# Wolf's back on list...



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

*
- Copyrighted content removed by Admin -*

(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

[exclamation:1oh9bx7q][/exclamation:1oh9bx7q]*Please do not post copyrighted material on this site. I'm sorry, but I don't like getting letters from attorneys over copyright violations.*

Here's a link to the story that I removed.

Thanks! Petersen


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

**** Judge. I hate corrupt lame brain judges. The **** wolves are already way over objective. I dont think its right that a judge can make any type of decision that he wants to make. They need to remove a crappy judge like that from office.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

nochawk said:


> Judge restores protection for N. Rockies wolves
> 
> The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy is expected to derail plans by Montana, Wyoming and Idaho to allow public hunts for the predator.
> 
> )


It's a preliminary ruling, the fat lady hasn't sung the final tune on the issue.

So the lawyers get richer, the state's and sportsman's groups will appeal Molloy's ruling while the wolves will continue to eat our game animals, livestock, and expand their range.

S.S.S.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> **** Judge. I hate corrupt lame brain judges. The **** wolves are already way over objective. I dont think its right that a judge can make any type of decision that he wants to make. They need to remove a crappy judge like that from office.


Oh boy CS.......You act like the "****" wolves have harmed you or your livestock in some way. I can understand the way the farmers and other folk are feeling in IDAHO, MONTANA, and WYOMING but boy do you have a lot of anger over something that realy doesn't effect you personally. I know wolves are here in Utah and they will continue to grow in numbers....but they haven't really effected me so as to make me be all pissed off. I don't know how I feel about wolves....I think that they need to be MANAGED just like everything else, however, they have their place. I have never had any reason to hate them...I do know the damage they do to livestock and deer and elk herds...However, I had a change of heart about wolves and have come to realize their place in the world after reading ALDO LEOPOLD. I recomend you read his stuff......If he was still alive and his theories and practices regarding wildlife management were still vigorously practiced today, this world of hunting and game management would have turned out a whole lot better than it has........JMHO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Oh boy CS.......You act like the "****" wolves have harmed you or your livestock in some way. I can understand the way the farmers and other folk are feeling in IDAHO, MONTANA, and WYOMING but boy do you have a lot of anger over something that realy doesn't effect you personally. I know wolves are here in Utah and they will continue to grow in numbers....but they haven't really effected me so as to make me be all **** off. I don't know how I feel about wolves....I think that they need to be MANAGED just like everything else, however, they have their place. I have never had any reason to hate them...I do know the damage they do to livestock and deer and elk herds...However, I had a change of heart about wolves and have come to realize their place in the world after reading ALDO LEOPOLD. I recomend you read his stuff......If he was still alive and his theories and practices regarding wildlife management were still vigorously practiced today, this world of hunting and game management would have turned out a whole lot better than it has........JMHO.


Because wolves need to be managed and I love hunting in other states. NOT just Utah. UZbow you don't really understand. They didn't just reintroduce the wolf because it a fluffy cute little doggy that howls in the mountain and it makes the hair on your neck stand a little taller. NO, they introduced wolves to help stop hunting. If they can lower the deer and elk population then fewer people get to hunt. Wolves are killing machines and the wolf lovers didnt even reintroduce the native wolf that use to roam this great land. They introduced the Canadian wolf which is 40% bigger, stronger and more aggressive.

The reason Im mad it because they are protecting and its 5 times over objective. The wolves will destroy our deer and elk herds if they're established here. We don't have the same wolf habitat that we had 150 years ago. Wolves have a place in Yellowstone and as long as they remain their then their safe from hunters.

Im don't need to read your article and that changed your life. I have read hundreds of articles and I also use common sense. People make a living raising sheep and cattle and they shouldn'y have to put up with some granola cruncher forcing them to live in harmony with the wolf and still try to make a living. Many of the cattle are chased to death by wolves all summer long and the cattle are less fit. I have friends in Idaho whose hounds where killed by wolves, 18 deer killed on their property in one night and you question me and wonder why Im upset :roll: :roll: :roll: They're trying to stop hunting wolves PERIOD. The DWR can manage the wolves without the wolves being wiped out again, but it looks like Idaho might not even be given the chance unless people pull their heads out of their butts and sees the wolf lovers agenda.

Educate yourself UZBOW about the wolves. We dont have enough open land without humans for these wolves to live. Alaska and Canada does. The elk herd was 22,000 elk in Yellowstone and now its down to 8,000. The calf to cow ratios in many areas are below 20%. With this kind of recruitment then the elk population will crash because 20% survive rate is very small. There are 85% less calf elk in Jackson Hole since the wolves were introduced. Wolves ripe calves right out of their pregnant mother while she is still alive. Yes that is nature, but I think the deer and elk have enough problems than to try and deal with the wolves. The wolf population has EXPLODED and it will EXPLODE even more when they come to Utah and as long as they are under federal protection then there aint a **** thing you can do about it. The state should be give control over the wolves NOT the Federal government.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm not saying that the article changed my life. I'm just saying that I think they have a place. Granted that place should not be destroying and tearing apart other wildlife and habitat and becomeing so out of control that it is impossible to get under control again. Like I said I think that they have a place if they are MANAGED.......if they are out of control than maybe hunters should take it into their own hands eventually.....believe me I understand the threat they pose. I grew up farming and seeing sheep and calves being torn apart by lions and coyotes....believe me, I understand all that. I'm just trying to understand where your passion and hate are coming from, that's all. I do recommend reading some of ALDO LEOPOLD......it's good stuff.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

As I recall, the original "plan" was to have about 400 wolves in and "around" Yellowstone.
Today we have anywhere from 1200-2000 extending into Utah. 

I wish "someone" would step and start "managing" the wolf. And the sooner the better!

I guess I shouldn't be too critical, 1200-2000 is close enough for government "managers".


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I dont like the Federal government ruling on a state level and ordering the state to put them back on the protected list because then the state can't manage them. Idaho and Wyoming have a great plan for wolves and the wolf lovers know this and they dont want one wolf killed.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

We(the people) need to follow Oklahoma's lead and kick some teeth out of the mouth of the federal government! Don't forget, the states created the federal government. Not the other way around.

The following is part of Oklahoma's House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

"Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about the precious wolf!


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> ...However, I had a change of heart about wolves and have come to realize their place in the world after reading ALDO LEOPOLD. I recomend you read his stuff......If he was still alive and his theories and practices regarding wildlife management were still vigorously practiced today, this world of hunting and game management would have turned out a whole lot better than it has........JMHO.


"A Sand County Almanac", and "Thinking Like A Mountain", by Aldo Leopold are excellent reading and every sportsman, outdoorsman, or citizen of planet Earth should be given an opportunity to read them.....JMHO too. Good call UZ.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Because wolves need to be managed and I love hunting in other states. NOT just Utah. UZbow you don't really understand. *They didn't just reintroduce the wolf because it a fluffy cute little **doggy that howls in the mountain and it makes the hair on your neck stand a little taller. NO, they introduced wolves to help stop hunting.* If they can lower the deer and elk population then fewer people get to hunt. Wolves are killing machines and the wolf lovers didnt even reintroduce the native wolf that use to roam this great land. *They introduced the Canadian wolf which is 40% bigger, stronger and more aggressive.*....


CS, I'm not sure who you are referring to by "they". I'm supposing you are referring to anti-hunters? In reality, when the wolf was put on the endangered species list, the wolf then became subject to federal law requiring it to be reintroduced into its former ranges. It then became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services job to try to fulfill the law. They received input from numerous groups and organizations to try and figure out the best way to proceed. Maybe some of the groups were opposed to hunting, possibly, but most of the groups have great respect for hunters. That is when Yellowstone was selected as the main relocation site. Anyway it wasn't just a bunch of "wolf lovers" that got together and decided to do this.
It is quite the exaggeration to say the Canadian wolves are 40% larger. They are slightly larger, perhaps. A good book to read is "Decade of the Wolf" by Douglas Smith PhD. The book explains in great detail most of what I mentioned above, including sizes of the wolves compared to the native (extinct) Yellowstone wolves, and why those particular wolves were chosen.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well Mr Naturalist boy, I"ll tell you exactly who "THEY" are.

IT''S THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THE 1800s ANYMORE!

There are many reasons wolves were exterminated once already, Now having said that,
I don"t care if these nuts want wolves in Yellowstone,thats fine. But now that it is 
afecting so many game managment units outside the park and private ranches,WELL,

THATS NOT OK,!!!!!! GET IT??????????????

As I type this the kids are waiting in the truck with the boat hooked up to fish a couple
of days, And I better not here any howling at night or I might loose it I'm so P#$%$#
about this wolve BS!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It is quite the exaggeration to say the Canadian wolves are 40% larger. They are slightly larger, perhaps. A good book to read is "Decade of the Wolf" by Douglas Smith PhD. The book explains in great detail most of what I mentioned above, including sizes of the wolves compared to the native (extinct) Yellowstone wolves, and why those particular wolves were chosen.


The Canadian wolf is 30 pounds bigger than the native timber wolf (which is the true native species.) The wolf lovers reintroduce a wolf that isnt even native to yellowstone. Have you heard of the Great plains Grizzly? Maybe we could reintroduce the polar bear instead. They weren't really concerned with reintroducing the same wolf. Many wolf lovers are to stupid to even know the difference. The canadian wolf is a more successful killer and it has wiped out the timber wolf. The Canadian wolf has no natural predators.

Yellowstone was selectived because its not heavily populated by man. Douglas Smith is a lefty that talks a lot of pure BS.

What other non-native animals should we reintroduce? The Red deer, Aoudad, Fallow deer, Spanish wild boar.

The wolf lovers dont want the wolves managed hence the reason for suing to put them back on the endangered species list. They aren't endangered and they're way over objectives. The wolf lovers would like to see 5,000 to 10,000 as they have stated before in other articles. This would GREATLY affect hunting. These predators needed to be managed NOT protected and the wolf lovers aren't willing to fulfil their part of the agreement. The objective was 300 wolves or 30 packs. The wolf population is close to 2,000 wolves and they are still trying to protect the wolf. WHY? because they WANT TO STOP HUNTING.


----------



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

I am biting my tongue trying not to rip on this ummmm, judge.

Judge restores wolf protections
By EVE BYRON - Independent Record - 07/19/08

Material deleted by moderator. Please observe copyright laws. Thank you!

Here's a link for you to use instead:

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/0 ... wolves.txt


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

"


> Recovery requires allowing wolves in different populations to reach each other in order to mate and raise their pups," Robinson said. "Even before they were unlawfully removed from the endangered species list, the government was gunning down so many wolves that the Yellowstone population was reproductively isolated, a recipe for extinction."


The wolves are doing just fine genetically and I hope the government continues to gun down many more wolves that were preying on livestock.

Why is that only the big bad wolf is having problems with genetic diversity? I hope a very bad strain of the Parvo-virus comes to visit.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

CS....you say you are content to let wolves be in Yellowstone but do you or anyone else actually think that they will STAY there? What is keeping them in? The deer, elk, buffalo, moose, bear etc don't stay in the park....so why would wolves? If wolves are to be in Yellowstone then that's fine but I believe there should be MANAGEMENT everywhere else. PS. MANAGEMENT does not mean EXTERMINATE or ELIMINATE. Granted that the judge doesn't really know what he is doing.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS....you say you are content to let wolves be in Yellowstone but do you or anyone else actually think that they will STAY there? What is keeping them in? The deer, elk, buffalo, moose, bear etc don't stay in the park....so why would wolves? If wolves are to be in Yellowstone then that's fine but I believe there should be MANAGEMENT everywhere else. PS. MANAGEMENT does not mean EXTERMINATE or ELIMINATE. Granted that the judge doesn't really know what he is doing.


Yes they are fine in the park, but once they leave the park they are fair game. This is why wyoming had a safe zone for wolves and a kill zone. Coyotes, elk, moose, bear are no different. You dont need to preach management to me. Yes wolves need to be managed but the wolf lovers wont let the states manage the wolves. They dont want the wolves managed. Since they are back on the endangered list the wolf is protected and its against the law to shoot one. UZbow, wolves wont be exterinated as long as they're protected in Yellowstone.

The Wolf should be treated no different than the coyote. Coyotes are protected in Yellowstone, but once they leave the park then they are fair game to hunters. Utah wolf management plan wont work either because wolf lovers will get some liberal judge to overide the decision and Utah won't be able to manage wolves just like Montana, ID and Wyo lost isnt ability to manage the wolf.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

They're now coming up with excuses and saying the wolves will suffer from genetic diversity which is a bunch of crap. Every other species in North America is doing just fine so why are the wolves having such a tough time after 12 years of reintroducing them. Their population increases at 26% per year and their population has exploded. They have no problem with genetic diversity. Are the Mountain goats and desert and rocky mountain sheep having problems with genetic diversity?

If the wolf cannot survive without genetic diversity with 2,000 wolves then maybe nature has selected them for extinction and we are just causing more problems.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

And for your information, Montana, Wyo and ID were already managing wolves and they were doing a very good job at it until these states got slapped in the face by some crazy judge and he threw wolf management out the window.

Then you wonder why Im upset. What a ***** :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm not saying you are wrong for being upset...just wondering why is all. I even understand it. However, why get so upset about something that you can't control? Calm down a bit and breath. I'm not saying that wolves in Utah or Wyoming or Idaho are good...I just simply said they have their place. You just sounded like you wanted to obliterate all of them. LIke I said, I was raised on a farm and would gladly kill a wolf if I saw one. I just don't get all pissed off about things I don't have any control over....but hey, each to his own. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

I'm not preaching management. Just saying that you should read Aldo Leopold...it's good stuff.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I'm not saying you are wrong for being upset...just wondering why is all. I even understand it. However, why get so upset about something that you can't control? Calm down a bit and breath. I'm not saying that wolves in Utah or Wyoming or Idaho are good...I just simply said they have their place. You just sounded like you wanted to obliterate all of them. LIke I said, I was raised on a farm and would gladly kill a wolf if I saw one. I just don't get all **** off about things I don't have any control over....but hey, each to his own. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
> 
> I'm not preaching management. Just saying that you should read Aldo Leopold...it's good stuff.


If you learn to read and have a memory then you will see that I said they are ok in Yellowstone. How on earth did you read leopold book if you have a hard time reading now. :roll: :roll: You sure do miss quote people a lot.

Aldo Leoupold has good and bad things to say.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

SLOW DOWN boy....why are you so quick to insult. I never insulted you (I'm sure I could come up with some good ones if you wanted to go there). I'm just simply trying to understand where your HATRED is coming from. All I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things WOLVES have their place. The problem is that everyone is trying to figure out where that is. 

For your information I can read.....I never quoted you at all. I'm just telling you that when it comes to MANAGEMENT, it sounds like your whole plan is to extinguish all of them...with the exception of those in Yellowstone. My point is that all the animals have the ability to leave Yellowstone and if they are leaving, then the responsibility of MANAGEMENT should fall on the STATE in which the wolf resides. I agree 100% that it shouldn't be up to some judge that wants to make a name for himself to put those wolves on the endagered species list. However I'm not getting all pissed off about it because, there really isn't much I can do about it. When Utah starts to have a wolf problem (not just fake pics off of trail cams)...then I'll worry about it. I'm not saying they aren't here...just wondering how big of a problem they have become. I'm also sure that when they start to become a huge problem then the DWR with deal with them....hopefully with help from the community. 

In the future, I would hope that you would allow for someone to state an opinion or thoughts that might not agree 100% with yours without the insults and child like behavior.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The problem is that everyone is trying to figure out where that is


.

We already know where wolves should live and that is where there is enough suitable wolf habitat for them without many conflicts with man. Canada, Alaska, and Yellowstone.



> [quote:1yxwge10]In the future, I would hope that you would allow for someone to state an opinion or thoughts that might not agree 100% with yours without the insults and child like behavior.


[/quote:1yxwge10]

Please take your own advice and live by it. Why does it really matter to you if Im upset about it? Are you Dr. Phil and your trying to ease peoples frustrations. You just don't seem to fully understand the issue so you dont understand why im upset. You bring up management a lot, but im not sure you even know what the word means. You also dont seem to understand that habitat has changed from the time the wolves were exterminated the first time. Wolf and man have a hard time co-existing because of the behavior of wolves. Yellowstone is one of the only places where wolves can co-exist with man. Like I have said before if a wolf leaves the park they should be treated like coyotes. Wolves have lowered elk numbers in some places around Yellowstone so hunting is no longer needed.

If Montana, Idaho and Wyoming can't manage wolves then what makes you think that Utah will have control over them? We would have to wait until we had a good population. Maybe you have been brainwashed from all your great books you read but Leupold didnt write the facts that are happening today. Habitat has changed since Aldo Leupold roamed the earth. Where in Utah is there enough habitat for wolves??? The deer and elk would greatly be reduced. Conflicts with man and wolves would be very frequent. Another thing I dont like about wolves is the fact that they kill for sport or pleasure. When there is an abundants of animals they go on a killing spree while training their pups.

Yes you can do something about it and that is to join hunting groups that are fighting these crazy wolf lover freaks. We have invested to much money in deer, elk and bighorn sheep then to let them get eatten by a protected predator.

Oh but wait good ole Aldo Leupold has the answers right? He died in April, 21, 1948. How much has changed since that time? Habitat has been greatly been reduced. The human population has increased and many roads and highways have been made. When Leupold wrote his book there was still a lot of land suitable for wolf habitat, but today is 2008 and that habitat doesn't exist.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

You're not hearing what I'm saying....I don't think you are totally wrong to want to kill the wolves....I'm just simply trying to figure out why you're so pissed of is all. Lighten up....

Just cause Leopold died 50+ years ago does not make his theories wrong. 

I'm simply saying that management should be left up to the state. If that means that they get treated like coyotes then fine, so be it. I even said that I don't think the JUDGE should be able to put them on the endangered species list because then it leaves no options for management and management is definately needed whatever that management may be (once again, let the state decide). I stated this in previous posts....but maybe you can't read? Lay of the hard stuff and don't get so pissed off.... :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You're not hearing what I'm saying


Of course not because your words on here don't make a sound. You lighten up and quick trying to play the role of fat Oprah.



> You're not hearing what I'm saying....I don't think you are totally wrong to want to kill the wolves....I'm just simply trying to figure out why you're so **** of is all. Lighten up....
> 
> Just cause Leopold died 50+ years ago does not make his theories wrong.
> 
> I'm simply saying that management should be left up to the state. If that means that they get treated like coyotes then fine, so be it. I even said that I don't think the JUDGE should be able to put them on the endangered species list because then it leaves no options for management and management is definately needed whatever that management may be (once again, let the state decide). I stated this in previous posts....but maybe you can't read? Lay of the hard stuff and don't get so **** off....


Well the state doesnt have the right to management wolves anymore. None of the western states do and that is why Im upset with the decision the judge made. He ignored the facts. Is that better for you Oprah??? :lol: :lol: :lol: *The wolf lovers found a corrupt judge to pass their agenda and that is to stop all wolf management. If we cannot manage the wolves and they are protected then it will greatly affect the deer, elk and moose population*

Hopefully SFW and other groups will step up and make it right again. Sure many of his theories could apply today, but some are outdated about wolves.

We both agree on a lot of things because you seem to be so set on what Aldo Leupold said 70 years ago that you dont live in reality today.

FYI Montana was already managing wolves for several years and Wyoming has been managing them this year. Hunters in wyoming have killed several dozen of wolves over the last few months and now they dont that right anymore. Utah won't have that right either unless people pull their heads out of their backside and we start doing things about it. Yes wolves might not affect you now UZBOW but we should always be mindful of our future.

*Example for you. We have 2,000 wolves right now and lets say for kicks that half of those 2,000 wolves each kill two elk a month thats 24,000 elk killed annually by wolves. Do you catch my drift.*


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> All I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things WOLVES have their place. The problem is that everyone is trying to figure out where that is.


I'll tell you where that place is. Canada! There is NO place for wolves in the lower 48! Too many humans, we wrecked that 100 years ago, and it aint never gonna change!

Wolves are the anti hunters answer to stopping elk hunting. Too many wolves means no more elk, no more elk means no more hunting. But most hunters are too ignorant to see it happening right in front of their eyes. I can't wait to hear the tune all us Utahan's will be singing when they set up camp in this state and start eating all those 400 inch bulls we've all been waiting a lifetime to be able to hunt. Don Pay is gonna chit his pants!

They don't need to be controlled, they need to be eradicated.

*S.S.S*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> I'll tell you where that place is. Canada! There is NO place for wolves in the lower 48! Too many humans, we wrecked that 100 years ago, and it aint never gonna change!
> 
> Wolves are the anti hunters answer to stopping elk hunting. Too many wolves means no more elk, no more elk means no more hunting. But most hunters are too ignorant to see it happening right in front of their eyes.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything said here. 8)

UZ-A-BOW, sorry, but I do NOT believe wolves have a 'place' here in Utah, or in Wyoming/Idaho/Montana. They were FORCED on us by some 'do-gooders' who saw a way to END HUNTING under the guise of 'helping bring _nature _back into _balance_'. They KNEW going in they would NEVER be happy with 300 wolves, yet they agreed to it, knowing they could get pinhead judges to be duped into believing we 'need' genetic diversity, which is a load of wolf scat and little else. The bison are NOT allowed to leave Yellowstone, and their numbers are tightly controlled, where is the 'concern' for their genetic diversity? Why can we MANAGE to keep them in the park, but to do the same with a NON-NATIVE animal is not practical? :? The Tule elk in California has LESS genetic diversity than the wolves do, where is teh outrage by the SUPPOSED animal loves and 'nature' fruits? Their websites give away their true motives, take some time and LEARN what the ENEMY is planning for YOUR hunting future. The get back to us and ask why coyoteslayer is 'angry' about it. EVERY **** one of us hunters SHOULD be ticked off about it. The fact many aren't is disgusting and disturbing. :evil:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> I agree with everything said here. 8)


Holy schmidt, that's a first! 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> > I agree with everything said here. 8)
> 
> 
> Holy schmidt, that's a first! 8)


But, if you notice I EDITED what you said. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

So, You're telling me that you think some "anti-hunting" group was sitting around one day and came up with some "great plan" to stop hunting by re-introducing the wolf to Yellowstone...knowing full well that they wouldn't stay in yellowstone and eventually it would lead to the end of hunting as we know it. How does that make sense? If they are anti hunting I would think they are pro animals. So, why let wolves kill all the animals and waste them just to stop people from hunting when the hunter doesn't kill as many animals and usually always eats what he hunts. I just don't get that whole conspiracy theory. 

I'm not 100% for the wolf. As I've mentioned...I KNOW THE DAMAGE THEY CAN DO. I also previously stated that I think it is stupid that some dumb judge trying to make a name for himself with the animal rights people is trying to make wolves or already has put them on the endangered species list. Doing that doesn't give any state any options for managing the wolf (whether that be complete extermination in the state or whatever option the state chooses to go with). 

CS...I see your point of view and I understad why you would be so upset....what I don't understand is why you feel like you have to insult me and just be flat out rude instead of just explaining your stand on the issue and trying to get me to see things your way. I am not a fat OPERA or DR. PHILL trying to sort out your feelings. I was simply trying to understand where you were coming from. 

As a person (judging from this topic and your responses to me) I find you to be very rude and a man of poor moral character.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am not a fat OPERA or DR. PHILL trying to sort out your feelings. I was simply trying to understand where you were coming from.
> 
> As a person (judging from this topic and your responses to me) I find you to be very rude and a man of poor moral character.


Well you could probably apply for their jobs, you never know and thanks for your wonderful comments. I deeply appreciate them. Im not trying to be rude but you were being thick-headed. The wolf lovers knew they wouldn't stay in the park like everyone else it and when the this wolf (the virus) spreads then it wrecks havoc on the surrounding areas.

If you don't get the whole ruin hunting theory. i did post an example for you. Why doesnt the animal lovers care about the Bighorn sheep, elk, deer, moose, goats? When is the last time they participated in habitat restoration? They don't care. There whole agenda is to end hunting because they hate people that hunt.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > thanks for your wonderful comments. I deeply appreciate them. Im not trying to be rude.


NO, thank you for your wonderful comments......if you weren't trying to be rude, then what were you trying to be? All I have said in contrary to what you have said is that I am not sure pure elimination is the answer. That's my opinion is all......from what I thought everyone is intitled to that at least.....I was simply stating my opinion, even though I know it isn't the most popular.

Your theory may or may not be correct (anti-hunting). I'm just saying it doesn't make sense in my mind. Perhaps those are the demons I am going to have to face on my own.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Your theory may or may not be correct (anti-hunting). I'm just saying it doesn't make sense in my mind. Perhaps those are the demons I am going to have to face on my own.


Well have have fun with your demons and tell me know if you some help killing them because I'm a **** good shot. Does 1,000 wolves each killing two elk a month which equals 24,000 elk killed in a year spell out less hunting opportunities to you?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Does 1,000 wolves killing two elk a month which equals 24,000 elk killed in a year spell out less hunting opportunities to you?


Well, becasue I can't really read too well I might need help understanding this, however I believe the question posed is "Is it ok to me if 1,000 wolves kill two elk a month.....sure that sounds ok.....for 1,000 wolves that's not a lot of elk. That's only 24 elk a year for every thousand wolves. I believe your math is wrong. I understand your point and what you are trying to say. Never once did I disagree with it....I just simply was trying to understand your opinion on the topic.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well, becasue I can't really read too well I might need help understanding this, however I believe the question posed is "Is it ok to me if 1,000 wolves kill two elk a month.....sure that sounds ok.....for 1,000 wolves that's not a lot of elk. That's only 24 elk a year for every thousand wolves. I believe your math is wrong. I understand your point and what you are trying to say. Never once did I disagree with it....I just simply was trying to understand your opinion on the topic.


No my math is just fine. I edited my last post after you responded. If you have 1,000 wolves and each wolf kills 2 elk per month thats 2,000 elk killed per month times 12 months= 24,000 elk killed per year is that simple enough for you?

Here 2,000 X 12 = 24,000 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I understood what you were saying and I agree that is not satisfactory numbers.

Since I don't read real well i appreciate the math equation.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

I wish the “friends” of the wolf would give us a number of wolves that would satiate their appetite for more wolves. At first it was 300-400. The opposition (most hunters and cattle/sheep owners) wanted 0. So, a “compromise” was struck and we got 1200-2000. :twisted: 

UZ, give us a number that will make you and yours happy. Is it 3000, 4000, 10,000?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> So, You're telling me that you think some "anti-hunting" group was sitting around one day and came up with some "great plan" to stop hunting by re-introducing the wolf to Yellowstone.


That is *exactly * what we're saying!

If you don't believe that you're very naive. The anti hunting loonies have been plotting this type of strategy for many years. They're tired of paying the fines issued when they get arrested for hunter harassment, so they think of new and improved _smarter_ ways to push their agenda. They are very organized, very clever, and WELL funded. Reintroducing wolves to the lower 48 is just one such step in that direction.

If we as hunters don't wake up and ban together to fight these "lunatic fringe" hunting will be a figment of our imagination.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> If we as hunters don't wake up and ban together to fight these "lunatic fringe" hunting will be a figment of our imagination.


TEX, I think your naïve. At this point, simply sticking together will not help. It didn't help prevent the reintroduction why would it help now (think about how the "compromise" has gone for us)?

No, what we need now is a rebellion, or an insurrection, a modern day "Boston Tea Party!" Once the feds get their claws (no pun intended) into us it is very difficult to remove them, mostly because we like the federal money and don't like the federal penitentiary.

Each state needs to stand up and put the federal government in their place, like my first post stated on this topic. Oklahoma has made a good start. We need to tell the feds, what has been told to them before (think Thomas Jefferson, George Mason et al) that federal powers are few and specific (in the Constitution) and state powers are just the opposite and the wolf and their management is not in the Constitution.

We then can proceed to show the feds how a few determined men and women and some .270s manage a wolf just fine!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think Al Gore's fuzzy math is involved in this again!! 


> The region has an estimated *2,000 *gray wolves....
> 
> There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as *500* wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice.
> 
> Federal and state officials had argued killing some wolves would not endanger the overall population - as long as numbers did not dip below *300* wolves. With increasing conflicts between wolves and livestock, they said public hunts were crucial to keeping the predators' population in check."


If you had told me that this cluster---- would turn out this way a few years I would have called you a two-bit liar, how insane that the goal has been exceeded by nearly 500% and now we need some increased genetic diversity; in all fairness that is the same problem that caused this current situation too much inbreeding of these woof lovers in their Oregon communes or something.

Uz-a-bow-I'm getting in on this late, not to revive the petty debate between the two of you, but your question as to why someone would be angry surprises me. Were you upset or relieved when the Supreme Court struck down the DC handgun ban? To say that since this decision does not effect CS seems very shortsighted; this is a much bigger issue than a farmer's livestock in ID or WY. This will be much more troubling and detrimental to the future of hunting in your own state of UT than you may currently realize IMHO. I don't mean to come off as tag teaming or arguing at all, just sharing my opinion on a question that you posed.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> No, what we need now is a rebellion, or an insurrection, a modern day "Boston Tea Party!"


I like the way you think but I also learned a long time ago that fighting the government by breaking the law doesn't work. Believe me, if I could get away with stacking wolves up by the dozen just to prove a point to "the man" I would. But, gong to jail with a federal felony hanging over my head is not the answer I had in mind.

Like I said before, the antis are smart, organized, and well funded. We as hunters possess all but three of those qualities. Most of us are simple, segregated, and broke. Three things that don't put a dent in the fight against anti hunting.

I don't know how old you are, but I've been around long enough to smell a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that is exactly what the antis are.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Like I said before, the antis are smart, organized, and well funded. We as hunters possess all but three of those qualities. Most of us are simple, segregated, and broke. Three things that don't put a dent in the fight against anti hunting.


Okay, you've suckered me into this... :lol:

You know, Tex, I've got a lot of respect for you and you're a smarter man than me, but that statement is .... well, incorrect.

Not too long ago there was a little incident in which a Republican representative from CA named Pombo tried to slip in an amendment that would allow leased public land to be sold. It only took a few days for his amendment, supported by some of the biggest money in the country, to get squashed like a bug and that was largely accomplished by sportsmen's organizations. Just one in a long string of examples.

Despite the best efforts of anti-hunters to outlaw bear hunting in Utah and despite a major lobby at the legislature that was temporarily successful, we just saw the return of the Spring bear hunt a couple years ago.

And who was behind the successful effort to make it illegal to harass hunters? Ingrid Newkirk?

Did you not see what just happened with public right of way on Utah's rivers? Talk about going up against big money! And who started that? A couple fishermen - well, okay, fisherman and fisherwoman. I can go on, but my point's made, I think.

Fact is, anti-hunters have been busting their cans for decades. In all your life, have you ever had your hunting restricted in any way as a result?

While gaining and keeping support is a major challenge, the fact is that we hunters (and especially bowhunters) are very organized, wield considerable financial influence and we might tend to shoot ourselves in the foot from time to time, but we're far from being "simple".

And what the heck - in for a penny;in for a pound. The conspiracy theory that antis planned wolf introduction as a way to destroy hunting hasn't got a shred of fact to support it.

But it is true that aliens abducted me and performed unspeakable experiments on my body. That's why I'm this way. *\-\*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Fact is, anti-hunters have been busting their cans for decades. In all your life, have you ever had your hunting restricted in any way as a result?


They just restricted wolf hunting. Hunters were able to hunt the wolves until it was taken away because they came up with the excuse of genetic diversity and now NONE of the states have the right to manage wolves. This is a slap in the face to hunters and wildlife management officials. The anti-hunters aren't even close to being done yet. They won the cougar battle in California. They will target Utah again very soon.

They have been entertaining the thought of putting wolves in the Bookcliffs. Utah won't be able to manage them and it will be a disaster.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> You know, Tex, I've got a lot of respect for you and you're a smarter man than me.


I respect you too Finn, but I don't know if I'm smarter than you... Better looking may be... Yes, defiantly better looking! :mrgreen:

It's true though, you're right not all of us are simple, segregated, and broke. But enough of of are. Hunting has taken a hit in past years. The reasons are many, but hunter numbers have been in a steady decline for quite a while now nationwide. To think the anti-hunting movement has had zero effect on those declining numbers would be naive. And yes, Anti hunters have effected my hunting in my lifetime. I almost went to jail because I offered to defend myself against a hiker on the Wasatch front who thought I was in need of a beating with a big stick. When I told the person if they didn't stand down I would "defend" myself, they called the Sheriff and told them I was threatening their life with my bow. The whole mess got ironed out but I was told not to hunt in that area any more. "Just to keep the peace" :roll: Another time I was hunting down on Fish Lake and two people on horesback saw me sneaking up on a big herd of elk. They came riding in on their horses and spooked the herd before I could get a shot. Then called me all kinds of foul vile names before riding off laughing. Anti hunting groups are hard at work all over the nation to push their agenda, and Wolves are part of it. You say there's not a shred of proof, C'mon Finn, you know better than that. The groups that pushed to get them reintroduced are made up of largely non/anti hunting people. They have this candy coated idea that we can restore nature back to the way it was before we got here and FU*%ED it all up. They think hunting is cruel and evil and not the way to manage wildlife. They think that by bringing the wolves back it will restore "Natural balance". :roll: Jezzeus! What's done is done, Wolves have no place in the lower 48. They just don't belong with the way it is now. Especially not Hybrid Canadian Wolves that were NEVER here to begin with!

Oh, the antis had plenty to do with it! If it looks like shimmy and smells like shimmy, It's shimmy!

Respectfully,

Tex


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

Now is the time to act!!! We are in election year and the is given to the people to act. We should all be taking this opportunity to make sure that all those elected individuals are protecting our rights and privledges! Judges, and other officials need to know that if they are not acting in the best interest of the MAJORITY they will be removed from office. And if we as hunters are not in the majority then it is our responcibility to make sure that all those around us are educated on decision like this wolf B.S..


----------

