Turman,
not many malls in Yellowstone or Northwest Wyoming as of right now. Biggest threat is predators, and closing the feed grounds.

calgarychef,
the game will adapt, in time. The wolves were introduced not naturally occuring. And no control or management. Now answer honestly, if you could not hunt, trap, or control wolves in cananda where would your game herds be?

Boreal,
How can you compare whitetail deer to elk? Elk that never had wolves to deal with in the past? Whitetail have twins and triplets, elk have one calf most of the time. Only you could use thast scenario. Last year, the WyG&F had a wolf person from MN visit and do some kind of study and seminar to the G&F on wolves. His opinion, as told to me by our local game warden was, you need to get control of those wolves now and if not now then yesterday. Brent can ask his G&F buddy if there is any fact in this.

Again , Brent lives in his Walt Disney world, reads what he wants to read and believes just what he wants to believe, selective interpitation.

I can live with the wolves, I have a problem with no control, and the "FACT" that elk and other game herds are deminishing in parts of Wyoming. And they will continue to drop until the wolf population levels off. It won't affect my hunting, as I don't hunt that much any more. But it will affect my sons and my grandkids, and then it will be where Canada is now if some management takes place. Down then up.

The lawsuit was scheduled to start today and it will be interesting to see the outcome. I still support our state for making a stand against the feds.

I guess the 1000 wolves don't eat anything according to Brent. So next year we should have more elk to hunt and more tags availible. And more moose, just the opposite as the G&F reported, and closed and combined seasons in the heavily populated wolf areas. I guess there are as many elk if not more than there were before the wolf was introduced.

Brent, being a professor, I hope to god you are not an engineering professor in Iowa. I have a son that has enrolled at Iowa State in Engineering. I pray to god your not in that college. I will have to make him drop his scholarship and transfer. Professors with your ideology are what is wrong with this world. I would bet a paycheck that if a student disagreed with you on an issue he would have a hard time passing your course. But then again how many attend down town U?

If you talk to a WG&F biologist, two of which I know and visit with often, they give positive reports on wolves, but some concern on big game numbers. If you visit with a game warden, they tell the opposite. Not much good about the wolf and gloom and doom on big game. Brents exstudent is a WG&f Biologist. I will side with the game wardens!

I agree with calgarychef1 in that I am amazed at how wild the anti-wolf views have gotten. Is this really a drug-free thread? Many of the replies reflect complete and utter contempt for anything like scientific examination of the issue. As a scientist in another field, I am amazed at the contempt for science and the comfort with ignorance that is so prevalent here.

I am an old guy who has seen some pretty huge changes over the decades. One of the ones that distresses me most is the fact that so few modern hunters seem to give a damn what happens to the natural environment or to have an appreciation of nature that was once the dominant feature of hunting. What most appear to want now is a game farm and the only question is how big an area they want fenced.

In general, my experience has been that the longer a person has lived in wolf country, the less rabid their anti-wolf views are. I know moose hunters who have enjoyed watching a pack of wolves playing around within easy rifle range while the hunters were seated around the campfire. These guys had all hunted and trapped for a lifetime. As calgarychef1 observed, they ate some of the game and so did the wolves. I get the impression that such a viewpoint would sink quickly in wyoming or montana as the real hunters protect the kids and big game from frothing at the mouth predators.

Daryl, that being your one and only post, makes me think you must be one of Brents many alias's.

No one is afriad of the wolf, what we are affraid of is the loss of hunting opportunities, not just for ourselves but for our children and thier children in the short term. If you and the eco Brents would slow down, lay off the scotch, wipe the drivel from your chins long enough to read the past posts you might not come to the idiotic, childish, cartoon like conclusions that we are affraid of or hate the wolf. We dislike what has happend and what the near future will bring. And has brought to this part of the country.

I find it interesting, that so many oppinions are formed from people who don't live here. You and Brent can take your science and shove it up your ass. Which I am sure you both would enjoy. Since you are one and the same. The science is, the wolves are not vegitarians, they eat meat. Meat from cattle, sheep, deer, moose and mostly elk for now. Moose seasons were closed, combined, shortend, and quotas cut in half here in Wy. All in heavily wolf populated areas. Elk numbers have dropped significantly in wolf areas. I ask again, how many elk in one year can 800 wolves eat? Brent, the USF&W, and otehrs like them, blaim it on the drought, loss of habitat, and other BS. Maybe the 1000 wolves are vegitarians. But where are the elk?

In Alaska, if that is where you are really from, how much game would you have if no wolf control? Tell the truth, put the bottle down, and give an honest answer.

Here is some good news. The rancher that lost the cattle sent a letter to the editor of many local newpapers. Gitiltz is the rancher. In the open letter she describes how this pack killed cattle and never ate so much as bite. The letter was to Ed Bangs, wolf cordinator of the USF&W. She asks him to tell the public how the wolves killed several head of cattle, never eating them, chaising and injuring several more. She discibes it as a training attack for the younger wolves and no intention of attacking for food. I know this isn't science, but I have to believe some one who was there not some "professor" in Iowa with split personalities.

WORLAND (AP) -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have killed all but one of the wolves in the Owl Creek wolf pack after a string of livestock killings in the Meeteetse area left six cattle and one horse dead.

"It's not a good deal when people lose livestock," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist Mike Jimenez.

The Meeteetse livestock killings began last January after wolves formed a pack in the area, Jimenez told the Northern Wyoming Daily News.

The pack was first recognized as three adults, one female and two males, one of which was collared, he said. When a cow was killed last January, one of the males was removed, leaving one collared male and a female.

Another calf was killed in June. By that time, USFWS had recorded the wolf pair had four pups, he said. Another cow was killed in November of 2004, which resulted in the removal of two pups. The livestock kills continued into December when another cow was killed, at which time the remaining pups were removed, Jimenez said.

"Later in that month we had the horse go down," he said.

An adult male wolf and another wolf, which had not been noticed before, was shot on Jan. 9, leaving the one female.

Nearly 30 wolves have been removed from Wyoming over the last year, Jimenez said.

E-MAIL THIS

More science for, kamobrentdaryl,State, feds duel over wolf management

By BILL LUCKETT
Star-Tribune capital bureau Saturday, February 05, 2005




CHEYENNE -- Wyoming's insistence on classifying wolves as "predators" across most of the state helped convince federal officials that the creatures might not survive their reintroduction into the northern Rockies.

As a result, the federal government refused to turn wolf management over to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, informing Cowboy State officials 13 months ago that the state would need to make several changes in order to develop an acceptable plan.

The problem with that decision is that it violated federal law because it was not based on the best available science, and it should be reversed, attorneys for the state told a federal judge Friday.

"This was a political decision," said Wyoming Senior Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde.

Attorneys supporting the federal government, however, said that decision indeed had plenty of scientific evidence to support it.

"There is ample evidence in the record that shows there were concerns (from biologists) with the predator status," said Jack Tuholske, who is representing groups that support the decision to keep wolf management out of Wyoming's hands.

Predator status was just one of many issues eight lawyers aired over three-plus hours in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson on the state's wolf management lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In the end, Johnson took the case under advisement.

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said 10 of the 11 wolf experts who analyzed the three states' plans concluded that Wyoming's plan, together with those from Montana and Idaho, would be acceptable.

He accused the Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife Service of illegally ignoring those expert opinions in favor of other concerns, such as worry about being sued by conservationists or the possibility that Montana and Idaho could later change their states' plans to make them more like Wyoming's.

Tuholske, though, said four of the experts who reviewed Wyoming's plan raised concerns about predator status for wolves.

In response to a question from Johnson, the attorney said it didn't matter how many or how few experts raised that issue, as long as it was useful scientific data.

"The service is permitted to use its real-world expertise in addition to science to decide what is an adequate regulatory mechanism," Tuholske said.

Cheyenne attorney Harriet Hageman, representing a handful of agricultural groups, sportsmen and counties, argued that the Interior Department has shirked its responsibility to manage the roughly 800 wolves thought to be roaming the three-state area.

Johnson said it appears that federal law only says the agency "may" take steps to remove wolves that are harming livestock, citing a few sections of the applicable law.

But Hageman insisted that the law says Interior "will" help protect livestock from wolves.

Even if it doesn't, she said, the agency should be forced to perform another environmental impact statement on wolf reintroduction, because the program was based in part on evidence that government mitigation of wolf-livestock encounters would help make the program acceptable to the public.

"This was adopted with the idea that there would be an effective control program in place," Hageman said.

Lawyers for both sides spent considerable time arguing over whether a Jan. 13, 2004, letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which rejected Wyoming's wolf plan and called for changes, qualifies as a "final agency decision" that the state can appeal under the Endangered Species Act.

Attorneys also disputed how a recent Oregon federal court decision in favor of environmentalists in a separate wolf lawsuit should affect the case in Wyoming federal court.

Because the Oregon case is only four days old, the attorneys did not discuss it much, and a couple said it could be some time before its effects become clear.

I am sure the truth hurts, kamobrentdaryl, and you call me a troll.


I can feel your pain, but some times you intellectual types, who live in a blue state, and a blue world, must give in to reality and the truth!

Look closely and you will see the same names backing:
Wolves and Cougars
Banning Hunting Bear with dogs or baiting
Anti Hunting and anti-trapping
Gun Control
Anti CCW
Animal Rights
The Right to Self-defense

Many of these people have one goal, no guns. And the long range plan is to eliminate hunting through the reintroduction of large predators. When we can no long hunt then these same people will say we don't need guns either....and so it will go.

Shoot wolves..save guns.....SSS (Shoot-Shovel-Shutup)

Bob

RJM, I really hope that you don`t think because I don`t believe in the extermination of wolves that I belong to your stated group above! If you do than you really are a horses ass! I have never said I was against "controls" which we here call hunting. I am against the total destruction of any species. I can hardly believe that anyone can honestly believe that wolves will end hunting for anyone. It may cause reduced tags till as Kudo says the elk learn to deal with them but think of it this way, if the wolves eat all the elk they`ll starve than no wolves. The elk will come back and the wolves will be up here in Canada trying to catch our smarter elk that seem to survive even with a shitload of predators. I do agree that you need controls but man with all the 3S talk I don`t doubt the feds won`t give the states control! Before the "your just a wolf lover" flames start, FYI I`d pop a wolf with the ole 22-250 tomorrow if one walked infront of me( wouldn`t mind a nice rug). Control YES, slaughter NO.

Turman: I have not seen any "wipe all the Wolves out" postings! I certainly do not advocate that myself!
But, do you understand the problem we are facing down here?
The feds and the various Game Departments promised us only 325 Wolves in the Rocky Mountains! They claimed that number would not adversely affect our Big Game Hunting opportunities! We now admittedly have between 825 and 1,000 Wolves in the 3 state area surrounding Yellowstone Park! That is more than three times what was promised and now the feds won't let our state game departments take over controlling the Wolves! Again, AS THEY PROMISED! Meanwhile in the thickest area of Wolf population your "furry little friends" have decimated the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd! Taking that herd from 19,000 animals the year the Wolves were planted (1995) to 8,000 Elk last year! In that same SHORT time the Montana Game Department has had to reduce the number of special Elk tags in the area from 2,400 permits down to 100 permits! So each year has been seeing up to 2,300 LESS Elk Hunting opportunities for Human Elk Hunters! That and the herd itself is being wiped out by the Wolves! Will you acknowledge we have a problem?
The Wolves are spreading in their domains and in their numbers at an amazing and uncontrolled rate!
What the Hunters want is state control of the Wolves to the agreed upon, promised and proscribed number - 325! That way our children may have some Elk Hunting opportunities in the coming decades!
Remember we the Hunters and the various Game Departments are the ones that have worked for decades to bring the Elk numbers in the Rockies to such numbers as they recently achieved! The Wolves are destroying not only Elk Herds and Elk Hunting opportunities they are harming and destroying business and commerce on many levels and of many types. Not just cattle and sheep enterprises but motels, guides, restaurants and all the related folks that get a fall bump in business from the Hunters.
And do not forget we have been trying for decades also to get Moose Hunting, Big Horn Sheep Hunting and other types of Big Game Hunting to be more accessible to the average joe by increasing the herds thus the Hunting opportunities grow also. The Wolves really hit the Bighorns and the Moose but they are MUCH harder to census and to assess the damage the Wolves do to them.
Nope 1,000 Wolves (or 3,000!) won't just die off once all the formerly humanly Huntable Elk herds are done in! The Wolves will turn to the domestic animals, like sheep, cattle, Llamas and dogs and cats! They will long outlive the game herds!
Be a Wolf lover if you want I won't flame you for that, but I will flame you for not fully understanding what is going on down here in our neck of the woods! First of my flames (as you call it) will be to correct and inform you we have more than 3 times the Wolves that even the greens wanted and the feds promised us! And they are harming our game herds and Hunting opportunities! Our attempts at controlling the Wolves back to the 325 number that was promised has been undermined by green and deceitful feds and their many minions in our state game departments!
We are in a tough situation and the green dick warts at the rmef won't lift a finger to rectify it!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Just in case you thought I went away. Here is letter from a real rancher in a real world with real wolf problems. They live about 55 miles from me and this is her letter to the editor of the local papers.

Meeteese wolves don't fear humans





Editor:

I would like to comment on something that Ed Bangs said during the most recent incidents with the wolves out of Meeteetse: "Any human activity will scare wolves off their prey; otherwise they would have eaten the whole horse."

I live and work on a ranch in this area where we have had seven confirmed wolf kills, and none of the animals were eaten. Two of the animals were killed in fields directly behind my house; all of the others were killed in mountainous pastures with no human activity. In one incident, the wolves killed four full-grown cattle in an area of 50 feet. Since no one is around the area to scare them off, please explain to me why they weren't eaten. If wolves are so scared of humans, how come they walk up to my husband while he is dragging meadows and stare at him, why do they come up to us 100 yards or less when we are calving, why do they come up to our yard fence and walk through the ranch when we are present, why did they have their pups directly above where the loggers are cutting?

I would also like to tell you that wolves don't kill only when they are hungry. Many times they will kill animals to show their young howl, yet they don't eat them. If you would like to see this slaughter, head to the nearest ranch. If you can't get out of your office to see this, then look back at the seminar that was put on in 1994 at the Meeteetse gymnasium. At that program were pictures of a considerable amount of deer in Canada that were slaughtered by wolves. None were eaten; the only thing eaten on some were the fetuses out of the pregnant doe.

I would also like to correct another comment that you used in an earlier article. This is in regards to the "Black Widow." You seem to think that if you kill her off that the other wolves will not know how to kill cattle/sheep. Wolves instinctively know how to kill and refine their skills by observing the older wolves. They don't decipher between an elk and a cow. It is food, mostly a sport, and it is killed in the exact same way. We have watched them kill elk and their young the same way that they have our cattle.

Maybe these words will help you to understand the animal instead of reading junk out of a book that is inaccurate.

KARLA GITLITZ, Meeteetse

She isn't a Phd. or a Graduate student. Just a down to earth rancher.

The wolves are in Idaho big time also.Last week my son and I took an atv ride into a place that usually has 5-feet of snow this time of the year where we sometimes hunt.There was Wolves evrywhere just a short jaunt out of town.A couple weeks ago someone got there dog eatin by a pack and the local ranchers are in a tizzie.

Just on our little outing we saw several carcuss's and bones with wolf poop everywhere fresh.Kinda eery!Someone has to do something to control the wolves as there multiplying like rabbits.There is a picture in the local shop a man took of 11 wolves on a Mosse and it took less than an hour to devour it and a picture also of part of a pack taking on a Black Bear but he didn't stick around for the outcome.

Take care...Jayco

Well in fridays Province (Vancouver,B.C. newspaper) there is an article from Prince Rupert, where two CO's tracked and killed a wolf from inside the city limits to a safer place before they killed it. This wolf was going around the area killing family pets.
Don't sound so Walt Disney now does it!
Prolly lucky that he did'nt snag someones kid along the way.

Well I just checked, Alberta has 4000 wolves. Maybe you guys should trap a few down there, I'm not saying that wolves shouldn't be controlled. So next time you see a nice one pop 'im in the ear with the old 22 and then hang him on the wall. Makes a nice rug, just don't kill them all.

The chef

There is no need to fight hear , the only thing is that the Fed's need to be accountable for the management of the re-introduced wolves . This is something that has been avoided since the first wolves hit the ground in the greater Yellowstone areas . If the feds continue to ignore the job of management , it should be controlled by the states .

The problem is not as simplistic as most are making it sound. I lived in B.C. for 7 years and big game coexist w/ wolves in many places. However, in other places, that is not always the case. Yet, Canada, is not the same world as Western U.S.

When I left BC, there was something like 5.5 million people in a land mass twice the size of California and 1/2 of them on the lower mainland. Most of it is wilderness in the truest sense of the word. Much of Northern AB is the same way. Comparing Rocky mountain states to this is apples & oranges.

We do have decreased habitat because of people moving in (more and more wealthy city folk that don't know a lodgepole from a telephone pole). Take a trip through the mountains in CO or around Jackson Hole or near Kalispell and see how much used to be elk habitat but is now covered w/ half million dollar homes.

We also have far more intense hunting preasure than anywhere in Canada (or MI, I suspect). In Canada there are places you can hunt for days and never see another soul and still never be more than mile or two (3 or 4 km for you Calgary) from a paved road. That doesn't happen very many places in the U.S.

We do have intense presure from Agriculture (cattle/grazing) but its a cash crop for the feds (BLM especially), so they're not going to give it up. Yes, the Canadian praries have Ag. too, but all of Canada doesn't have the number of people eating that the state of CA does by itself. This is also competition for native wildlife, not to mention the "wild mustangs" which are not native, destructive to the habitat and little better than vermin, but which the very earliest knee-jerk tree-huggers emotional outcry has made protected for eternity instead of controled (along w/ the Mountain lion in CA).

All of this is pushing on our game species. The introduction of wolves, is just one more encroachment upon big-game already being pushed from all sides. I'm not suggesting wolves should be exterminated, but the reality is that Ag. sportsman, population growth, habitat encroachment, etc. were plenty for most big-game wildlife to have to deal with. They didn't need wolves thrown in the mix.

I know that "reintroduction" of a species to "historical habitat" is big w/ the eco-types. But the realities above do not always make that feasible, something has to go or be cut back. As a sportsman/conservationist for more years than I'd care to say, WE have footed the bill to make our big-game hunting better in ways that most of the Berkley, L.A, New York city crowd eco-types, never have and never will.

It is a source of frustration to sportsman when politics and ideology dictate good wildlife management, but that has become the norm. Preditors, unchecked, hurt big game hunting opportunities. That is a fact, ask the alaskan guides that now have to deal w/ a 50 mile no kill "wolf buffer zone" around Denali Park. I know it will never happen, but if my opportunities are going to be limited by they eco-types desire to restore displaced species to historical ranges, that's fine. Let them all pay a tax equivilent to what I pay for out of state license and tags to hunt CO, ID, WY, MT, etc. to help foot the bill, that has almost been exclusively paid by sportsman till now.

You bring up some great points Beartrack. Your sentiment on the whole issue is very similar to mine. I to would love to see the grennie's, anti's, Peta Pounders, (whatever name you want to call them) pay some of the bill. One coalition, not sure what it is called, does pay damages to ranchers from the wolves. But just for livestock, no pets. And from what ranchers are saying, proving it is entirely up to the feds.

I am just not sure the states want control. It will cost millions to manage with little or no financial return, compounded with more game losses, which results in fewer license sales.

quote:

I to would love to see the grennie's, anti's, Peta Pounders, (whatever name you want to call them) pay some of the bill.

Don't think you'd really like to go there if you seriously think of the probable consequences. -TONY

I lived and hunted in N.MN. when there was not supposed to be any wolves, we saw them and saw their tracks.I also lived there when the experts said there was only 1500 of them, we saw them all the time. They were every where, in yards, eating dogs and really raising hell with the deer. I left a couple of years ago, now I have the same problem here in Wyoming. The wolves are killing the elk calves faster than the cows can have them and the same liberal minded people are protecting them. All the years that there were NO wolves in mn. they were free to cross the border from Canada they would come south all the time. Later many of the wolves that had radio collars on were killed in Ontario, I know one trapper that routinely killed 15-20 every year and sent the collars back..we here in wyoming have to do something about them before permanant damage is done to the elk herds..If there was more S.S.S they could be controled better. I know it was done in MN. and is still being done, I'm sure. if some one from the east wants them come and get them. We have enough...P

Screw the wolves and the USF&W that brought them here. And screw the RMEF that supported the reintordcution!

Paul, when did you live and hunt in N MN that there was not supposed to be any wolves? I've lived and hunted there and there has always been wolves. Never lost a dog either. Pretty scary stuff for you guys. Maybe you should move to Florida.

Brent

Florida would be way too scary with all of those black panthers and gators.

Good point MrHawg.

Well, they could come to Iowa. We are wolf free more or less, but only for a while I think. Maybe New York City would be best for them.

Brent

Brent -

Only thing wrong with moving to Iowa is IT'S A BLUE STATE!!!

Elkslayer, I could care less if it was red or blue, but if these wolf-frady-cats move here they can make it as blue as they want. The entire legislature is normally red and currently red in one house and evenly split in the other. If we were blue in 04 it was by very little.

A quick check shows you were wrong anyway see red-blue 2004

This is a land where a recent poll showed that 85% of Iowan's want hunters to kill more deer.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
Paul, when did you live and hunt in N MN that there was not supposed to be any wolves
Brent

Paul?

Yes. Rhymes with 'fall'.

Read up 7 posts, Boreal.

Golly gee Wally! Our resident, self indoctrinated wolf experts (the SpongeBob boys)have returned! All of them, or just one acting as three????

Your return puts my mind at ease, that the wolves are vegitarians and that they have no effect at all on the elk and moose populations of Wy, Id, and Mt.

quote:

Originally posted by Kamo Gari:
Yes. Rhymes with 'fall'.

Read up 7 posts, Boreal.

Thanks, but no need to explain.
Actually, after a couple years on the political forum, this place is easy

Indeed. For some extracurricular shits and giggles, I occasionally used to amuse myself in the cat killer, er, small game forum. This exchange, while amusing, isn't near as fun as poking holes in some of the ridiculous lies told over there. You want some fun, read a few of the war tales, and call them out out their inconsistencies and straight lies. Not hard to do. Then watch as they circle the wagons and attack from all sides!

If kamogariborealbrent, think we are not losing any elk to the 700 to 1000 wolves, and the population is stable and growing, then we must ask for 2000 or 3000 more wolves! I wonder how many elk we could have with 5000 wolves?

We will probably find out, as they are not going to be controlled any time soon!

This is where kamogariborealbrent thinks our elk are going!

More food for thought, I am sure the Peta SpongeBob boy or boys,kamogariborealbrent, will argue.

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wolf_pics.htm

I like this one best, but alas he is only a low life professor at UW not a big time Iowa college where the dicks know everything.

As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, "wolf recovery is a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change." Even environmentalists have admitted that "on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. it is about control of the west" (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmental-ists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and antihunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife. Is this what Congress had in mind when it passed the Endangered Species Act? There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it is

I may be able to shed some light on this...

first of.. we do need wolves.. but we do not need the numbers we have.. that is obvious..

I own and operate a guest ranch near Yellowstone.. I also have guided for several outfitters in the area so I have seen first hand the changes being made by the booming population of wolves...

the wolves are killing numerous animals as well as domestic animals ( Meeteetse Wy )

After a long discussion with some officials what alot of you fail to realize is that this area is also in a terrible drought conditions .. this has a trmedous effect on the Moose, Elk, Deer etc. YES the wolves are killing their share but are not the sole reason for the dwindleing big game populations...

I know this is a heated topic but you also need to keep you head on your shoulders and look at the BIG picture....

that being said their does need to be a hunting program implimented for the wolf population.

quote:

Originally posted by Ric Horst:

first of.. we do need wolves.. .

Oh Oh, Ric!
Welcome to the: "Peta SpongeBob boy or boys,kamogariborealbrentRic"

I wish Paul would come back and answer Brent's question.

easy..easy...

you know as well as I do.. they are needed to "clean up" the sick and injured... I mean common....

please do not lump me with PETA such and the likes... I am far from it.... I live in the areas being affected... I am not one of the arm chair /computer desk types that "think" they know what is happening here.. I live it every day!

quote:

Originally posted by Ric Horst:
please do not lump me with PETA such and the likes... I am far from it.... I live in the areas being affected... I am not one of the arm chair /computer desk types that "think" they know what is happening here.. I live it every day!

Too late, Ric. You're in with us "Peta Spongeboys".
In fact, you ARE us, as "everyone" knows you are just another of my/Brent/etc. identities. You are doomed to the label of a wolf-lover. How do you feel?
You know that from now on, you will have to live in diguise. I have a bumper sticker that I could send you that might help cover up your Petaness. It says: "I Kill for Sport and Pleasure" Its red. Want one?

Thanks for the input Ric, Boreal was trying to be funny with the kamogariborealbrent thing. Those three, or one, individual like to read what they want into the wolf issue. They, like the USF&W, only read and beleive the information that comes from like individuals. They put no stock in reports to the negative side of the wolf issue. Like in this link,


http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wolf_pics.htm.


I listend to Gale Norton this morning on tv. Typical political diatribe. She was interviewed by a Montana reporter, and of course placed all the blame for nondelisting on Wyoming.

Ric what is your oppinion, do you think Wyoming should take over management/control or leave it in the feds hands? Can the Wyoming G&F afford another detriment like the grizzly bear?