
:chuckle: so what you are saying it is out of the realm of possibility for them to lie? I seem to remember a statement from as high as it goes, our commander n chief, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
I'm not saying for a fact that they planted wolves but if you are naive enough to think your "letters" prove they didn't then i think you need a dose of reality. If the POTUS can lie to us, surely WDFW can as well.
I'm saying it's extremely unlikely they'd lie, yes. They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by releasing wolves on the sly. Bill Clinton was elected by the people and couldn't be fired, especially because the majority kept voting for him. If these guys go outside the structured plan and NEPA, they're screwed and would be fired. Look for problems elsewhere with the plan. Barking up this tree is a waste of your time and tin foil hat stuff.
Post by: haugenna on December 31, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both.
:chuckle: so what you are saying it is out of the realm of possibility for them to lie? I seem to remember a statement from as high as it goes, our commander n chief, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
I'm not saying for a fact that they planted wolves but if you are naive enough to think your "letters" prove they didn't then i think you need a dose of reality. If the POTUS can lie to us, surely WDFW can as well.
I'm saying it's extremely unlikely they'd lie, yes. They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by releasing wolves on the sly. Bill Clinton was elected by the people and couldn't be fired, especially because the majority kept voting for him. If these guys go outside the structured plan and NEPA, they're screwed and would be fired. Look for problems elsewhere with the plan. Barking up this tree is a waste of your time and tin foil hat stuff.
Lets not forget Fast and Furious. Seems like the higher the chain of command, the more cover up goes on. I don't trust antis or the US Fish and wildlife for a minute. They are shoving this crap down our throats. I was at the meeting in and Olympia and their so called "facts" were all bull$hit or "lies".
Post by: GrainfedMuley on December 31, 2011, 08:33:28 PM
There are some on here that think these wolves traveled from Canada and Idaho. I cannot confirm nor deny that. Others feel that the government released them or anti hunters had something to do with it.
I found this comment very interesting from this article.
"It knocks my socks off that we have a breeding pair this far from our other documented packs," said Anthony Novack, a carnivore biologist with Fish and Wildlife.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html
The state, nor the feds have released any wolves into WA. Period. We have documentation, we have letters from both.
:chuckle: so what you are saying it is out of the realm of possibility for them to lie? I seem to remember a statement from as high as it goes, our commander n chief, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
I'm not saying for a fact that they planted wolves but if you are naive enough to think your "letters" prove they didn't then i think you need a dose of reality. If the POTUS can lie to us, surely WDFW can as well.
I'm saying it's extremely unlikely they'd lie, yes. They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by releasing wolves on the sly. Bill Clinton was elected by the people and couldn't be fired, especially because the majority kept voting for him. If these guys go outside the structured plan and NEPA, they're screwed and would be fired. Look for problems elsewhere with the plan. Barking up this tree is a waste of your time and tin foil hat stuff.
Lets not forget Fast and Furious. Seems like the higher the chain of command, the more cover up goes on. I don't trust antis or the US Fish and wildlife for a minute. They are shoving this crap down our throats. I was at the meeting in and Olympia and their so called "facts" were all bull$hit or "lies".
+1, Do not believe ANYTHING big brother tries to tell you. Question everything they say. Federal, State, and local. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
But I hope none of these over-sensitive Washington people go to Idaho, the people are not joking around over there.
People over there are shooting wolves year around and proud of it. But then they have been living with them for 15 years and have lost jobs and businesses due to wolves. I am pretty sure I remember the Idaho governor issuing a rule that IDFG could not respond to wolf shootings, the feds have to handle it. Is that right?
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on January 01, 2012, 12:13:08 AM
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Not to worry Dale, I was at the meetings and heard it directly out of their mouths, "They don't anticipate the same problems here in Washington that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had." :chuckle:
Post by: hunt4 on January 01, 2012, 12:54:36 AM
Quote
I remember the Idaho governor issuing a rule that IDFG could not respond to wolf shootings, the feds have to handle it. Is that right?:tup: on the money
Quote
They don't anticipate the same problems here in Washington that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had.":bash: No they should expect it to be worse ? sure the hell cant be less?
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2012, 09:37:47 AM
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Not to worry Dale, I was at the meetings and heard it directly out of their mouths, "They don't anticipate the same problems here in Washington that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had." :chuckle:
I would have to agree in one respect, since our herds are not as big as the Rocky Mountain states, we can't lose as many elk, deer, and moose. But that means the wolves will be eating more of McIrvin's (and other ranchers) beef sooner than later..... :bash:
How I would love to start translocating wolves to downtown Seattle and give those liberal huggers a taste of wolf recovery.... :chuckle:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 01, 2012, 09:48:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 01, 2012, 10:00:46 AM
+1, Do not believe ANYTHING big brother tries to tell you. Question everything they say. Federal, State, and local. :bash:
[/quote]
I have a great mistrust in government, and I've been walked through the steps necessary to comply with NEPA. I don't believe that the state or the feds are stupid enough to import wolves without going through the steps.
You seem to think I'm supporting what our government has done with the wolf plan. Anyone who's been active in the fight knows differently. I think the plan is irresponsible and will hurt our hunting opportunities. I also think that with wolves migrating on their own, the government's targets will be reached in a very short time without circumventing the plan, probably within 5 years. They don't need to circumvent. These critters will populate on their own very fast. As far as private individuals releasing animals is concerned, I would not put it past them.
Post by: Deep Forks on January 02, 2012, 02:01:12 AM
It's going to be worse.Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Not to worry Dale, I was at the meetings and heard it directly out of their mouths, "They don't anticipate the same problems here in Washington that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had." :chuckle:
Post by: nwwanderer on January 02, 2012, 10:39:07 AM
Post by: Kain on January 02, 2012, 11:58:52 AM
http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/2004%20files/Special%20issue/v78special%20p1%20Ratti%20et%20al.PDF
Quote
Although we concluded that reintroduction of wolves to the Park is feasible for establishment of a marginally viable population, we cautioned that such action may not be prudent. That is, we predicted substantial negative political social and financial consequences. Key concerns included potential loss of some isolated and culturally important elk herds negative reactions to wolves expressed by local residents and sports persons concerns regarding livestock and pet depredation, and long term funding of an appropriate wolf management program.
Funny how they ignored all of this later.
Post by: bugs n bones on January 02, 2012, 02:38:56 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 02, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.I thought it was very funny! And believe it or not most of us don't really want wolves in our state.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 02, 2012, 02:52:16 PM
WhyI can't believe anyone with any sense could support wolf management? So your willing to loose most of our deer and elk to have wolves in our state? I would rather have the deer and elk in the greatest numbers that the environment can handle, not decimated by a animal that does nothing for us. I've said it many times before, If you want to hunt wolves go to Idaho, if you think wolves are good for our state talk to people that live in Idaho and see how much they like them.S S S, kill them all, thinking about getting a tatoo that says "smoke a pack a day". Just kidding about the tatoo.It is really disappointing to me that the administrators of this forum continue to allow posts like haugenna's above on this forum.
Honestly Lowedog, can't you appriciate how there is a stance that supports wolf management? People took the time to write and post Offical Government stances on wolf introduction. Do we really have to attack the site monitors here? Have you ever considered ignoring wolf threads? (Just a thought.)
Why should I ignore wolf threads? I honestly don't see how what I said is attacking the site monitors.
I have been a member of this site since the beginning and am very passionate about hunting. I feel I should be able to give my opinion as much as anyone else. I also support wolf management and feel like those types of post do nothing but undermine our chances of ever achieving the opportunity to ever manage wolves.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 02, 2012, 03:31:12 PM
I think most of these guys are just having fun joking around.:tup: well said. So if some on this site say that s s s is poaching then I guess they would lump the gov of Idaho in with the poachers! He sent a notice in writing to the fed's and told them of his plan not to pursue any wolf kills in his state. This was at least a year or two ago, I wonder when it gets that bad here if the pro wolf guys will still think it was a good idea to allow them here. Or at least feel stupid about supporting the damn things.
But I hope none of these over-sensitive Washington people go to Idaho, the people are not joking around over there.
People over there are shooting wolves year around and proud of it. But then they have been living with them for 15 years and have lost jobs and businesses due to wolves. I am pretty sure I remember the Idaho governor issuing a rule that IDFG could not respond to wolf shootings, the feds have to handle it. Is that right?
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2012, 04:09:42 PM
I think most of these guys are just having fun joking around.:tup: well said. So if some on this site say that s s s is poaching then I guess they would lump the gov of Idaho in with the poachers! He sent a notice in writing to the fed's and told them of his plan not to pursue any wolf kills in his state. This was at least a year or two ago, I wonder when it gets that bad here if the pro wolf guys will still think it was a good idea to allow them here. Or at least feel stupid about supporting the damn things.
But I hope none of these over-sensitive Washington people go to Idaho, the people are not joking around over there.
People over there are shooting wolves year around and proud of it. But then they have been living with them for 15 years and have lost jobs and businesses due to wolves. I am pretty sure I remember the Idaho governor issuing a rule that IDFG could not respond to wolf shootings, the feds have to handle it. Is that right?
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
Unfortunately we have a different situation in WA than in ID. Over in ID the governor more or less took away the authority for state employees to respond to wolf shootings. He didn't declare it legal to shoot wolves, but he applied pressure on the feds and wolf groups to get wolves delisted. I don't see any governor doing that in WA anytime soon, so any type of wolf shootings will remain illegal and considered poaching with full enforcement until there is a change in WA law. In my personnal opinion wolves could be delisted today and year around season opened, and wolves would continue to increase in numbers here in WA, but for now they are protected. I think the best thing we can do now is put pressure on the WDFW to hire trapppers to get wolves confirmed. In the meantime its a waiting game for them to mulitply and for wolf predation to eventually increase public awareness.
Post by: Lowedog on January 02, 2012, 04:12:18 PM
Well said bearpaw! I wholeheartedly agree!
Happy New Year everyone!
Post by: predatorpro on January 02, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Smoking is bad for you. Especially when you smoke more than a pack a day.lol i got a smoke a pack a day sticker on my truck! and im not talking about cigarettes!
:chuckle:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 02, 2012, 04:32:57 PM
I think most of these guys are just having fun joking around.:tup: well said. So if some on this site say that s s s is poaching then I guess they would lump the gov of Idaho in with the poachers! He sent a notice in writing to the fed's and told them of his plan not to pursue any wolf kills in his state. This was at least a year or two ago, I wonder when it gets that bad here if the pro wolf guys will still think it was a good idea to allow them here. Or at least feel stupid about supporting the damn things.
But I hope none of these over-sensitive Washington people go to Idaho, the people are not joking around over there.
People over there are shooting wolves year around and proud of it. But then they have been living with them for 15 years and have lost jobs and businesses due to wolves. I am pretty sure I remember the Idaho governor issuing a rule that IDFG could not respond to wolf shootings, the feds have to handle it. Is that right?
Log back into this forum or any WA livestock website in 5 to 10 years, it will be interesting to see the comments after wolves further populate and start impacting more people and herds in this state. :twocents:
so any type of wolf shootings will remain illegal and considered poaching with full enforcement until there is a change in WA law.
The Gamie where I hunt told me this last season, That he personally does not want the wolf in Washington. He is from Wisconsin and has had encounters with Canadian wolves. BUT, If there is a dead one found in his county, he has to do his job. He will not sacrafice his entire carrier and try to cover something up. :dunno: Didn't they just make supressors legal in Washington? :dunno:
Post by: Jack Diamond on January 02, 2012, 04:37:09 PM
And they are not held accountable. WHY NOT?????
Walking on eggshells is a tough task. :twocents:
Post by: seth30 on January 02, 2012, 04:40:04 PM
Hard for me to understand why on a topic such as this the expression of true thoughts is forbidden, however the other side can torch business"s,release animals and god knows how many acts of extremism, and then advise the media that their group is responsible.Well put!
And they are not held accountable. WHY NOT?????
Walking on eggshells is a tough task. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2012, 04:46:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 02, 2012, 04:49:24 PM
Hard for me to understand why on a topic such as this the expression of true thoughts is forbidden, however the other side can torch business"s,release animals and god knows how many acts of extremism, and then advise the media that their group is responsible.
And they are not held accountable. WHY NOT?????
Walking on eggshells is a tough task. :twocents:
+1
Post by: Lowedog on January 02, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Hard for me to understand why on a topic such as this the expression of true thoughts is forbidden, however the other side can torch business"s,release animals and god knows how many acts of extremism, and then advise the media that their group is responsible.
And they are not held accountable. WHY NOT?????
Walking on eggshells is a tough task. :twocents:
Possibly so that we appear to be the sane ones to the non-hunters who may one day be asked to decide if wolves should remain a protected species? :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 02, 2012, 05:20:31 PM
Hard for me to understand why on a topic such as this the expression of true thoughts is forbidden, however the other side can torch business"s,release animals and god knows how many acts of extremism, and then advise the media that their group is responsible.
And they are not held accountable. WHY NOT?????
Walking on eggshells is a tough task. :twocents:
If it is not us who hold them accountable who will?
Post by: wraithen on January 02, 2012, 05:29:58 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2012, 05:41:34 PM
The problem is that if 99% of us appear to be the sane ones with a few extremists on our side of the fence the media will highlight those few constantly. They do the opposite for the anti's. One day we will get over this crap and people will think for themselves again.
But there's also marketing; Being able to appeal to the masses through your message. Being able to communicate what we do and why we do it, and why we love it, and why it's good. It's not just thinking for yourselves. It's also about being able to connect with non-hunters and show them what we do is right and good.
Post by: wraithen on January 02, 2012, 05:43:30 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2012, 05:48:48 PM
We need to be ultra-educated about our sport and pro-active to show the 93% why what we do is vital to conservation and the well being of wildlife.
Post by: wraithen on January 02, 2012, 05:54:43 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 02, 2012, 07:20:26 PM
I know that's tongue-in-cheek, Wraithen, but if we can't talk to our loved ones about our passion and show them why it belongs and is right, how can we expect perfect strangers to understand what we do?
I had the opposite problem. My mom was raised by a trapper/hunter and she had no problem with hunting. But boy was she hard on my "passion" when she found out about it. Whooo eeeeee She didn't like those free love 70's.