# Disturbing!!!



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Think our DWR would ever does this? I sure hope not!

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 16346.html


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think I threw up in my mouth.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

that is really messed up. WOW


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

OH Canada! Wow that is just wrong.  Is there PETA in Cananada?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Incredible, is Spitzer running that state/province? Seems to be a common theme of hypocrisy insinuated there :evil: I would not believe it w/o the pics.


----------



## Wdycle (Sep 11, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> that is really messed up. WOW


+1 that's just sickening! What a waste!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I think the link you posted, Pro, was definitely one-sided. For a link to a more unbiased dateline of facts on this issue go to:
http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/l ... sease.aspx

A couple of things come to my mind with a lot of this: 1) the public openly supported this effort before it was began and was allowed input into the process before it was began 2) CWD potentially can pose serious health risks to humans--as of now not much is known about its effects on humans, but because it is a disease that affects the nervous system precautions should be taken 3) white tail populations in Alberta are much different than mule deer populations here in Utah--in most parts of North America white tail populations are so out of control that state agencies can't get hunters to kill enough animals.

I think before formulating an opinion based solely on Pro's link, at least check out the facts of what is happening and read more...right now, I don't know enough to formulate my own opinion. I would rather read up on the issue than base my opinion on one sensationalized piece of journalism.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, my trouble is with the intentional and avoidable waste of the animals.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am assuming you mean that some/many animals are simply discarded into a pit and the meat wasted. I can definitely see some validity in this argument. But, I can also see a flip side to the issue. I think the best way to explain the other side would be to use fish management as an example: every year the DWR conducts numerous gill netting surveys where thousands of fish are killed and subsequently thrown away or "wasted". The other option for fisheries managers would be to somehow spend loads of extra hours cleaning and preparing the hundreds/thousands of fish they kill for food use by those in need. To do so would take a lot more man hours and time that is already short...is it an economically viable option?

Sometimes, I believe it is necessary to "waste" the meat of animals for the gains of science. Is this the case with the deer in Alberta? I don't know...but, I would at least give the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am assuming you mean that some/many animals are simply discarded into a pit and the meat wasted. I can definitely see some validity in this argument. But, I can also see a flip side to the issue. I think the best way to explain the other side would be to use fish management as an example: every year the DWR conducts numerous gill netting surveys where thousands of fish are killed and subsequently thrown away or "wasted". The other option for fisheries managers would be to somehow spend loads of extra hours cleaning and preparing the hundreds/thousands of fish they kill for food use by those in need. To do so would take a lot more man hours and time that is already short...is it an economically viable option?
> 
> *Sometimes, I believe it is necessary to "waste" the meat of animals for the gains of science.* Is this the case with the deer in Alberta? I don't know...but, I would at least give the benefit of the doubt.


What gains does science get from this, besides fertilizing the ground? Science learns nothing from this, it is an action because no one has figured out a better way to deal with CWD. There has got to be a better way.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> What gains does science get from this, besides fertilizing the ground?


I think the gains are twofold: 1) Alberta is learning that their efforts to cull deer and therefore stop the spread of CWD appears to be working. "The number of cases remains low and relatively contained in a geographic area. In addition, the large majority of infected deer are in the early stages of CWD, so the disease is not yet well-established." 2) Alberta is learning to what extent CWD is infecting deer. I am not sure whether it has been mentioned yet or not, but Alberta is relying on "both increased hunting in areas of disease concern and targeted removal of deer near known cases of CWD." In fact, Alberta was offering hunters the chance to shoot 3 deer of any sex or age...

Personally, I would much rather cull large numbers of deer in hopes of wiping out a serious disease that can threaten a whole population than let the disease run its course. Also, I think--based only on a small bit of information--that the rewards of such a program may outweigh the risks/consequences. Ultimately, even if the Chronic Wasting Disease Program, The Fish and Wildlife Divison of Alberta, and the Sustainable Resource Development fails in their attempt to eventually eliminate CWD in Alberta, at least we know culling won't work and other widlife agencies have this program as proof.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

woops...double post.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I agree Jahan. I am sure, that with very LITTLE EFFORT, it could be arranged for volunteer groups to step up and help prevent wanton waste of wildlife. How is it I can be given a citation for wasting wildlife, but if it is for 'science' it is OK. I don't buy it! That is nothing more than pure LAZINESS on those who are supposed to be HELPING wildlife, not WASTING wildlife! This 2008 not 1858!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Something isn't right about that. I don't care how it is justified.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, every time the DWR does sets gill nets, they should establish some kind of volunteer program where people come clean and gut fish? Otherwise, wouldn't they too be wasting wildlife?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, every time the DWR does sets gill nets, they should establish some kind of volunteer program where people come clean and gut fish? Otherwise, wouldn't they too be wasting wildlife?


I believe if it something that can be taken care of, then hell yes. But, comparing fish to deer is a stretch. If nothing else, they should take the 'wasted' fish and use the 'waste pile' for fertilizer or something. To just waste something because it takes less effort, in todays world, is unacceptable, IMHO. A few fish is one thing, 400+ deer is a whole other ball game.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...well how about if the animal is a wolf? Guys are all up in arms over the culling and "wasting" of deer (or even fish), why don't we as hunters get pissed off when Alberta culls wolves to save caribou?

Also, FWIW, comparing one fish to one deer is a stretch...but, the number of fish thrown away far outnumbers the number of deer that is being culled.

As for the number of wasted deer...let's put this into proper perspective--the pictures only show a small part of the story. After digging a bit (pun intended), this is what I found from a 2006 cull: 1368 deer were killed as part of the cull, approximately 1250 of those were processed and donated to food banks.

It is easy to get emotional and respond emotionally to such pics, but 1)it is hard to tell from the photos that were posted how many actual deer were wasted 2) All heads are taken (I do not see any heads in that photo)...and used to monitor a very serious disease 3) Most of what we see might just be waste products from any butcher shop: hides, guts, bones and scrap meat 4) They do the best to recover the meat from every deer...some deer simply cannot be processed because of disease concerns and governmental protocol (unhealthy deer, you can get deer that have diseases or medical issues (tumours, injuries, etc) and you get always get deer that aren't shot properly (gut shot, spine (spinal fluid on meat), etc...). Those deer are not used due to the fact they are going to a food bank source just like any other food bank program 5)Extra tags are given to harvest these extra deer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

but how many eggs does one fish lay? I have set down gill nets and yes sometimes they do keep them in over night and the fish are killed, but they don't keep doing it over and over. Other times I would set them down for 30 minutes and I tagged 5,000 walleye in two weeks and we lost 5. Thats pretty good odds.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Do people normally eat wolves? If not, then it is apples and oranges. Plus, wolves are like jack rabbits as far as I am concerned. both should be shot on sight and left for the crows to enjoy. Like Josey Wales said, "birds got to eat same as the worms", I suppose that could apply for wolves. But, to be fair, wolves are NOT viewed as a food source for people, deer are.

I am 'uneducated' on the willful waste of fish by the DNR, I guess I'll look into and form an opinion on it for you. For now I will say that I do NOT view one fish as being on par with one deer. Fish are more easily 'replaced' and rebound quicker normally than deer do. I also doubt the fish 'suffer' like these deer seem to have. I find it disturbing to say the least that people in todays world would act in such a manner. There is NO viable excuse, IMHO, for how this was conducted. If that is the best 'science' can do, then 'science' blows.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Do people normally eat wolves? If not, then it is apples and oranges. Plus, wolves are like jack rabbits as far as I am concerned. both should be shot on sight and left for the crows to enjoy. Like Josey Wales said, "birds got to eat same as the worms", I suppose that could apply for wolves. But, to be fair, wolves are NOT viewed as a food source for people, deer are.


Amen +1. Fish and Deer are completely different and wolves play another role so wyo2ut example is worthless in this case because like you say is comparing apples to oranges and wolves are the coconuts :lol:

There should be a bounty on wolves


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, Pro, you believe it is ok to kill, cull, and waste wolves but not deer...right? Does it really matter whether they can be eaten or not? Can't wolves be used in other useful manners? I find your sensitivity towards how these deer were culled and your lack of sensitivity towards the culling of wolves exceptionally hypocritical.

Again, as far as fish go, I don't think one fish equals one deer either...but, we kill lots more fish in the name of science than Alberta ever has deer. Look at it this way, biologists usually set 3 nets each spring on Fish Lake, Otter Creek, Piute, Minersville, Panguitch, New Castle, Kolob, Paragonah, Yankee Meadow...etc. On Fish Lake alone, those 3 nets kill around 500-700 fish...in just the southern region of the state we kill probably over 2,000 fish every spring. Spread that out statewide and compare that to the 150 deer "wasted" by Alberta.

Also, FWIW, Alberta's deer population has exploded beyond objectives...so much so that hunters can't even bring the numbers down. We are not talking about a struggling population of animals.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Again, as far as fish go, I don't think one fish equals one deer either...but, we kill lots more fish in the name of science than Alberta ever has deer. Look at it this way, biologists usually set 3 nets each spring on Fish Lake, Otter Creek, Piute, Minersville, Panguitch, New Castle, Kolob, Paragonah, Yankee Meadow...etc. On Fish Lake alone, those 3 nets kill around 500-700 fish...in just the southern region of the state we kill probably over 2,000 fish every spring. Spread that out statewide and compare that to the 150 deer "wasted" by Alberta.


Yes, but how many fish do think the DWR stocks every year to replace those fish? Fish are much easier to raise. They produce more. Its apples to oranges.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Can't wolves be used in other useful manners?


I believe that they can. Rugs, coats, ornamentation in my trophy room, are three that come quickly to mind....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I also doubt the fish 'suffer' like these deer seem to have. I find it disturbing to say the least that people in todays world would act in such a manner. There is NO viable excuse, IMHO, for how this was conducted. If that is the best 'science' can do, then 'science' blows.


Suffer? How did they suffer any more than when a hunter shoots a deer?

Better yet, what is your solution to the problem? How would you go about eliminating CWD from Alberta?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I believe that they can. Rugs, coats, ornamentation in my trophy room, are three that come quickly to mind....


See wolves are good for something.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Yes, but how many fish do think the DWR stocks every year to replace those fish? Fish are much easier to raise. They produce more. Its apples to oranges.


.. if you want to argue fish bring it on! Many fish killed yearly by the DWR (like walleye, bass, and perch) are not raised in hatcheries. We rely totally on natural reproduction...in many instances, we totally cull the population of fish using rotenone and start completely over. Sometimes these projects take years. It is the exact same thing...kill the population to save the fishery or population. In other cases, we start totally from scratch--Sand Hollow, Quail Creek-- and rely totally on natural reproduction.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I was being a wisea$$ when discussing wolf waste. But, I do see a big difference in wasting an animal that can feed the homeless and one that won't. Unless we made fur coats out of them like Loke suggests. There are groups around that ask/beg for donations to feed the hungry with deer, so I see little excuse to throwing hundreds of deer into pits and WASTING the resource.* If*the deer are "out of control" in Alberta, I am sure something besides opening up and filling them full of SMALL caliber bullets from a helicopter can be implemented. I am not a CWD 'expert' nor have I suggested that I am. But, from what I have read, this slaughter did little/nothing to end CWD in the area. So, we should look for better and more effective methods that do NOT waste as much of a resource, regardless of the availability of that resource. There is a difference in species, I do NOT view killing millions of gnats on the same level as killing a few thousand fish, or a few hundred deer. I put wolves somewhere between gnats and fish on the sliding scale. :wink:



> Better yet, what is your solution to the problem? How would you go about eliminating CWD from Alberta?


Good grief, even the 'experts', the scientists, haven't figured that out, but you want me to solve it? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> We rely totally on natural reproduction...in many instances, we totally cull the population of fish using rotenone and start completely over. Sometimes these projects take years. It is the exact same thing...kill the population to save the fishery or population. In other cases, we start totally from scratch--Sand Hollow, Quail Creek-- and rely totally on natural reproduction.


How can you rely "totally" on natural reproduction of you kill ALL the fish?  I do NOT want to get this spun into a fish debate, that has little to do with this topic.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I think the link you posted, Pro, was definitely one-sided. For a link to a more unbiased dateline of facts on this issue go to:
> http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/livingwith/diseases/chronicwastingdisease.aspx


Biased, so what points are you disputing as being inaccurate or false? The points I understood were:
1-Not being handled in a way where any of the meat could be used.
2-CWD originates from the soil so why bury them in the soil?
3-Only 0.13% of the deer killed were affected by CWD; how does that compare to % of garbage fish in lakes that are rotenoned? I would guess that it is closer to 50%??


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> if you want to argue fish bring it on! Many fish killed yearly by the DWR (like walleye, bass, and perch) are not raised in hatcheries. We rely totally on natural reproduction...in many instances, we totally cull the population of fish using rotenone and start completely over. Sometimes these projects take years. It is the exact same thing...kill the population to save the fishery or population. In other cases, we start totally from scratch--Sand Hollow, Quail Creek-- and rely totally on natural reproduction.


We can argue about fish on another thread because this topic is about deer NOT fish, So post it on another thread Mr Wannabee fish biologist who couldn't pass biology so he became an English Teacher instead :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I think the link you posted, Pro, was definitely one-sided. For a link to a more unbiased dateline of facts on this issue go to:
> ...


+1


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> We can argue about fish on another thread because this topic is about deer NOT fish, So post it on another thread Mr Wannabee fish biologist who couldn't pass biology so he became an English Teacher instead :wink:


WOW _(O)_ ! You may want to check for a bur under your saddle, you are feeling down right nasty! Can't we all be nice?  I assume you know each other well enough to smile when the other one kicks you in the nuts?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > We can argue about fish on another thread because this topic is about deer NOT fish, So post it on another thread Mr Wannabee fish biologist who couldn't pass biology so he became an English Teacher instead :wink:
> ...


I don't know about you, but I never smile when kicked in the nuts. I just thought I would add that. 8) I don't think it is wise to waist ANY animal even wolfs. Now if there would have been some effort to use some of the meat then I wouldn't of been so disturbed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah I know Wyo2ut 



> I don't know about you, but I never smile when kicked in the nuts. I just thought I would add that. I don't think it is wise to waist ANY animal even wolfs. Now if there would have been some effort to use some of the meat then I wouldn't of been so disturbed.


In Mexico they have dog tacos so I imagine a wolf taco would be able the same.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Yeah I know Wyo2ut
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure Betos uses dog meat. :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I think the link you posted, Pro, was definitely one-sided. For a link to a more unbiased dateline of facts on this issue go to:
> ...


1) Most of the deer were given to food banks...only a limited number were not.IN 2006, for example 1368 deer were culled and about 1250 of them were processed (so, about 118 were not processed and given to a food bank)...reasonings for this are numerous: 1) appearance of disease 2) time frame to process the animal ran out (the government operates under much stricter guidelines with food than either you or I) 3) some animals cannot be accepted by foodbanks because of their guidelines...The article leaves one assuming all deer that are shot are simply thrown in the pit; this is 100% false.
2) According to the site I posted, pit sites are thoroughly cleansed and disinfected....this definitely tells a different side of the story.
3) The difference between the 0.13% and the 90-95% of rough fish rotenoned is that the rough fish don't have the capability of harming humans and totally destroying entire populations of animals...CWD does!
4) Again, according to the other viewpoint, the plan IS working. "The number of cases remains low and relatively contained in a geographic area. In addition, the alrge majority of infected deer are in the early stages of CWD, so the disease is not yet well-established.

Again, I think most of you simply reply emotionally to something you are very ignorant about. Before emotionally responding to something you are not at least partially educated on, at least read both sides of the story.

I asked Pro a serious question about his suggestion to the problem. I pose the same question to anybody...how would you eliminate CWD from a geographic area? Until anyone can come up with a better solution, I think what is being done is reasonable.

Coyote, can you even feel your nuts?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How can you rely "totally" on natural reproduction of you kill ALL the fish?  I do NOT want to get this spun into a fish debate, that has little to do with this topic.


Simple, you take a few fish from a different body of water that also relies totally on natural reproduction and put them in the new body of water. It is a transplant...much the same way you helped transplant big game. Again, Utah doesn't raise bass, crappie, bluegill, perch and many other species in their hatcheries. If Alberta killed all of the deer in one geographical location, I am willing to bet that excess deer from other regions would quickly occupy the new area...again, Alberta is not suffering from a shortage of deer.

Also, rotenone usually doesn't kill all fish--my use of the word "total" was actually wrong. In many cases, total fish kills are not possible...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote, can you even feel your nuts?


Wyo2ut this thread isnt where you talking about grabbing someone's nuts. There is a gay thread about that and If sure if you ask Zim then he can get you hooked up. Sorry Wyo2ut I like women, but yes I can feel my nuts :lol: and women can too.

Lets keep this thread on topic. Shall we?


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

This is getting way too personal and pointed with the insults. And the references to certain body parts aren't particularly appreciated here. Please stop! This is a good, informative discussion — there's no reason to ruin it with trash talk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> 2-CWD originates from the soil so why bury them in the soil?


Actually, this statement is not true: According to the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance, "The origin of CWD is unknown, and it may never be possible to definitively determine how or when CWD arose." Also, "The infectious agent may be passed in feces, urine or saliva. Transmission is thought to be lateral (from animal to animal)." So, it seems that the pits these deer carcasses have been dumped in pose no threat to the disease being passed on...like the original link seems to say. Again, instead of reading one thing and assuming it is factual and truthful, I suggest doing a bit of research before jumping to emotional conclusions based on misinformation!


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am pretty sure Betos uses dog meat. :shock:


Wow, if that's true, then that makes dog my favorite meat. I'm going to go marinade hank.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> > I am pretty sure Betos uses dog meat. :shock:
> 
> 
> Wow, if that's true, then that makes dog my favorite meat. I'm going to go marinade hank.


I didn't say it tasted bad, it just doesn't taste like beef as they claim. Me and my friends just call it the delicious mystery meat.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Mad cow disease can make a ranchers profits go bye bye, if it is found in a herd or ranch, don't all cattle have to be taken out and all meat sent out recalled. We humans hate to have disease in our meat. Remember when we took out Strawberry, and waited for a while and now we catch good fish and decent amounts of fish. I would say these folks did what they think best for the area with as much information that they thad. Coyoteslayer, you are so predictable.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I believe 4 or 5 years ago in the Vernal area the DWR culled about 100 deer because there were deer that tested positive for CWD after the general season. To my recollection none of the meat was used(I may be wrong). I do not fault the DWR for this, I think once CWD is found your options are real limited as to what can be done.
Later,
Griff


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

Just read this and WOW :shock: what a waste...


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

FROGGER said:


> Just read this and WOW :shock: what a waste...


Yes it's a waste but a necessary one in my opinion if you consider the possible implications of a devastating CWD outbreak in the deer population of an affected area.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

It is a waste, but I will very much side on the decision of a Division of Wildlife than most any other take on this. I would say it was a 'neccassary waste', a calculated wast if you will. Thinking that it is wanton waste, or un'neccassary waste is a position PETA would take, and I can not bring myself to think like they do.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Seriously, some of the posts here are ridiculous. +1 on the people in charge doing their best and LEARNING from the process. What because they have a pit of carcasses they learned nothing? They salvaged a LOT of meat and some part of me thinks that homeless people don't tend to congregate in frozen Canada in the same way they do in LA, Miami, Houston etc. Guess what there are starving people in Africa why not send it there bundled in wolf meat? A lot of these posts don't deserve a reply but I am surprised that someone as engaged in embracing the politics of wildlife - the new frontier for Utah's wildlife right Pro? would get suckered into the emotionally charged photos and post. The post with the photos is obviously biased towards the effort having been a big waste. And a lot of our (hunters) responses play right into the PETA/Humane society hand. 

I think the comparison to poisining thousands of fish is a pretty good one. When they throw down the rotenone in Strawberry they have to kill well into the 10's of thousands of fish. They stock more than that every year and that is only game fish. Perhaps when they do that they kill 100K more? a million? And why because they had whirling or because they were the not nice fish and we wanted to get trophy fishing back? And are they out there scooping up fish for the homeless and does anyone want stuff that had to be poisoned because they were worried about diseases it could potentially cause? Potentially is the word here, I'm not saying I even imagine it was death to eat the stuff, but the Div has said don't eat brain, spine etc. Well what if the bullet hits the spine and travels through the hind quarters. The top end of that tear may well still end up in the meat or something. Would you want to eat piles of it? 

Plus the homeless thing is even more weak. They deserve some grain fed beef if you really care about them. I'm calling Canada right now and ordering some CWD slaughetered deer for your next banquet Pro. That'll bring em in for some fundraising. Whose side are you on anyway? Support the guys when they are trying to get it right and not just pandering to political folks like Peta, Humane, and well I guess maybe a few others not worth listing. But the nice deers have such big eyes and pretty brown fur!?!?!  It is sad, just don't show the photos to your 3 year old - they won't understand. 

Lot's of respect for deer. As animals. Lots of respect for wolves as animals, would love to see one in the wild. We're the top predator and we need to manage everything as best we can and I'm sure Utah learned from what they did there just like many other places. Get over it.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Any minute now we'll stop beating around the bush and start telling how we really feel.

o-||


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Oh August where are you?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

If something was learned from the process, it could be somewhat useful, but I don't see any evidence of that. So if you kill 100 deer and 3 have CWD, why not try to do something with the other 97? That is all I am saying. I find it disturbing and quite idiotic that some are trying to tie us who thought it was wasteful to PETA. Come on, that is the most idiotic thing I have heard before. I don't always agree with Pro, but he does a crap load for the wildlife in Utah and to say he sounds like a PETA member is absurd. I agree that sometimes drastic measures have to be taken to save the rest of the others, but all I was saying is there could be a little more done, not to be so wasteful.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Look at some of the numbers previously posted, they did make an effort like you asked for. All I am saying about the other is that you can't take the side of the people who want to personify animals and treat them on some other level than an animal. It sucks to have to have them die. No question. What about ferile cats? They kill millions of songbirds and rodents every year so would it be ok to round them up and kill them in mass numbers? Sure. Why not. They are a problem that we created. We didn't make CWD, but they were trying to create a quarantine before they had to start talking about killing ten thousand. Certainly not an easy task to undertake to begin with, forget the careful cleaning and packing of all of it which they did do with the exception of what you see in the pics. 

The thing is, animal groups try to sensationalize things and use a part of the truth to smear the whole. It’s like my brother who doesn’t hunt. I had a deer hanging in a tree one year and he had his son out who was young and had no exposure to hunting. So he picks him up and holds him in the carcass. The result? The kid goes inside crying and says mom uncle killed one of Santa’s reindeer!!! It was kind of funny for a sick guy like me, but I was really ticked because of the disrespect my bro showed his son and the goodness that was part of the whole reason we hunt. He didn’t teach him respect, or explain why things sometimes need to die or anything. The kid goes to Mcdonalds and may have no clue where the meat comes from. Little snapshots of stuff like the deer in a mass grave with a load of criticism looks like some sick picture from the holocaust and are perfect for Peta folks. They need no explanation and no truth, just sensationalized versions with part truths to be effective. In propagating stuff like this and then backing it up with WTF’s makes hunters look silly to me. You know every one of those government guys up there that helped do that job hunts. You know they are sad as hell that one of their hunting grounds was decimated or that deer won’t haunt those woods for awhile. Give them a freakin break, they performed a horrible task with the available resources and if they didn’t do a good job then they will surely have learned and taught other biologists a valuable lesson. Science is far from always getting it right the first time. If you don’t believe me just get truly sick and go to a doctor. Medicine – what this issue really is- has a long way to go before being perfected. We can’t stop disease in ourselves and you expect them to be able to fix it in deer without sometimes trying something that seems drastic?

Hats off to them for doing what had to have been a hard and unfortunate weeks’ worth of work.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Look at some of the numbers previously posted, they did make an effort like you asked for. All I am saying about the other is that you can't take the side of the people who want to personify animals and treat them on some other level than an animal. It sucks to have to have them die. No question. What about ferile cats? They kill millions of songbirds and rodents every year so would it be ok to round them up and kill them in mass numbers? Sure. Why not. They are a problem that we created. *We didn't make CWD*, but they were trying to create a quarantine before they had to start talking about killing ten thousand. Certainly not an easy task to undertake to begin with, forget the careful cleaning and packing of all of it which they did do with the exception of what you see in the pics.


First, just because PETA may see this as WRONG like I and MANY other hunters/sportsmen do, does not mean I am turning into a bunny hugger. That is beyond absurd. Wrong is wrong, and wasting wildlife senselessly is WRONG.

Second, humans DID cause CWD, it started in high-fenced operations, 'nature' did not start it, just as nature did not/does not start whirling disease.

Third, this is 2008, we have the ability to use science in more responsible ways than what was followed here. It appears to be a project that used as little effort as possible, and as little interaction with the public as possible. Anytime ANY government agency feels the need to be secretive is a time to be concerned as a citizen and as a sportsman.

Fourth, I am heading back to the ISE show in a few, so have fun calling me a PETA supporter. :roll:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

It's not as fun as calling you a politician


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm no expert on the deer herds or CWD containment efforts in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I'm certainly willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the professionals in the area who are.

From a few minutes of Internet searches, the cull started last year, moved to a $9 3-deer CWD public permit last fall, and an additional cull this spring. I think it's important to remember that the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan isn't Utah. Unlike Utah, the deer population there is larger than they want it to be, there are far fewer people, and the place is several times the physical size of Utah. Culling that many deer in Utah would be disastrous to our herds, but doing so in the backcountry of Alberta might even be beneficial to achieving population objectives.



prooutdoors said:


> It appears to be a project that used as little effort as possible, and as little interaction with the public as possible. Anytime ANY government agency feels the need to be secretive is a time to be concerned as a citizen and as a sportsman.


In my brief search of the Internet, I found several government news releases and newspaper stories announcing the cull in advance, seeking public input and making efforts to respond to citizen concern over the past year. I wasn't able to find any secrecy associated with this cull. For example, here's a brief from the Edmonton Sun in advance of the latest cull:



Edmonton Sun said:


> In March, Fish and Wildlife officers will begin culling deer within a well-defined high risk region east of Chauvin, comprising Townships 41, 42 and 43 in Range 1, W4. The cull area is about 29 km long (18 miles) by 10 km wide (6 miles). Public information meetings will take place in Lloydminster on March 7, Wainwright on March 8, Chauvin on March 9 and Provost on March 10. Alberta wants to develop a long-term approach to CWD in border areas. Input from area residents will be very helpful.
> 
> Fish and Wildlife officers will seek permission from landowners and agricultural producers to cull deer on their properties. The cull will be completed by early April. Alberta will test for the presence of CWD in all deer collected. Fish and Wildlife staff will continue to ensure public safety and will take steps to minimize disturbance to residents."


There have apparently been many people upset with this CWD containment effort, both here and in Canada over the past year. I too am sickened by the sight of hundreds of deer bodies being dumped into a pit like Auschwitz victims, but really, those are just my emotions reacting. Was all that meat wasted? Yeah, of course, but this is eastern Alberta where deer are thicker than Nevada jackrabbits. Public hunting was tried last fall, and even the $9 over-the-counter permits didn't kill all the deer they wanted culled.

If this culling effort works, it will, in the long-run, save tens of thousands of deer; if it doesn't, a lesson will have been learned, evidence will have been collected, and given the overabundance of deer in the area, the numbers of deer killed in the cull will have been insignificant.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Jim Zumbo did not think what he said was wrong until other responsible gun owners and sportsmen pointed it out. With out Uncle Ted, Jim would still be in trouble and he has done a ton for wildlife also. Pro, you and others are on the exact same side of the issue as PETA, that does not mean you support them, or endorse them, or are card carrying members, but when you hear a turkey gobble, it is always a turkey that comes out of the bush.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Epek I like you a lot, but I have to disagree with you to some extent. So are you telling me that if I feel that something is very wrong, I should not say anything about it if it sounds like it might be inline with something PETA would say. That is absurd! So if PETA thinks raping little girls is wrong, I must now change my stance on that issue and say that raping little girls is fine, you know I wouldn't want to be inline with PETA. Extreme example, but you should get my point.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

EPEK said:


> Jim Zumbo did not think what he said was wrong until other responsible gun owners and sportsmen pointed it out. With out Uncle Ted, Jim would still be in trouble and he has done a ton for wildlife also. Pro, you and others are on the exact same side of the issue as PETA, that does not mean you support them, or endorse them, or are card carrying members, but when you hear a turkey gobble, it is always a turkey that comes out of the bush.


OUCH! :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> Jim Zumbo did not think what he said was wrong until other responsible gun owners and sportsmen pointed it out. With out Uncle Ted, Jim would still be in trouble and he has done a ton for wildlife also. Pro, you and others are on the exact same side of the issue as PETA, that does not mean you support them, or endorse them, or are card carrying members, *but when you hear a turkey gobble, it is always a turkey that comes out of the bush*.


What NONSENSE! I could 'spin' it right back on you, what with your 'ethical' this 'ethical' that, but I won't. 8) I can sound 'like a turkey', hell I can gobble like a turkey, yet when I walk out of the brush, I am STILL a hunter.

I'll spin this back on the Jim Zumbo saga since you brought it up; I say sportsmen should NOT accept/condone actions like this without asking/demanding that we use every possible resource to "do it right", rather than "do it the easy way". And yes Peterson, I still say they took the easy route on this. When I see piles of deer being WASTED needlessly, I am troubled. When I then have 'sportsmen' excuse it or show indifference to it, I am more than troubled. How is it people get all up in arms about claimed mis-deeds by outfitters/guides/hunters, but if those doing the VERY SAME acts on a grander scale are government agencies, it is somehow acceptable and above question? Newsflash, the government is NOT always concerned with our best interests, in Canada or the US of A. When we stop questioning their actions, and stop holding them to the same and/or higher standard they hold us to, we get what we deserve.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Ouch.

Boy that hurts to be yelled at. 

Are you really going to question my ethics?

I saw the pictures, I did not read the whole story, but got the jest of it and since everyone has added on this sight, I feel that with the resources at hand, they did what they had to do .............. and ................ if I got a call from Canada that said, hey, we just erraticated a ton of deer in what we deem as a CWD area, and was wondering if you wanted any of the meet, I would say, uh...... no thanks. I have my own, good luck to you guys on your problem, I hope you solve it and that it doesn't spread into any other herds. 

Now, for my honest assesment of what it sounds like when everyone sees this and responds with. This is disturbing, that just ain't right, how could humans do that to animals, and I then added my thoughts to who dunn it, the DWR of that region with the support of the sportsmen of that region, and then herd that the 'entire' story might not have been told, and had it feel to me like animal rights folks hopping down the throats of us mean ole hunters, I am just honestly saying that your responses sound just like what PETA members would say to a situation like that. 

And finally, PETA members care more about these deer than those little girls you are talking about. They truley are the enemy, and I don't like to sound like them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

EPEK said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Boy that hurts to be yelled at.
> 
> ...


Like I said I respect you and I hope you don't think I am being disrespectful, but I have an opinion about it that happens to differ from yours. I strongly dislike PETA, but you evidentially missed my entire point of using the little girls as an example. So you won't say anything to sound like them EVEN if they may make one good point at some time (which I am not sure has ever happened yet). So what if they were to say the XC3 was a great product would you stop saleing it? BTW, can't wait to try them out even if they are endorsed by PETA. :wink: 8) I am not questioning your ethics, from what I have seen since I have been a member of both forums, you are one of the most ethical hunters I have seen. I am just in disagreement with you on this one issue.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Also I am going to give you my response, then I will follow it up with what I think a PETA member would respond to this. 8) 

Me:

I understand that CWD is a serious problem, but I feel that during the process of trying to eradicate the disease they could do a better job than they have. We are in the 21st century and with all of the technology we have this is the best they can come up with, I doubt it. Hopefully they will use the data to learn more to hopefully prevent something else like this happening in the future. I would have been happier if they could of used the meat to feed some homeless people or the 97% of animals that weren't carrying the disease. 

PETA member:

You are all pigs. You call yourself men, killing helpless little Bambi's. I wish the deer had scud missiles to blow your ass off the planet. There is no instance in my mind that I see is a ligament reason to kill any living thing. Let nature take it course and nature will naturally take care of itself. They were here before we were so leave them alone. Yada, yada, yada. 

It is making me sick to write anymore. If you can't see the difference I apologize and feel bad for you all. :wink:


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Petersen said:


> I'm no expert on the deer herds or CWD containment efforts in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I'm certainly willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the professionals in the area who are.
> 
> From a few minutes of Internet searches, the cull started last year, moved to a $9 3-deer CWD public permit last fall, and an additional cull this spring. I think it's important to remember that the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan isn't Utah. Unlike Utah, the deer population there is larger than they want it to be, there are far fewer people, and the place is several times the physical size of Utah. Culling that many deer in Utah would be disastrous to our herds, but doing so in the backcountry of Alberta might even be beneficial to achieving population objectives.
> 
> ...


I actually wrote up this whole garb, then e-mailed it to peterson to post for me! :wink:

Ok, thats not really true...but you all need to listen to the man!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Typical Epek :lol: nobody must be home upstairs. So Epek is SFW a PETA follower if they feed the deer in the winter? I think you strained to hard on your last bowel movement and it has altered your sense of reasoning. That is funny you call people PETA that would like to see a better solution than just killing all deer in the area. Colorado and Wyoming have CWD areas. Should they start shooting the deer in those areas.

In Fountain Green, Utah a deer tested postive for CWD. So should be wipe out the Central and Southern Regions? Here are other cases of CWD found in Utah.

*To date 33 mule deer have tested positive for CWD so maybe we need to kill every deer in Utah so it doesn't spread. *

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/diseases/cwd/

How long do you think CWD has been around??? We have the technology to test of it now, but just maybe CWD has been around for 100 years or longer.

In Canada, how many CWD deer do you think survives the winter?


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Typical Epek :lol: nobody must be home upstairs. So Epek is SFW a PETA follower if they feed the deer in the winter? I think you strained to hard on your last bowel movement and it has altered your sense of reasoning. That is funny you call people PETA that would like to see a better solution than just killing all deer in the area. Colorado and Wyoming have CWD areas. Should they start shooting the deer in those areas.
> 
> In Fountain Green, Utah a deer tested postive for CWD. So should be wipe out the Central and Southern Regions? Here are other cases of CWD found in Utah.
> 
> ...


CS, yer a mean poo-poo head! :shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS, yer a mean poo-poo head!


That was mean Zim


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > CS, yer a mean poo-poo head!
> 
> 
> That was mean Zim


Yeah !! Now _that_ was disturbing !! :evil:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> *Typical Epek :lol: nobody must be home upstairs.*


Do you ever even think before you post? Or is this just more riding Pro's coattails rhetoric that you seem to spout any time anyone disagrees with him? Pro probably had a good point, but you are showing you have no point other than giving Pro the virtual reach around. Making a statement like that about EPEK makes you look like a complete idiot.... not that many of your other posts have done much to discredit that theory either. I try to avoid the things you post in CS because if you dive into a pile of sh*t, more often than not, you come out smelling like the steaming pile but you are ridiculous.



coyoteslayer said:


> That is funny you call people PETA that would like to see a better solution than just killing all deer in the area. Colorado and Wyoming have CWD areas. Should they start shooting the deer in those areas.


I don't believe anyone was saying we shouldn't kill all the deer but the emotional outburst was over the supposed waste of the few deer in the pit. :roll: Why would you want to allow diseased deer to just "hang out" to prolong their suffering from this disease? Wouldn't you want to cull them to prevent the spread of the disease? If they're sick, get rid of them. Does it look bad initially? Sure it does, but the health of the herd would be worth eliminating quite a few deer, making sure you had taken any sick deer in that total while leaving the area open for transplant of healthy animals. Apparently the states have no problem transplanting animals between each other....



coyoteslayer said:


> In Fountain Green, Utah *a deer *tested postive for CWD. So should *w*e wipe out the Central and Southern Regions? Here are other cases of CWD found in Utah.
> 
> *To date 33 mule deer have tested positive for CWD so maybe we need to kill every deer in Utah so it doesn't spread. *
> 
> ...


About the culling of the herd in Canada....why not do it to try and contain the problem before it spreads province-wide? Putting the unused or unusable animals in a pit to dispose of them seems reasonable.... where else should they have gone? Does anyone even know what happened after the deer went in the pit? Did they burn them off, bury them or leave it open for scavengers? If they culled over 1000 deer and just over 100 had to be left because they were diseased, unusable or there wasn't time to process them all, then so be it. I'm ok with that percentage as long as something was learned from it.

About our herds here, like somebody else said, we're in a much different situation numberswise from Canada. That would be the proverbial apples to oranges comparison, same species or not. I seriously doubt the DWR would ever resort to region wide elimination but hey, if thats what it took to prevent the other animals in another area from coming down with an "incurable" disease, then hell yes... take them out and like somebody else said, we can transplant healthy animals into a new area. Hell, the DWR seems to be very fond of transplanting animals here, there and everywhere in between so I'm sure our situation would be open to a few more management options. 8)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

RiverRat77 that was probably the dumbest post you have posted and you have posted a lot of Dumb posts. Learn to read. This post made you look like a complete idiot.



> Do you ever even think before you post? Or is this just more riding Pro's coattails rhetoric that you seem to spout any time anyone disagrees with him? Pro probably had a good point, but you are showing you have no point other than giving Pro the virtual reach around. Making a statement like that about EPEK makes you look like a complete idiot.... not that many of your other posts have done much to discredit that theory either. I try to avoid the things you post in CS because if you dive into a pile of sh*t, more often than not, you come out smelling like the steaming pile but you are ridiculous.


Im not riding Pro's coat tail and I never have. I just saying it makes Epek look like a complete idiot when we compares hunters to PETA.



> About the culling of the herd in Canada....why not do it to try and contain the problem before it spreads province-wide? Putting the unused or unusable animals in a pit to dispose of them seems reasonable.... where else should they have gone? Does anyone even know what happened after the deer went in the pit? Did they burn them off, bury them or leave it open for scavengers? If they culled over 1000 deer and just over 100 had to be left because they were diseased, unusable or there wasn't time to process them all, then so be it. I'm ok with that percentage as long as something was learned from it.
> 
> About our herds here, like somebody else said, we're in a much different situation numberswise from Canada. That would be the proverbial apples to oranges comparison, same species or not. I seriously doubt the DWR would ever resort to region wide elimination but hey, if thats what it took to prevent the other animals in another area from coming down with an "incurable" disease, then hell yes... take them out and like somebody else said, we can transplant healthy animals into a new area. Hell, the DWR seems to be very fond of transplanting animals here, there and everywhere in between so I'm sure our situation would be open to a few more management options.


Our situation could be worse if the disease spread because the deer are more concentrated in areas where they winter so the disease would spread just the same or worse. We had 33 cases so far. I think the Canadian are just going overboard and arent looking at other solutions.



> I try to avoid the things you post in CS because if you dive into a pile of sh*t, more often than not, you come out smelling like the steaming pile but you are ridiculous.


So you dive in Epeks **** instead.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> take them out and like somebody else said, we can transplant healthy animals into a new area. Hell, the DWR seems to be very fond of transplanting animals here, there and everywhere in between so I'm sure our situation would be open to a few more management options.


Hahaha you probably don't know how much it would cost to transplant new animals. You are brillant :lol: Lets just shoot our deer herd and start all over again.



> What causes it?
> 
> Neither viruses nor bacteria cause CWD. Instead, infectious proteins called prions seem responsible. Prion-caused diseases are known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE). Examples of these diseases are: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ("Mad Cow Disease"), Scrapie (in sheep and goats) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) (in humans). Prion-caused diseases and their methods of transmission are not well understood. Research indicates that it is unlikely that direct transmission of CWD from infected animals to humans occurs. In December of 1999, the World Health Organization stated, "There is currently no evidence that CWD in cervidae (deer and elk) is transmitted to humans." However, the similarities between CWD and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease are cause for concern, and appropriate precautions should be taken with harvested animals.


And if our deer herds get affected again then we will just shoot them all again instead of learning more about the disease and way to prevent or cure it.

*Lastly, I tend to agree with Pro because Unlike you Riverrat77 he argues with COMMON SENSE.*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Mandatory head submission of all hunter killed deer was
> implemented in 2007 by the Alberta Government to monitor the
> spread of C.W.D. (Chronic Wasting Disease). A positive case
> was found in a deer shot 10 miles north of the town of
> ...


They found 7 positive cases of CWD so they are shooting healthy deer because of it. We have had 33 cases of CWD in Utah so maybe we better be concerned because we have less deer and 4 times as many disease deer found.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Relax. No one really believes that you guys are Peta folks. Maybe on the weekends when you put on your fancy sparkle dress :mrgreen: , but not during the hunts at least. The point is, we need to give hard working, educated, and entrusted folks the "benefit of the doubt" when faced with a tough task like that. The government screws up and they hear about it. The government gets something right and they still hear about it. And yes, the government ought to be challenged and be able to stand up to it or suffer the consequences. What consequences should the guys involved suffer because of this. Their jobs? You ready to fire them or what do y'all suggest? This makes game management there look pretty bad according to you. 

"benefit of the doubt" For me means not a free pass to do wrong, but you all know that the group who did this did it with public input, their own due process (though maybe the express version as dictated by what they viewed as crisis), a LIMITED budget that didn't even include the effort when it was planned, and lastly, a degree of sadness for having to do it at all (though if we were really "scientific" about it we wouldn't add sadness to the mix) - and so what I mean by benefit of the doubt is just picture that they had some barriers to success when trying to achieve a goal of eradicating a problem while still saving as much as was feasible for the moment and future days. The fact that they could spare any meat is a bonus IMO. The other fact that you guys have ignored is th :arrow: at none of you would order this meat online even at bargain prices or free. Plus I still love that you maintain it is OK to ship it to the homeless when you wouldn't truly, truly, want it. 

Technology? I sure wish I had a helicopter that ran on air to boot. This operation had to cost a lot in time, money they hadn't planned for, and effort. You want Captain Kirk to beam the infected deer to your care barn for further evals? I hate to break it to ya, but they used technology. When people can't cure or get rid of the disease in other states what are they supposed to change about it there? Just technology it away? Here is how that conversation goes: Hey Bob, we have a big problem with the deer running anywhere they choose and carrying diseases we can't fix. We don't know truly what impact they could have. Then Bob says: Oh hey there doesn't Utah have some guys with technology and science? Dang, let's order us a box of that....Oh crap, it's expeeeeeensive. Ah well, I guess we have that gun and flying thing right? Let's dig us a pit and bury em all after we shoot em as badly as we can. Yeah, let's shoot em badly and bury em! 

So you are telling us that they blew it. They missed the mark completely, went on some rogue operation and had a ******* of a time doing it. Could you add pics of them shooting from the General Lee and would they still fit? Of course not because that would be way overplaying it, but the subtlety of the original post and the link to it is that is is overplayed. Anyone with little reference (98% of America) would see stuff like that and wouldn't even engage in this debate. In that sense it is PETA billboard material. That is the problem. The reason you get called lobster liberators is that you're playing the same tune on a smaller instrument. So give us a break when you say we are callous sportsmen and you are shocked that we would say anything but what a waste. 

I can't speak for others but I think some seem to agree that we say what a waste, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt - as described above- and my SUPPORT for doing a tough job that no one wants to have to do. We're all supposed to be sportsmen for fish and wildlife - lowercase letters- and passing around a biased and emotionally charged email is BS and a stab in the back to those who did the right thing. Now that I think about it you should be ashamed for adding to their "bad reputation" and further tainting their valid work. It's akin to passing on slander. Dig up some pictures of the homeless people who did get a meal that they wouldn't have had, some pictures of healthy fawns in a morning meadow, and a few dirty, tired guys at the end of the day with a big THANK YOU banner over their heads and send out an unemotional, bland report of the FACTS and THEN  I'll accept your apology as a sportsman who cares for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Better yet, forget wasting your time on me and send them an apology. Or I'll apologize to you, make a memorial of the slaughter, and we'll sue them for wanton destruction of wildlife. We'll get all their good tags :twisted: and start a group out there that cares  . You can move there and I'll stay behind to continue to care about trophy...errr, proper game management. Start packing guys you're off to fix Canada!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Is there a good reason why you resort to name calling when someone disagrees with you? Shows a lack of education and tact on your end.
> 
> So in other words - knock it off or be bounced.
> 
> ...


Is there a good reason why you resort to name calling when someone disagrees with you? Shows a lack of education and tact on your end.

So in other words - knock it off or be bounced.[/quote:3lh1irfs]

Nice one EHF, I see a lot of name calling and trashing people on all this website. Please single me out. BTW which name did I actually call him that was sooooo bad???? Please don't turn into the ole EHF.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Zim wrote * CS, yer a mean poo-poo head!

So poo-poo head its an ok word since it was used by the green men



> I don't have the time to go through all of your posts - but when I'm getting PMs about you and your responses to posts and your name comes up in discussion with the other Mods - then there's a problem.
> 
> Just cool down and don't point the finger at others for what you do.
> 
> ...


I actually have option number 3 and I have already asked Petersen about it and he didnt know what i was asking. I don't have a lot of time to be on here much anymore.



> coyoteslayer wrote:
> Petersen, If I want to erase my profile then how do I erase it? I have looked all over and can't find a way.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean or what you're trying to do, so if I don't give you the right answer, please just get back to me and we'll figure it out.
> ...





> If you get stuck, just holler.
> 
> Pete


So I choose Zim to ban me and erase me from the forum since I have been trying to for about three weeks now. I know Zim has been wanting to ban me for a loooooonnnngggg time. Zim I give you the pleasure.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Hey, Coyote has a voice, and should not be banned for his behavior, even though it is so predictable and wierd.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

Coyoteslayer, I've got to back up Elkhuntingfool on this one. It's not just one post, it's mostly that you're always right in the middle of every emotional dispute that comes up. Disagreements and discussion is what the forum is all about, but you seem to precede a good portion of your responses to people who disagree with you with insults and ridicule. This just serves to encourage others to respond in kind, and that's not good for the forum, and I don't like to see things heading in that direction.

Yes, you're right, there is a lot of name calling and insults going on and singling you out is only because you seem to instigate and jump into the middle of much of it - not just in this thread, but in many others as well. And that just helps further the entire forum heading in that direction. Ultimately, it drives a lot of good posters away who prefer not to be ridiculed and insulted.

If you disagree with someone's post, by all means, say why you think you're right and give us your take on the subject, but I've got to insist that you leave the personal insults and petty attacks out of your responses. You're a good guy, a good, long-term forum member and a valuable participant on here, as well as on the old DWR forum.

However, you've got to change your approach - nobody likes to be insulted, belittled and called names, and it's keeping people from posting who just don't want to deal with that kind of abuse. I've already given you a couple of informal warnings, but please consider this a formal warning in accordance to the forum rules. The next step up from here is a temporary suspension of posting privileges, and I honestly don't want that to happen.

We're not talking about permanently banning you, and I certainly don't want that to happen either. If you want to quit posting, that is, of course, your choice, but I hope you do keep posting for a variety of reasons. I won't, however, help you erase your account because doing so would affect all the threads in which you have participated.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyoteslayer, I've got to back up Elkhuntingfool on this one. It's not just one post, it's mostly that you're always right in the middle of every emotional dispute that comes up. Disagreements and discussion is what the forum is all about, but you seem to precede a good portion of your responses to people who disagree with you with insults and ridicule. This just serves to encourage others to respond in kind, and that's not good for the forum, and I don't like to see things heading in that direction.


Yes please back him up and Im sorry to everyone on this forum if I have ever hurt your feelings Once again I'm very sorry. I apology for my behavior, I wasn't serious or mad when I made an insult to anyone, but they probably took it the wrong way.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

For what it's worth......coyoteslayer has never bothered me, nor do his post bother me...

I believe he's a good man....no worse than the rest of us... *\-\*


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Im not riding Pro's coat tail and I never have. I just saying it makes Epek look like a complete idiot when we compares hunters to PETA.


I had a whole post typed out but Petersen said his piece as the site admin and I won't say any more about it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> We're not talking about permanently banning you, and I certainly don't want that to happen either. If you want to quit posting, that is, of course, your choice, but I hope you do keep posting for a variety of reasons. I won't, however, help you erase your account because doing so would affect all the threads in which you have participated.


Well I just don't have time to be on here anymore and yes coming here does get addicting sometimes, but I have been working 80 hours a week doing DNA tests for people who submit their DNA so I just don't have a lot of time anymore. I also need to work on crawling, walking on my knees with canes and walking with leg braces. I just spend to much time on here.

Riverrat77, thank you.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Today at a wrestling tournament in Heber City, Epek told me that things were pretty heated up about the "Disturbing" thread. He filled me in a bit and the last thing that I had read was when Epek compared the killing of those deer to the Strawberry Res. issue. After reading the next several pages, all I can say is WOW! Every body needs a time out and take a chill pill. Epek didn't call Pro a Peta member. Pro is acting as he saw it and that is ok. Jahan can have an oppinion and it can match Pro's and still like Epek. CS is taking a hit simply cause his oppinion always matches Pro's. They are friends and hunt together, that is ok also. Steep n Deep gave too long of posts to read them all so I don't have an oppinion on his oppinion. 

Cant we all just get along? Far too much testosterone flying around right now to consider it fun.  .................Deep breaths,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just take some Deep Breaths.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

After all, the topic of the thread is "disturbing!!!" CS, Good luck with work, 80 hours??!! I don't know how you have any time to be on here at all, and good luck (sincerely) with the "crawling, walking on my knees with canes and walking with leg braces." The only thing from you that has ever offended me is the pics of the chevy truck behind your monster bucks :mrgreen:, j/k it is nice to see the buck that you got last year, it keeps me from getting depressed thinking that someday my day will come too. <<--O/


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> For what it's worth......coyoteslayer has never bothered me, nor do his post bother me...
> 
> I believe he's a good man....no worse than the rest of us... *\-\*


I want what yer smokin'! :mrgreen:


----------



## b-creekoutfitters (Feb 5, 2008)

here's a idea instead of crying and whining on here why don't you GO OUTSIDE turn off your computer and go fishing , hunting , hiking , take your kids outside to play . there seems to be allot of indoorsman on here and not many outdoorsman I don't post on here allot because of childish crap like this and I would rather be outside . and if your excuse is that your at work then GET TO WORK im sure your not being paid to argue on the internet . not everyone is going to agree about everything or get along but insults and fighting get you nowhere . don't talk about it be about it


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

That's exactly what I tell these guy's all the time...All they want to do is argue and scream like a bunch of little girls.....
That's why I don't come over to the 'Big Game' too often, these guy's screw around and around...piss and moan, complain, giggle, pinch each other and what have you....I totally agree with you... :evil:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

You be quiet .55. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> You be quiet .55. :mrgreen:


+1  :lol:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> You be quiet .55. :mrgreen:


.45 is just an obnoxious jerk! He only agree's with.....................................who ever he wants to at the time and I think he should be kicked off of the forum and never allowed on again. He is always mean to me and makes me cry. I would hope that the mods will see what he does. He has a dry sense of humor and that is just wrong and dry. Oh and he wont be quiet when told to. :mrgreen:

ps. I think that he is too old to play on here!

Pss. I'm just messing around and all of the stuff I said was in jest except for the part where he makes me cry. That was real.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > You be quiet .55. :mrgreen:
> ...


Big baby cry face. :shock:


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

I think yer _all _a bunch of poo poo heads! :mrgreen:


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I know I compared some to PETA, but I think it more like I compared them to Jim Zumbo, a great spokesman for our sport that made a bit of a mistake that he has repented for and now is able to be back on the air with sponsers. Jahan, I didn't single you out as much as maybe you think I did, and I have zero problem with anyone having a different oppinion than mine, I do like the fact that I can go off my initial gut instinct and with out doing as much research as wyo2utah on every subject, form and state my own opinions, and I will stand by my initial gut feeling on this one. It SEEMED to me, and FELT to me like the people that made these comments about erratication sounded a bit like a group of people that I very much dislike............... but in all honesty, I really like the community of this forum. News Flash............... I also have disagreements with my wife and other people that I love very much.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> I also have disagreements with my wife and other people that I love very much.


Are you saying you love me?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey elk22hunter, why do you have to come on here and make everyone get along, how dare you be nice and understanding. :wink:  Like EPEK stated I just went off of my initial gut feeling of things could of been done better and I will also stick to it, but everybody had made a lot of great points on all sides. I actually have found myself softening up a little after several good posts. So where is that group hug symbol, well I can't find it so I will just throw in a dancing banana. -()/- *()* *(())* Yote if you do have some spare time, definitely stop by and say hi.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

jahan said:


> *Hey elk22hunter, why do you have to come on here and make everyone get along, how dare you be nice and understanding*. :wink:  Like EPEK stated I just went off of my initial gut feeling of things could of been done better and I will also stick to it, but everybody had made a lot of great points on all sides. I actually have found myself softening up a little after several good posts. So where is that group hug symbol, well I can't find it so I will just throw in a dancing banana. -()/- *()* *(())* Yote if you do have some spare time, definitely stop by and say hi.


Nice and understanding ??? The man doesn't even have a name for his buffalo !! /**|**\ /**|**\ ...he talks to animals, laughs about poop threads, promotes Metamuscil as a daily use product...The guy's a weirdo !! *\-\* *\-\*

Because of all these attributes I _have_ to consider him and all forum members as friends.. 

I'd just like to know why everybody is always picking on me.... :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> So where is that group hug symbol, well I can't find it so I will just throw in a dancing banana. -()/- *()* *(())* Yote if you do have some spare time, definitely stop by and say hi.


Any more of this thread and we might have to track down a _copulating_ banana. _(O)_


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

-~|- -()/>- -()/- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- -*|*- *(())* *()* -~|- -()/>- *(())* -*|*- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- *(())* -*|*- *()* -~|- -()/- -()/>- -~|- *()* -*|*- *(())* -*|*- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- -()/>- -~|- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- -()/>- -~|- *()* -*|*- -*|*- *(())* -*|*- *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/- -()/>- -~|- *()* -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- *(())* 

Not too sure I follow you Tree... :mrgreen:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Any more of this thread and we might have to track down a _copulating_ banana. _(O)_


I had to look that word up in the dictionary.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Any more of this thread and we might have to track down a _copulating_ banana. _(O)_
> ...


You live in Lehi, no surprise on that. :?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

HA! Good one, Pro.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Treehugnhuntr said:
> ...


It's not like I don't live on a farm and all. I have just never used that word.

From what my wife has told me about Tooele High, that word gets used plenty often there. :mrgreen: No wonder you knew what it meant.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> From what my wife has told me about Tooele High, that word gets used plenty often there. :mrgreen: No wonder you knew what it meant.


One problem, I am NOT a Tooele 'native', I moved here when I was 28 years of age. :?

I did sleep in a Holiday Inn though. :shock:


----------



## girlsfishtoo (Feb 5, 2008)

The dumping the deer into a hole in the ground is a little troubling. I have nothing against taking animals for testing, expecially if something like CWD is found in an area. My only issue is that if the first article is true about CWD being found in soil, what are they accomplishing by killing all of those deer and dumping them into the groud. Isnt that putting CWD right back where they got it from? As far as the fish goes, a lot of fish are killed a year by inspectors to ensure disease is not spread. Let me ask this question would you rather hunt a healthy Deer/Elk, and catch healthy Fish, or would you want to go out on the hunt and see tons of incoherent or dead Deer/Elk all over the mountian side? Would you want to go fishing somewhere the fish are belly up or swriling around in the water? I know for myself and my family, we would rather have healthy animals.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

girlsfishtoo said:


> Let me ask this question would you rather hunt a healthy Deer/Elk, and catch healthy Fish, or would you want to go out on the hunt and see tons of incoherent or dead Deer/Elk all over the mountian side? Would you want to go fishing somewhere the fish are belly up or swriling around in the water? I know for myself and my family, we would rather have healthy animals.


Let me answer it differently than you asked, since I don't like EITHER option you presented to me. I would prefer the government, if they are serious about ridding CWD in deer and WD in trout, to get rid of the SOURCE of CWD and WD. Otherwise, IMHO, they are doing nothing more than PR and smoke and mirrors. Instead of destroying thousands of fish, and hundreds of deer, stop it at the source(s). I know, what a radical concept. :? CWD has been traced back to game farms EVERY time. WD has been traced back to fisheries EVERY time. As the saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". And, when the 'cure' is killing hundreds of deer and thousands of fish, the cure stinks! (pun intended)

I do not consider killing and dumping several hundred deer into pits because of less than .01% of the animals POSSIBLY having CWD very good science. Nor do I consider ALLOWING the cause to be allowed to continue to infect 'my' deer good policy/science.


----------



## girlsfishtoo (Feb 5, 2008)

Yea I think it would be awesome if we could stop it at its source. There is currently testing and inspections that are ongoing to hopefully someday stop the spread. CWD and WD are some big threats to hunting and fishing, no doubt. Stoping it at the source would be great, little do a lot of people know huge efforts are bing made to do that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Instead of destroying thousands of fish, and hundreds of deer, stop it at the source(s). I know, what a radical concept. :? CWD has been traced back to game farms EVERY time. WD has been traced back to fisheries EVERY time. As the saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". And, when the 'cure' is killing hundreds of deer and thousands of fish, the cure stinks! (pun intended)
> 
> I do not consider killing and dumping several hundred deer into pits because of less than .01% of the animals POSSIBLY having CWD very good science. Nor do I consider ALLOWING the cause to be allowed to continue to infect 'my' deer good policy/science.


1) Good idea...get rid of the source of the problem and the problem goes away. I think this concept is very important....but, there are some significant problems: 1) The disease is already out and spreading among wild animals; wild animals are infecting wild animals. So, if the original source is a game farm, putting that game farm out of commission doesn't fix the problem. So, what should be done to prevent all of these wild animals running around spreading the disease? 2) Game farms--had you read any of the information out there and especially any of the information I presented--are a very important part of the local economies; all government agencies can do is try to impose stricter and stricter policies regarding how they are run. These game farms aren't going away.

2) I don't consider it very sound wildlife managment to allow that ".01%" of the population to grow and become a significant threat. Once the disease has been found, wildlife managers have two choices: 1) sit back and see what happens or 2) become proactive and try to stop the disease from spreading and eliminate it as a threat. I think choosing the second option to be the best!


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

I hear this a lot from people all around from peta to the pro hunter that one should not waste the animal if you could eat it. However; PRO this is just the policy of our DWR when it comes to poisoning lakes they feel have become over populated with chubs or suckers. Vietnamese love this white meated fish but you can not get an American to eat it unless you call it mountain white fish served in the finest restaurants. The fact is the Canadian government could not and would not "Guarantee" the health of the people who consume CWD deer because not much is known about the effects of it on humans.

Because the government "killed" these animals to stop the spread the disease they would not take the chance at it affecting anyone they donated it to. According to our own DWR it is up to each of us who have harvested an animal that has tested positive for CWD to determine whether or not we are going to eat it or "without consequence" dispose of the meat. 
I personally as many have witnessed the wanton disregard for animal life when they poisoned Strawberry Reservoir and if you where here for that you can remember that the fish and game opened the waters to catch and keep as many as you want in order to limit the amount of wasted fish. Still there where a number of state records killed in the poisoning. I take you to the Article that spawned this. They gave numerous CWD deer tags to hunters and opened late season hunts before this undertaking. Sounds like what the DWR did at Strawberry, after they culled the herd in order to hopefully stop the spread of the disease. I only hope they do a better job that the DWR did at killing the Chub in Strawberry.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Good idea...get rid of the source of the problem and the problem goes away. I think this concept is very important....but, there are some significant problems: 1) The disease is already out and spreading among wild animals; wild animals are infecting wild animals. So, if the original source is a game farm, putting that game farm out of commission doesn't fix the problem. So, what should be done to prevent all of these wild animals running around spreading the disease? 2) Game farms--had you read any of the information out there and especially any of the information I presented--are a very important part of the local economies; all government agencies can do is try to impose stricter and stricter policies regarding how they are run. These game farms aren't going away.
> 
> 2) I don't consider it very sound wildlife managment to allow that ".01%" of the population to grow and become a significant threat. Once the disease has been found, wildlife managers have two choices: 1) sit back and see what happens or 2) become proactive and try to stop the disease from spreading and eliminate it as a threat. I think choosing the second option to be the best!


1)Sounds like we are close to having the same view here. To clarify, I have NEVER suggested letting the diseased animals "run around". I am saying there should be better/more efficient ways to remove the diseased animals. I also have NEVER suggested doing away with all game farms, but if a game farm is proven to spread CWD to wild animals, that farmer should be required to foot the bill to remove the diseased animals from the wild herd(s). That would 'force' those who profit from this industry to 'clean up' their operations.

2)I agree, since it is exactly what I already said. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Some additional information regarding Chronic Wasting Disease from the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance:

*What Is Being Done About CWD?*

"Efforts to address CWD are accelerating rapidly.

Several state wildlife agencies are aggressively collecting and testing wild elk and deer for the presence of CWD, and have instituted surveillance programs to examine hunter-harvested deer and elk. 
Some state wildlife agencies are considering adopting or have adopted regulations regarding the transportation of hunter-harvested deer and elk carcasses out of known CWD areas. Colorado has implemented regulations that allow only boned meat, quarters (without spinal column or head) or processed meat from deer or elk to be transported out of certain CWD areas.
*One option for managing CWD in wild populations is to reduce the density of animals in the infected area to slow the transmission of the disease. This is done by selective culling of animals suspected to have been exposed to the disease. In Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Saskatchewan, efforts are underway to drastically reduce local wild cervid populations in an effort to eliminate CWD in areas where it recently was found. *
Jurisdiction over commercial captive cervid operations varies from state to state. In some states the regulatory authority resides with the State agricultural or animal health agency, in some with the State wildlife management agency, and in some the authority is shared between agricultural and wildlife management agencies. When CWD is detected in a captive cervid facility, generally that facility is quarantined and all captive cervids in that facility are killed.
Several states have recently implemented a moratorium on the importation of live cervids. Some states have also halted intra-state movement of deer and elk, and banned supplemental feeding programs.
CWD surveillance of captive cervid farming operations is not yet regulated by the federal government, but some states, in cooperation with the industry, conduct CWD surveillance and have captive herd certification programs. A cooperative surveillance program began in 1997 between some states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS and the North American Elk Breeders Association have proposed a cooperative Federal-State-Private Sector program to eradicate chronic wasting disease (CWD) from captive elk herds in the United States.
A National Chronic Wasting Disease Plan was released June 26 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior.
Federal legislation has been introduced to provide additional funding for CWD research and control efforts, upgrade diagnostic laboratories and create a National Chronic Wasting Disease Clearinghouse. The proposed legislation would also clarify the jurisdictional lines of responsibility for the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, which share federal responsibilities for CWD."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> I only hope they do a better job that the DWR did at killing the Chub in Strawberry.


Although this is a bit off topic, I can't let this comment slide. In most rotenone treatments of lakes, the DWR doesn't plan on getting 100% fish kills...such kills are very difficult and usually take multiple years. Although the largest rotenone treatment project at the time, the Strawberry project was not supposed to kill all the chubs. In fact, DWR biologists knew that a 100% kill of all the chubs would be virtually impossible on a reservoir as large as Strawberry and with as many streams and inlets. But, it was a good way to start over, cull the population of chubs, redistribute the biomass, and come up with a new managment plan.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*disturbing humor*



elk22hunter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Any more of this thread and we might have to track down a _copulating_ banana. _(O)_
> ...


Reading this post it reminded me of a joke; rather than hijack I posted it here humor section


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

What a SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! -)O(-


----------

