Bogley

[Sombeech]

Rev. Coyote wrote: I oppose extermination mentality.

I refer back to natural balance.

If it were extermination, I may have a problem as well. But, once again, how many wolves does it take to maintain that balance?

I admit that I do not know the answer, but I'd assume that if you're against reducing the pack numbers, that you would know.

[Rev. Coyote]

Sombeech wrote: If it were extermination, I may have a problem as well. But, once again, how many wolves does it take to maintain that balance?

I admit that I do not know the answer, but I'd assume that if you're against reducing the pack numbers, that you would know.


If you're FOR reducing pack numbers, you should know as well...

Fact remains, we've killed enough wolves in this country to push them into threatened and endangered status. We have NO wolves, NO cougars, and just a few coyotes in Virginia and used to have lots (back in the old days). Now, deer populations are out of control.

Of course, so is the human population, but that's another story.

Is "vulpaphobe" a word...?

[Sombeech]

Rev. Coyote wrote: Sombeech wrote: If it were extermination, I may have a problem as well. But, once again, how many wolves does it take to maintain that balance?

I admit that I do not know the answer, but I'd assume that if you're against reducing the pack numbers, that you would know.
If you're FOR reducing pack numbers, you should know as well...

I'm not taking any action, so I do not have the burden of proof. When the Gov made the call, he was informed of the balanced number.

Nobody in the opposition has stated otherwise. I would expect them to PROVE him wrong.

[Rev. Coyote]

Sombeech wrote: I'm not taking any action, so I do not have the burden of proof. When the Gov made the call, he was informed of the balanced number.

Nobody in the opposition has stated otherwise. I would expect them to PROVE him wrong.


What disturbed me about the governor was his senseless wannabe-redneck bravado. His plan is to exterminate as many wolves as possible until the population reaches a level just above endangered status. Killing for killing's sake. Depravity.

Bet he started off with ants and a magnifying glass.

HEY! There's a picture on the banner of you at Brigham's Unit! I was just there. Quite a stone boner.

[Sombeech]

Rev. Coyote wrote: HEY! There's a picture on the banner of you at Brigham's Unit! I was just there. Quite a stone boner.

What's Brigham's Unit?

[Rev. Coyote]

Sombeech wrote: Rev. Coyote wrote: HEY! There's a picture on the banner of you at Brigham's Unit! I was just there. Quite a stone boner.

What's Brigham's Unit?

It's the rock at Arches that looks like a big old Johnson. That is you in that picture, right? On the rotating banner top of page?

That's the name I've heard applied to the rock. Is there another? The NPS doesn't put up a sign, interpretive trail, or anything. Sorry bastards!

[psl53]

Quote: Sombeech wrote:
Rev. Coyote wrote:
HEY! There's a picture on the banner of you at Brigham's Unit! I was just there. Quite a stone boner.


What's Brigham's Unit?


It's the rock at Arches that looks like a big old Johnson. That is you in that picture, right? On the rotating banner top of page?

That's the name I've heard applied to the rock. Is there another? The NPS doesn't put up a sign, interpretive trail, or anything. Sorry bastards

Everyone I know just called it .................. Penis Rock

[shlingdawg]

The tentative plan, or speculative plan for Wyoming is that there will be areas opened up to treat wolves as any other non-game predator. No license will be required to shoot a wolf if this legislation is passed. IF (or when) it passes, I will be joining my brother who lives in the area and I will try to bag a few. My reasons? Perhaps I am killing for killing sake, but I will also pay to have the entire animal taxidermied. I'm sure there are many wannabe hunters who would pay to have a full wolf mount in their cabin so they can impress their buddies and make them believe that they, themselves, killed the creature. Economics. I simply don't possess the same emotions as you regarding the wolf. No, I'm not a dog lover either. Or a cat lover. I shoot jackrabbits by the dozens for pure diversion. I shoot coyotes and praire dogs as well, just for fun. I don't shoot big game as it does nothing for me. I'll eat elk if it's prepared well. I also flyfish for fun and eat less than 1% of what I catch, but I do return everything back so I can catch it again. If I'm I catch a trashfish (carp) I'll throw it on the bank and watch it die.

I also enjoy air polluting snowmobiles, ORV's and many other eco-unfriendly activities. Conversely, I do enjoy backpacking, hiking and other tree-hugger, kumbahyaaaa circle jerk moments too.

I don't fault Idaho governor, but maybe I'll join him. :2thumbs:

[Rev. Coyote]

shlingdawg wrote: The tentative plan, or speculative plan for Wyoming is that there will be areas opened up to treat wolves as any other non-game predator. No license will be required to shoot a wolf if this legislation is passed. IF (or when) it passes, I will be joining my brother who lives in the area and I will try to bag a few. My reasons? Perhaps I am killing for killing sake, but I will also pay to have the entire animal taxidermied. I'm sure there are many wannabe hunters who would pay to have a full wolf mount in their cabin so they can impress their buddies and make them believe that they, themselves, killed the creature. Economics. I simply don't possess the same emotions as you regarding the wolf. No, I'm not a dog lover either. Or a cat lover. I shoot jackrabbits by the dozens for pure diversion. I shoot coyotes and praire dogs as well, just for fun. I don't shoot big game as it does nothing for me. I'll eat elk if it's prepared well. I also flyfish for fun and eat less than 1% of what I catch, but I do return everything back so I can catch it again. If I'm I catch a trashfish (carp) I'll throw it on the bank and watch it die.

I also enjoy air polluting snowmobiles, ORV's and many other eco-unfriendly activities. Conversely, I do enjoy backpacking, hiking and other tree-hugger, kumbahyaaaa circle jerk moments too. But not very often.

I don't fault Idaho governor, but maybe I'll join him. :2thumbs:


Spoken like a real man. Pathetic.

[shlingdawg]

Rev. Coyote wrote:


Spoken like a real man. Pathetic.

Careful those blinders don't fall down and make you blind. How many times has name calling won a disagreement for you?

[DAA]

"Fact remains, we've killed enough wolves in this country to push them into threatened and endangered status."

Uhhh... 'scuse me? Wolves are not anywhere CLOSE to "threatened and endangered" in this country. Ever heard of Alaska? Or, moving outside the U.S., Canada? Wolves populations are thriving in areas where habitat to sustain them is still intact. Always have been. Always will. Wolves have never been in any danger of extinction - not even close. They were extirpated from most of the CONUS a generation ago. But there is a huge difference between local extirpation and the "threatened and endangered status" you are giving them. Which is not surprising. That is precisely what the PR campaign funded by the anti hunting groups most responsible for the introduction of the Yellowstong wolves has been aiming to do - brainwash people into believing wolves are threatened with extinction, which is simply not true at all. These are the same people that have been lobbying for endangered status for prairie dogs for crying out loud.

What the introduced wolves have enjoyed though, is "protected" status. It's that protected status that allows them to exist in the areas they had long since ceased to survive. Unlike coyotes, which have been even more persecuted than wolves (by a gigantic margin) and yet continue to increase their population and range despite well funded and hard fought erradication efforts spanning the entire history of the U.S. because they are an adaptable specie able to survive and thrive in almost any habitat and in close proximity to human population centers. Wolves on the other hand, are more specialized and have much more specific habitat requirements. Those requirements caused conflict with man, so the wolves, not possessing the adaptive qualities of the coyote, were rather easily extirpated. Since that time, the type of habitat required for wolves to exist without conflict with man has shrunk significantly. To the point that there just aren't too many places where wolves can roam free without causing economic turmoil for locals.

So we have conflict. And emotion. And drama. And lots and lots of decisions being made based on emotion. By people either simply ignorant of the cold hard facts, or worse, and unfortunately more common amongst the policy makers - decisions being made on emotion even when the facts ARE understood.

I don't want to see the introduced wolves extirpated again. Not that I think that will ever happen. But, the fact remains that the targeted number of breeding packs and over all wolf population goals of the introduction have LONG SINCE been exceeded. There are now far more of the wolves, in far more places, than anyone made any "official" management plans for. So, now the agencies charged with managing these wolves are trying to ease into the idea that they must indeed BE managed. No different than any other animal that has significant impact on resources and economies. That management will ultimately either end up with sport hunting to control population numbers, or professional removal. I have a very good friend who will be one of the people doing the "professional removal". Actually, he'll be doing it whether there is sport hunting or not. It's his job to go out and kill the problem wolves known to be causing livestock damage. But, if the various and disparate public agencies involved in trying to come up with a "wolf management plan" fail to provide a population control via sport hunting, he'll be killing them just for the sake of reducing their numbers.

So... Take your pick. Sport hunting or professional killing. Either way, the wolves need to be managed, and managed they eventually shall be.

- DAA

[Rev. Coyote]

DAA wrote: I have a very good friend who will be one of the people doing the "professional removal". Actually, he'll be doing it whether there is sport hunting or not. It's his job to go out and kill the problem wolves known to be causing livestock damage.

He sounds like real high quality people....

I say we take five welfare free range cows for ever "problem" wolf killed by knuckle-draggers like your little friend. My .308 awaits the opportunity. It'll be fun.

And don't get all emotional. They're just cows. Cows sucking the public titty and ruining the native vegetation. Cows endangering predator species through people like your friend.

Really, that's where this whole battle needs to go -- take a wolf, lose some welfare cattle. I'm good with that. You ready?

[Sombeech]

Rev. Coyote wrote: Really, that's where this whole battle needs to go -- take a wolf, lose some welfare cattle. I'm good with that. You ready?

Those damned cows, roaming the hills wild and disrespecting their elders. That's an Apples to Apples comparison. In fact, cows are worse with those Wolves because the poop's bigger.

Kill 'em!

[Rev. Coyote]

DAA wrote: Uhhh... 'scuse me? Wolves are not anywhere CLOSE to "threatened and endangered" in this country.


Oh, and by the way, there are wolves federally recognized as endangered and threatened in this country. Here's a link to get you started on the gray and the red wolves:

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do

I don't entirely trust the gummint, but these findings are, I'm certain, more thorough than any you've attempted for damn sure.

[Rev. Coyote]

Sombeech wrote: Those damned cows, roaming the hills wild and disrespecting their elders. That's an Apples to Apples comparison. In fact, cows are worse with those Wolves because the poop's bigger.

Kill 'em!

Come with me! I'll bring the bourbon, the Mauser, and the spatula. I cook a steak will make you want to smack your momma.

Can we use your Jeep...?