Post by: adictd2hunting on March 23, 2012, 07:27:02 PM
I thought it was interesting.
http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/nwhookandbullet/clay/article_01309e84-7440-11e1-a5d2-001871e3ce6c.html
I also heard rumor of a farmer killing a wolf in washington with a radio collar on. I guess the wolf was eating his livestock and now he might go to jail for it. If you know if this is true and know where I can read the story that would be great.
Post by: humanure on March 23, 2012, 08:05:56 PM
Post by: adictd2hunting on March 24, 2012, 11:05:15 PM
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2012, 11:36:45 PM
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:40:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2012, 11:41:45 PM
Change the law and then kill them all, they have no useful purpose in Washington. :twocents:
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:48:16 PM
And a farmer shooting a protected animal without proper permits is breaking the law no matter how you look at it.
But hey, the cold hard truth is that they will forever be here now. Everyone has to learn to work together to co-exist and move onward.
Why is it whenever I have to deal with the public, even in person while at the public meeting or giving tours at sanctuaries, I can always keep my cool while others freak out and lose their minds at me(i've gotten a few funny messages on here today). You can say what you want without screaming like a psychopath at me(not directed at any one person).
Post by: Humptulips on March 24, 2012, 11:51:13 PM
Post by: humanure on March 24, 2012, 11:54:30 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on March 24, 2012, 11:56:39 PM
I hate to think in these terms, but if it helps, they do help the local tourist economy. :tup:
And a farmer shooting a protected animal without proper permits is breaking the law no matter how you look at it.
But hey, the cold hard truth is that they will forever be here now. Everyone has to learn to work together to co-exist and move onward.
Why is it whenever I have to deal with the public, even in person while at the public meeting or giving tours at sanctuaries, I can always keep my cool while others freak out and lose their minds at me(i've gotten a few funny messages on here today). You can say what you want without screaming like a psychopath at me(not directed at any one person).
Where is the data to support your claim that wolves bring tourism dollars. This claim is false and you know it. It is like the claim that wildlife watching is a billion dollar business. It is not so.
Looks like you outed yourself by admitting to working on a sanctuary. You work for wolf haven, I bet.
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2012, 12:03:04 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:08:23 AM
I wouldn't be as stupid to say what establishments I volunteer for(I don't like to be paid for this kind of thing), but they are many and they vary alot. I also volunteer at a sheep farm and have skinning, gutting and quartering down to a *censored* science. I also brain-tan hides and help with side jobs sheering sheep and trimming feet. Then I also am an advocate for German Shepherds, so I foster for the Shepherd rescue for ones waiting to be adopted. I like to volunteer and do things that I feel good about.
I've stated my purpose here. Show a different side of the arguement and hopefully discourage fellow hunters from commiting law-breaking acts that portray hunters as blood thirsty psychopaths.
Post by: Tinner on March 25, 2012, 12:12:29 AM
I hate to think in these terms, but if it helps, they do help the local tourist economy. :tup:
And a farmer shooting a protected animal without proper permits is breaking the law no matter how you look at it.
But hey, the cold hard truth is that they will forever be here now. Everyone has to learn to work together to co-exist and move onward.
Why is it whenever I have to deal with the public, even in person while at the public meeting or giving tours at sanctuaries, I can always keep my cool while others freak out and lose their minds at me(i've gotten a few funny messages on here today). You can say what you want without screaming like a psychopath at me(not directed at any one person).
Anyone has the right to protect their property and livestock from Wolf, Coyote It does'nt matter, Without a Damn permit.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2012, 12:17:14 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:19:54 AM
Post by: Tinner on March 25, 2012, 12:26:50 AM
You just decided one day to join and save us? I think your time may be better spent helping your Liberal friends
see the light.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:29:51 AM
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2012, 12:30:44 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:35:51 AM
I still disagree that this is emotion driven. I've always played the diplomat in arguements. It's something I'm used to. I feel that I'm coming from a logical point of view, just like I'm sure you all feel thats where your coming from. In reality, i don't care if I change any of your minds. But I honestly appreciates discussions and conversive exchanges on subjects that I have interest in. I feel whether the outcome is complete disagreement or a mutual coming to middle of ground, any discussion is not a waste is both sides are sincere with what they say. Whether you believe it or not, I hold a mutual respect for anyone here and do not use what is said here to damn anyones charactor.
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2012, 12:41:46 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:43:37 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on March 25, 2012, 12:53:27 AM
A good friend of mine manned general stores and tourist shops last year in Montana and said wolf merch sells at an astronomical rate.
I wouldn't be as stupid to say what establishments I volunteer for(I don't like to be paid for this kind of thing), but they are many and they vary alot. I also volunteer at a sheep farm and have skinning, gutting and quartering down to a *censored* science. I also brain-tan hides and help with side jobs sheering sheep and trimming feet. Then I also am an advocate for German Shepherds, so I foster for the Shepherd rescue for ones waiting to be adopted. I like to volunteer and do things that I feel good about.
I've stated my purpose here. Show a different side of the arguement and hopefully discourage fellow hunters from commiting law-breaking acts that portray hunters as blood thirsty psychopaths.
Maybe around yellowstone, but what about all the other communities that lost hunting opportunity to the wolf. People don't show up at these places to buy wolf souvenirs. It may be big business at yellowstone but the draw there is it is a national park.
Are people showing up in droves in ne Washington to see wolves and patronize local business? You know the answer to that and so do I and the answer is hell no they aren't. The wolf is only big business for the environmentalists like yourself that exploit the animal for monetary reasons, never caring what the economic or biological impacts of bringing back a species will have to rural communities that have to deal with them.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:55:43 AM
Also, did you not see that i said that first post about the economy as tongue-in-cheek? I honestly have no interest or care in tourist revenue. I was just playing devil's advocate for a second.
Post by: sirfunkeybut on March 25, 2012, 02:45:03 AM
Im not trying to stir any pot, im honestly curious to see who can shed some light on this
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 03:38:10 AM
You know what, I'll be a total hypocrite here and say that if I found one of my German Shepherds being attacked by a wolf, i wouldn't hesitate to shoot it if i thought it would save my dogs life. But thats taking into account of personal attachment. Cattle and livestock, on the other hand, is considered by the law and by myself to be completely different. They can be monetarily compensated for if infact a wolf killed it. I also am one of those that support the bill that pushes for excusing the killing of wolves if it is in the act of killing your personal pet, because many of us consider those pets, even the working livestock animals, as members of our family. Cattle however, are not pets.
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2012, 05:49:41 AM
I think for that to be answered in a place like this, its personal preference/opinion. Frankly, I don't hold any value in human life if that person is enchroaching upon my safety. But I treat that as a completely different realm than how I deal with wildlife and its dangers. There's a difference for killing wildlife out of self defense and out of preventing property destruction. This doesn't go for just wolves.
You know what, I'll be a total hypocrite here and say that if I found one of my German Shepherds being attacked by a wolf, i wouldn't hesitate to shoot it if i thought it would save my dogs life. But thats taking into account of personal attachment. Cattle and livestock, on the other hand, is considered by the law and by myself to be completely different. They can be monetarily compensated for if infact a wolf killed it. I also am one of those that support the bill that pushes for excusing the killing of wolves if it is in the act of killing your personal pet, because many of us consider those pets, even the working livestock animals, as members of our family. Cattle however, are not pets.
So you own German Shephards, in another post you said a few of your dogs have been killed by coyotes and cougar. I find it highly unlikely especially if your dogs are shepards. I will say it again, you are not being honest. :bs: :liar:
You may have an opinion that livestock producers do have have personnal attachements to their livestock, again you are wrong, that is simply not true. I know many livestock producers who have strong attachments to certain animals in their herd. I know one rancher who has a longhorn cow who has produced 18 calves for him, she has quite the personality and is one of his favorite animals out of all his dogs, horses, or cattle.
There are flaws in the law due to misguided individuals like yourself. But I beleive this wolf issue will run it's course as soon as wolves prove their inability to fit into modern ecosystems. Wolves have already started killing cattle in Stevens County. Whereever wolves go the result is the same, they eat livestock and prove their unsuitability.
Yesterday at the Stevens County Republican convention the following was added to the county platform:
"We are opposed to the Washington Wolf Plan. Washington should have no wolves and wolves should not be listed as a state endangered species."
As wolves spread in Washington and prove their inability to be compatible, additional counties will take similar positions just as they have in idaho and eventually Washington residents will legally kill wolves. :twocents:
Yes we shall definitely see how this plays out. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2012, 05:53:19 AM
what i dont understand is why is it legal to to use deadly force on human that is threatening you or your personal property, but he might go to jail for killing a wolf? I understand that they are protected or whatever but is that saying that the wolf is more valuable than a human?
Im not trying to stir any pot, im honestly curious to see who can shed some light on this
You are correct, and it's not right that a wolf can legally take your personnal property when another human can not. Wolves have more rights than humans. But this is going to change. :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on March 25, 2012, 07:59:39 AM
Don't feed the troll :bdid:
Post by: bearpaw on March 25, 2012, 08:14:39 AM
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2012, 08:16:43 AM
Post by: rasbo on March 25, 2012, 08:38:04 AM
How do i myself exploit something for money when all my work is on a strictly volunteer basis? I'm just saying what I believe, is all.perhaps we could visit another site you frequent.and follow your posts there :tup: what are the other sites and your poster's name ?
Also, did you not see that i said that first post about the economy as tongue-in-cheek? I honestly have no interest or care in tourist revenue. I was just playing devil's advocate for a second.
Post by: Johnb317 on March 25, 2012, 08:42:44 AM
Understand I'm just a 56 year old guy that learned about ecology formally (formal means courses/classes in grade/high school and college) and informally, been a city guy and a farm hand.
Human manure need not reply, I'm not reading.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 25, 2012, 08:45:09 AM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2012, 04:27:49 PM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 05:45:48 PM
Post by: JODakota on March 25, 2012, 05:47:27 PM
I think for that to be answered in a place like this, its personal preference/opinion. Frankly, I don't hold any value in human life if that person is enchroaching upon my safety. But I treat that as a completely different realm than how I deal with wildlife and its dangers. There's a difference for killing wildlife out of self defense and out of preventing property destruction. This doesn't go for just wolves.
You know what, I'll be a total hypocrite here and say that if I found one of my German Shepherds being attacked by a wolf, i wouldn't hesitate to shoot it if i thought it would save my dogs life. But thats taking into account of personal attachment. Cattle and livestock, on the other hand, is considered by the law and by myself to be completely different. They can be monetarily compensated for if infact a wolf killed it. I also am one of those that support the bill that pushes for excusing the killing of wolves if it is in the act of killing your personal pet, because many of us consider those pets, even the working livestock animals, as members of our family. Cattle however, are not pets.
I have one question. How do you know cattle are not pets? My little cousin has a little steer named Stewie that he is raising in 4H. I am pretty damn sure that's a pet my friend. You came to the wrong place to discuss this and share your view points.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 05:58:10 PM
Post by: whackemandstackem on March 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Post by: hirshey on March 25, 2012, 06:54:14 PM
Thats me. Wrong place to be wearing my birthday suit.Just a silly place to be wearing your birthday suit... keep that for the bedroom, pal! :chuckle:
If you're a hunter, I invite you to produce some stimulating conversation on other topics on this website.. I understand you're trying to represent the issue, but I don't think it will be well-received or change a single person's mind on here. Just like nobody will be changing yours.
For those of you that are interested, this is a letter I recently wrote on the topic:
Here are some interesting links showing that there are level-headed hunters with science-based approaches to their conclusions about wolf management. Some of us understand that NO wolves is not a management plan, but that if we desire to continue to hunt alongside wolves, they too need to be managed.
http://biggameforever.org/
http://thegreatwhitehunter.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/big-game-forever-sign-the-petition/
What some of people forget is that we as humans are PART of the ecosystem, and that we also are predators. (sorry, we all are not going to live life as vegetarians...) We compete against other predators for food sources; we will continue to do so for ages. Because of this, we cannot overlook their management, also. Would you continue to operate your vehicle JUST changing the oil? No; there are other moving parts to consider if in the long term you don't want to break down. The same is true with wildlife management; you have to manage for ALL species, not just a few. Please don't try to tell me that nature does a good job regulating herself; that may be true if our lives were not so intertwined with it; like it or not, we have a stake in what happens to our ungulate populations.
The argument that we should live in the city if we do not like being surrounded by these animals is unrealistic and idealistic; do you recognise how much this would affect YOUR quality of life? Where would your vegetables, meat products, grains, and fruit come from? Surely you don't think they magically arrive at the grocery store, I'm not going to insult your intelligence. The fact is, you need people to live in these environments to allow YOU to live your current lifestyle. Also, if we all lived in the city, can you imagine the sewer and refuse overflow? Come on, admit it! You need us country-folk!
Recently, I took a trip to Idaho east of Moscow and was able to locate wolves within 24 hours of my visit; two seperate packs, in fact. Their populations have not been threatened by these hunting seasons. The elk populations in that area are being pushed closer and closer to city limits as they attempt to escape predation. I discussed this observation with a local road crew, and they noted they had hit THREE wolves on the road in the last 6 months because they were pursuing the elk to those lower, more populated areas. With their pursuit of game species into these more populated areas, you have a few hard truths: more animals will be hit on the roadways, and there is a higher liklihood of person or livestock and wolf-related conflicts. If you allow for the management (yes, hunting) of these animals, the most likely locations they will be removed from are the most accessible locations: these populated areas, which will still allow wolves to be wolves in more remote areas and reduces road kills or other conflicts.
Also, it is important to consider the economics of allowing wolf hunting and the importance this has for state wildlife management. If an area's ungulate populations are devastated by wolf populations, the number of hunters willing to purchase tags decreases; this has a direct coorelation to the amount of funding the state fish and game has for wildlife support including enforcing poaching laws, purchasing land for conservation, and enumerating game animals to set quotas and season limits. The fact is, hunters contribute millions of dollars of revenue for these services annually. Without stable ungulate populations, the funding for state workers decreases, and enforcement also would decrease, opening the door for persons with poaching in mind.
Make no mistake; I am NOT anti-wolf; I understand they have been victimized to some extent. I strongly believe they have a place in this ecosystem, but it cannot be a place above management.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 06:59:00 PM
Post by: hirshey on March 25, 2012, 07:05:18 PM
You are right, i should put my money where my mouth is and i will attempt to add any worthwhile comments to non-wolf related threads. Before I do that, i just thought I'd share this: http://www.producer.com/2012/02/livestock-wildlife-%E2%80%A8can-co-exist-producer-%E2%80%A9/
But how realistic is that for the majority of livestock owners? You want ALL leased grazing lands to have electric fences? 24 hour surveylance? You recognise that that is an extreme case, right? While livestock owners may be able to take something away from that article, you can't expect that treatment to be simulated across the lower 48... think about the difference in terrain; how open is their pasture? Probably not too treed? It is an interesting feel-good article but it can't be expected to become the new management style for all livestock.
PS - the writer spelled "practicing" and "neighbors" wrong. No spell check in Canada? :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 25, 2012, 07:10:25 PM
This site is not meant for people to stir things up. The majority of the people on here are logical educated people and we do not need you telling us what "the other side of the story is". I hope the Moderator or creator of this site has the ability to revoke subscriptions because we really dont need people like Humanure on here.
I definitely don't agree with this guy but I see no reason to not allow someone on the forum just because their opinion is not popular consensus..(heck I would have been kicked off here a long time ago if that was the case :chuckle:....... but then if this dude is not a hunter I am not sure why he would be here unless it is almost solely to push some kind of agenda or as you say "stir up trouble)...which appears like it might be the case since I don't really see him contributing in anything but wolf topics.
Post by: seth30 on March 25, 2012, 07:15:38 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on March 25, 2012, 07:16:24 PM
This site is not meant for people to stir things up. The majority of the people on here are logical educated people and we do not need you telling us what "the other side of the story is". I hope the Moderator or creator of this site has the ability to revoke subscriptions because we really dont need people like Humanure on here.:yeah: Mods get rid of this guy!
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
You are right, i should put my money where my mouth is and i will attempt to add any worthwhile comments to non-wolf related threads. Before I do that, i just thought I'd share this: http://www.producer.com/2012/02/livestock-wildlife-%E2%80%A8can-co-exist-producer-%E2%80%A9/
But how realistic is that for the majority of livestock owners? You want ALL leased grazing lands to have electric fences? 24 hour surveylance? You recognise that that is an extreme case, right? While livestock owners may be able to take something away from that article, you can't expect that treatment to be simulated across the lower 48... think about the difference in terrain; how open is their pasture? Probably not too treed? It is an interesting feel-good article but it can't be expected to become the new management style for all livestock.
PS - the writer spelled "practicing" and "neighbors" wrong. No spell check in Canada? :chuckle:
You are right. I'm just suggesting that co-existance is not impossible. It's hard, sometimes extremely hard, but it's possible.
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 07:18:45 PM
since I don't really see him contributing in anything but wolf topics.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=95007.0
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2012, 07:33:51 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 25, 2012, 07:48:47 PM
I would recommend that Mods leave this guy alone. I think he provides a teachable moment. How often do you get some one of opposite opinion to test your mental skills? I think Dallas is wrong, and puts up a better fight than most. We must realize that many people have opinions like his. Many of us think he is misguided, but many voters out there are ignorant as well. :twocents:
I had a feeling . I almost asked if his initials were DB this morning. He has a lot of banter on the DFW wolf page. Over there I just started ignoring him.
But for every one of them who engages us, how many others are lurking out there waiting,hoping we will give them whatever they are after? Many, I am sure.
Hell I get wilderness society, Washington Wild, Colorado Wild, Friends of Wolf Creek, DOW, Sierra Club, and a few other email alerts to keep track of them. I don't want at all to interact with them, but I like to see what the enemy is up to.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 25, 2012, 07:53:03 PM
I would recommend that Mods leave this guy alone. I think he provides a teachable moment. How often do you get some one of opposite opinion to test your mental skills? I think Dallas is wrong, and puts up a better fight than most. We must realize that many people have opinions like his. Many of us think he is misguided, but many voters out there are ignorant as well. :twocents:
:yeah:
Maybe we can show him the error of his ways. :chuckle:
Post by: MuleySniper on March 25, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Post by: humanure on March 25, 2012, 08:12:20 PM
Post by: ribka on March 25, 2012, 08:14:27 PM
I'm curious to hear all the other beneficiaries having wolves here are other than apparently boosting the huge tourist attraction I never knew made this state so much money? I thought our state was doing just fine without them. I would think if that was the case any person with a brain would know the hunting industry in this state makes waaaay more money than what money would be made by tourists and nature lovers coming to see the wolves? Enlighten me, because eventually if the wolves become populated here like they have in Idaho, this state can kiss over half of its revenue made by selling hunting licenses goodbye. Idaho is well onto that already.
C mon wolves only kill sick and diseased animals. Do you know wolves wiped out rabies and anthrax?
And deer and elk pay no taxes. Dontcha know deer and elk eat grass and browse that is supported by the American taxpayers? I bet they defecate in public too like OWS supporters.
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2012, 10:28:00 PM
Money made by selling tags is not as important to those who believe the ecology is damaged from over-grazing. Will the state lose money? Oh hell yes it will. But some things are more important than money. As soon as their recovery numbers are met, there will be tags for wolf hunting, and I can imagine that they won't be cheap.
Overgrazing?
Are you freaking kidding me? Have you even stepped out.....oh nevermind - you haven't - you only camped behind your house once.
Overgrazing?
There is so much feed out there not beind used it's insane! Expecially for a browser animal.
WA has the capacity to hold 1000 times the Elk /Deer population we have now.
Wackjobs over in King CO have made it very very difficult to get into free range cattle public lands. We don't have anywhere near the amount of cattle and small ranches we had 15-20 and more years ago.
Overgrazing?
your outta your mind
Post by: Tbar on March 26, 2012, 01:55:08 AM
Post by: Tbar on March 26, 2012, 02:16:33 AM
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 26, 2012, 05:33:41 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on March 26, 2012, 07:36:50 AM
Quote
Money made by selling tags is not as important to those who believe the ecology is damaged from over-grazing. Will the state lose money? Oh hell yes it will. But some things are more important than money. As soon as their recovery numbers are met, there will be tags for wolf hunting, and I can imagine that they won't be cheap.
It's comments like this that make me really wonder why guys like this don't understand why it gets emotional.
So let me clarify...
We want to keep spening money on something we currently can't affort, THEN make the dumbest rules ever made for cattlemen...SO that the state makes even less money, we lose our rights and way of life, until we get to the point that "somebody" says we have enough wolves and then we'll hopefully get all our money back from wolf tags (which the guys who lost their way of life are to pay for) and tourism?
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: It is crap like this that I will never understand. This is the same crap spewed out of the mouths of fools. Your plan is to come across as somewhat level headed, then start putting up links to your wolf loving crap. YOU somehow have now shown some credit because you say you can run a knife and gut a sheep. :bow: ....I can tell you I'm impressed :chuckle:
My guess is your whole life is way out of whack. Your "god" is to volunteer, to make things better, to probably provide little to the economy yet tell others who make a living and raise a family that WE are the ones that have it all wrong. IF we are to just stop doing what we have been and follow this BS way that the whackos are pushing, then we can lose the state some money so then we can go broke so that you feel good about yourselves and we can then PAY to buy wolf tags and then WE are the ones paying to clean up the crap the state wanted.
I'd like to kick you in the crotch.
Post by: muzbuster on March 26, 2012, 07:58:12 AM
I see nothing wrong with anyone protecting their personnal property from someone or something trying to steal it. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: MuleySniper on March 26, 2012, 07:58:43 AM
Money made by selling tags is not as important to those who believe the ecology is damaged from over-grazing. Will the state lose money? Oh hell yes it will. But some things are more important than money. As soon as their recovery numbers are met, there will be tags for wolf hunting, and I can imagine that they won't be cheap.
Was this the main reason Idaho re introduced wolves then too? If so, it obviously didn't work like they imagined. Like I stated before, do some research on Idaho as of now and report back with all the benefits they are getting now. :dunno: Ive just yet seen any of the positives from having wolves. There obviously were reasons they were removed in the beginning. So far the only benefit I see is Id love a nicely beetled and bleached skull to add to my collection, but that alone still isn't nearly enough reason for me to want to have them in our state.
MS
Post by: ghosthunter on March 26, 2012, 08:04:51 AM
Post by: christopheri on March 26, 2012, 08:38:42 AM
Unbelievable, What we have here is a Saint and did'nt even know it.
You just decided one day to join and save us? I think your time may be better spent helping your Liberal friends
see the light.
We dont have a saint we have a crusader! :chuckle:
Post by: christopheri on March 26, 2012, 08:49:49 AM
I would recommend that Mods leave this guy alone. I think he provides a teachable moment. How often do you get some one of opposite opinion to test your mental skills? I think Dallas is wrong, and puts up a better fight than most. We must realize that many people have opinions like his. Many of us think he is misguided, but many voters out there are ignorant as well. :twocents:
I agree. Let him stay. We might not all agree on his position with wolves. How ever debate is a good thing.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 26, 2012, 08:51:31 AM
Well Kain Already popped the cork. Look up Dallas Bollen on Face book. Guess I have to buy Him a Drink when i see him, since he guess who i did! If you want to know how this guy thinks just go to the WDFW Facebook page and read his posts.I kinda figured that's who we were dealing with...he has extensive wolf experience- except they're in cages and hand fed.
Post by: grundy53 on March 26, 2012, 08:52:17 AM
QuoteMoney made by selling tags is not as important to those who believe the ecology is damaged from over-grazing. Will the state lose money? Oh hell yes it will. But some things are more important than money. As soon as their recovery numbers are met, there will be tags for wolf hunting, and I can imagine that they won't be cheap.
It's comments like this that make me really wonder why guys like this don't understand why it gets emotional.
So let me clarify...
We want to keep spening money on something we currently can't affort, THEN make the dumbest rules ever made for cattlemen...SO that the state makes even less money, we lose our rights and way of life, until we get to the point that "somebody" says we have enough wolves and then we'll hopefully get all our money back from wolf tags (which the guys who lost their way of life are to pay for) and tourism?
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: It is crap like this that I will never understand. This is the same crap spewed out of the mouths of fools. Your plan is to come across as somewhat level headed, then start putting up links to your wolf loving crap. YOU somehow have now shown some credit because you say you can run a knife and gut a sheep. :bow: ....I can tell you I'm impressed :chuckle:
My guess is your whole life is way out of whack. Your "god" is to volunteer, to make things better, to probably provide little to the economy yet tell others who make a living and raise a family that WE are the ones that have it all wrong. IF we are to just stop doing what we have been and follow this BS way that the whackos are pushing, then we can lose the state some money so then we can go broke so that you feel good about yourselves and we can then PAY to buy wolf tags and then WE are the ones paying to clean up the crap the state wanted.
I'd like to kick you in the crotch.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on March 26, 2012, 08:53:39 AM
Well Kain Already popped the cork. Look up Dallas Bollen on Face book. Guess I have to buy Him a Drink when i see him, since he guess who i did! If you want to know how this guy thinks just go to the WDFW Facebook page and read his posts.I kinda figured that's who we were dealing with...he has extensive wolf experience- except they're in cages and hand fed.
That was the first name that popped in my head when I started reading his posts...
Post by: TommyH on March 26, 2012, 09:34:19 AM
Post by: Special T on March 26, 2012, 10:06:40 AM
I would recommend that Mods leave this guy alone. I think he provides a teachable moment. How often do you get some one of opposite opinion to test your mental skills? I think Dallas is wrong, and puts up a better fight than most. We must realize that many people have opinions like his. Many of us think he is misguided, but many voters out there are ignorant as well. :twocents:
:yeah:
Maybe we can show him the error of his ways. :chuckle:
DBHawthorne I'm normally up for a vigorous challenge but even I understand my limits. :chuckle:
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 07:04:38 PM
Look, I see the results of Idaho, but I feel(meaning that it's just my personal opinion) ID is a bit of an isolated incident. Yellowstone was nearly grazed to death and was looking like a desert. There's a picture of YS in 1992 looking bare and devoid of green life. Then there's a picture of the same shot 10 years later and it shows a flourishing landscape. Mind you, thats just Yellowstone, results are not the same everywhere else.
I also never said Washington was over-grazed, but we see what was happening to YS and I can guess that thats an influence on bringing wolves and grizzlies back(or allowing them to return, in our states case. I've heard the rumors of secret reintroductions, and nothing has been substantiated). Weyerhaueser has mentioned losses in revunue due to too many ungulates feeding on their saplings.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on March 26, 2012, 07:19:21 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 26, 2012, 07:25:32 PM
Uh... never said that I ever had wolf experience. Not Once.
Look, I see the results of Idaho, but I feel(meaning that it's just my personal opinion) ID is a bit of an isolated incident. Yellowstone was nearly grazed to death and was looking like a desert. There's a picture of YS in 1992 looking bare and devoid of green life. Then there's a picture of the same shot 10 years later and it shows a flourishing landscape. Mind you, thats just Yellowstone, results are not the same everywhere else.
I also never said Washington was over-grazed, but we see what was happening to YS and I can guess that thats an influence on bringing wolves and grizzlies back(or allowing them to return, in our states case. I've heard the rumors of secret reintroductions, and nothing has been substantiated). Weyerhaueser has mentioned losses in revunue due to too many ungulates feeding on their saplings.
If the over-grazing was such a big problem then they could have setup some controlled hunts. I am sure there are many sportsman that would have enjoyed that opportunity. Instead they introduced a non-native species of wolf that is decimating the ecosystem of it and surrounding areas and causing many other issues.
In addition numerous studies has shown that Yellowstone was not overgrazed.
Post by: boneaddict on March 26, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 07:34:32 PM
Post by: Kain on March 26, 2012, 07:43:39 PM
I know Dallas believes he is a voice of reason but to the rest of us, it just sound misguided and ignorant. If I had one shred of faith in the WDFW to ever be able to manage these animals I would be fighting right along side you but this is the real world. It is better to have no wolves than to have what is coming.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 26, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Wolves are pretty amazing animals, that can't be denied. They are also very mystic. They are also MUCH more destructive than Disney will ever portray. Management will need to be done. It will no doubt need to be more aggressive than one side will want and less aggressive than the otherside. If we don't work together, we will see an absolute collapse of the environment. I am hoping the one side realizes that.
Without a doubt wolves are awesome.....in Canada and Alaska.
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 07:50:38 PM
It is better to have no wolves than to have what is coming.
Thats wear we disagree. Can't make it work by giving up, so some of us move forward to try harder at making the right changes. A nameless friend of mine gave WDFW the perfect plan for wolves and coexistance(of which I won't recant because I don't know the full details) and was ignored because it doesn't play to their popularity/money game. There are two people on the panal wholding us back. They were dead center on the podium at the Spokane wolf meeting. One was an older woman. Those two need to be removed for both sides sake.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 26, 2012, 07:56:39 PM
Post by: Kain on March 26, 2012, 07:56:45 PM
It is better to have no wolves than to have what is coming.
Thats wear we disagree. Can't make it work by giving up, so some of us move forward to try harder at making the right changes. A nameless friend of mine gave WDFW the perfect plan for wolves and coexistance(of which I won't recant because I don't know the full details) and was ignored because it doesn't play to their popularity/money game. There are two people on the panal wholding us back. They were dead center on the podium at the Spokane wolf meeting. One was an older woman. Those two need to be removed for both sides sake.
Open your eyes man. It is not two people on a panel. It is the entire anti hunter pro wolf agenda that we will be fighting forever. Endless lawsuits costing millions. A game department that has shown it will limit seasons based on public opinion and not sound science. And to top it off there is ZERO chance we can manage wolf populations with the tools we have available. The entire wolf plan is just a plan to allow management to start. It is not even a plan on HOW to manage them. That has not even been written yet. You are living in a dream world.
Post by: Kain on March 26, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Why are wolves needed in Washington? Serious question. I can't think of one legit reason.
Personally I would like to see wolves returning to old ranges just as I would like to see with moose, lynx, wolverines, fisher cats and a few others. But as I have already written above the wolves are being used as a tool for an agenda.
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 08:03:31 PM
I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic. You might be right, you might not be. But I continue to voice what I see wrong with how they are running things and vote where appropriate.
Honestly, I still doubt the agenda of forever banning hunting. In my eyes, thats a pretty far-fetched goal to reach and I don't see it succeeding.
Post by: boneaddict on March 26, 2012, 08:07:16 PM
I agree Kain
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 08:09:46 PM
Post by: Kain on March 26, 2012, 08:17:06 PM
Which is why there needs to be more use of livestock guardian dogs and night shepherds. Theres always a ranch hand looking for work, and I've seen it offered for the position of watching over herds at night.
I think you misunderstood. They will turn to livestock and pets more and more AFTER there is no more game. No more game means no more hunting or very limited opportunity for the rich.
Post by: humanure on March 26, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
Post by: Huntbear on March 26, 2012, 10:13:12 PM
Again, precautionary measures to prevent success in that.
Agree... by shooting every wolf I can. Idaho has it right.. 150 wolves for the entire state.. wipe out half the population in 1 hunting season, and make seasons even more liberal for the coming season. Washington needs about 50 wolves. Maybe 5 total packs, and heavily managed with hunting seasons.
Otherwise, our hunting heritage with be a history that will be distorted by the liberals like all other history they disagree with.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 26, 2012, 10:31:56 PM
Again, precautionary measures to prevent success in that.
You're kidding right? It clear that you have absolutely no idea how to manage animals. A night shepard??? DO you know how big the FS leases are and how spread out the cattle are on that range? How in the hell are you proposing they 'shepard' their animals??
I'm pretty critical of public land grazing, but the idea of hiring a ranch hand to babysit the cattle on range is totally ignorant. How many dogs do you suppose it's going to take to protect 600 cattle sprinkled over 15 square miles? What are they going to be eating all summer?
Ideas like that sound good to people that haven't a clue about what's happening in the forests.
Post by: Huntbear on March 26, 2012, 10:34:43 PM
Again, precautionary measures to prevent success in that.
You're kidding right? It clear that you have absolutely no idea how to manage animals. A night shepard??? DO you know how big the FS leases are and how spread out the cattle are on that range? How in the hell are you proposing they 'shepard' their animals??
I'm pretty critical of public land grazing, but the idea of hiring a ranch hand to babysit the cattle on range is totally ignorant. How many dogs do you suppose it's going to take to protect 600 cattle sprinkled over 15 square miles? What are they going to be eating all summer?
Ideas like that sound good to people that haven't a clue about what's happening in the forests.
:tup: :tup: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Turner89 on March 26, 2012, 10:38:40 PM
:yeah: Who is giong to pay for the night watchmen? Wolf lovers going to donate thier time?Again, precautionary measures to prevent success in that.
You're kidding right? It clear that you have absolutely no idea how to manage animals. A night shepard??? DO you know how big the FS leases are and how spread out the cattle are on that range? How in the hell are you proposing they 'shepard' their animals??
I'm pretty critical of public land grazing, but the idea of hiring a ranch hand to babysit the cattle on range is totally ignorant. How many dogs do you suppose it's going to take to protect 600 cattle sprinkled over 15 square miles? What are they going to be eating all summer?
Ideas like that sound good to people that haven't a clue about what's happening in the forests.
:tup: :tup: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 26, 2012, 10:42:02 PM
yeah right- you better than that. The people that support ideas like this are neatly tucked away in their urban sancturies worrying about far more important issues, like what's on TV.:yeah: Who is giong to pay for the night watchmen? Wolf lovers going to donate thier time?Again, precautionary measures to prevent success in that.
You're kidding right? It clear that you have absolutely no idea how to manage animals. A night shepard??? DO you know how big the FS leases are and how spread out the cattle are on that range? How in the hell are you proposing they 'shepard' their animals??
I'm pretty critical of public land grazing, but the idea of hiring a ranch hand to babysit the cattle on range is totally ignorant. How many dogs do you suppose it's going to take to protect 600 cattle sprinkled over 15 square miles? What are they going to be eating all summer?
Ideas like that sound good to people that haven't a clue about what's happening in the forests.
:tup: :tup: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: boneaddict on March 26, 2012, 11:14:24 PM
Post by: Special T on March 27, 2012, 07:31:57 AM
Thats wear we disagree. Can't make it work by giving up, so some of us move forward to try harder at making the right changes. A nameless friend of mine gave WDFW the perfect plan for wolves and coexistance(of which I won't recant because I don't know the full details) and was ignored because it doesn't play to their popularity/money game. There are two people on the panal wholding us back. They were dead center on the podium at the Spokane wolf meeting. One was an older woman. Those two need to be removed for both sides sake.
[/quote]
You have said one thing i agree on. This issue is about $$$. This issue has less to do with the environment, than who has to spend what and where. I would bet in your "studies" on the issue you have not done as much $ research as the environmental side. The ESA and all that goes with it are about bilking the States and Feds for $$$ mostly by nonprofits. You can talk till you are blue in the face about Wolves here, but the SOURCE of the problem is the way Nonprofits get $ by suing the Feds :twocents:
Post by: sirmissalot on March 27, 2012, 08:15:26 AM
Which is why there needs to be more use of livestock guardian dogs and night shepherds. Theres always a ranch hand looking for work, and I've seen it offered for the position of watching over herds at night.
This has got to be the most stupid thing you have said so far, and you have said a lot of really stupid sh!t
Post by: hirshey on March 27, 2012, 08:31:14 AM
Uh... never said that I ever had wolf experience. Not Once.
Look, I see the results of Idaho, but I feel(meaning that it's just my personal opinion) ID is a bit of an isolated incident. Yellowstone was nearly grazed to death and was looking like a desert. There's a picture of YS in 1992 looking bare and devoid of green life. Then there's a picture of the same shot 10 years later and it shows a flourishing landscape. Mind you, thats just Yellowstone, results are not the same everywhere else.
I also never said Washington was over-grazed, but we see what was happening to YS and I can guess that thats an influence on bringing wolves and grizzlies back(or allowing them to return, in our states case. I've heard the rumors of secret reintroductions, and nothing has been substantiated). Weyerhaueser has mentioned losses in revunue due to too many ungulates feeding on their saplings.
You have to realize Yellowstone was a very different beast because of the fires back in the 80's too... a lot of forested habitat was and still is lost... that changed the whole ball game as far as what was available for forage; there was no longer shrubby/woody species that normally helped to sustain big game; it takes a lot more succulent vegetation to sustain animals. Now, those shrubs are returning; so its not so much a product of the wolves, but the natural reestablishment of vegetation that has helped spread out the browse. Don't be mistaken by thinking the wolves "saved" the system. I also agree with others who have explained Yellowstone does not have hunting, therefore cannot be used as a "baseline" for ecosystems. If you are indeed "getting into hunting" as you say you are, recognize that you are also a predator that Yellowstone does not account for. What people are fighting the hardest for is their right to be recognized as a predator and would like their share of the game species, too. Some of us take pride in knowing where our meat came from and knowing the kind of life it lived. Game meat helps to sustain a lot of families in WA/ID/OR/MT/WY and beyond... it cannot be a tradition that goes to the wolves.
Post by: rebal69972 on March 27, 2012, 12:24:10 PM
Post by: humanure on March 27, 2012, 06:58:56 PM
Post by: ribka on March 27, 2012, 09:44:48 PM
With invasive species like Canadian grey wolves the Obama nazis want to kill all of the elk deer and moose and end hunting seasons. ( Like they did in Yellowstone NP)
No hunting no need for guns.
WOLVES equal GUN CONTROL
Just :twocents: wolves are about money and gun controls. We have wolves soon there will be no game no reason to hunt so therefor no reason to have guns but this issue is just like baiting and hound hunting when someone dies ( probably a little kid ) they have to turn to hunters and trappers to fix a problem that probably can't be fixed or undone. wolves are like bullets once there out of the Barral they can't be called back.
Post by: humanure on March 28, 2012, 04:58:54 AM
Post by: seth30 on March 28, 2012, 06:35:06 AM
Now who's the crackpot?:stup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2012, 06:55:47 AM
Post by: boneaddict on March 28, 2012, 07:04:11 AM
Post by: jackmaster on March 28, 2012, 07:07:19 AM
Post by: xsf1 on March 28, 2012, 10:45:07 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on March 28, 2012, 10:55:44 AM
Si if a man came onto a farmers land and was killing his livestock what would happen to him? just fueling the fire...
the farmer would send out his 140 lb hor wife to deal with him. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: hirshey on March 28, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
Si if a man came onto a farmers land and was killing his livestock what would happen to him? just fueling the fire...He would go to jail, is my guess; or have to pay back the lost investment.. as far as I know wolves don't have a bank account, and wouldn't make very good cellmates. :chuckle:
Post by: xsf1 on March 28, 2012, 11:28:41 AM
Si if a man came onto a farmers land and was killing his livestock what would happen to him? just fueling the fire...He would go to jail, is my guess; or have to pay back the lost investment.. as far as I know wolves don't have a bank account, and wouldn't make very good cellmates. :chuckle:
All i'm saying is that a person isnt allowed to do this so why is a wolf? the only way to stop them is having the state (or whatever orginization) pay for high fences to protect their livestock or let farmers shoot the wolves.
this stuff has been getting worse since the state passed a law opposing "cruel animal traps" the guy talking about gun controll was partially right however I dont think the state will take it all the way to taking our guns away. what he is right about is the fact that there will be no game left and our hunting will be limited to preditors. bear, cat and wolf are going to be the next generation of hunting targets in the US. This will also lead to more frequent animal attacks on humans due to lack of food in the woods and over-population of preditory animals. I would like to see deer population reports in areas that have had cougar taken out of them. A couple of years ago I had hit a cougar on the hwy (i'm sure it died) for the next two years I hunted that area and the deer population was significantly higher than most of the other places I was hunting. I dont know if that was just a coincidence but its hard not to wonder how much these preditors are messing up the deer population.
The only way to stop the inevitable growth of preditory animals is to propose laws that protect hunting and game management which needs to include the use of traps and dogs. we need to be harder on these animals to protect deer and elk from getting put on the endangered species list. I'm ready to start suing...
Post by: rebal69972 on March 28, 2012, 12:07:23 PM
You can trust the government just ask the indians
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 28, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
It is a stretch even putting wolves and gun controle in the same sentence but i wouldn't put it past our government or all the activists to do something that back handed , 2 faced and sneaky.
You can trust the government just ask the indians
For the activists I think it goes much further than guns. They are wanting to end entire lifestyles/cultures. Most seem to be very anti-livestock as well as anti-hunting.
Post by: humanure on March 28, 2012, 12:46:26 PM
One thing I am against and hope doesn't come back is poisoning. Strychnine was the most cruel thing ever used, and it killed more than need because it stayed in the grass where the animal died.
Post by: hirshey on March 28, 2012, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not against trapping, granted I don't know a whole lot about it, but what are the details about it getting regulating? What constitutes cruel?
One thing I am against and hope doesn't come back is poisoning. Strychnine was the most cruel thing ever used, and it killed more than need because it stayed in the grass where the animal died.
What I am most impressed about you, Humanure is your ability to rack up the posts... you've been here for.. a week? You already have 1/8th of the posts I have and I've been a member since 2007ish. :chuckle: Other than volunteering to slaughter sheep what precisely do you do for a living? I read that and it sounds kind of mean but I am curious of your background.
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 28, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
It is a stretch even putting wolves and gun controle in the same sentence but i wouldn't put it past our government or all the activists to do something that back handed , 2 faced and sneaky.
You can trust the government just ask the indians Who said they were untrustworthy? I believe in our government 100%, with President Lincoln at the helm we will never...oh, wait nevermind. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 28, 2012, 01:51:29 PM
Post by: flatbkman on March 28, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Post by: xsf1 on March 28, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
I'm not against trapping, granted I don't know a whole lot about it, but what are the details about it getting regulating? What constitutes cruel?
One thing I am against and hope doesn't come back is poisoning. Strychnine was the most cruel thing ever used, and it killed more than need because it stayed in the grass where the animal died.
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO TRAP FOR WILD ANIMALS:
With body-gripping traps EXCEPT by permit to abate an
animal problem under WAC 232-12-142. This includes, but
not limited to, padded foothold traps, unpadded foot-hold
traps, all snares, and conibear type traps.
Unless traps are checked and animals removed within 72
hours (non-body gripping kill traps).
Unless animals captured in restraining traps (any nonkilling
set) are removed within 24 hours of capture.
With a neck or body snare attached to a spring pole or any
spring pole type of device.
Using game birds, game fish, or game animals for bait,
except nonedible parts of game birds, game fish, or game
animals may be used as bait.
Within thirty feet of any exposed meat bait or nonedible
game parts which are visible to flying raptors.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00769/wdfw00769.pdf
so the only trap that is allowed in washington state is a live animal trap that the animal has to walk into.
when wolves and cougars start eating people then the irreversable lesson will be learned. oh wait, why did everyone try to make wolves extinct in the first place?
Post by: full strutting on March 28, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
Post by: humanure on March 28, 2012, 06:28:29 PM
Post by: 30.06 on March 28, 2012, 06:41:28 PM
You can trust the government just ask the indians
One thing I am against and hope doesn't come back is humanure :ban:
I'm cruel killed more game animals than Strychnine wolves need regulating
I just :bash: thinking this is how the anti's put together their $research$.
:tree1: :bfg:
Cut, paste, and sniff glue. Repeat until the ignorant public believes the lies and propoganda
Post by: humanure on March 28, 2012, 06:45:19 PM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on March 28, 2012, 11:41:34 PM
Post by: StacyDave97 on March 29, 2012, 02:02:12 PM
I love the post about having shepherds, night watchmen etc. That will definitely work up at my cabin where the friggin' cattle free roam for 6 months and crap in my "yard"! Maybe I'll have less cow patties to step in cuz they'll be herding them. I've already seen 2 wolves on my road up there....and that was 2 years ago. It's going to be interesting this year for sure with the cattle...in less than a week.