Post by: denali on April 26, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
With the number of wolves increasing in Washington, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife is stepping up efforts to help ranchers protect livestock.
Conservation Northwest of Bellingham also is working to help ranchers and wants to start a program to do so.
Within the past month, Fish and Wildlife helped a producer near Laurier, in the northeast corner of the state, install turbo fladry, electrified flagging and fencing, around a 3-acre calving pen, said Madonna Luers, department spokeswoman in Spokane.
Big red flags were used that have been effective in keeping wolves out of areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, Luers said. The rancher had an electrified fence around a 1-acre pen and expanded it to 3 acres. The department paid for the flagging and some of the electrification with funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, she said.
The department will do more as needs arise, particularly in the northeast corner of the state where there are lots of ranches and wolves, Luers said. The department has added four to five personnel dedicated to wolf monitoring, she said.
Steve Pozzanghera, the department's eastern regional director, discussed agency efforts with ranchers in Colville on April 25, she said.
Meanwhile, Conservation Northwest held a workshop the same day in Colville for ranchers to listen to a rancher from Blackfoot, Mont., and a program coordinator from Longview, Alberta, about successful management of wolves in those areas.
"One of our goals is to develop a program but we are far from it," said Jasmine Minbashian, special projects director for Conservation Northwest.
Large cooperatives of ranchers and other parties were formed in Blackfoot and Longview and have used range riders, electric fences and removed carcasses which reduced livestock deaths by 90 percent, Minbashian said.
Conservation Northwest would like develop a similar program in Washington at little or no cost to ranchers, perhaps paid by government grants, she said.
The workshop was a starting point to see if ranchers are interested and let them hear strategies from ranchers dealing with wolves, she said.
"Conflict is inevitable with more wolves but if we can get ahead of it we can reduce it," she said. "Wolves are social and human presence with livestock is one way to get them to learn livestock is not desirable prey."
Flagging, electric fencing and cracker shells (shooting blanks) have been tried in other states with varying degrees of success, said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association in Ellensburg.
"The only effective tool is removal (shooting), but the department wants to exhaust all preventative tools before it gets to that and I understand that," Field said.
Ranchers are concerned about potential losses this summer, particularly as they move livestock to higher-elevation ranges, he said.
Fish and Wildlife estimates 10 wolf packs may be living in the state, up from five last year. It has documented three breeding pair and 27 wolves although each breeding pair is believed to have about 14 wolves.
There has only been one confirmed probable livestock loss to a wolf in the state, a calf near Laurier in 2007. Ranchers say there have been others, cattle and sheep, that are unconfirmed.
Turbo fladry is sooo much cooler then fladry FAIL >:(
Post by: Moose22 on April 26, 2012, 08:00:32 PM
Post by: humanure on April 26, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 26, 2012, 09:39:14 PM
I am be wrong on this but, it sounds like "we" the tax payers are putting up the bill for a bandage fix to satisfy the liberal agenda. Just my opinion.
Exactly.
Leave it to the liberal beauracracy to come up with a plan like this.
Post by: TWG2A on April 26, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Seriously? Thats your attitude when the state and F&W step up to help out the livestock owners? How are people suppossed to be helped with such a lack of gratitude and willingness to work together?
Now there's a good one. "Gratitude"? GRATITUDE??? For WHAT? Liberals putting a useless and expensive bandaid on a problem THE liberals created.
And "working together"??? Laughable.
No thanks.
Post by: humanure on April 26, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
All you are doing is standing there, arms crossed and bitching, which does no one a *censored* bit of good. This is the situation, there's no need for pissing on the efforts to make it livable for ranchers. I mean, seriously, the wolves will never, EVER... everevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverever... be gone from this state again. Them being something that once was is not going to ever happen again. You are going to have to learn to live with that reality, because that's what the reality of the situation. They are here to stay, but why remain bitter instead of helping to create co-habitation?
You can resort to vigilantism and poaching all you want, fine. That'll just be more of you out of the way while you rot in prison. The White family might have avoided jail time, but that won't happen again. They used up that excuse of being fed up, now that everyone can see that you can't walk away from poaching wolves, I'd be hard pressed to see a judge give any leniency to any future poachers.
And useless? Those fladry lines have been proven time and time again to be very useful at keeping wolves at bay. Thats why the Russians use them for hunting wolves. But hey, a measure that works and helps make things more co-habitable doesn't fit into your bitching speech, so I get why you would purposefully ignore that.
The state is stepping up and doing it's part to prove co-habitation is possible, and all you can do is act like children.
Post by: TWG2A on April 26, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
Gratitude that people aren't being left pissing in the wind. Gratitude that the state is taking the ranchers concerns and plight seriously and doing something proactive about it.
All you are doing is standing there, arms crossed and bitching, which does no one a *censored* bit of good. This is the situation, there's no need for pissing on the efforts to make it livable for ranchers. I mean, seriously, the wolves will never, EVER... everevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverever... be gone from this state again. Them being something that once was is not going to ever happen again. You are going to have to learn to live with that reality, because that's what the reality of the situation. They are here to stay, but why remain bitter instead of helping to create co-habitation?
You can resort to vigilantism and poaching all you want, fine. That'll just be more of you out of the way while you rot in prison. The White family might have avoided jail time, but that won't happen again. They used up that excuse of being fed up, now that everyone can see that you can't walk away from poaching wolves, I'd be hard pressed to see a judge give any leniency to any future poachers.
And useless? Those fladry lines have been proven time and time again to be very useful at keeping wolves at bay. Thats why the Russians use them for hunting wolves. But hey, a measure that works and helps make things more co-habitable doesn't fit into your bitching speech, so I get why you would purposefully ignore that.
The state is stepping up and doing it's part to prove co-habitation is possible, and all you can do is act like children.
Just because you spew it, doesn't make it so.
You are wrong. but that's ok. You can blame your ignorance, and go thank a so-called "teacher".
Post by: humanure on April 26, 2012, 11:12:28 PM
But I ask again, why stay bitter and not help reach co-habitability?
Bucking the tide is only going make the results/odds even worse on your end. The hunting community is only a small special interest group among this states demographic, so i would think it unwise to show such unwillingness to work together. the state stepped up, why not you?
Post by: NWBREW on April 27, 2012, 01:23:40 AM
Seriously? Thats your attitude when the state and F&W step up to help out the livestock owners? How are people suppossed to be helped with such a lack of gratitude and willingness to work together?
Let the people who want wolves there pay for it. The people who want Deer, elk and moose pay to help keep them. :dunno:
I am all for a program to help but I think the people who want them there should bare the majority of the cost of damages.
The first Bio's said the YNP could sustain 170-190 wolves without impacting Ranching, Hunting, Native species and other business. Where was the "willingness to work together" then. Look where Idaho, Montana, Washington and soon to be Oregon and Utah are at now. 3 breeding pairs....5 breeding pairs.....and now 15 breeding pairs for 3 years.....really? Where is the "willingness to work together"? Cause I haven't seen it.
And also, while I am giving my opinion, do you think livestock is the only damage a wolf does? If so, why don't you have a talk with all the people who have owned businesses in Montana and Idaho who have lost their livelyhood due to the distruction a 1000 wolves can do? If it was you maybe you would understand how big of an issue the wolf really is.
I'm kinda wondering about the IQ of some on this site.... :chuckle:....No, your not the only one. :chuckle:
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 02:35:51 AM
All I can see here is, people are just starting to take responsibility for the RISK'S, and there are those who couldn't seem more displeased. It's as if they are saying, "How DARE you prove us wrong on our assumptions of where your priorities are?!". At least they are making an effort to help out the opposing parties, you know? As far as the plight of the hunter's and sportsman, there's not much you can do there. They are not going to corral the ungulates at night and keep them from being hunted. All they can do is monitor the numbers and effects and acting according to the science that was required of them to master to get the job we are paying them to do. They are not going to cater to the hunters nor the tree-huggers. They have a job to do no matter who gets the shorter end of the stick.
And I'm sorry, but I can't accept that they allowed wolves to return simply because 'people wanted them'. Thats rediculous. How would people wanting wolves somehow trump people wanting elk? There's more money in elk, so that theory is... moot. They took in testimonies of people's opinion's, yes. But they based their decisions according to the science, in the end. The wolf management plan does not cater to one side. I've read it a few times, and it seems quite middle of the road, imo.
Post by: NWBREW on April 27, 2012, 02:55:57 AM
Well, you can't divide the parties like that. There are PLENTY of hunters, sportsmen and ranchers who do want wolves here. There are also liberals who don't have an opinion on the matter, so you can't say it's the liberal party who completely wants them, either. It's too mixed up to determine demographics that should or shouldn't pay for it. I must say, those who oppose aren't that big of a demographic judging from polls, voting, testimonies, ect. They just happen to be the loudest(just an observation, could be wrong).
All I can see here is, people are just starting to take responsibility for the RISK'S, and there are those who couldn't seem more displeased. It's as if they are saying, "How DARE you prove us wrong on our assumptions of where your priorities are?!". At least they are making an effort to help out the opposing parties, you know? As far as the plight of the hunter's and sportsman, there's not much you can do there. They are not going to corral the ungulates at night and keep them from being hunted. All they can do is monitor the numbers and effects and acting according to the science that was required of them to master to get the job we are paying them to do. They are not going to cater to the hunters nor the tree-huggers. They have a job to do no matter who gets the shorter end of the stick.
And I'm sorry, but I can't accept that they allowed wolves to return simply because 'people wanted them'. Thats rediculous. How would people wanting wolves somehow trump people wanting elk? There's more money in elk, so that theory is... moot. They took in testimonies of people's opinion's, yes. But they based their decisions according to the science, in the end. The wolf management plan does not cater to one side. I've read it a few times, and it seems quite middle of the road, imo.
If you read my post there isn't a single mention about liberals.
It is also a smaller portion of people that have to live with the wolf and the damages then those in big cities that do not.
All I want is to manage them....and to stick to the first deal....or the second. You say " As far as the plight of the hunter's and sportsman, there's not much you can do there." Is that "the willingness to work together" you talked about earlier?
The plan does cater to one side?...look at how the plan changes over and over again....just too cater to one side.
The I.Q seems to be falling around here. You can think what you want...everyone has that right. It is obvious that you know not what your talking about. Maybe your username has gone to your head. I have better things to do then to play your stupid game. I do not want any prizes.
Post by: seth30 on April 27, 2012, 06:35:32 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 27, 2012, 07:04:57 AM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:10:23 AM
Wow, humanmanure must be off his meds again :chuckle:
Indeed.
I don't even bother trying to explain it to them anymore. It's like trying to talk with a jacked-up heroin addict about the perils of heroin.
It's just a big, fat waste of time.
They've been brainwashed, and they're beyond hope at this point.
Post by: seth30 on April 27, 2012, 07:15:36 AM
Post by: crnbndr on April 27, 2012, 07:19:03 AM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:20:16 AM
We're in big trouble.
Those who don't "get it" by now are lost forever How very sad for them, and how terribly tragic for America and Her Citizens.
How tragic for the entire world. WIthout America, there is no Freedom and Liberty ANYWHERE. Our beacon is about to be extinguished forever.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 27, 2012, 07:25:39 AM
Look up "Ideological subversion".
We're in big trouble.
Those who don't "get it" by now are lost forever How very sad for them, and how terribly tragic for America and Her Citizens.
How tragic for the entire world. WIthout America, there is no Freedom and Liberty ANYWHERE. Our beacon is about to be extinguished forever.
:tree1: :yeah: :tree1: Did you get that DB?
Post by: villageidiot on April 27, 2012, 07:28:48 AM
If they want solutions they need to ask the ranchers for solutions. They do have solutions but nobody seems to want to listen to the people that are affected. I just don't understand why they keep wanting the people that are not affected for solutions when they don't have a clue of what all the problems are with their solutions. Ask the people that have dealt with the wolves what works. You don't ask a stock market analyst how to plumb a house so don't ask people that don't know how to keep wolves from eating cows.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:33:34 AM
It wouldn't be so bad if it were just the glassy eyeds tumbling off that cliff. They are taking us ALL with them.
I used to be angry at them.
Then I pitied them.
Now, I'm indifferent about them They just need to stay away from me, and get out of my way
Post by: bearpaw on April 27, 2012, 07:38:20 AM
I am be wrong on this but, it sounds like "we" the tax payers are putting up the bill for a bandage fix to satisfy the liberal agenda. Just my opinion.
Yes, we are all paying for this whole wolf fiasco since the beginning in 1995.
Quote
They are assuming the rancher has unlimited amount of money to pay range riders so just go hire a man with all your extra cash.
Not only is the cost prohibitive but riding out on the open range and looking over the herd simply isn't going to happen in many areas of Washington. Many areas have far too heavy of cover and it's impossible to just ride cross country with a horse in that heavy cover.
What a joke.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:43:32 AM
http://cryingwolfmovie.com/ (http://cryingwolfmovie.com/)
Post by: nwwanderer on April 27, 2012, 07:51:09 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 27, 2012, 07:52:27 AM
It really does sound like lots of you just want to bitch about something.
Post by: Moose22 on April 27, 2012, 08:03:17 AM
I don't see how waving some pink flags or electrical strands is going to stave off one the primer predators of all time while destroying the livelihoods of ranchers/farmers/hunters/photographers/etc.
Yes, we are all paying for this whole wolf fiasco since the beginning in 1995.
I believe you and your supporters should be paying for these trivial attempts at keeping wolves at bay (as you call it cohabitation). It seems that you are willing to allow others to work harder for their livelyhood to satisfy your personal agenda.
Lets use real solutions on predation rather than fluffy political agendas.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 27, 2012, 08:03:57 AM
These fixes they propose are made up by the wolf supporters sitting at their computers. They are assuming the rancher has unlimited amount of money to pay range riders so just go hire a man with all your extra cash. Every farmer rancher I know can barely afford to buy beans after his expenses. Then they don't seem to know that when cattle are turned out on range they split up. If the Forest Service sees all the cattle bunched up they contact the rancher because they are devastating and area being all bunched up. Cattle disperse in small groups over thousands of acres to more evenly use the forage and this is how it works and has worked forever. You can not bunch up the cattle or you will devastate the land. As far as the flaggery goes, that's a hoax too. If you get caught throwing out one piece of plastic you will be cited with a littering fine. Now the rancher is expected to put thousands of pieces of garbage on his fences and litter the forests. Who has time to tie all thes flags up, who has the money, how many little animals will swallow and choke on these pieces of junk? This trial they did was on 3 acres in the open. Try putting flags on 100,000 acres much of which is not fenced or on extremely rugged ground. Once a big tree falls on a section of flagging it's on the ground and then doesn't deter the wolves. Who's got time to go check the flaggery often?DUUUUUUUDE .... NICELY DONE ....Especially the part about the plumber :chuckle: :chuckle: That explains things to a tee !!!!
If they want solutions they need to ask the ranchers for solutions. They do have solutions but nobody seems to want to listen to the people that are affected. I just don't understand why they keep wanting the people that are not affected for solutions when they don't have a clue of what all the problems are with their solutions. Ask the people that have dealt with the wolves what works. You don't ask a stock market analyst how to plumb a house so don't ask people that don't know how to keep wolves from eating cows.
Post by: Killmore on April 27, 2012, 08:06:08 AM
Post by: Moose22 on April 27, 2012, 08:11:56 AM
I agree with humanure on this one. It's good the state is doing something- it's the logical first step. If wolves ignore the fladry and cause trouble they can move towards another option at that time.
It really does sound like lots of you just want to bitch about something.
Yes, you are right the State is doing something. Do you think there will be results with these tactics they are persuing because I sure don't.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 27, 2012, 08:15:25 AM
Post by: seth30 on April 27, 2012, 08:21:57 AM
I think it will help in the calving pens. It's not realistic for range- everyone knows that.not the people that live in urban jungles :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 27, 2012, 08:28:34 AM
Open summer range is going to be a free for all for the wolves as they develop a taste for livestock in WA. Just ask the ranchers in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and even the Stevens County Cattlemen who are missing dozens of cattle from last summer. It's the cattle that are missing that are the ranch profit, 10% loss of the gross is a hardship for any business, especially ranching where profits have been lean or non-existent for years.
Post by: villageidiot on April 27, 2012, 08:45:16 AM
How do we solve this problem? Either the cattlemen goes out of business or we compensate them for % of loss over their average yearly loss.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 09:05:33 AM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 09:08:08 AM
~Ayn Rand
Post by: Special T on April 27, 2012, 10:04:14 AM
I know it seems :tinfoil: but wolves accomplish those "environmental dreams" and at the same time fill the Non Profits bank acounts with $$$ from the lawsuits. :twocents:
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 10:18:07 AM
This is by design, unfortunatly... It is easier for the state to do central palling when beef comes from feed lots as oposed to out on range land. Lots of groups have been trying to elimante range grazing for quite some time. Wolves seem to to be the perfect mix of trouble for "environementalists" to reduce hunting, open range ranching, and get people to move into cities.
I know it seems :tinfoil: but wolves accomplish those "environmental dreams" and at the same time fill the Non Profits bank acounts with $$$ from the lawsuits. :twocents:
Sadly, it's all just a piece of the MASSIVE scheme, Agenda 21.
This is a very concise overview regarding the encroachment of our rights as outlined in Agenda 21.
It's a rather lengthy read, but each and every American Citizen who still cares about our Country needs to be aware of what's happening, right in front of our eyes. It was written by a woman who is well versed on the issue, and it's very well done, IMO. It puts things in laymans terms.
The glassy eyeds are too far gone to worry about. Don't waste your time trying to convince them. The rest of us need to be vigilant.
http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/agenda-21-overview-a-white-paper-written-by-karen-sweetland/ (http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/agenda-21-overview-a-white-paper-written-by-karen-sweetland/)
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 11:40:51 AM
Here's an excellent documentary on the issue. Well worth your time viewing it and passing it along....
http://cryingwolfmovie.com/ (http://cryingwolfmovie.com/)
I sat down and gave this movie a chance last year... and I couldn't stop laughing. They seriously ALMOST made some very good and valid points. But almost mid-way through, just ruined any credibility they had by screaming self-bias ad relgious bigotry. Completely unprofessional. You say people like me have an agenda? That movie and it's producers take the cake on that!
Humanure, I try to respect your opinion and I will force myself to listen to your opinion but, when you throw in comments that are not mentioned in these threads you lose. I mentioned nothing about illegal activities, such as poaching as you aggressively state. Your stereotypical attitude does shine brightly and yes so does mine.
I don't see how waving some pink flags or electrical strands is going to stave off one the primer predators of all time while destroying the livelihoods of ranchers/farmers/hunters/photographers/etc.
Yes, we are all paying for this whole wolf fiasco since the beginning in 1995.
I believe you and your supporters should be paying for these trivial attempts at keeping wolves at bay (as you call it cohabitation). It seems that you are willing to allow others to work harder for their livelyhood to satisfy your personal agenda.
Lets use real solutions on predation rather than fluffy political agendas.
You are right, I needn't not bring up stuff from other threads. I just saw a typical sentiment and thought it was a bit quick-to-fire on those attitudes on this event. My bad.
Again, THOSE FLAG'S HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO WORK. You can't deny the result's. Will they be 100% effective? No, nothing is. But they do work.
Me and my supporters? Again, members of both demographics are mixed up in who supports what. You can't designate it black and white. There's too much grey area.
A cattleman used the Lookout mt. (where the lookout pack resides) allotment lease in 2008 with aprox 50 pairs. They have about 300 pairs most of which were in other allotments where there are no wolves. That one cattleman lost 5 head that summer. They never saw a carcass or anything just 5 come up missing. This was in the heart of the lookout packs territory. The cattleman said they lose about 5 total on the whole 300 as an average but this was only on 50 head. There is no way of confirming what kiled the cattle and of course never any compensation. The cattleman has never used this grazing allotment and probably never will again.
How do we solve this problem? Either the cattlemen goes out of business or we compensate them for % of loss over their average yearly loss.
Because they don't know what killed them, we foot the bill because it MIGHT have been wolves? I don't know about that one.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 11:45:47 AM
Like I said.. they're too far gone to waste time with. Better to speak to those who haven't been brainwashed.
The glassy eyeds really ought to consider filing a class action lawsuit against the so-called "schools" and "teachers" that did this to them.
Post by: villageidiot on April 27, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
All the ranchers will be criminals eventually unless something is changed. They have no choice.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 01:08:02 PM
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 01:16:24 PM
Post by: Special T on April 27, 2012, 01:23:01 PM
Please share your facts. 3rd party articles from the likes of newspapers, studies etc. I have yet to read more than a hand full of evidence that supports the pro wolf side's arguments. A quick search under the wolf topic by the member Wolfbait will bring up VOLUMES of articles by newpapers and such.
I have requested facts nicely from many people with your view, and result is either silence, or i don't have time to dig it up for you. Since you are more enlightened that the rest of us, please share. I'm always up for a good read since i don't have cable.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 01:34:19 PM
Post by: Special T on April 27, 2012, 01:38:02 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
Try talking with those who have to live amongst those beasts. Not the elitist "professors" who sit on thrones writing books whilst wagging their scraggly hooves at us lowly humans.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 01:49:20 PM
Post by: seth30 on April 27, 2012, 02:01:48 PM
Of Wolves and Men by Barry Lopez is probably the best example. I believe Mech touched on it a few times in his books, but that guy wrote a TON of them. The Wolf Almanac talk's about it too, if I remember correctly. I actually haven't read any wolf ecology books in a while. I've taken a break from it to focus on German Shepherds and reading into the breed as i moving forward in raising them.do you sell the german sheperd puppies?
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 02:07:57 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 27, 2012, 02:08:33 PM
Put money and effort to better use and put those fences around our National borders.
well we agree on something.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 02:13:33 PM
Put money and effort to better use and put those fences around our National borders.
well we agree on something.
:tup:
When the smoke and mirrors dissipate, you might be surprised on how much we agree.
:)
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 02:15:31 PM
Any guesses the meaning of it?
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 03:04:44 PM
Here's another of my Pop's paintings..... with meaning....
Any guesses?
Post by: WA hunter14 on April 27, 2012, 03:25:35 PM
Post by: Curly on April 27, 2012, 03:37:12 PM
But instead they go to placing flags. :dunno: What a joke. :rolleyes:
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 27, 2012, 03:53:49 PM
The state could have managed wolves by letting us and ranchers do this: :hunter: and :bfg: and :mgun2:
But instead they go to placing flags. :dunno: What a joke. :rolleyes:
:yeah: :tup: maybe if i put flags around my house it won't get broken into? :dunno: :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 27, 2012, 03:54:15 PM
PlateauNDN
Here's another of my Pop's paintings..... with meaning....
Any guesses?
:dunno:
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 04:18:46 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 04:55:18 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
Aw, C'mon manure... Surely your handlers have taught you better...
The Canadian grey wolves were never "removed" from this land anyway. It is the TIMBER WOLVES that actually belong here.
Bring back the TIMBER WOLVES, which actually belong here in our ecosystem You see, it's all about the ecosystem.
That is why I detest you ecoterrorists so deeply I can taste it. Because your goal is not CONSERVING the ecosystem. It is doing the dirty work for a pack of global elitists who want to rule the world (and the United States) through chaos.
You claim to care about the ecosystem, yet you've no understanding whatsoever how the ecosystem actually works and the fine, delicate balance required to maintain it.
That makes you and your ilk nothing more than ECOTERRORISTS.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 04:59:23 PM
The state could have managed wolves by letting us and ranchers do this: :hunter: and :bfg: and :mgun2:
But instead they go to placing flags. :dunno: What a joke. :rolleyes:
:yeah: :tup: maybe if i put flags around my house it won't get broken into? :dunno: :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
I'll be sure to wear red flags to avoid being raped by a gang of ecoterrorists.
Post by: WA hunter14 on April 27, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
is it that hard just list off some reasons i want to here both sides even from the very beginning, you sit there and argue with people for pages but when i ask you a simple question you wont answer. you gave one reason can you atleast give me a couple more. you say you have said it many times already but how am i supposed to know that i just read this thread and am asking you a simple question.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
The Canadian gray wolves WERE here, actually. They shared this region with the Cascades Mountain wolf, who is now extinct thanks to selfishness. So the Canadians were only 'driven back'. Now they have returned. Remember, there was never any borders in their minds, they never stayed only in Canada.
I still laugh that the ecosystem is thought of something to be 'maintained'. It's almost as funny as that guy in Alaska saying, "We can't just let the wilderness run wild!".
Ecoterrorist? Funny, REALLY funny.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:09:17 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
is it that hard just list off some reasons i want to here both sides even from the very beginning, you sit there and argue with people for pages but when i ask you a simple question you wont answer. you gave one reason can you atleast give me a couple more. you say you have said it many times already but how am i supposed to know that i just read this thread and am asking you a simple question.
Fair 'nuff.
I have seen for myself the evidence of gross over-populated herds and the damage that they do. And no, I do not believe for one second that more lenient hunting seasons will ever fix the problem.
There's also the MASSIVE parasite loads that have become an issue with ungulates not having it's natural predators to keep them stronger an more immune to such things. Again as i mentioned, weak genes kept out of the pool allows for stronger genes to be bred together creating even strong offspring.
The EXTREMELY over-populated Coyote numbers, which wolves bring back down. Coyotes have their place in the ecosystem(though before wolf extinction, coyotes were pretty much only on the west side, mostly in Cali), but when there is too many coyotes, the small mammal/rodent numbers go down, and we lose our predatory birds.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:10:08 PM
Laughable, at best.
The Canadian gray wolves WERE here, actually. They shared this region with the Cascades Mountain wolf, who is now extinct thanks to selfishness. So the Canadians were only 'driven back'. Now they have returned. Remember, there was never any borders in their minds, they never stayed only in Canada.
I still laugh that the ecosystem is thought of something to be 'maintained'. It's almost as funny as that guy in Alaska saying, "We can't just let the wilderness run wild!".
Ecoterrorist? Funny, REALLY funny.
..And there it is, folks. A liar.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:12:28 PM
I suppose you believe the "ecosystem"as you see it would include "relocating" some grizzly's down to Florida?
After all.. a zillion years ago, bears pooped in Florida.
You're a tool.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:14:21 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
is it that hard just list off some reasons i want to here both sides even from the very beginning, you sit there and argue with people for pages but when i ask you a simple question you wont answer. you gave one reason can you atleast give me a couple more. you say you have said it many times already but how am i supposed to know that i just read this thread and am asking you a simple question.
Fair 'nuff.
I have seen for myself the evidence of gross over-populated herds and the damage that they do. And no, I do not believe for one second that more lenient hunting seasons will ever fix the problem.
There's also the MASSIVE parasite loads that have become an issue with ungulates not having it's natural predators to keep them stronger an more immune to such things. Again as i mentioned, weak genes kept out of the pool allows for stronger genes to be bred together creating even strong offspring.
The EXTREMELY over-populated Coyote numbers, which wolves bring back down. Coyotes have their place in the ecosystem(though before wolf extinction, coyotes were pretty much only on the west side, mostly in Cali), but when there is too many coyotes, the small mammal/rodent numbers go down, and we lose our predatory birds.
Psyops from an amatuer.
Don't be fooled.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:14:52 PM
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:16:49 PM
humanure can you give me the reasons you want wolves here and how they are a good thing? just curious cause i havent found any yet?
Do i really have to reiterate why i feel so? I feel like I've said it many times already. Short answer: They shouldn't have been removed in the first place, as an integral species in this ecosystem.
is it that hard just list off some reasons i want to here both sides even from the very beginning, you sit there and argue with people for pages but when i ask you a simple question you wont answer. you gave one reason can you atleast give me a couple more. you say you have said it many times already but how am i supposed to know that i just read this thread and am asking you a simple question.
Fair 'nuff.
I have seen for myself the evidence of gross over-populated herds and the damage that they do. And no, I do not believe for one second that more lenient hunting seasons will ever fix the problem.
There's also the MASSIVE parasite loads that have become an issue with ungulates not having it's natural predators to keep them stronger an more immune to such things. Again as i mentioned, weak genes kept out of the pool allows for stronger genes to be bred together creating even strong offspring.
The EXTREMELY over-populated Coyote numbers, which wolves bring back down. Coyotes have their place in the ecosystem(though before wolf extinction, coyotes were pretty much only on the west side, mostly in Cali), but when there is too many coyotes, the small mammal/rodent numbers go down, and we lose our predatory birds.
Psyops from an amatuer.
Don't be fooled.
I can say the same about you, but i don't presume to do so.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Go read the ecology books. The Canadian wolves(Canadian only by human borders) roamed deep into Washington, ID, MT, etc. It's not an uncommon fact. To think otherwise is just... retarded. Wolves ranges are extremely vast, why would they suddenly stop at an invisible line on the map?
Manure,
I don't read "books" written by imperialistic idiots. I live it, and I know it in my soul. That is why I an right and you are wrong.
"retarded"? Look in the mirror. You need to call one of you sleazy lawyer friends an d file charges for making you so *smarty*.
In the meantime..... Let's move some grizzleys down to Miami beach.
While we're at it... let's examine how Ohians reacted when all those wolves, tigers and bears got loose last year... look it up. How do you think those ecoterrorrists would respond if we let loose some of these canadian greys on their butts?
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
Go read the ecology books. The Canadian wolves(Canadian only by human borders) roamed deep into Washington, ID, MT, etc. It's not an uncommon fact. To think otherwise is just... retarded. Wolves ranges are extremely vast, why would they suddenly stop at an invisible line on the map?
Manure,
I don't read "books" written by imperialistic idiots. I live it, and I know it in my soul. That is why I an right and you are wrong.
Yeah, like THAT holds any water. If you know more than anyone else, why don't YOU write the books then? But you won't. The difference is, I don't presume that I'm 'right'. No one is right.
In the meantime..... Let's move some grizzleys down to Miami beach.
Considering the type of people who live there... not a bad idea. hahahahahahahahahaha!
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Rub the glass off your beady little eyes for a moment and chew the coffee.
You are no match for someone who knows this fight. You will NEVER get the last word with me, and you will NEVER win.
Facts are stubborn things. Those who read this, and who really DO care enough, will do their own homework.
Your lies are useless here. Go back to craigslist.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 05:37:22 PM
I don't drink coffee. Or tea. Don't like the *censored*.
And what do you mean by craigslist? Unless you are that person who i alerted to the F&W and got their poaching site shut down for posting ad's on craigslist wanting to know where people were seeing wolves. If whoever you are is on this site, nice try but I and the fed's saw through your bullmess for the vague poaching site that you tried to slip by.
But you cannot dispute the fact the wolves from over the border were native to here. Science and records will always prove otherwise.
Post by: fair-chase on April 27, 2012, 05:49:06 PM
I have seen for myself the evidence of gross over-populated herds and the damage that they do. And no, I do not believe for one second that more lenient hunting seasons will ever fix the problem.
Where have you seen gross overpopulation of herds? Here in Washington? Unlikely. You must be referring to that ridiculous Yellowstone study that I strongly feel was a political speech and not a true scientific study. Were you actually there or did you just read the propaganda and regurgitate it as your own experience. I digress...
Are you seriously going to tell me that hunters would not have solved the ever so slight overpopulation of elk in Yellowstone. I would venture to say that not only would they have solved it in a single year, but that they would have lined the parks coffers with money doing so. Every elk hunter in the lower 48 would have coveted a tag for Yellowstone.
Now, instead of the park making money by the boat load for a special permit elk hunt, they (along with thousands of others in the west) are loosing millions do to this introduction.
Quote
There's also the MASSIVE parasite loads that have become an issue with ungulates not having it's natural predators to keep them stronger an more immune to such things. Again as i mentioned, weak genes kept out of the pool allows for stronger genes to be bred together creating even strong offspring.
So ungulates that are starved and run into the ground by constant and excessive predation pressure are less likely to be hosts for parasites?
It is also a myth that wolves only target the sick and weak. Wolves target anything they want. Possibly you don't understand what "Apex Predator" means. Wolves don't need to be selective in their
Quote
The EXTREMELY over-populated Coyote numbers, which wolves bring back down. Coyotes have their place in the ecosystem(though before wolf extinction, coyotes were pretty much only on the west side, mostly in Cali), but when there is too many coyotes, the small mammal/rodent numbers go down, and we lose our predatory birds.
Not sure where your getting your facts about historical ranges of coyotes, but I will concede that excessive coyote numbers do constitute a reduction in small mammal and rodent numbers and reducing coyotes will increase rodents/mammals. Given that other predators (wolves, badgers, cougars, bobcats, etc) are kept in check and do not fill the void. There, we agree ever so slightly on something. I think I'm going to be sick. :chuckle:
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
Not that I typically answer questions posted by you glassy eyed idiots, but as to my craigslist comment.. go back to your circle jerk over there.
I have no idea to what you're referring about that particular circle jerk, but it's common knowledge amongst us Patriots that you glassy eyed idiots gather there. It's like a huge roach nest for things like you.
You continue to refer to knowledgable people as "poachers".
I suggest you refrain from that. Poaching is against the law in this country.
Go back to your craigslist circle jerk
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 06:08:21 PM
Where have you seen gross overpopulation of herds? Here in Washington? Unlikely. You must be referring to that ridiculous Yellowstone study that I strongly feel was a political speech and not a true scientific study. Were you actually there or did you just read the propaganda and regurgitate it as your own experience. I digress...
Are you seriously going to tell me that hunters would not have solved the ever so slight overpopulation of elk in Yellowstone. I would venture to say that not only would they have solved it in a single year, but that they would have lined the parks coffers with money doing so. Every elk hunter in the lower 48 would have coveted a tag for Yellowstone.
Now, instead of the park making money by the boat load for a special permit elk hunt, they (along with thousands of others in the west) are loosing millions do to this introduction.
Yes, here on the wet side where I've lived in the mountains my whole life. Among the lushness, you can see damage being done. The lack of saplings taking hold due to
Quote
There's also the MASSIVE parasite loads that have become an issue with ungulates not having it's natural predators to keep them stronger an more immune to such things. Again as i mentioned, weak genes kept out of the pool allows for stronger genes to be bred together creating even strong offspring.
So ungulates that are starved and run into the ground by constant and excessive predation pressure are less likely to be hosts for parasites?
YES, as a matter of fact. And they don't starve, they eat on the run. But when the weak are taken out, they are unable to pass their genes back into the herd. When the weak genes are kept out, the stronger genes survive and eventually, you have an extremely healthy animal with great immune systems. Simply biology course, even in high school, teaches you this. It is NOT NATURAL for ungulates to be slow moving and eat until there is no foliage left before moving on.
Quote
It is also a myth that wolves only target the sick and weak. Wolves target anything they want. Possibly you don't understand what "Apex Predator" means. Wolves don't need to be selective in theirslaughterharvest, a healthy wolf pack is quite capable of taking any game animal in the lower 48.
Yes, i know it isn't a complete truth that they only take the weak and sick. The majority of autopsies on the field have shown the ungulates too have ailments or been very old. Not always, but on average. Wolves can target all they want, but that doesn't mean they will be successful in bringing it down.
Quote
Not sure where your getting your facts about historical ranges of coyotes, but I will concede that excessive coyote numbers do constitute a reduction in small mammal and rodent numbers and reducing coyotes will increase rodents/mammals. Given that other predators (wolves, badgers, cougars, bobcats, etc) are kept in check and do not fill the void. There, we agree ever so slightly on something. I think I'm going to be sick. :chuckle:
It is not unknown that records from the past has shown that coyotes really weren't all that present outside of the west, mostly due to wolves not having a huge presence in southern California(guess they don't like the LA attitude, but who does?). The Dire Wolf was there eon's ago, but died off for an unknown reason. Might have something to do with the wolves we saw after them weren't there as well.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 06:12:41 PM
Manure = Typical B.S. YAWN
Not that I typically answer questions posted by you glassy eyed idiots, but as to my craigslist comment.. go back to your circle jerk over there.
I have no idea to what you're referring about that particular circle jerk, but it's common knowledge amongst us Patriots that you glassy eyed idiots gather there. It's like a huge roach nest for things like you.
You continue to refer to knowledgable people as "poachers".
I suggest you refrain from that. Poaching is against the law in this country.
Go back to your craigslist circle jerk
Actually, i have NO IDEA what you are talking about with this 'circle jerk you mention, and kinda don't want to know either.
I found this particular would-be poacher because i enter 'wolf' into the search engine to keep an eye out for people trying to sell wolf pups and hybrids so that i can flag and report them
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 06:22:10 PM
Just like a fly angler..... they'll dangle the bait, hold back, jitter it a bit, and then try to take the fish
Don't buy it And in this case,, don't take the bait.
In my world, don't eat the *censored* he's dishin'.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 06:25:06 PM
Deflect
Blame
It's always the same
YAWN
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 06:28:37 PM
Quote
Things like manure will do anything to confuse the issue.
Deflect
meaning 'defend myself'.
Quote
Blame
well if THAT ain't the pot calling the kettle black!
Quote
It's always the same
Is there an echo in here?
And sorry, lady, but i don't fly fish. I actually rather use wedding tackle. Have been successful with salmon berries in a pinch as well.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 06:44:36 PM
You sit here and attempt to distract people here with nonsense.
You deflect and confuse the bottom line
with your "quotes", trying to lure people into your delirious nonsense
I can smell things like YOU through the ether. The putrid stench of a NWO grunt.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 06:46:59 PM
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
NWO? Are you joking?!
You can call it deflecting all you want, but I know what my intentions are and that is not it.
I don't know who this Alinsky is, probably don't care to either.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 06:59:32 PM
And a NWO grunt.
You are brainwashed manure. I have no more use for you than I do for the tissue that cleaned my ass.
Post by: smokepole assassin79 on April 27, 2012, 07:03:56 PM
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 07:07:01 PM
And seriously, what is this NWO *censored* you keep mentioning? You sound like those evangelical wackos who just blindly scream in people's faces without actually engaging in discussion. But as long as you scream louder than me, right?
You say you have no use for me, but you know that's a lie. Thats why you keep responding. You love it.
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 07:09:45 PM
humanure if your so worried about the gene pool do the human race a favor and get your nuts cut so you don't spread your weaka$$ genes. This is a forum for hunters and like minded people yet all i see from you is trying to push your views onto others, and declare your thoughts to be right. you would never see me go to a antihunting forum and try too push what i believe on them, yet here you are. you are a total jackwagon your father should have used a condom.
Believe you me, I don't EVER want kids. Thats why I'm pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide and pro-merciful killing of vegetables. Too many humans alive in the world.
Actually, some on this forum do go to anti-hunting forums and stir it up. They've posted about it.
I'm not anti-hunting, BTW.
Post by: seth30 on April 27, 2012, 07:15:03 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:15:25 PM
humanure if your so worried about the gene pool do the human race a favor and get your nuts cut so you don't spread your weaka$$ genes. This is a forum for hunters and like minded people yet all i see from you is trying to push your views onto others, and declare your thoughts to be right. you would never see me go to a antihunting forum and try too push what i believe on them, yet here you are. you are a total jackwagon your father should have used a condom.
Believe you me, I don't EVER want kids. Thats why I'm pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide and pro-merciful killing of vegetables. Too many humans alive in the world.
Actually, some on this forum do go to anti-hunting forums and stir it up. They've posted about it.
I'm not anti-hunting, BTW.
Excellent
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:17:50 PM
Burn, manure
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 07:20:22 PM
Post by: smokepole assassin79 on April 27, 2012, 07:21:44 PM
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 07:23:09 PM
Post by: smokepole assassin79 on April 27, 2012, 07:29:39 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:31:21 PM
"Believe you me, I don't EVER want kids. Thats why I'm pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide and pro-merciful killing of vegetables. Too many humans alive in the world.
Actually, some on this forum do go to anti-hunting forums and stir it up. They've posted about it."
You deserve nothing less....You are SCUM
Post by: rasbo on April 27, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:34:22 PM
1) It is a NWO grunt
3) It is a glassy eyed idiot
PICK ONE
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 07:38:43 PM
Facts are stubborn things. Put an end to manure's lies.
I have a nice pot of soup to tend to.
Post by: Moose22 on April 27, 2012, 08:28:47 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 27, 2012, 08:31:48 PM
Post by: JODakota on April 27, 2012, 08:35:42 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 08:52:36 PM
Eventually, the rats wither and it is We, The People who win.
manure is a psyop
It pains me deeply to get into these spats, but those vermin are all over the inet, spewing their lies and I will never let it go without a fight. They do a real good job at trying to distract people, quoting and pointing their scragglw hooves They don't fool me one bit because I've been fighting those beasts for nearly eiht years now. I can smell their putrid stench through the ether.
manure is a grunt. Here to attempt to brainwash you hunters, as his masters have brainwashed it to behave. He;s an amatuer.
I am here to stop it.
Post by: TWG2A on April 27, 2012, 09:07:04 PM
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 10:06:35 PM
A: An NWO grunt?
B: A psyop?
Master's? And who exactly are these master's of mine? How can somebody be brainwashed when they came up with their opinion on their own research and volition?
Anyways, i just saw this and and it shows that pro-activety against predators does have good results if you work it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F04%2F26%2FMN7D1O7RA4.DTL
Post by: humanure on April 27, 2012, 10:19:42 PM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on April 28, 2012, 03:58:35 AM
But I ask again, why stay bitter and not help reach co-habitability?
Because non of us want the efin wolf here AT ALL! Co-habitaing is not the answer. Death to the wolf is the answer
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 04:03:17 AM
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 04:05:35 AM
Is that really how you feel? It's statement's like that that make me question whether we evolved or DEvolved from monkey's...
Post by: GrainfedMuley on April 28, 2012, 04:46:43 AM
"Hunting and fishing is boring....Killing and catching is fun."
Is that really how you feel? It's statement's like that that make me question whether we evolved or DEvolved from monkey's...
Get a grip.....it's an efin joke :dunno:
Post by: Special T on April 28, 2012, 07:37:54 AM
The real fact of the matter is this. The stock of beef cannot currently meet demand. Wolves require less/no range land use and concentrates cattle. Feed lots will be the only real way to raise beef. The loss of very many cattle will take out any profit in Cheaper range grazing. Marginal to unproductive Farm land currently makes up range ground here in Wa. This creates more competition for food sources. Currently there is not real un-tapped farm ground. Nearly all possible farm ground is under production. Land left over is marginal requiring lots of water and/or has poor quality soil.
So, you preach co-habitation... Which is better? feed lots and pens, or range ground? Higher beef costs, or opening up new water sources to grow crops like hay to feed cattle in those pens?
Post by: TWG2A on April 28, 2012, 08:10:56 AM
Yeah well, that's never gonna happen. Might as well forget about it cuz theys here to stay. So now that we've established that the wolves will always be here, what are you gonna do? You at least have a wolf hunting season to look forward to to calm your madula oblungata down...
1) Yes it will.
2) No they won't
3) No we haven't
4) None of your business
5) Indeed, we do.
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 11:45:53 AM
Humanure, that is a great article about coyotes. I know people that use llamas to protect thier cattle calfs from coyotes, and have seen a stopped coyote before. Those methods do work.... On coyotes... Dogs and llamas do do much for wolves. In fact any dog that is in wolves territory is a challenge.
The real fact of the matter is this. The stock of beef cannot currently meet demand. Wolves require less/no range land use and concentrates cattle. Feed lots will be the only real way to raise beef. The loss of very many cattle will take out any profit in Cheaper range grazing. Marginal to unproductive Farm land currently makes up range ground here in Wa. This creates more competition for food sources. Currently there is not real un-tapped farm ground. Nearly all possible farm ground is under production. Land left over is marginal requiring lots of water and/or has poor quality soil.
So, you preach co-habitation... Which is better? feed lots and pens, or range ground? Higher beef costs, or opening up new water sources to grow crops like hay to feed cattle in those pens?
I'll be honest, thinking about all of this, everyone's special interests, ways of life, etc... there's going to have to be compromise on both sides. To be honest, if beef cannot meet the current demand... what in the hell does that say about our country, human populous, etc? I think that's a huge problem in of itself that needs to be over-hauled and dealt with, and not by increasing beef stock. I'm not even thinking about humananity vs. wildlife on that thought, I'm saying that we, the people(haha), need to take responsibility for this situation we've created for ourselves. We have to many fat ass' in this country, and they eat way to freakin much! I honestly think thats our biggest issue, currently. Because humanity is seriously so obese that it compromises our ability to let the wild have it's habitat... then what does that mean for the future?
Post by: TWG2A on April 28, 2012, 11:51:35 AM
http://simmental.org/site/ (http://simmental.org/site/)
American Simmental Association, paid for by the Rockefellers, is genetically engineering our beef.
Monsanto and Tyson are also involved.
Eugenics freaks and global elitists. Kind of makes one warm and fuzzy, no?
I consume only organic, non-GMO locally raised beef.
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Ok, I DO NOT partake in any of the occupy movements, but my friend linked this on my facebook the other day:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246139152128041&set=a.182339481841342.43482.182336115175012&type=1&theater
Post by: TWG2A on April 28, 2012, 12:05:01 PM
Thankfully, I know how to grow my own food, cook my own food and preserve my own food. No fast food and no junk food allowed in my home.
No GMO and no chemicals.
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 01:55:50 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 28, 2012, 02:06:43 PM
We also have what's commonly called "The Three SSS's", but that is beyond the point I want to make.
Those wolves are bad for our ecological system. They're wreaking havoc and they need to be treated as the predators that they are. Bringing their numbers down to manageble is our goal.
And if we were to be concerned with the ecological balance here, we would have brought back the Timber Wolves, and not non-native canadian greys. Our system is geared for timber wolves. Not those canadian greys. It cannot support them and they are causing some major damage.
But manure, I repeat that this is only a teeny, tiny piece of a MASSIVE scheme. In order to understand it, one must inform themselves of Agenda 21. Several counties here in Montana have signed that agreement, and if we are to preserve our Nation, Her Citizens and our environment, we MUST fight that diabolical scheme. Please do yourself, and our Nation, a favor and study it.
It's important.
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 02:11:22 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 28, 2012, 02:29:58 PM
At least we agree on something.humanure....you can gladly join my group on facebook ... :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: ( citizens against the reintroduction of wolves in the US )
Ok, I DO NOT partake in any of the occupy movements, but my friend linked this on my facebook the other day:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246139152128041&set=a.182339481841342.43482.182336115175012&type=1&theater
Post by: humanure on April 28, 2012, 02:36:43 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 28, 2012, 02:52:47 PM
At least we agree on something.humanure....you can gladly join my group on facebook ... :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: ( citizens against the reintroduction of wolves in the US )
Ok, I DO NOT partake in any of the occupy movements, but my friend linked this on my facebook the other day:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246139152128041&set=a.182339481841342.43482.182336115175012&type=1&theater
I'd join you there, if I still had a facebook account. Left them a while back.... Please feel free to forward any info you might want me to post on my blog.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 28, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
hahaha, I'm good!Excuse me lord :chuckle: But I now have to ask this question :dunno: HUMANURE -Are you the one in the front of the line ??? :sry: :o :yeah:
Post by: humanure on April 29, 2012, 12:49:54 AM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on April 29, 2012, 02:08:29 AM
Since the sentiment here is that measures aren't being taken to make things co-habitable for the hunting community, what are some of your idea's that could be pro-active in doing so? And please, i already know you want to shoot them as a measure, so lets move beyond that.
What is there to move on to? Dead wolves are the end of the line. Nothing to move on to. End of story and the hunter lives happily ever after!
Post by: humanure on April 29, 2012, 02:32:00 AM
Anyone have any ideas at all?
Post by: GrainfedMuley on April 29, 2012, 02:38:47 AM
Post by: TWG2A on April 29, 2012, 06:59:27 AM
not for you
manure posted that question, and immediately after it was posted he set me on the "ignore" feature. I can still se it's posts, but it can't see mine.
What a tool. He doesn't want solutions. He wants everyone else to agree with his warped little brain
Post by: high country on April 29, 2012, 07:52:28 AM
Humanure, that is a great article about coyotes. I know people that use llamas to protect thier cattle calfs from coyotes, and have seen a stopped coyote before. Those methods do work.... On coyotes... Dogs and llamas do do much for wolves. In fact any dog that is in wolves territory is a challenge.
The real fact of the matter is this. The stock of beef cannot currently meet demand. Wolves require less/no range land use and concentrates cattle. Feed lots will be the only real way to raise beef. The loss of very many cattle will take out any profit in Cheaper range grazing. Marginal to unproductive Farm land currently makes up range ground here in Wa. This creates more competition for food sources. Currently there is not real un-tapped farm ground. Nearly all possible farm ground is under production. Land left over is marginal requiring lots of water and/or has poor quality soil.
So, you preach co-habitation... Which is better? feed lots and pens, or range ground? Higher beef costs, or opening up new water sources to grow crops like hay to feed cattle in those pens?
I'll be honest, thinking about all of this, everyone's special interests, ways of life, etc... there's going to have to be compromise on both sides. To be honest, if beef cannot meet the current demand... what in the hell does that say about our country, human populous, etc? I think that's a huge problem in of itself that needs to be over-hauled and dealt with, and not by increasing beef stock. I'm not even thinking about humananity vs. wildlife on that thought, I'm saying that we, the people(haha), need to take responsibility for this situation we've created for ourselves. We have to many fat ass' in this country, and they eat way to freakin much! I honestly think thats our biggest issue, currently. Because humanity is seriously so obese that it compromises our ability to let the wild have it's habitat... then what does that mean for the future?
Take your quote, change "beef" to "elk" and "humans" to wolves.....You just described Idaho, Montana and soon washinton.