Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2012, 12:39:16 PM
After recieving several additional complaints regarding the disruption of every wolf topic, seeing the continual use of less than appropriate language, and after reviewing the posts made by this member, it has been determined that a permenent ban is appropriate.
I will clean up some of the topics and get rid of as much of his rubbish and replies to his rubbish as possible.
Post by: wraithen on June 16, 2012, 12:41:37 PM
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2012, 12:47:37 PM
Post by: wraithen on June 16, 2012, 12:50:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2012, 12:54:25 PM
He'll probably be back under a different username, please message me if you see posts made by any new member that read like something written by humanure and I will check it out. :tup:
Post by: seth30 on June 16, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on June 16, 2012, 01:40:44 PM
Post by: L8NITE on June 16, 2012, 02:06:03 PM
Post by: buckfvr on June 16, 2012, 02:15:30 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 16, 2012, 02:35:58 PM
then slowly they degraded - I'd stop in from time to time to see the progress towards a perma ban :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2012, 02:44:04 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 16, 2012, 02:57:23 PM
Post by: 3nails on June 16, 2012, 03:29:03 PM
:hello: :sry: :tup: :tup: :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Hey John, you forgot :yeah: :yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: PolarBear on June 16, 2012, 03:35:09 PM
Post by: Kain on June 16, 2012, 03:42:57 PM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on June 17, 2012, 10:19:12 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 17, 2012, 10:55:12 AM
:hello: :sry: :tup: :tup: :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Hey John, you forgot :yeah: :yeah: :chuckle:
[/quote No I did not forget :chuckle: :chuckle: they would miss me to much :dunno: 8)
Post by: huntnphool on June 17, 2012, 11:38:21 AM
Post by: mfswallace on June 17, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
Post by: mossy8352 on June 17, 2012, 11:48:03 AM
Post by: TheHunt on June 17, 2012, 02:51:25 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 17, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
You gave him much more leash than I would of.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 17, 2012, 03:23:19 PM
Yea, he is a tree hugger for sure. He is name is spelled Dallas Bolen. Spelled with one "L". And he is from Eatonville.
BYE BYE Dallas! I dealt with him over on the DFW Wolf discussions a while back and I could tell it was him
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 17, 2012, 04:13:09 PM
Post by: SpringerFan on June 17, 2012, 06:35:22 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on June 17, 2012, 06:39:52 PM
Post by: Huntbear on June 17, 2012, 06:41:12 PM
I think he/she was just missunderstood. :chuckle: :sas:
:spank_butt: :spank_butt: :spank_butt: :spank_butt:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on June 18, 2012, 03:50:49 AM
Yea, he is a tree hugger for sure. He is name is spelled Dallas Bolen. Spelled with one "L". And he is from Eatonville.
Really? I know some people down there, they pretty much know the entire town.They might know this guy. BTW, Thanx Dale :tup: I can finally relax now.
Post by: seth30 on June 18, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on June 18, 2012, 07:13:29 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 18, 2012, 07:59:39 AM
Post by: Huntboy on June 18, 2012, 08:23:30 AM
Post by: Alchase on June 18, 2012, 08:49:06 AM
Then he would post something idiotic, and hilarity would ensue for a few pages.
The problem like Dale said, after a couple posts the original and usually interesting topic was then forgotten.
Dale you have a ton more tolerance then I ever would, catch me without my coffee and all of yous would be banned! Then after my second cup I would feel bad and unban you, lol.
Post by: PolarBear on June 18, 2012, 08:58:52 AM
Post by: JohnVH on June 18, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 18, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
Post by: brackens on June 18, 2012, 11:31:22 AM
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Post by: h20hunter on June 18, 2012, 11:49:37 AM
Post by: Kain on June 18, 2012, 12:46:05 PM
I am not one who thinks that wolves are good for deer, elk, et. al if left unchecked. I am from the prospective that they have been a part of the ecosystem for as long as it has been around. I think a healthy population, like cougar, bear and coyotes, are a good thing. I did not agree with how the individual that got banned took over every post on this topic. But I am concerned that any opinion other than wolves are a menace that needs to be eradicated is shouted down and banned. There needs to be room for a differing opinion or what is the point of a forum?
You and I seem to have a similar opinion on how a few well managed wolves is fine. No one is shouting down or banning either one of us and telling us how wrong our opinions are. :dunno:
Its like the saying goes. "Dont be so open minded that your brains fall out." We can be open for debate on all sides but letting useless blathering and disruption go unchecked does nothing for an intellectual debate on this issue.
Post by: brackens on June 18, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Post by: brackens on June 18, 2012, 12:55:35 PM
I would argue there is room for a different oppinion, however you had best have your information/ argument well formed... Wolves are here so its really to what degree they need to be managed... Many here are not too concerned about personal oppinions but more concerned about facts and logic used to move us forward. :twocents: ANYONE who is willing to engage in thoughtful debate is welcome, if all you want to do is :stirthepot: I wouldn't wase my effort to respond. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2012, 01:23:26 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2012, 02:28:59 PM
The anti hunting groups are a pretty damn crafty adversary...
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Wolves didn't really need "saving" in washington because we had them here for much of the time that there was supposidly an absence... I think its an interesting ACEDEMIC discussion but i realize to solve the issue the ESA needs to be adressed NOT the details about wolves...
The Anit groups do not have good Biology, they are more organised and better at playing the game. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2012, 02:47:00 PM
I am still on the side of conservation whenever I can be. I don't mind having a few wolves around and I don't mind making sacrifices to my hunting, hunting areas, access, weapon choice... if a species or habitat is realistically in peril. I don't like seeing hunters fight against hunters, but the disconnect between hunting and conservation is one that I cannot wrap my brain around. Hunters need to be the ones at the forefront of conservation- not anti hunting groups.
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
No agency would sanction poisoning. ID is going to have a hell of a time controlling numbers with liberal trapping and hunting seasons, so... Realistically Pro wolfers have already achieved what they SAY they want... What they really want tho resides in you wallet. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2012, 03:14:07 PM
It's a tough situation for sure. I don't like hearing hunters banter on about SSS or other nonsense, but I can understand why people feel like they've been ignored by the agencies. Sadly, lawsuits make things happen... maybe some hunting groups will file one...?
Post by: brackens on June 18, 2012, 05:26:53 PM
Post by: Kain on June 18, 2012, 05:46:12 PM
Wolves need to have value as a game animal in order to have peace. :twocents: When an animal has value and hunters want to harvest it, it will be managed correctly. I know this is an opinion but I truly believe you can look at Africa for predator game management success.
I dont know anything about africa but bears and cougars have a value here and even the management of those is being manipulated. The management of wolves is going to be a major problem here even when it is allowed to start. I agree with you and others that a sustainable number of wolves that are aggressively managed would be fine in this state. That being said I dont think that will ever happen. Wolves will over populate and any effort to manage them will be so restricted that they will be out of control and by then all methods that will be available in this state will not be enough. No leg holds for the average trapper. No poisons. Aerial gunning would be ineffective even if they allow it in most of the state. The anti's have pretty much already won the fight. We are just going to have to fight to see how long hunting can hang on. With how hunters fight with each other and how unwilling the are to stand up for anything the outlook does not look good.
Post by: Curly on June 18, 2012, 05:59:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 18, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
I am not one who thinks that wolves are good for deer, elk, et. al if left unchecked. I am from the prospective that they have been a part of the ecosystem for as long as it has been around. I think a healthy population, like cougar, bear and coyotes, are a good thing. I did not agree with how the individual that got banned took over every post on this topic. But I am concerned that any opinion other than wolves are a menace that needs to be eradicated is shouted down and banned. There needs to be room for a differing opinion or what is the point of a forum?
You are wrong! Just to clarify, humanure was given a warning and a short ban not long ago due to the fact his posts continued to decline to a lower level and he continued to change the topic in wolf posts. His own actions and the number of requests I recieved from other members regarding his actions is what earned him a permanent ban. :twocents:
You are welcome to take any position on wolves, but dont use his methods.
Post by: wraithen on June 18, 2012, 08:34:45 PM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on June 18, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
I am not one who thinks that wolves are good for deer, elk, et. al if left unchecked. I am from the prospective that they have been a part of the ecosystem for as long as it has been around. I think a healthy population, like cougar, bear and coyotes, are a good thing. I did not agree with how the individual that got banned took over every post on this topic. But I am concerned that any opinion other than wolves are a menace that needs to be eradicated is shouted down and banned. There needs to be room for a differing opinion or what is the point of a forum?
You are wrong! Just to clarify, humanure was given a warning and a short ban not long ago due to the fact his posts continued to decline to a lower level and he continued to change the topic in wolf posts. His own actions and the number of requests I recieved from other members regarding his actions is what earned him a permanent ban. :twocents:
You are welcome to take any position on wolves, but dont use his methods.
Think a connection is here???? :chuckle: Just saying.... Brackens sounds off.....
Post by: sebek556 on June 18, 2012, 10:30:49 PM
Post by: ShaneTyTrey on June 18, 2012, 10:32:19 PM
Post by: mfswallace on June 18, 2012, 10:50:05 PM
I am not one who thinks that wolves are good for deer, elk, et. al if left unchecked. I am from the prospective that they have been a part of the ecosystem for as long as it has been around. I think a healthy population, like cougar, bear and coyotes, are a good thing. I did not agree with how the individual that got banned took over every post on this topic. But I am concerned that any opinion other than wolves are a menace that needs to be eradicated is shouted down and banned. There needs to be room for a differing opinion or what is the point of a forum?
You are wrong! Just to clarify, humanure was given a warning and a short ban not long ago due to the fact his posts continued to decline to a lower level and he continued to change the topic in wolf posts. His own actions and the number of requests I recieved from other members regarding his actions is what earned him a permanent ban. :twocents:
You are welcome to take any position on wolves, but dont use his methods.
Think a connection is here???? :chuckle: Just saying.... Brackens sounds off.....
:dunno: hmm one just banned then a newer user pops up with about the same view points.... wonder how long this identity will last
Look at Brackens post history and date of start here....then decide if Humanure is smart enough to start a number of different accounts
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 18, 2012, 11:12:03 PM
Post by: brackens on June 19, 2012, 07:26:10 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 19, 2012, 07:59:17 AM
Wolves need to have value as a game animal in order to have peace. :twocents: When an animal has value and hunters want to harvest it, it will be managed correctly. I know this is an opinion but I truly believe you can look at Africa for predator game management success.
All animals managed by the WDFW in this state is done poorly.....
Post by: bearpaw on June 19, 2012, 08:03:04 AM
Classic. I post something that respectfully says that it is ok to have different opinions on the subject, clearly stating that I think wolves need to be managed, and now the conspiracy theorist think I am the banned member. :tup: LOL. My last post suggested that hunting them and checking their numbers is a good thing. This is my last post on this subject as rational discussion on the topic appears to be nil. :twocents:
Several banned users have come back on the forum with a new username, we have deleted several such previously banned users, I would suggest that's the reason for those comments.
You are welcome to your opinion, but how can you not expect to not raise a few eyebrows given the circumstances. I can see you are a different user by your post history, so no worries. :tup: :hello:
Post by: bearpaw on June 19, 2012, 08:19:59 AM
Wolves need to have value as a game animal in order to have peace. :twocents: When an animal has value and hunters want to harvest it, it will be managed correctly. I know this is an opinion but I truly believe you can look at Africa for predator game management success.
All animals managed by the WDFW in this state is done poorly.....
I think Wyoming is doing it right. Wolves are protected in and around the park, if they stray out of their protected area and into the populated and ranching areas of the state, they are classified as unprotected wildlife in those areas and may be shot on sight by anyone, no license needed.
I have stated something to this effect before, if wolves were protected in national parks and wilderness areas I could support that provided wolves could be shot on sight when they are standing on the knoll eyeing a ranchers cattle, watching pets, or studying children playing or waiting for the bus.
Wolves should be unprotected in human inhabited areas, wolves do not belong in or near inhabited areas. The same can be said for grizzly bears, the records of attacks and costs associated with agencies allowing wolves and grizzlies to inhabit unsuitable habitat supports my statement.
Post by: Huntboy on June 19, 2012, 08:26:19 AM
Wolves need to have value as a game animal in order to have peace. :twocents: When an animal has value and hunters want to harvest it, it will be managed correctly. I know this is an opinion but I truly believe you can look at Africa for predator game management success.
All animals managed by the WDFW in this state is done poorly.....
I think Wyoming is doing it right. Wolves are protected in and around the park, if they stray out of their protected area and into the populated and ranching areas of the state, they are classified as unprotected wildlife in those areas and may be shot on sight by anyone, no license needed.
I have stated something to this effect before, if wolves were protected in national parks and wilderness areas I could support that provided wolves could be shot on sight when they are standing on the knoll eyeing a ranchers cattle, watching pets, or studying children playing or waiting for the bus.
Wolves should be unprotected in human inhabited areas, wolves do not belong in or near inhabited areas. The same can be said for grizzly bears, the records of attacks and costs associated with agencies allowing wolves and grizzlies to inhabit unsuitable habitat supports my statement.
Agreed. :twocents:
Post by: sebek556 on June 19, 2012, 03:42:56 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on June 20, 2012, 09:06:58 AM
Post by: Machias on June 20, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
but the disconnect between hunting and conservation is one that I cannot wrap my brain around. Hunters need to be the ones at the forefront of conservation- not anti hunting groups.
I resepctfully and adamently disagree with you. The Anti's are nowhere near the forefront of conservationism, no where NEAR the forefront!!!!! Now if you want to say they are at the forefront of lining lawyers pockets and lawsuit after lawsuit, then I would agree with you. But they are not at the forefront of conservationism. Hunters, trappers, fisherman are WAY ahead. We are the conservationist of the world. Just think of how many BILLIONS of dollars could be spent on wildlife if the anti's stopped with all the lawsuits. Think of all the money wasted in the courts that could have gone to habitat restoration, habitiat purchase, etc.... We are the original and still the main driving force behind conservationism.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 20, 2012, 02:08:40 PM
but the disconnect between hunting and conservation is one that I cannot wrap my brain around. Hunters need to be the ones at the forefront of conservation- not anti hunting groups.
I resepctfully and adamently disagree with you. The Anti's are nowhere near the forefront of conservationism, no where NEAR the forefront!!!!! Now if you want to say they are at the forefront of lining lawyers pockets and lawsuit after lawsuit, then I would agree with you. But they are not at the forefront of conservationism. Hunters, trappers, fisherman are WAY ahead. We are the conservationist of the world. Just think of how many BILLIONS of dollars could be spent on wildlife if the anti's stopped with all the lawsuits. Think of all the money wasted in the courts that could have gone to habitat restoration, habitiat purchase, etc.... We are the original and still the main driving force behind conservationism.
Pat on the back for you Machias ! I agree 200 %.
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2012, 02:16:55 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2012, 11:50:56 PM
Post by: RoyBoy on June 21, 2012, 02:44:23 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 21, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
but the disconnect between hunting and conservation is one that I cannot wrap my brain around. Hunters need to be the ones at the forefront of conservation- not anti hunting groups.
I resepctfully and adamently disagree with you. The Anti's are nowhere near the forefront of conservationism, no where NEAR the forefront!!!!! Now if you want to say they are at the forefront of lining lawyers pockets and lawsuit after lawsuit, then I would agree with you. But they are not at the forefront of conservationism. Hunters, trappers, fisherman are WAY ahead. We are the conservationist of the world. Just think of how many BILLIONS of dollars could be spent on wildlife if the anti's stopped with all the lawsuits. Think of all the money wasted in the courts that could have gone to habitat restoration, habitiat purchase, etc.... We are the original and still the main driving force behind conservationism.
Pat on the back for you Machias ! I agree 200 %.
Good argument and I know what you mean by 'lining the lawyers (and their own) pockets'. I guess I should have been more clear about what I met. Hunters need to be more active in the Politics of Conservation.
Conservation groups are generating data and making strong cases in court. They often have better data than the agencies... sad. There are a ton of examples of Conservation groups leading the way for species recovery- the most recent one is Caribou (like it or not...) Hunters have not said a word about caribou recovery...100 years ago it would have been us making things happen...now it's "them".
Hunters do fund the state agencies (the ones with poorer data than some of the conservation groups) and cough up millions in P&R dollars. Anti hunting groups rarely put much money on the ground, until they need to generate data to make a case.
The disconnect that always blows me away is the general position that hunters take on public land and habitat issues. The recent example was the legislation that would open millions of acres of public land to mining/mineral/oil exploration and open roads all over those areas. It would be TERRIBLE for wildlife...so how could hunters possibly be in favor of that?? Those 'party lines' blow my mind.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 21, 2012, 08:01:41 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on June 21, 2012, 08:49:17 AM
Hunters don't have billionaires like nonhunters Paul Allen, to use their money for bogus lawsuits or to make huge land purchases. Has anyone ever heard of, " The Paul Allen Forest " near Loomis ?
Turner family anyone?
Post by: villageidiot on June 21, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Remember the story about the lion that saw the ant working. He decided to put hisself in charge of managing the ant. He noticed the ant worked early, very hard and put in long days carrying seeds to his abode. The lion decided if he had a manager he could produce better of course the lion got to share some of the seeds. Then the lion decided to hire an office person so hired a cadus fly to do office management and keep track of the ants time and seeds. The cadus fly needed computers to keep the data so bought computers with sees he sold from the ants cache. Then the lion needed someone to do some charts and graphs so he could see how things were going since he took charge so hired a spider because spiders make lines and such. The spider made some charts and they showed that the ant's production was going down because he was spending so much time filling out paperwork for the lion and also the seeds were being consumed by many more leaches instead of just the ant. So the lion hired a wise old owl to decide what to do about the ant's faltering ways. The owl said that he decided that there were just too many people working on the seeds that were produced. So the lion fired the ant since he was the one that was getting disenchanced and producing less seeds.
This is typiccal of our govt. and the enviro. groups.
Post by: sebek556 on June 21, 2012, 12:31:50 PM
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2012, 02:08:00 PM
"Good argument and I know what you mean by 'lining the lawyers (and their own) pockets'. I guess I should have been more clear about what I met. Hunters need to be more active in the Politics of Conservation.
Conservation groups are generating data and making strong cases in court. They often have better data than the agencies... sad. There are a ton of examples of Conservation groups leading the way for species recovery- the most recent one is Caribou (like it or not...) Hunters have not said a word about caribou recovery...100 years ago it would have been us making things happen...now it's "them".
Hunters do fund the state agencies (the ones with poorer data than some of the conservation groups) and cough up millions in P&R dollars. Anti hunting groups rarely put much money on the ground, until they need to generate data to make a case.
The disconnect that always blows me away is the general position that hunters take on public land and habitat issues. The recent example was the legislation that would open millions of acres of public land to mining/mineral/oil exploration and open roads all over those areas. It would be TERRIBLE for wildlife...so how could hunters possibly be in favor of that?? Those 'party lines' blow my mind."
The Red part of your statement is the most important part! IF the state was doing what the HUNTERS wanted(in most cases) they would be doing more for the wildlife... It baffles my mind that the WDFW has 100x the resources but do such a lousy job...
Post by: sebek556 on June 21, 2012, 07:45:43 PM
Conservation groups are generating data and making strong cases in court.
[/quote]
this is where I have a huge issue... I went to a wolf working group meeting, and saw the data they "generated" , generating data is the correct term, most of these groups are not collecting data, gathering data or researching data. They are generating it, in some plush 4th story room drinking latte's saying hey this sounds good put this in. So when they are approached with even the DFW's half data it looks like they are running circles around us. Plus the powers that be are appointing members to DFW to get the data to sound how they want it to, all the while draggin us along to pay the tab.
DFW's data collecting, gathering and research will not improve until the people that are paying them can hold them accountable. Just like any job when told to do something a few things come to mind, can you affect my pay, can you fire me? If the answer is no then most likely their response will be F U.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 21, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Finally.....a good hi-jack!