Results 26 to 50 of 94
-
03-29-2008, 06:06 PM #26
ok. so I was just being the devil's advocate. I couldn't help myself. when working for the FS in the summer, a lot of folks give me an earful about wolves because they figure I can do something about it since my shirt has a patch that says US.
To be the devil's advocate in a ranching town I lived in once, I sent this to the editor:
Ranchers: Government Subsidized Socialists
Two articles in last week's newspaper pointed out some rather amusing contradictions on the part of many anti-wolf ranchers and their largely Republican contingent. John Birbari accused Governor Freudenthal of a "liberal/socialist" agenda in his call for a governor who will take a stronger stand against wolves. This "socialist" label is used quite often when anti-wolf forces argue in opposition to any pro-wolf position.
Bill Johnson declares "our native ranchers and sheepmen would like to continue grazing their livestock on the national forest in the summer months." Many ranchers, if not most, indeed graze their cattle on public land. And they have the audacity to label their opponents as socialists? If I were interested in grazing my own cattle on public land, I could not do so. Instead, the right to graze is granted to a select few government-sponsored socialist ranchers who are making a living off of the fruits of public national forest land. I can't decide who would be more hypocritical in criticizing socialist policy- public lands ranchers or welfare recipients. They share more in common than most of us who live in cattle country are willing to admit. Only the public lands ranchers, though, criticize "socialism" while their hands are in the cookie jar of the American people.
I can almost hear the retort: "My daddy and my granddaddy and even my granddaddy's granddad raised cattle on this land since white man first settled here 150 years ago, so I have the right to raise cattle and make money off of this land." This line of reasoning again reeks of what true conservatives (not to be confused with many current Republicans who don't have a conservative bone in their body) call entitlement. Because of the work of a man's ancestors, he feels that he's entitled to an easier ride through life than the rest of us.
People who make an honest living work for their money. They don't receive unequal benefits and entitlements from the very government which they criticize while suckling at its teat. And then to ask for the State to pay for losses from depradation? It's called "business losses," buddy. Every other businessman in a free market society realizes that there is inherent risk in taking part of any sort of business operation. However, you don't hear us ask for the government to reimburse us each time an undesirable event cuts into our bottom lines. It's called "the risk of doing business."
In an ideal world, I'd like to see more self recognition from the folks who are busy calling everyone else socialists. Your ideas will hold more merit in the view of the Left when you admit to the fact that you're also liberal socialist... or you could work an honest living without handouts from American citizens and taxpayers- on your own property and by your own hard work- and truly call yourself a conservative.
-
03-29-2008, 06:40 PM #27
Hate to pile on, but yeah - the ranchers can FOAD. Wolves and other large predators have been a part of the landscape for thousands of years. Cattle have been a part of the landscape for a little more than a hundred. And cattle are way harder on the landscape than wolves. And beef tastes like poo. And as far as the ranchers loosing money off hunting - there's the same arguement here in N WI. If you can't shoot a deer/elk just because they're smarter due to predation, get your fat stupid ass out of the woods. Go on a canned "hunt" - you'd probably like that, loser. They should open a hunting season on these guys. I'd be in.
-
03-29-2008, 06:44 PM #28
...and anyone who'd shoot a wolf is a douchebag. I don't know why, but I just think that's weird.
-
03-29-2008, 07:45 PM #29
-
03-29-2008, 09:29 PM #30
This will probably offend some of you, but I really don't care. I'm an avid hunter (I've lived off of wild game my entire life), and I'm stoked to be able to hunt wolves here in Wyoming. They are very intelligent and will present a challenging hunt once they realize they're no longer protected. They have beautiful coats that look great tanned, and managing their numbers will help out elk herds.
Matter of fact, I'm thinking about taking out my .243 next weekend to see if I can shoot one of the wolves outside of the trophy management zone. I'd be stoked if I could connect on one.
-
03-29-2008, 09:45 PM #31
Last edited by rideit; 03-29-2008 at 10:48 PM.
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
03-29-2008, 10:39 PM #32
Ummm, is it not still illegal to shoot them? As far as I know, it is. The other thing is, do you realize what wolves have done to HELP the large game population? It makes them harder to hunt, yes, because they are moving around more than sitting in their old familiar breeding grounds. This is one of those things that I feel very passionately about. I don't mean to offend you or get too riled up, but I have watched this project from the beginning, and have helped out along the way, and have seen alot of it first hand.
backcountry makes my wee wee tingle...
"What was once a mighty river. Now a ghost." Edward Abbey
My Adventures
"Feeling good is good enough."
-
03-29-2008, 10:41 PM #33
-
03-29-2008, 10:43 PM #34
I reiterate.
But I bet peewiener doesn't know what that means.
Save 1000 Elk...shoot 1000 fat ass trophy hunters.
(Hey PW, Wolves IMPROVE the herd, not degrade it, dumbfuck)Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
03-29-2008, 11:03 PM #35
It appears I've touched a nerve.
Ummm, is it not still illegal to shoot them?
-
03-29-2008, 11:09 PM #36
AAAAND..that has a bearing on what has been discussed here, and the overall benefit to the Elk population as a result of Wolf population, and how fuck-tarded trophy hunters are, and how they should be shot?
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
03-30-2008, 09:59 AM #37
Wolfs are honorable pack (read family) orientated creatures. They are intelligent, have feelings, and raise their young to be productive members of the community. In many ways, I find them more consistently good and worthy of protection than many humans.
How would you feel if you came home and your wife was shot dead in your absence. You would feel pain. I know the wolfs will to. These are not brainless cows, but magnificent creatures that are as close to "man best friend" as there is. Killing them is wrong.
Have a good hunt pw. Your a fucking murderer in my book and I hope your judged so at the end of your days.
-
03-30-2008, 10:13 AM #38
I like wolfs. My family name comes from them. Government reintroduction of them makes ecological and evolutionary sense to me. It makes economic sense as well so long as they are compensating ranchers for depredation of their chattel when unable to defend them against the predators. But, ranchers have no right to expect compensation for depredation of public chattel (wild herds) that they were indirectly profiting off of by leading hunting expeditions. My family is a cattle ranching family (not on public land and not in wolf habitat).
As far as the wolf hunts, we can't really ban hunts on a population that doesn't qualify for protection just because they are cute and fuzzy. However, if people can shoot wolves legally now, why should the government continue to reimburse for depredation losses? The real question is, are these hunts good for the ecosystem??
Hey, captain emo, STFU. Animals do not have honor. They do not have a concept of honor. They have instinct. Wolfs are NOT man's best friend. It took us 17,000 years of selective breading to change canis lupus's instincts and physical characteristics into the desired breeds of canis lupus familiaris. Go wax poetic about imaginary anthropomorphic disney characters somewhere else.
PS You can't murder animals you fucking hippie. Unnecessary killing of animals is not murder. Murder is a human concept dealing with humans. You better be a vegan, otherwise you are a hypocritical fucking hippie.Last edited by Summit; 03-30-2008 at 10:20 AM.
Originally Posted by blurred
-
03-30-2008, 12:52 PM #39
Wouldn't it be cool if instead of going and shooting one next weekend and maybe for a season or two you actually had a sustainable population that could withstand SOME shooting/culling for many seasons to come.
The thing is sustainability of a species shouldn't be left up to a few money hungry ranchers who are pissed because the fat assed trophy hunters gave up now that the elk got more evasive to survive the wolves. That just isn't the sort of science that really allows a species to continue to thrive and take their place in a delicate ecosystem.
How do you think they came to need protection in the first place? Overly aggressive ranchers killing them off out of misconceptions with no science to backup their beliefs. The wolves will without a doubt compete with cougars and quite likely exert some control on cougar populations. A few years ago a pack of wolves killed an adult cougar over a kill she had taken down. They figure it was defending a youngun (cub/kit/kitten?) or else it would have just gone up a tree and given up the elk kill.It's not so much the model year, it's the high mileage or meterage to keep the youth of Canada happy
-
03-30-2008, 01:28 PM #40
-
03-30-2008, 03:07 PM #41
lifelong hunter, several generations of ranching/farming/timber background, and originally in the other thread i piped up about wanting to be the first in line for a wolf permit – mostly to irk the “kill hunters” types.
however, while i don't disagree with sound population management to ultimately protect the species, after some introspection, as far as wolves i don't think i could pull the trigger if one were in my sights. maybe i'm a softie, but the first, and only, black bear i shot really affected me. and now i couldn't shoot another one.
and after thinking it over, i really don't want to shoot a wolf either. i'd rather hunker down and glass one or a pack for a while and enjoy watching them do their thing, maybe even get some great photos.
some springs & summers, we would lose as many as 50 lambs and perhaps a dozen calves to coyotes. and i couldn't shoot those because I wasn't a very good shot, and because coyotes are “wiley”, and it wasn’t for lack of effort. but for some reason i put wolves in a different category altogether. I’ll hunt just about any game in n. America, and even if it were for the good of the species, I personally could not bear to see a dead wolf by my hands.
edit: and after listening to folks much smarter than me, i'm having a hard time swallowing the govt's de-listing science. i believe their motives are sound, just not their understanding of these animals.
Go ahead and enjoy your wolf hunt, but count me out.Last edited by Parvo; 03-30-2008 at 03:14 PM.
-
03-30-2008, 03:33 PM #42
Hunting=good.
Little dick trophy hunting=bad.
I hope that clarifies.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
03-30-2008, 03:33 PM #43
Good for you Parvo, way to see the light. I just don't understand MOST "sport" hunting.
Quick personal experience: The one, and only, time I went deer hunting as a teenager I had the chance to take a nice 6-point whitetail, but I deferred the shot to the friend I was hunting with. He nailed it clean with one shot, but I've always been disturbed by the image of that beautiful buck flopping around as it quickly died. I did take home some of the meat and we would have processed and consumed the whole deer if I had killed it, but it just didn't feel like the right thing to do. As a result I still can't imagine killing an animal for the "sport" of it.
But for some reason birds don't bother me, I still go for ducks and pheasants whenever I get a chance. Duck and pheasant are good eatin'!
Call me a hypocritical pussy or whatever, but that's the way I see it.
-
03-30-2008, 03:46 PM #44
i've known many hunters, but never hunted with so-called "trophy hunters". not sure what that really means. if i harvest a royal elk, i'm a douchbag, but if i take a spike i'm okay in your book??? i take the shot when i have a shot, trophy or not.
i could easily be called hypocritcritical. that's fine. i've decided i won't shoot a wolf.
i had a chance to go on a state-sponsored alliagtor hunt a couple years back. i passed it up because i couldn't shoot one of those either. i look at them as a gift from prehisotoric times. while they're considered vermin in some parts of the deep south, i would rather enjoy observing them in their natural habitat. but it's not that i'm against hunting them, i personally could not shoot one and sleep at night.
-
03-30-2008, 04:22 PM #45
You don't eat wolf meat (or most don't).
Therefore, one would be hunting it purely for sport, the hide, and the head.
That is trophy hunting.
And I repect your decision on not hunting wolves.
I have no issues at all with deer, Elk, Caribou, etc...in fact, I try to eat more of that than beef, in some years.
But things like Buffalo, Moose, Bear, etc..it just seems vain and silly.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
03-30-2008, 05:39 PM #46
So according to your reasoning, I'm trophy hunting every time I shoot prairie dogs, coyotes, foxes, skunks and raccoons? That's a a new one to me. All along I thought I was controlling the prairie dogs so my friend's livestock would have more forage and wouldn't break their legs in prairie dog holes. And I thought I was keeping coyote, fox, skunk, and raccoon numbers down on his land so wild pheasant numbers would increase.
You are the only person who has ever accused me of being a trophy hunter. I hunt for meat, enjoyment and population management. Last year I shot 5 whitetail does in northern WY to help thin their over-populated ranks then donated all five to needy families. Only 4 of the tags were for does only- the fifth tag could have been used to harvest a buck. This year I shot 4 more does and gave a lot of the meat to my parents and my uncle. I've never even applied for a bull elk tag because I think cows make better table fare.
I deeply respect all wildlife and the land they live on. I volunteered my time and effort to help on an Audubon bird count just a few months ago and I spend the summer doing counts of protected birds in energy development areas as well as spraying noxious weeds in energy development areas and private ranches to maintain the native vegetation and give wildlife more forage. So don't try to make me out as a lazy-ass trophy hunter who only head-hunts and doesn't do his part to be a good steward of the animals and their land.
Don't be so quick to judge someone you know nothing about.
And I repect your decision on not hunting wolves.
I have no issues at all with deer, Elk, Caribou, etc...in fact, I try to eat more of that than beef, in some years.
But things like Buffalo, Moose, Bear, etc..it just seems vain and silly.
I think it's great you enjoy wild game, because I've always held the opinion that it tastes better and is much healthier, but I don't understand what you have against moose and buffalo as table fare? Moose and buffalo are two of the best-tasting animals I have ever eaten, and one animal provides a lot of meat.
I don't feel like getting into a pissing match with any of you, so you can stop the unnecessary name-calling any time now. It doesn't help defend your position and it's not very conducive of intelligent debate.
-
03-30-2008, 06:05 PM #47
I'm still waiting on those timber wolf recipes from peewee. My personal philosophy - if you don't eat it, you're a douchebag. I shoot a lot of shit for sport - animals aren't one of them. Canned goods are fun. If that's not enough sport then try throwing lead at then from 700+ yards. Is it cool if you drop a deer at 200 yards on a run? Yeah - good shot, and that's a lot of yummy venison.
Another group of "hunters" around here who hate the wolves are the bear "hunters". They throw out bait, then they run their dogs (with radio-locator collars) after the bear. They drive around logging roads, not looking where the fuck they're going and blocking the whole road and when the bear crosses the road, they plug it. These dickbags hate the wolves because once in awhile the wolves will kill one of their mutts. Too bad loser, keep your fucking dogs out of the woods then. Feel fee to stay out of the woods youself, too.
-
03-30-2008, 06:29 PM #48
You've got me scratching my head on this one. How is that someone who claims to like animals is saying that it is "cool" to attempt to shoot a deer on the run at 200 yards? There is a very high likelihood that such a shot would result in a wounded, suffering deer. A hunter who truly respects the animals he hunts would wait for the animal to stop so he can make a quick, humane kill. People who shoot at game while it is running 200 yards away are the ones who give hunters a bad name.
-
03-30-2008, 06:54 PM #49
First off - I didn't say it was cool to attempt a 200+ yard running shot, so maybe you need to work on the reading comprehension. I said it was cool if someone drops the deer on a running 200+ yard shot. I agree that the average dipshit once a year hunter who only fires his rifle the week before the opener at the range can't hit the broad side of the barn past 100 yards, but..
Second off - believe it or not some guys can actually hit moving targets at 200+ yards. I've done it. Then again, my shooting isn't limited to lobbing a box at a 100 yard target the week before deer season. If you can make shots like that, then why not? If you can't, then maybe you should work on it - know what I mean?
Third - still waiting on those wolf recipes.
-
03-30-2008, 07:36 PM #50
I've hit stuff running at 200+ yards as well, on more than one occasion, but I shoot over 1000 rounds a year so it's to be expected. That's doesn't mean one should attempt to do it on a deer and risk wounding it. As I said before, at that range a hunter who respects his quarry will wait for it to stop so he is assured to make a quick, clean kill.
On the subject of people who lob a couple of shots at a piece of paper 100 yards away then go hunting, I agree they're nowhere near prepared enough to actually shoot an animal. Glad to hear you're not one of them.
No recipe is required. Magpies, crows, and the other scavengers prefer their meals uncooked. At least this is what I have found with all other non-game animals that I shoot.
While you're on the subject of not eating what you kill, are you aware that wolves often times won't eat everything that they kill? They too kill for sport. It has been documented on many occasions.
Similar Threads
-
Wolf Creek the True Story
By Sir Jongalot in forum General Ski / Snowboard DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: 11-09-2007, 10:13 AM -
Wolf Creek Development, initial plan approved
By CaddyDaddy77 in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 11Last Post: 12-08-2004, 12:04 PM -
is this actually going to happen!?! (Wolf Creek Development)
By wahama88 in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 1Last Post: 09-20-2004, 03:34 PM -
wolf creek fighting back against developer
By Crinkle in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 28Last Post: 09-16-2004, 03:04 PM -
Say it isn't so, condos and a hotel planned for Wolf Creek
By Artie Fufkin in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 3Last Post: 03-12-2004, 07:28 PM
Bookmarks