Wolves are legal????????
- Thread starter Elkmtb
- Start date
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Mike, I have a question too. Why is it a big deal if someone edits a post? I've noticed on other message boards that people have been ridiculed for editing posts also. I never understood why. I edit my posts quite often, and it's almost always because I go back and read it and see a misspelled word. Or an extra word, or improper punctuation, something simple like that. Is editing some kind of message board sin that I didn't know about? And if so, what is the edit function even there for?
Ithaca 37
New member
Mike, I have the same question. Is there something wrong with editing? You and Mule seem to get very disturbed about it. Exactly what is the problem with it? As soon as I hear from you I'll tell why I edit.
Muledeer4me
New member
" THis technique is used to create what is commonly referred to as a self-fullfilling prophecy. If you say something loud enough and enough times, eventually people will believe you and it will become fact."
BINGO Dan,that is what alot of people say Ithaca's tactac is.
If anyone takes the time to look at his posts,they would clearly see that he mimmick's what he see at his greenie sites.
Most of his statements are nothing more then the propaganda spouted by the greenie -treehuggers he gives us links to.
Bullhound,you arent the only one that has noticed you cant find very many in the hunting community's that support the reintroduction of the wolf.
I (and many of my friends)should be able to come up with more people that speak in favor of the reintroduction to prove that survey to be true (I live in the Boise area ) but from the places I go and the type of people I hear talking LOL its isnt very many of the hunting type's that have been supporter's of this .
Many of the hunter's both rifle and archers are saying the same type of thing you are.
I think from the servey and Ithacas posting the only conclusion I can come to is much the same thing many athers have come to believe,its not the people closes to the problem that are supporting this .
Then refer to Dan's above statment to understand what tactic many of the supporter's and anti-groups use to get the people to believe them.
BINGO Dan,that is what alot of people say Ithaca's tactac is.
If anyone takes the time to look at his posts,they would clearly see that he mimmick's what he see at his greenie sites.
Most of his statements are nothing more then the propaganda spouted by the greenie -treehuggers he gives us links to.
Bullhound,you arent the only one that has noticed you cant find very many in the hunting community's that support the reintroduction of the wolf.
I (and many of my friends)should be able to come up with more people that speak in favor of the reintroduction to prove that survey to be true (I live in the Boise area ) but from the places I go and the type of people I hear talking LOL its isnt very many of the hunting type's that have been supporter's of this .
Many of the hunter's both rifle and archers are saying the same type of thing you are.
I think from the servey and Ithacas posting the only conclusion I can come to is much the same thing many athers have come to believe,its not the people closes to the problem that are supporting this .
Then refer to Dan's above statment to understand what tactic many of the supporter's and anti-groups use to get the people to believe them.
Ithaca 37
New member
Dan is talking about sampling that is not random---like when people ask their friends a question.
I showed poll results published in leading NW newspapers. Nobody else who claims those polls are not valid has been able to supply links to any polls that show different results than the ones I referenced.
So lets see some wolf polls that have different results! Then your claims might be taken a little more seriously.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the SI section many of us recently signed on to this challenge (topic is "A Challenge"):
"I challenge anybody who is willing to participate, to not use insults, personal attacks, derogatory comments, ect, ect. for 2 weeks from the time you anwser this post."
MD4M signed on and her post of 2/21 at 16:52 shows that she is the first to break her agreement.
"BINGO Dan,that is what alot of people say Ithaca's tactac is.
If anyone takes the time to look at his posts,they would clearly see that he mimmick's what he see at his greenie sites.
Most of his statements are nothing more then the propaganda spouted by the greenie -treehuggers he gives us links to."
That is a personal attack and derogatory comments about another poster.
I showed poll results published in leading NW newspapers. Nobody else who claims those polls are not valid has been able to supply links to any polls that show different results than the ones I referenced.
So lets see some wolf polls that have different results! Then your claims might be taken a little more seriously.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the SI section many of us recently signed on to this challenge (topic is "A Challenge"):
"I challenge anybody who is willing to participate, to not use insults, personal attacks, derogatory comments, ect, ect. for 2 weeks from the time you anwser this post."
MD4M signed on and her post of 2/21 at 16:52 shows that she is the first to break her agreement.
"BINGO Dan,that is what alot of people say Ithaca's tactac is.
If anyone takes the time to look at his posts,they would clearly see that he mimmick's what he see at his greenie sites.
Most of his statements are nothing more then the propaganda spouted by the greenie -treehuggers he gives us links to."
That is a personal attack and derogatory comments about another poster.
Ithaca,
As to the editing question, Just curious. I just noticed that alot of your posts are edited.
As to the editing question, Just curious. I just noticed that alot of your posts are edited.
"BINGO Dan,that is what alot of people say Ithaca's tactac is.
If anyone takes the time to look at his posts,they would clearly see that he mimmick's what he see at his greenie sites.
Most of his statements are nothing more then the propaganda spouted by the greenie -treehuggers he gives us links to."
That is a personal attack and derogatory comments about another poster.As to the above post, I really don't see where MD is personally attacking you.
she has a right to her opinion.
Her opinion of you isn't a very good one granted, but it is an opinion none the less.
I didn't read where she called you any derogatory names, or insulted you personally.
Sorry if you feel diferently.
MD,
Your going to have to be very careful about what you say, You did sign onto the challenge, I personally think what you said isn't bad. but in order for the challenge to work we will have to all do our part. If this last post bothers ithaca, then he will have to be very careful about what he says as well
...
TIME OUT! I don't always agree with Deb, and I'm not sure I do this time. I am sure that I disagree with the assessment that her post was in any was derogatory. It was her opinion of Ithica and his posts. Based on her feelings and conclusions. That in no way should be considered personal.
The fact is Ithica does mimmick what he reads at other sites, as do we all. Whether or not they are propoganda is yet to be proven, but everything we say in an attempt to convert people to our way of thinking is propoganda. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. It's still propoganda.
As to the ascertain that there are no polls that prove contrary to what Ithica posted, I haven't seen any. What I have seen is a move in Congress to pass legislation to fiscally support the reintroduction of wolves in the continental US. Legislators are generally not of a persuasion to do anything not supported by the majority of their constituency. I would consider that a poll of sorts. It indicates that either a majority of the voters support wolf reintroduction or consider it of insufficient import to do anything about it. I tend to lean toward the latter.
In any event, what I don't see is any substance to an ascertian that this constitutes any kind of personal attack. Nowhere in the rules of this board is it stated that we will remain politically correct and that anything anyone takes offense at will be excepted. I think some of us have become too sensitive and need to cowboy up a little bit and realize that the only way not to have disagreements is to keep to ourselves. I for one will not submit to muzzling. I would rather suffer the slings and arrows of all of the unwashed masses not intelligent enough to agree with me all the time.....
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 12:25: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>
The fact is Ithica does mimmick what he reads at other sites, as do we all. Whether or not they are propoganda is yet to be proven, but everything we say in an attempt to convert people to our way of thinking is propoganda. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. It's still propoganda.
As to the ascertain that there are no polls that prove contrary to what Ithica posted, I haven't seen any. What I have seen is a move in Congress to pass legislation to fiscally support the reintroduction of wolves in the continental US. Legislators are generally not of a persuasion to do anything not supported by the majority of their constituency. I would consider that a poll of sorts. It indicates that either a majority of the voters support wolf reintroduction or consider it of insufficient import to do anything about it. I tend to lean toward the latter.
In any event, what I don't see is any substance to an ascertian that this constitutes any kind of personal attack. Nowhere in the rules of this board is it stated that we will remain politically correct and that anything anyone takes offense at will be excepted. I think some of us have become too sensitive and need to cowboy up a little bit and realize that the only way not to have disagreements is to keep to ourselves. I for one will not submit to muzzling. I would rather suffer the slings and arrows of all of the unwashed masses not intelligent enough to agree with me all the time.....
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 12:25: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>
Whewww,
Good post dan.
Have you read the challenge post?
Nobody is being muzzled, it is totally your choice to sign on or not
It was getting pretty ugly down in S.I.
to the point that posting there was a joke. anything you posted was attacked imediatly. I for one would like to be able to have a friendly banter and be able to tease people, AND to call bullshit when I see it. without constantly having to wade through all the bullshit posts.
I think most of the others who post "down under" would agree with me that something had to give.
The challenge was an effort to try and make thing a little better. nothing more and nothing less..
Good post dan.
Have you read the challenge post?
Nobody is being muzzled, it is totally your choice to sign on or not
It was getting pretty ugly down in S.I.
to the point that posting there was a joke. anything you posted was attacked imediatly. I for one would like to be able to have a friendly banter and be able to tease people, AND to call bullshit when I see it. without constantly having to wade through all the bullshit posts.
I think most of the others who post "down under" would agree with me that something had to give.
The challenge was an effort to try and make thing a little better. nothing more and nothing less..
Bullhound
New member
Well well well......... I can put the poll issue to bed right now.
We had a statement meeting this morning at 6:00 A.M. Prior to the meeting starting I decided to conduct the very official Bullhound Knows It All Poll. I asked all in attendance (ten) if they supported the wolf reintroduction. Guess what happened..............
They all said S.S.S. and then asked why we lost money in January.......
So there ya have it! Any Idahoan that is smart enough to want to make money is likely smart enough to not want wolves around.
I sincerely hope that this has cleared up any misconceptions that "true Idahoans" wanted the wolf reintroduced. Glad I could be of assistance and please send any campaign contributions to...........
p.s. I didn't really edit this post. Really, I didn't!
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 12:43: Message edited by: Bullhound ]</font>
We had a statement meeting this morning at 6:00 A.M. Prior to the meeting starting I decided to conduct the very official Bullhound Knows It All Poll. I asked all in attendance (ten) if they supported the wolf reintroduction. Guess what happened..............
They all said S.S.S. and then asked why we lost money in January.......
So there ya have it! Any Idahoan that is smart enough to want to make money is likely smart enough to not want wolves around.
I sincerely hope that this has cleared up any misconceptions that "true Idahoans" wanted the wolf reintroduced. Glad I could be of assistance and please send any campaign contributions to...........
p.s. I didn't really edit this post. Really, I didn't!
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 12:43: Message edited by: Bullhound ]</font>
Ithaca 37
New member
mike, the reasons I edit are numerous. Sometimes I notice I spelled a word wrong, sometimes I need better punctuation, sometimes I find better, more pertinent info to include, sometimes I figure out a way to make a point more clearly and concisely, etc.
All the usual reasons for editing.
Why don't you edit more?
All the usual reasons for editing.
Why don't you edit more?
Muledeer4me
New member
Right on Dan.
Great post.
Ithaca ,Im sorry if I stepped on your toe's.
Just a friendly thought,
It might work for you to keep better track of them as they seem to be quite easly brused!!!!
Bullhound,that is the same type of response I have gotten at many of the shoot's.
Im not kidding I havent found a handfull of people that have said they supported it.
What they do say is now that there are here lets get on with the de-listing and start putting the fear back into them & give the ranchers & others more freedom in defending there livestock.
Great post.
Ithaca ,Im sorry if I stepped on your toe's.
Just a friendly thought,
It might work for you to keep better track of them as they seem to be quite easly brused!!!!
Bullhound,that is the same type of response I have gotten at many of the shoot's.
Im not kidding I havent found a handfull of people that have said they supported it.
What they do say is now that there are here lets get on with the de-listing and start putting the fear back into them & give the ranchers & others more freedom in defending there livestock.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Thats no shock MD4ME, usually you hang with people who somewhat "think" like you, have the same type of mentality, so your straw poll should be looked at with a huge grain of salt.
One thing that is constant is the number of comments received during the EIS process, PRIOR to wolf reintroduction. There was support by the majority of the people who wrote in for wolf reintroduction, including the residents of WY, ID, and MT.
Thats a FACT, not a poll, a FACT. The time for action was during the EIS comment period, wolf reintro. could have been halted right there.
Besides that who really gives a shit what people think about it after the fact, they didnt care before, why the belly-aching now?
Time to move on. You're crying about something thats already said and done. You conducting polls and asking your friends is pointless and irrelevant...it makes for a nice thing to bitch about though.
One thing that is constant is the number of comments received during the EIS process, PRIOR to wolf reintroduction. There was support by the majority of the people who wrote in for wolf reintroduction, including the residents of WY, ID, and MT.
Thats a FACT, not a poll, a FACT. The time for action was during the EIS comment period, wolf reintro. could have been halted right there.
Besides that who really gives a shit what people think about it after the fact, they didnt care before, why the belly-aching now?
Time to move on. You're crying about something thats already said and done. You conducting polls and asking your friends is pointless and irrelevant...it makes for a nice thing to bitch about though.
Ithaca 37
New member
It seems to me that we always hear from a bunch of disgruntled people after the fact. They don't take part in the public process, they don't vote, they don't keep aware of what's going on, they don't respond to requests for input, but as soon as the decisions are made they start complaining.
Unfortunately for them it's usually too late.
How much do any of you wanta bet that the people whining about wolves on this board never submitted any comments during the EIS process?
It's the ol' "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" situation.
And going around polling friends isn't going to inspire any credibility.
Unfortunately for them it's usually too late.
How much do any of you wanta bet that the people whining about wolves on this board never submitted any comments during the EIS process?
It's the ol' "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" situation.
And going around polling friends isn't going to inspire any credibility.
Muledeer4me
New member
"usually you hang with people who somewhat "think" like you, have the same type of mentality, so your straw poll should be looked at with a huge grain of salt."
Buzz,I so argee with that statement.
That is why those of us that didn't embrace the whole re-introduction take those that do with such a grain of salt
and find it so funny that they think only one view is valid.
I can assure you ,I do not hang out with nor do I have the same mentality that some posters share so closly with the green-agenda.
I do have friends that view things different then I do but none that keep the( my way is the only way) view point, Too boring for my taste.
Buzz,I so argee with that statement.
That is why those of us that didn't embrace the whole re-introduction take those that do with such a grain of salt
and find it so funny that they think only one view is valid.
I can assure you ,I do not hang out with nor do I have the same mentality that some posters share so closly with the green-agenda.
I do have friends that view things different then I do but none that keep the( my way is the only way) view point, Too boring for my taste.
BuzzH
Well-known member
MD4ME said, "That is why those of us that didn't embrace the whole re-introduction take those that do with such a grain of salt"
HAHAHAHA
You and your concerned cohorts who never bothered to write in comments to the EIS can now choke on a wolf, along with that grain of salt....
I also dont usually hang with a bunch of narrow-minded-do-nothing-no-huntin-atvridin-bastards....so aint we both content.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 20:20: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
HAHAHAHA
You and your concerned cohorts who never bothered to write in comments to the EIS can now choke on a wolf, along with that grain of salt....
I also dont usually hang with a bunch of narrow-minded-do-nothing-no-huntin-atvridin-bastards....so aint we both content.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 20:20: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
I think the personal attack comes in when somebody is labeled a "greenie" or a "greenie-treehugger." In my opinion those terms are usually reserved for people with more extreme and radical ideas than your average hunter/conservationist.
Mike, sorry for the edit. I saw an error in my punctuation
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 22:13: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>
Mike, sorry for the edit. I saw an error in my punctuation
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-24-2003 22:13: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>
Ithaca 37
New member
I think "greenie" is a derogatory word for environmentalist, usually used by people who can't make the connection between the environment and all species---including us.
Pretty hard for me to figure out why anyone would not want clean water, clean air and healthy habitat. They never explain it either, except to say we have to provide income from environmentally destructive practices to some people.
Pretty hard for me to figure out why anyone would not want clean water, clean air and healthy habitat. They never explain it either, except to say we have to provide income from environmentally destructive practices to some people.
Ithaca 37
New member
Here's the latest wolf kill figures.
In 2001, wolves were only responsible for 1 percent of the cattle and 0.4 percent of sheep killed by predators.
In 2001, wolves caused the death of approximately three of every 10,000 cattle and 134 of every 10,000 sheep that died from all causes last year in the three states (Source: Ed Bangs, USFWS)
Most Recent Livestock Losses
NW MONTANA RECOVERY AREA
By WOLVES
2000: 10 Cattle (10 in 2001)
2 Sheep (50 in 2001)
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)
By OTHER PREDATORS (coyote, dog, lion, bobcat, other predators)
2000: 3,800 Cattle
18,900 Sheep
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service)
By NON-PREDATORS (disease, calving, weather, poison, theft, unknown causes)
1995: 77,700 Cattle (1995 is the most recent available count for Montana)
2000: 66,000 Sheep
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service)
In Northwestern Montana, wolf predation accounts for less than .0004% of all predator-caused livestock deaths reported to Animal Damage Control
(Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Statistics, January 1999)
From 1987 to 2000: 63 Sheep lost to wolves
480,500 Sheep lost to other predators
1,487,000 Sheep lost to non-predator causes
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT., U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)
From 1987 to 2000: 83 Cattle lost to wolves
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)
In 2001:
Wolves killed 50 sheep and lambs
Coyotes killed 2,100 sheep and 12,200 lambs
Domestic dogs killed 500 adult sheep and 600 lambs
Eagles killed 100 sheep and 1,500 lambs
Bears killed 200 sheep and 300 lambs
Mountain lions killed 100 sheep and 300 lambs
Diseases, weather, poison, old age and other factors killed 38,600 sheep and lambs
(Source: Scott McMillion, Bozeman Chronicle, April 2002)
http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/perspective.html
Go back to page 1 of this topic and see what Jack O'Conner and Cat-Hunt MT had to say about wolves killing cattle!
In 2001, wolves were only responsible for 1 percent of the cattle and 0.4 percent of sheep killed by predators.
In 2001, wolves caused the death of approximately three of every 10,000 cattle and 134 of every 10,000 sheep that died from all causes last year in the three states (Source: Ed Bangs, USFWS)
Most Recent Livestock Losses
NW MONTANA RECOVERY AREA
By WOLVES
2000: 10 Cattle (10 in 2001)
2 Sheep (50 in 2001)
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)
By OTHER PREDATORS (coyote, dog, lion, bobcat, other predators)
2000: 3,800 Cattle
18,900 Sheep
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service)
By NON-PREDATORS (disease, calving, weather, poison, theft, unknown causes)
1995: 77,700 Cattle (1995 is the most recent available count for Montana)
2000: 66,000 Sheep
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service)
In Northwestern Montana, wolf predation accounts for less than .0004% of all predator-caused livestock deaths reported to Animal Damage Control
(Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Statistics, January 1999)
From 1987 to 2000: 63 Sheep lost to wolves
480,500 Sheep lost to other predators
1,487,000 Sheep lost to non-predator causes
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT., U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)
From 1987 to 2000: 83 Cattle lost to wolves
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)
In 2001:
Wolves killed 50 sheep and lambs
Coyotes killed 2,100 sheep and 12,200 lambs
Domestic dogs killed 500 adult sheep and 600 lambs
Eagles killed 100 sheep and 1,500 lambs
Bears killed 200 sheep and 300 lambs
Mountain lions killed 100 sheep and 300 lambs
Diseases, weather, poison, old age and other factors killed 38,600 sheep and lambs
(Source: Scott McMillion, Bozeman Chronicle, April 2002)
http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/perspective.html
Go back to page 1 of this topic and see what Jack O'Conner and Cat-Hunt MT had to say about wolves killing cattle!
Ithaca 37
New member
Cat-Hunt, Here's what you said in an earlier post in this topic, "I think you need to do a little reserch your self I know of more then 12 that have killed cows just in the past year (In Montana) "
I'm trying hard to research it.
I'm trying hard to research it.
Similar threads
