Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2012, 12:22:22 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15232731
Abstract
The role of parasites in influencing the trophic dynamics of hosts is becoming increasingly recognized in the ecological literature. Echinococcus granulosus is a tapeworm that relies on the predator-prey relationship between the definitive host (wolf, Canis lupus) and the intermediate host, (moose, Alces alces) to complete its life cycle. Heavy infection by E. granulosus may predispose moose to increased risk of predation by wolves. Theory predicts that parasite-induced vulnerability to predation will reduce the degree of aggregation of parasites in a host population. We tested for different levels of aggregation of E. granulosus in moose in areas of low, moderate, and high levels of wolf predation using Green's coefficient of dispersion. Parasite aggregation was lower in an area with high predation rate, thus we hypothesize that heavy infection by E. granulosus predisposes moose to predation by wolves. This increase in predation rate due to parasite infection may influence the role of wolves in regulating moose populations. We discuss alternative explanations for the negative correlation between predation rate and parasite aggregation.
Post by: Special T on March 12, 2012, 10:57:47 AM
This report makes it sound like the wolves are doing us a "favor" by eating these diseased moose.
High Predation= lots of wolves=lots of wolf crap=more infection... This sound to me like a bunch of pointed headed intelectualls that did a study that common sense would give you the answer...
Am I wrong here? I feel dumber for reading this stuff. :bash:
Post by: Sporting_Man on March 12, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
Thruth is there wouldn't be tapeworm spreads without wolves - to begin with. Ungulates only carry this thing inside and only can give it away when their internals (lungs and liver are eaten)...
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 01:21:32 PM
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 06:59:18 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
You can tell by the many subtleties of taste is the meat you are eating is healthy. The ungulates here is hit and miss on the scale of health that it should be at, because of the weak genes that have been passed down.I'm not buying that the animals here have weak genes and are unhealthy to eat. The ungulates still have something like barely 20% fawn/calf survival. Just because 'woofs' aren't chasing them doesn't mean they aren't preyed upon. Cougars, bears, coyotes and bobcats are doing plenty to kill off the herds.
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 08:03:48 PM
Post by: Turner89 on March 23, 2012, 08:21:05 PM
Its been an issue with parasites since before wolves came back. I've had carabou in Alaska that taste alot more healthy than the elk and mules here in Washington. And thats because we have ungulates with weak immunities to disease and parasites. Sorry, but thats a fact.WOW :yike:
You can tell by the many subtleties of taste is the meat you are eating is healthy. The ungulates here is hit and miss on the scale of health that it should be at, because of the weak genes that have been passed down.You Serious :yike: :yike: :yike:
Post by: hughjorgan on March 23, 2012, 08:22:27 PM
You can tell by the many subtleties of taste is the meat you are eating is healthy. The ungulates here is hit and miss on the scale of health that it should be at, because of the weak genes that have been passed down.
What a bunch of BS. I suppose you have scientific data or study for your ridiculous theory?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2012, 08:25:23 PM
So, what is it that is making the herds so unhealthy that only 'woofs' can fix?
Because they ONLY kill the sick and weak.... :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2012, 08:41:52 PM
wondered how long it would take to catch a wolf lover... :chuckle:
I think this clearly displays how biologists "with an agenda to prove" can produce studies to further an agenda. Wolf advocates can then cite the "claimed data" and make a ridiculous claim that wolves are needed which is supported by "questionable science".
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Turner89 on March 23, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
That seemed wierd comming out of my mouth. Come on Human---really? :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2012, 08:50:47 PM
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 09:10:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2012, 09:21:35 PM
Introducing woofs into the mix over time will sort out the animals in regards to woofs and woof borne disease, not the other elements out there. If anything, it should weaken the herd with respect to other elements because they are now being selected primarily for 'woof' evasion.
Post by: ICEMAN on March 23, 2012, 09:22:52 PM
No, really, they haven't. The parasite loads found in the ungulates is astonishing.
As a new hunter, how do you know so much about this topic?
Post by: hughjorgan on March 23, 2012, 09:24:16 PM
No, really, they haven't. The parasite loads found in the ungulates is astonishing.
Oh really, what parasites do our ungulates carry in our state. Of all the elk I have seen harvested, I haven't seen any parasites in the meat or gut piles.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 23, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
No, really, they haven't. The parasite loads found in the ungulates is astonishing.
Oh really, what parasites do our ungulates carry in our state. Of all the elk I have seen harvested, I haven't seen any parasites in the meat or gut piles.
You've never seen ticks or liver flukes? Hair slip is supposed to be caused by lice, but here's an earlier version of what causes hair slip.....worms.
http://web.kitsapsun.com/news/2000/june/062072584.html
Not saying that wild meat is not safe to eat, but there are way more parasites that deer and elk carry than you are obviously aware of.
But you wanna start talking parasites worms and flukes and such fish take the cake. I've seen all kinds of worms in fish from stomach to the meat and different organs. The canneries in Alaska use black lights to find worms in the cod fillets and other fish. Halibut can have quite a few worms too.
With any wild meat, the basic rule is make sure it's cooked good if you want to avoid parasites.
Post by: KFhunter on March 23, 2012, 11:09:20 PM
Or maybe all the runnin they are leaner, maybe their diet is different with heavier less favorable feed browse due to avoiding wolves?
Or maybe they stand belly deep in the marshes more than moose with less predation, who might snack on something more tasty but leaves them more vunerable?
too many varibles to call this one, sounds like :bs: to me
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 11:41:58 PM
I may be a beginning hunter, but I've spent years studying these things in my time. I don't have a doctorate of any kind, but i've interned under many people in the field as a volunteer. Learning just to learn.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 24, 2012, 02:54:01 AM
No, really, they haven't. The parasite loads found in the ungulates is astonishing.
Oh really, what parasites do our ungulates carry in our state. Of all the elk I have seen harvested, I haven't seen any parasites in the meat or gut piles.
You've never seen ticks or liver flukes? Hair slip is supposed to be caused by lice, but here's an earlier version of what causes hair slip.....worms.
http://web.kitsapsun.com/news/2000/june/062072584.html
Not saying that wild meat is not safe to eat, but there are way more parasites that deer and elk carry than you are obviously aware of.
But you wanna start talking parasites worms and flukes and such fish take the cake. I've seen all kinds of worms in fish from stomach to the meat and different organs. The canneries in Alaska use black lights to find worms in the cod fillets and other fish. Halibut can have quite a few worms too.
With any wild meat, the basic rule is make sure it's cooked good if you want to avoid parasites.
Yummy, must be the unhealthy type of wild game that humanure has been eating, maybe he should get checked for worms. Or better yet the WDFW might have some pellets left from feeding those deer. He can eat that until we get some wolves to make our herds healthy :rolleyes:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 24, 2012, 03:56:18 AM
You actually stated good points there for what I was saying. Hahaha.
I may be a beginning hunter, but I've spent years studying these things in my time. I don't have a doctorate of any kind, but i've interned under many people in the field as a volunteer. Learning just to learn.
25 Posts.... EVERY one on wolves, Nothing else. Beginning hunter, or Kehnes assistant? Handle has troll all over it.
Post by: 3nails on March 24, 2012, 04:47:03 AM
:yeah:You actually stated good points there for what I was saying. Hahaha.
I may be a beginning hunter, but I've spent years studying these things in my time. I don't have a doctorate of any kind, but i've interned under many people in the field as a volunteer. Learning just to learn.
25 Posts.... EVERY one on wolves, Nothing else. Beginning hunter, or Kehnes assistant? Handle has troll all over it.
Post by: ICEMAN on March 24, 2012, 05:55:10 AM
You actually stated good points there for what I was saying. Hahaha.
I may be a beginning hunter, but I've spent years studying these things in my time. I don't have a doctorate of any kind, but i've interned under many people in the field as a volunteer. Learning just to learn.
25 Posts.... EVERY one on wolves, Nothing else. Beginning hunter, or Kehnes assistant? Handle has troll all over it.
Do ya think? :bash:
Somebody ask him to go blast some yotes or on a canned pheasant shoot... We need to develop a test to wean these types out... On the other hand, good to see their approach and tactics.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 24, 2012, 06:31:24 AM
No, really, they haven't. The parasite loads found in the ungulates is astonishing.
As a new hunter, how do you know so much about this topic?
He seems to have a biology background. He may work for a university or the state, and may be more pragmatic towards wolves than some others here. But that does not mean he isn't a hunter, and is not pro hunting.
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 07:30:51 AM
Yes, my only posts are on the wolf topics, because thats the controversy i'm involved with. But I see both sides pf the fight and their viewpoints as valid. I just don't completely agree with either sides tactics.
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2012, 07:43:41 AM
The major flaw with most pro wolf posts is that wolf huggers want wolves to regulate numbers and kinds of animals taken... Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 24, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
No college background. Just learn on my own free will and admission. I've lived under Mt. Rainier my whole life, always let others go hunting but while young, never went myself(i had other interests). Now that I'm older, I started seeing the benefit in knowing how to survive one your own and started going hunting with my friends, late on the action but am full on the knowledge(knowing dont do no good without experience, as I'm sure ya'll would agree).
Yes, my only posts are on the wolf topics, because thats the controversy i'm involved with. But I see both sides pf the fight and their viewpoints as valid. I just don't completely agree with either sides tactics.
Welcome.
You'll find that it'll get worse before it gets better.
Post by: Johnb317 on March 24, 2012, 08:11:42 AM
The thing all the tree huggers forget is that humans are part of nature and you can't turn back the clock. Once we moved out of caves etc and built permanent structures the die was cast. There are things we can do to mitigate the damage, but releasing probably the most effective killer next to man doesn't make sense. At least we abide by game laws.
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 03:20:11 PM
Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
Falsification. If modern hunting were as effective as others believe, it would have been utilized. But we have to take into account how many trophy hunters are out their in ratio to the subsistance hunters.
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
Falsification. If modern hunting were as effective as others believe, it would have been utilized. But we have to take into account how many trophy hunters are out their in ratio to the subsistance hunters.
But whatever. I've stated my position. I'm here mainly to try to sway the illegal acts of other so as not to give the hunting tradition a bad name. If my agenda was purely for wolf recovery, then it would be pointless to come here. I'm not that naive. But I am for hunters priveledges and all of my friends are hunters and woodsman, so I know the plight of this side of the spectrum. Believe me, I'm just as critical with how the powers at be are handling this wolf situation. They have their heads up their ass'.
Post by: 3nails on March 24, 2012, 07:39:54 PM
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2012, 08:10:44 PM
If this is what you are referring to then its not a falsification. I can tell you there would be a line a people to buy second doe tags for a given area if they thick they need extra harvest. Since the WDFW does not do a good job of explaining why they do what they do Neither you or I could say it is a falsification, unless you are privy to info from inside the department. If you do have that kind of access then please do share.
I have a healthy skepticism for people with your inclination. If the deer and elk herds of MT ID and WY were able to thrive with a lower population and no wolves for so long why do we need them here?
If you are here to sway us from doing illegal acts i'll help you out. A study done in AK outside of Denali NP stated that 50-70% of wolves in that area need to be killed EACH YEAR in order to keep a stable number. Hunting only was able to haves only 3-6% of the population and that was with liberal seasons. So a few people shooting wolves illegally are not likely to make a big dent. What we need are body gripping traps, and aerial gunning and Poison. Since that is not likely to happen what we really need it to get Rob Mc Kenna as our new Governor and get him to de-list the NE portion of the state, since according to the feds it is part of the Rockies and has been de-listed as far as they are concerned. If we really want to make a dent VOTE and give $$$ to him. :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on March 24, 2012, 08:27:09 PM
The major flaw with most pro wolf posts is that wolf huggers want wolves to regulate numbers and kinds of animals taken... Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
If this is what you are referring to then its not a falsification. I can tell you there would be a line a people to buy second doe tags for a given area if they thick they need extra harvest. Since the WDFW does not do a good job of explaining why they do what they do Neither you or I could say it is a falsification, unless you are privy to info from inside the department. If you do have that kind of access then please do share.
I have a healthy skepticism for people with your inclination. If the deer and elk herds of MT ID and WY were able to thrive with a lower population and no wolves for so long why do we need them here?
If you are here to sway us from doing illegal acts i'll help you out. A study done in AK outside of Denali NP stated that 50-70% of wolves in that area need to be killed EACH YEAR in order to keep a stable number. Hunting only was able to haves only 3-6% of the population and that was with liberal seasons. So a few people shooting wolves illegally are not likely to make a big dent. What we need are body gripping traps, and aerial gunning and Poison. Since that is not likely to happen what we really need it to get Rob Mc Kenna as our new Governor and get him to de-list the NE portion of the state, since according to the feds it is part of the Rockies and has been de-listed as far as they are concerned. If we really want to make a dent VOTE and give $$$ to him. :twocents:
:yeah:
human + manure = full of sh..t, me thinks. Admits to no education but tries to write like he's educated. Something seems fishy. :dunno:
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on March 24, 2012, 08:50:27 PM
Its already been stated several times. Pro wolf activists follow the same line of drift on this forum. EVERY TIME they start right off talking about wolves. This guy might be doing a better job of trying to "sell" us his opinion, but that is the reason he is here. He is not here because he is a hunter, he is here because he is an activist. I have looked at several people that have claimed to be hunters, or new hunters. NOT ONE of them have acted like the 100s of new members we get here. Ask your self what newbies do on here when they post.... This guy hasn't done a thing like them.... Or any other wolf in hunters clothing. :twocents:
The major flaw with most pro wolf posts is that wolf huggers want wolves to regulate numbers and kinds of animals taken... Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
It seems to me allot of our newer members come here looking for advice. It usually takes awhile for them to migrate to the more touchy subjects on here, sorry if I am a little suspicous of someone who wades into the fray from the start. If you aren't a troll I am sorry, but your pinpoint focus on the wolf issue screams troll you even recieved the coveted attention of Sitka Blacktail congrats.
Post by: Humptulips on March 24, 2012, 08:56:44 PM
Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
Falsification. If modern hunting were as effective as others believe, it would have been utilized. But we have to take into account how many trophy hunters are out their in ratio to the subsistance hunters.
I get so sick of hearing hunters demonized as "Trophy Hunters".
When hunters take a deer or elk it gets eaten. Should we be ashamed because we are proud of the deer or elk we harvested and like to keep something to remember it by? I say no. This is the tactic of the anti-hunter to make the non-hunting public think we are killing game just for the horns. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
So what would you have us do? Go out in search of a sickly deer for the pot. How many unhealthy deer or elk have I seen in my years of hunting? Damn few is the answer and wolves and cougars don't either. Deer and elk mainly fall victim because of a moment of oppurtunity for the predator.
Everything you've said is just so much BS and then you throw the "Trophy Hunter" label out there it says to me anti-hunter.
Post by: Tbar on March 24, 2012, 09:08:20 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 24, 2012, 09:22:33 PM
Post by: Turner89 on March 24, 2012, 09:32:28 PM
I like wolves just fine, in alaska, and Canada.
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:07:40 PM
humanure- What was your reasoning for your "handle" on here? What do you mean by that?
It's my favorite Cattle Decapitation album.
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:13:01 PM
Hunters can do the same thing if we are allowed by the WDFW. So if there was any logic behind why the WDFW doesn't reduce overall herd size or issue more Doe/cow permits I'm all ears.
Falsification. If modern hunting were as effective as others believe, it would have been utilized. But we have to take into account how many trophy hunters are out their in ratio to the subsistance hunters.
I get so sick of hearing hunters demonized as "Trophy Hunters".
When hunters take a deer or elk it gets eaten. Should we be ashamed because we are proud of the deer or elk we harvested and like to keep something to remember it by? I say no. This is the tactic of the anti-hunter to make the non-hunting public think we are killing game just for the horns. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
So what would you have us do? Go out in search of a sickly deer for the pot. How many unhealthy deer or elk have I seen in my years of hunting? Damn few is the answer and wolves and cougars don't either. Deer and elk mainly fall victim because of a moment of oppurtunity for the predator.
Everything you've said is just so much BS and then you throw the "Trophy Hunter" label out there it says to me anti-hunter.
I don't demonize trophy hunting. I would love to have a giant racked elk on my wall. But the truth is, we need the oldest and strongest to survive for awhile while the sick genes get cut away. You don't have to keep saying it, we all know wolves don't just kill the weak and sick. But 1 out of 10 times is the average successful hunt for wolves, so i think a decline in the immunities will be more due to excessive trophy hunting more than wolves preying on the healthier bulls and cows. But thats just a theory like everything else.
Post by: Humptulips on March 25, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
You are really brainwashed.
Sick genes, 1 out of 10 hunts successful for wolves, decline in immunities and excessive trophy hunts, you just pull all of that out of your rear or what.
Maybe post something you can back up. Better yet, go away!
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:12:50 AM
You view that post as demonizing, I view it as looking at the evidence before us through past and present environmental science.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 25, 2012, 12:57:15 AM
Like I said, I've spent my post school years doing my own research and alot of reading as well as gaining experience through volunteer work. I don't pull anything out of my ass. I won't say anything I don't feel I read from a reputable source.
You view that post as demonizing, I view it as looking at the evidence before us through past and present environmental science.
No it is your OPINION not evidence, you have yet to site any sources for any of your outlandish claims.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 01:06:19 AM
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2012, 01:15:06 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 01:18:41 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2012, 05:10:36 AM
Like I said, I've spent my post school years doing my own research and alot of reading as well as gaining experience through volunteer work. I don't pull anything out of my ass. I won't say anything I don't feel I read from a reputable source.
You view that post as demonizing, I view it as looking at the evidence before us through past and present environmental science.
It's not hard to see your education has come from "Defenders of Wildlife", etc. DOF and the likes have nothing but propaganda and tainted science to base their claims on, hunters base their arguments on the facts coming out of Alaska, Canada, Idaho, Montana, etc. The facts prove that wolves are not neccessary, man and cougar are both so called "keystone" predators and have kept lower 48 herds in check precisely at the levels determnined by wildlife professionals, wolves were not needed nor do they fit into our modern ecosystems in most areas of the southern 48 states.
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2012, 07:24:17 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 25, 2012, 08:12:11 AM
humanure- What was your reasoning for your "handle" on here? What do you mean by that?
It's my favorite Cattle Decapitation album.
Okay,so I would guess you could link us to other forums out there where we could be shown that it really is a handle that you use regularly.
Because i don't volunteer there. They aren't really my thing. They do good work, though.
Good work eh? Northwest Trek?
You know what I've noticed? You guys call me tree-hugger(extremely laughable if you really knew me), wolf-lover, evironmentalist, ect... yet I have not called any one of you a single derogatory name. Just sayin'...
Trophy hunter?
Humanure is a wake up call to us all. EVEN if he is what he says his mindset is dangerous. People of his Ilk are running and working for the WDFW. The people with like mindset that are in OUR Game department are working heavily with other "Conservation" organizations like DOL, giving them a huge say as to how we should manage our game.
Truest statement in this thread.
One other thing...you repeatedly speak of hunting as privilege, unlike here
http://www.huntfishnw.com/index.php?topic=8274.0
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:15:18 PM
Ive never used this handle before.
I don't work for NW Trek, but my school took me there when i was young.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:38:16 PM
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 12:48:07 PM
Saved you the time Humanure
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 25, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
And i never called any of you a trophy hunter, btw.
Sorry,I was speaking in general terms. Now 65 posts and not one out of the Woof topics. Can anyone remember any poster with numbers like this?? :tinfoil:
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 01:01:04 PM
And i never called any of you a trophy hunter, btw.
Sorry,I was speaking in general terms. Now 65 posts and not one out of the Woof topics. Can anyone remember any poster with numbers like this?? :tinfoil:
C'mon guys this is the left wing progressive's eco warrior tactics. Smile and place a knife in your back
Appear sane, engage in dialogue. compliment other posts and try and slowly introduce lie upon lie upon lie.
They are appearing now on all fishing hunting gun owner web sites in this election year.
Been done in former Soviet Union. China and now in Obumble's admin.
Post by: Kain on March 25, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 02:18:34 PM
If we could just ban hunting a few years and introduce wolves we could really benefit and make for a stronger elk and deer herds and the meat would taste better too! :tup: :tup: :tup:
Saved you the time Humanure
yeah... no.
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2012, 05:58:33 PM
Ugh, i have issues with Defenders.
Ive never used this handle before.
I don't work for NW Trek, but my school took me there when i was young.
THIS pretty much sums it all up for me, that your familiar with them enough to hate some of their people or policy speaks volumes.
I didn't even know they existed until a co-worker showed up with one of their stickers on her lunchbox - we've had some interesting conversations but I cannot sway her - the magical power of the wolf is firmly planted in her head - I'll toss some pointers at her and she's blind and deaf to it. Cannot hold a valid arguement other than fall back on the defenders of wildlife talking points
which sounds the same as yours btw
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 06:04:38 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on March 25, 2012, 06:09:12 PM
You know what I've noticed? You guys call me tree-hugger(extremely laughable if you really knew me), wolf-lover, evironmentalist, ect... yet I have not called any one of you a single derogatory name. Just sayin'...
Is a tree hugger derogatory? I thought you granola munchers took that as a badge of honor...
Did you know that the organic material your Birkenstocks are made of is actually leather and a living creature had to die so you could buckle them up and walk around Seattle sipping your Starbucks talking about saving the earth?
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 06:39:41 PM
B: I don't drink coffee.
C: I don't wear Birkenstock's, I wear Danner's.
D: The only time I go to Seattle EVER is because thats where the concerts happen. Otherwise I hate that place.
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 08:01:02 PM
A: Too conservative to be a tree hugger.
B: I don't drink coffee.
C: I don't wear Birkenstock's, I wear Danner's.
D: The only time I go to Seattle EVER is because thats where the concerts happen. Otherwise I hate that place.
I didn't know they made hemp Danners?
let's see some harvest photos of deer and elk you have killed Humanure?
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 08:03:55 PM
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 08:08:34 PM
Still new. Haven't got a kill yet. Could post photo's of sheep I've slaughtered though.
Tofu sheep do not count humanure
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 08:16:08 PM
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 08:53:20 PM
if an Icelandic sheep was sick would it be ok in your mind if a wolf ( non invasive species) killed it?
Inquiring minds want to know
thanks
These are Icelandic 6 way cross sheep. No chemicals, hay fed but are raised to foraige like the deer do. When you can taste the forest and brush when you eat these sheep, it's just amazing. These sheep are smarter too compared to your average sheep. These sheep could give birth on an ice glacier and still find away to keep their lambs alive. And they know how to defend themselves from neighboring dogs too. One sheep dog was nearly killed not to long ago, actually.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 08:55:05 PM
Nice joke, though.
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 08:58:37 PM
can we keep the discussion serious??
No need. the weak and sick sheep as with their lambs are culled for the good of the flock.
Nice joke, though.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 09:06:22 PM
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
Balls in your court on that one, buddy.
I think we can both agree that invasive species like the Canadian grey wolf that was illegally introduced into Montana and Wyoming in the 1990's resulting in the complete decimation of moose, elk and deer is really a bad thing.
And it is even worse that this non native invasive species has murdered the elk deer and moose pops in ID.
And what is really criminal is they (wack jobs) want to introduce this non native invasive species to Washington, Oregon, Utah Colorado in an attempt to end all hunting seasons
We can both agree on this right Humanure?
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
But honestly, I have NEVER heard any environmentalists express wanting to end hunting seasons. Ever. And if I did or do, I would be quick to tell them the are delusional because thats not a good idea and it will NEVER happen.
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 09:29:30 PM
Vehicles.
Funny they would not do this during modern firearms season because they were cowards like you Humanure.
Ain't fooling me Humanure
You know, it's not an uncomplicated answer. You can look at it black and white but there's alot of gray area's surrounding the circumstances, and I have to get ready for bed because i work early in the morning, so i will give you an answer later thats not swiftly typed in a hurry.
But honestly, I have NEVER heard any environmentalists express wanting to end hunting seasons. Ever. And if I did or do, I would be quick to tell them the are delusional because thats not a good idea and it will NEVER happen.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 09:36:08 PM
Yes, I have heard of these fools and their vandalism. Truly, I find that to be gutless and childish. Deliberately destroying someones property for any reason is cowardly and they should get whatever karma brings them.
I actually heard a friend of a friend condone such acts at a party once, and I said that if I ever caught him doing that or got wind of him doing it, I would find him and stomp his pu$$y out.
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 10:42:33 PM
Ugh, last answer for the night, i swear.
Yes, I have heard of these fools and their vandalism. Truly, I find that to be gutless and childish. Deliberately destroying someones property for any reason is cowardly and they should get whatever karma brings them.
I actually heard a friend of a friend condone such acts at a party once, and I said that if I ever caught him doing that or got wind of him doing it, I would find him and stomp his pu$$y out.
Post by: Arteman on March 26, 2012, 01:59:46 AM
Ugh, last answer for the night, i swear.You are f'n wierd man, why the hell would you say something like that on a open forum? You give me creeps!!!
Yes, I have heard of these fools and their vandalism. Truly, I find that to be gutless and childish. Deliberately destroying someones property for any reason is cowardly and they should get whatever karma brings them.
I actually heard a friend of a friend condone such acts at a party once, and I said that if I ever caught him doing that or got wind of him doing it, I would find him and stomp his pu$$y out.
Post by: Arteman on March 26, 2012, 02:02:17 AM
When you can taste the forest and brush when you eat these sheep, it's just amazing.Wierd again!!!
Post by: Arteman on March 26, 2012, 02:09:36 AM
No need. the weak and sick sheep as with their lambs are culled for the good of the flock.Earlier you said that people (hunters) are not affective like the wolf to weed the sick from our game herds, but when ribka asked if you thought it to be ok for wolves to weed the sick from your sheep herd this was your comment.
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 05:08:28 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on March 26, 2012, 09:00:18 AM
When you can taste the forest and brush when you eat these sheep, it's just amazing.Wierd again!!!
:lol4:
Welcome to the real world Humanure, where you can't believe everything you read in a textbook, or every rumor you and your liberal friends dream up. I can't even begin to comprehend how a person can honestly believe the things you are arguing on here regarding wolves.
I've seen first hand the devastation the wolves have inflicted in areas of central Idaho. I grew up hunting there, it was never easy hunting but if we worked hard we would see game and had a few fairly successful years. Wolves were reintroduced when I was 8 years old, by the time I was 14 the area had wolves, within a few years it began to be difficult to see animals, especially elk and the moose were completely non existent. I understand the arguement of natural selection by wolves but you greeners don't understand, that is not what happens with these larger, more aggressive canadian grey wolves that were reintroduced. The truth is all you have is opinions and theory's, the rest of us on here have facts and first hand knowledge.
Post by: grundy53 on March 26, 2012, 09:02:01 AM
When you can taste the forest and brush when you eat these sheep, it's just amazing.Wierd again!!!
:lol4:
Welcome to the real world Humanure, where you can't believe everything you read in a textbook, or every rumor you and your liberal friends dream up. I can't even begin to comprehend how a person can honestly believe the things you are arguing on here regarding wolves.
I've seen first hand the devastation the wolves have inflicted in areas of central Idaho. I grew up hunting there, it was never easy hunting but if we worked hard we would see game and had a few fairly successful years. Wolves were reintroduced when I was 8 years old, by the time I was 14 the area had wolves, within a few years it began to be difficult to see animals, especially elk and the moose were completely non existent. I understand the arguement of natural selection by wolves but you greeners don't understand, that is not what happens with these larger, more aggressive canadian grey wolves that were reintroduced. The truth is all you have is opinions and theory's, the rest of us on here have facts and first hand knowledge.
Well said!
Post by: TommyH on March 26, 2012, 09:10:30 AM
Post by: Special T on March 26, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Humanure, Since you have stated that your purpose is to Help hunters not break the law, I would like to hear your best sales pitch... So far All I have heard is the pro wolf talking points that i have heard from other activists. I will save you some time and let you know it falls on deaf ears...
I challenge you to start a new thread that gives us your best reasoning for Wolves.
Post by: Arteman on March 26, 2012, 10:12:57 AM
What I don't get is why you don't prevent the killing of a poor innocent defenseless little sheep, and just go eat a bush or a tree, if thats the taste you truly acquire? :dunno: maybe it'll taste healthier. :chuckle:When you can taste the forest and brush when you eat these sheep, it's just amazing.Wierd again!!!