http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ent/?test=latestnews

Good to see that some governors have some courage. I hope they are successful.

I hope the 3 states can work together for a plan to pass the department of interior.

quote:

In his letter to Salazar, Schweitzer wrote that in certain areas "any livestock producers who kill or harass wolves attacking their livestock will not be prosecuted. Further I am directing FWP (the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks service) to respond to any livestock depredation by removing whole packs."

Cattle ranchers, who say their herds have been devastated when some wolves figure out that cattle are far easier to hunt than wild game, cheered the letter.

So, those ranchers would be poachers who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the Governor is an admitted accomplice who should be prosecuted as well? Where are Fags and Crazy on this?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

In his letter to Salazar, Schweitzer wrote that in certain areas "any livestock producers who kill or harass wolves attacking their livestock will not be prosecuted. Further I am directing FWP (the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks service) to respond to any livestock depredation by removing whole packs."

Cattle ranchers, who say their herds have been devastated when some wolves figure out that cattle are far easier to hunt than wild game, cheered the letter.

So, those ranchers would be poachers who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the Governor is an admitted accomplice who should be prosecuted as well? Where are Fags and Crazy on this?

Poaching is poaching and I condemn poaching. My story doesn't change. So what axe are you trying to grind DUMBASS.

I understnd the frustration of the Govenor, but he has to work within the current law. Now, those laws do happen to have allowances that give ranchers the LEGAL right to destroy wolves that are depredatiiong livestock. So, if the ranchers are killing wolves in accordance to the law on the books, then they're not poachers are they?

After all, the classic definition of poaching is the killing of game outside the legal basis for doing so.

Nice try Dickhead. Don't you get tired of being proven to be stupid?

quote:

Now, those laws do happen to have allowances that give ranchers the LEGAL right to destroy wolves that are depredatiiong livestock. So, if the ranchers are killing wolves in accordance to the law on the books, then they're not poachers are they?

that is not what this article says, please quote the "allowances" you state are in the law.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

Now, those laws do happen to have allowances that give ranchers the LEGAL right to destroy wolves that are depredatiiong livestock. So, if the ranchers are killing wolves in accordance to the law on the books, then they're not poachers are they?

that is not what this article says, please quote the "allowances" you state are in the law.

If you weren't so friggin stupid you would realize that ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators. That right was never taken just because the wolves were imported. It is perfectly legal for ranchers to kill stock killing predators.

So, ranchers killing such wolves are not poachers since the law specifically allows that. What the Gov wants to do is expand that to take out entire packs and not specific animals. But until the law allows that then he is asking for trouble and for that reason I think he is wrong.

As to quoting allowances, I'm not your secretary. Do a little research and you'll find the laws on the books of every state. After all, you've never been able to prove me wrong on anything yet and you won't this time. Unlike you I don't speak out my ass. What I say is easily proven.

So, instead of me going to the trouble to quote the allowances, why don't you try to prove me wrong? You can't but you're welcome to try.

So, once again I prove you to be stupid.

quote:

If you weren't so friggin stupid you would realize that ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators. That right was never taken just because the wolves were imported. It is perfectly legal for ranchers to kill stock killing predators.

So, ranchers killing such wolves are not poachers since the law specifically allows that. What the Gov wants to do is expand that to take out entire packs and not specific animals. But until the law allows that then he is asking for trouble and for that reason I think he is wrong.

As to quoting allowances, I'm not your secretary. Do a little research and you'll find the laws on the books of every state. After all, you've never been able to prove me wrong on anything yet and you won't this time. Unlike you I don't speak out my ass. What I say is easily proven.

So, instead of me going to the trouble to quote the allowances, why don't you try to prove me wrong? You can't but you're welcome to try.

Gov. Sweitzer is encouraging ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock, even in areas it is not allowed (primarily North of I90). If ranchers kill wolves in these areas they are poaching and the governor is aiding them by commiting not to prosecute them. He also has ordered state Game Wardens to not intervene or investigate in cases of ranchers killing wolves in these areas. He is also stating that the state will begin killing wolves that prey on the states elk herds. So who knows better Fags, the State Government or the Federal Government?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

If you weren't so friggin stupid you would realize that ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators. That right was never taken just because the wolves were imported. It is perfectly legal for ranchers to kill stock killing predators.

So, ranchers killing such wolves are not poachers since the law specifically allows that. What the Gov wants to do is expand that to take out entire packs and not specific animals. But until the law allows that then he is asking for trouble and for that reason I think he is wrong.

As to quoting allowances, I'm not your secretary. Do a little research and you'll find the laws on the books of every state. After all, you've never been able to prove me wrong on anything yet and you won't this time. Unlike you I don't speak out my ass. What I say is easily proven.

So, instead of me going to the trouble to quote the allowances, why don't you try to prove me wrong? You can't but you're welcome to try.

Gov. Sweitzer is encouraging ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock, even in areas it is not allowed (primarily North of I90). If ranchers kill wolves in these areas they are poaching and the governor is aiding them by commiting not to prosecute them. He also has ordered state Game Wardens to not intervene or investigate in cases of ranchers killing wolves in these areas. He is also stating that the state will begin killing wolves that prey on the states elk herds. So who knows better Fags, the State Government or the Federal Government?

You seem to have an axe to grind. Can I ask just what your problem is?

As I stated, the Gov could very well be overstepping here. This will be tried in the court of public opinion and unfortunately that court will be located in places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Currently the law has said that the wolves are off limit. As a Gov he has to follow the law even if he doesn't agree with it.

That's my position and I've stated it twice now. You asked how I felt and I've responded. So, do you have a problem reading the English language? Am I using too big of words for you? Or is it that you are trying to get me to state something differrent? That's the thing about being truthful, the story never changes. Only a liar has a constantly changing story.

The problem isn't in MT to begin with. MT and ID both had approved plans. It was WY that didn't and a judge ruled that because WY didn't have an approved plan, the entire thing is on hold due to the Endangered Species Act. What the MT and ID govs need to do is sit down with WY and persuade him to draft a plan along the lines of their's. Then the courts will have no choice but find the wolf control adequate and legal. Once that happens, then the individual govs can slowly change the laws to accomodate their individual statutes.

So again, what is your beef? Are you really so immature that you have nothing better to do than mix it up over something so trivial as semantics? What are you? 12 years old or something? Didn't the other kids want to play with you? Or have you always been a whining little bitch?

And you still haven't been able to prove me wrong on a single issue. GROW UP!

[quote by FLAGS]If you weren't so friggin stupid you would realize that ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators. That right was never taken just because the wolves were imported. It is perfectly legal for ranchers to kill stock killing predators.

So, ranchers killing such wolves are not poachers since the law specifically allows that. What the Gov wants to do is expand that to take out entire packs and not specific animals. But until the law allows that then he is asking for trouble and for that reason I think he is wrong.

As to quoting allowances, I'm not your secretary. Do a little research and you'll find the laws on the books of every state. After all, you've never been able to prove me wrong on anything yet and you won't this time. Unlike you I don't speak out my ass. What I say is easily proven.[/quote]
_______________________________________________

Well you are totally wrong. I know that you are not my secretary either but maybe you would be so kind as to point out the portion of law that allows me to defend my livestock. Because RIGHT NOW neither the endangered species act nor state law allows ANY EXCEPTIONs for killing wolves that are eating my cattle or even my dog in my backyard here in the north west corner of Montana.

Sadly the Gov. is advocating something that WILL get you prosecuted by the USFWS!

Please research a little more before going off on a profane rant here on the boards. thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Flags:

Add about 1700 posts to my total when I used to post as Mac

Not sure I'd advertise that. Doesnt really make you look "smarter". I'd just start over and not give people the heads up as to who you are

quote:

Originally posted by JCS271:
[quote by FLAGS]If you weren't so friggin stupid you would realize that ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators. That right was never taken just because the wolves were imported. It is perfectly legal for ranchers to kill stock killing predators.

So, ranchers killing such wolves are not poachers since the law specifically allows that. What the Gov wants to do is expand that to take out entire packs and not specific animals. But until the law allows that then he is asking for trouble and for that reason I think he is wrong.

As to quoting allowances, I'm not your secretary. Do a little research and you'll find the laws on the books of every state. After all, you've never been able to prove me wrong on anything yet and you won't this time. Unlike you I don't speak out my ass. What I say is easily proven.

_______________________________________________

Well you are totally wrong. I know that you are not my secretary either but maybe you would be so kind as to point out the portion of law that allows me to defend my livestock. Because RIGHT NOW neither the endangered species act nor state law allows ANY EXCEPTIONs for killing wolves that are eating my cattle or even my dog in my backyard here in the north west corner of Montana.

Sadly the Gov. is advocating something that WILL get you prosecuted by the USFWS!

Please research a little more before going off on a profane rant here on the boards. thanks[/QUOTE]

First off, my comment s are not directed towards you. I have no idea who you are. My comments are directed towards our illustrious friend from Texas who seems to have some sort of an axe to grind.

Secondly, the ranchers do have an avenue for having problem wolves taken care of. There are currently govt trappers and hunters that are specifically tasked with and authorized to kill livestack killing predators. And that includes wolves. So, the ranchers can protect the livestock and the wolves can be killed when an instance of prededation can be proven. All of this is in accordance to the existing laws. And therefore the ranchers are not guilty of poaching.

But what the gov is attempting to do will run counter to the federal law. What our illustrious friend from Texas is doing is trying to draw me into an arguement about whether the ranchers would be considered poachers since he knows I condemn poaching. And I'm on record as noting that I believe the gov is overstepping and will lose.

I'm fom a ranching family. We have had govt trappers take care of predators including bears and cougars. This was before wolves came on the scene. And thankfully the wolf hasn't come into our ranch landf in Colorado. But there are also trappers in MT, ID and Wy that can be called upon to take problem wolves. I'm sure it is difficult to do because the bleeding hearts will always object. But it can be done. Note the following: http://www.independent.org/pub...sp?type=full&id=6#04

quote:

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed interim wolf control plans for its northern Rocky Mountain recovery areas, including Yellowstone. According to those documents, wolves that prey on livestock will be killed or otherwise removed at the federal government’s expense. The “control plans are based on the concept of wolf control to enhance propagation or survival of the species. Control of problem wolves is expected to reduce the hostility towards wolves that would result in illegal killing.…[B]y removing the few wolves that kill livestock and [thereby] enhancing the survival chances of non-offending wolves, the FWS believes its control program will actually contribute to the recovery of the wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains” (National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b:1-29).

So, stock killing wolves can be addressed and killed. Maybe not by the ranchers themselves, but they can be killed. If the ranchers go all out and kill entire packs, they will run afoul of the Federal Laws which still classify wolves as protected under the Endangered Species Act. I do not agree with the federal stance, but as of right now, it is the law. And therefore I would be opposed to the ranchers taking the killing on themselves based on the encouragement of the gov.

Bottom line, MT and Id need to talk to WY and get them onboard. Then they will be able to address the wolf issue. It is WY that is holding up progress on this issue. MT is between a rock and a hard place but the gov's actions are going the wrong way. It is the public in NY, CA, IL etc... that will control it if he forces this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by Flags:

Add about 1700 posts to my total when I used to post as Mac

Not sure I'd advertise that. Doesnt really make you look "smarter". I'd just start over and not give people the heads up as to who you are

Thanks for the opinion. Now fuck off.

I have never posted anything I'm ashamed of or refused to defend. I ran afoul of the moderator of the Political Forum when I pointed out he was a hypocrite. Still think he is. Bottom line the wolf issue will not be resolved by a gov opening the season in direct oppostion to the way the Federal court has ruled. He will lose this pissing contest.

and as we speak judge donald molloy is planning to strip the "experimental" listing of this wolf population.
once striped of this classification the state wildlife depts will NOT be able to kill wolves that are threatning the herd balance of wildlife in any given area or destroy wolves that prey on livestock.
it will remove all of the states management options.
MIGHT AS WELL DELIST,WE ALREADY HAVE

QUOTE]

Not sure I'd advertise that. Doesnt really make you look "smarter". I'd just start over and not give people the heads up as to who you are[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the opinion. Now fuck off.

I have never posted anything I'm ashamed of or refused to defend. I ran afoul of the moderator of the Political Forum when I pointed out he was a hypocrite. [/QUOTE]


This is a family oriented forum, would you mind cleaning up the language a bit. I am far from a prude but is this really necessary. If I wanted to read responses like this I could go to some of the lower class sites. I personally expect more from the folks here on AR.
Grandpa used to say,
" Vulgarity is the language of the ignorant"!

quote:

Originally posted by JCS271:
QUOTE]

Not sure I'd advertise that. Doesnt really make you look "smarter". I'd just start over and not give people the heads up as to who you are

Thanks for the opinion. Now fuck off.

I have never posted anything I'm ashamed of or refused to defend. I ran afoul of the moderator of the Political Forum when I pointed out he was a hypocrite. [/QUOTE]


This is a family oriented forum, would you mind cleaning up the language a bit. I am far from a prude but is this really necessary. If I wanted to read responses like this I could go to some of the lower class sites. I personally expect more from the folks here on AR.
Grandpa used to say,
" Vulgarity is the language of the ignorant"![/QUOTE]

When I get attacked out of the blue, I fire broadsides. Never posted anything towards that DrummondLindsey guy but he saw fit to take a shot at me. The hell with him.

I've been posting on this forum for more than 11 years. Trust me, it isn't that family orientated. Maybe you missed the couple of posts on this topic where a certain clown from texas addressed me as "Fags". They take a shot at me, I return the favor. Nobody makes you read anything I post do they?

Or, am I the only one you're going to ask to be civilized?

saddle up boys
and get ready for another thread hi-jack
or is that thread hi-jerk?

quote:

MIGHT AS WELL DELIST,WE ALREADY HAVE

That statement is so true.


Steve

quote:

Thanks for the opinion. Now fuck off.

quote:

When I get attacked out of the blue, I fire broadsides. Never posted anything towards that DrummondLindsey guy but he saw fit to take a shot at me. The hell with him.

I've been posting on this forum for more than 11 years. Trust me, it isn't that family orientated. Maybe you missed the couple of posts on this topic where a certain clown from texas addressed me as "Fags". They take a shot at me, I return the favor. Nobody makes you read anything I post do they?

Or, am I the only one you're going to ask to be civilized?

Hey fags,

Has anybody in this forum heard of the 10th Amendment. Screw the DC gov. Pass your own laws and fight those idiots in DC! Fuckem! Where in the CONSTITUION does it say anything about regulating wildlife! Grow some balls and kick the gov in the ass. If wolves are killing your stock, dustem'.

10th Amendment

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.
Nuff said!

quote:

Originally posted by Flags:

Thanks for the opinion. Now fuck off.

I have never posted anything I'm ashamed of or refused to defend. I ran afoul of the moderator of the Political Forum when I pointed out he was a hypocrite.

When I get attacked out of the blue, I fire broadsides. Never posted anything towards that DrummondLindsey guy but he saw fit to take a shot at me. The hell with him.

I've been posting on this forum for more than 11 years. Trust me, it isn't that family orientated. Maybe you missed the couple of posts on this topic where a certain clown from texas addressed me as "Fags". They take a shot at me, I return the favor. Nobody makes you read anything I post do they?

Or, am I the only one you're going to ask to be civilized?

Flags, you are running afoul of this moderator too. Please knock off the course language and the personal insults. You (and your other aliases) have been here long enough to know we don't appreciate it...especially outside the PF.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Hey fags,

505 Gibbs, et al.... layoff the personal insults, please.

It's real easy, just who is the fedguv going to send to Idaho or the other two when we start killing wolves to arrest anybody? They will not get as nice a welcome as the illegals who flock here from Mexico. The days of Federalism are numbered, and that number is a small one. States, enmasse, are beginning to stand up the bureaucratic systems that are destroying this country that was founded as individual states, banded together for mutual protection.

Let Freedom Ring...

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
It's real easy, just who is the fedguv going to send to Idaho or the other two when we start killing wolves to arrest anybody? They will not get as nice a welcome as the illegals who flock here from Mexico. The days of Federalism are numbered, and that number is a small one. States, enmasse, are beginning to stand up the bureaucratic systems that are destroying this country that was founded as individual states, banded together for mutual protection.

Let Freedom Ring...

Rich

Crap bad spelling. Too many Biers or beirs or bers or whatever. lol. Anyway screw dc. We have rights that supercede dc per the CONSTITUTION! There spelled right, I thunk.

Due to the likes of Billy Clintoon, jimma carta, the ESA trumps everything. It shouldn't, but it does! And the ESA is manipulated to meet personal goals of all involved on the liberal side.

quote:

Ranchers across the west have always had the right to defend livestock from predators.

Wishful thinking. The 10j rule only applies to the Southern half of Montana.

quote:

Please knock off the course language and the personal insults.

Thank You!!!