ForumGarden

I got this from Defenders of Wildlife today. It wasn't that long ago they reintroduced the wolves to Yellowstone and they've been killing them quietly since. Aerial gunning is one of the worst, most chickensh*t methods of killing animals. They are pretty much run to death and then shot. If shot before, they are often winged. If you have a problem with this, please do something about it. Thanks.

~Red



Dear terri,

Late last week, even as many families enjoyed the final hours of July 4th vacations in Yellowstone National Park, officials in the Bush/Cheney Administration announced a new proposal that could lead to widespread regional killing of gray wolves, some of the park’s most popular residents.



On Friday, July 6th, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began a 30-day comment period on its latest outrageous proposals plans that would sanction the killing of more than 700 wolves in the Yellowstone area and parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, including wolves protecting their pups on National Forest lands and Wilderness areas.





The proposal would set the stage for aerial gunning of wolves in Wyoming and Idaho and clear the way for the extermination of three out of four wolves in the Lolo area of Idaho’s Clearwater National Forest, a plan that had been shelved after more than 41,000 wildlife supporters spoke out against it.

Under this latest proposal, these and other wolves could be killed, even if gray wolves in the Northern Rockies remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal comes even as federal officials are reviewing the hundreds of thousands of public comments submitted in opposition to the Administration’s plan to eliminate Endangered Species Act Protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.



Just last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its long term opposition to Wyoming’s wolf management plan, clearing the way for a state policy that allows wolves to be shot on sight in most of the state if they wander outside the safety of Yellowstone or Grand Tetons National Parks and nearby areas.

Once again, federal officials are bending over backwards to allow the killing of still-endangered gray wolves. And, once again, Defenders needs your help to stop them.

This may well be your last chance to comment on these actions before wolves in the region are removed from the list of federally protected threatened and endangered species. We’re trying to generate 50,000 comments opposing these terrible proposals before August 6th. Will you help?



We only have until Monday August 6th to speak out against these proposals, so please send your message today.

Best Regards,



Rodger Schlickeisen

President

Defenders of Wildlife



Okay so I can't paste the proper links here so if you don't like this ritual mass slaughtering of wolves and you want to do something about it, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service....



WEB: http://www.fws.gov/

PHONE TOLL FREE: 1-800-344-WILD between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

EMAIL VIA THEIR WEB FORM: http://www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm



WRITE THEM:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

They reintroduced the grey wolf in southwestern NM about 15 years ago. There have been fights between the ranchers and the wildlife people. The effort was so successful the wolves thought the easy kill of cattle better than hunting rabbit, deer and other prey. It has been a controversial reintroduction. Perhaps the wolves of Yellowstone are overpowering the natural prey they and putting the prey population in danger, hence a decision to cull the wolf population.

So The poor OL wolf is the ONLY one that pays?







As her husband swung his rifle in her direction, Diana Sundles threw herself to the ground. His fourth shot finally killed the large grey wolf that was charging at them, dropping the animal just 10 feet from her prone figure.

On July 27, Tim Sundles and his wife Diana went on a pack-trip vacation. They live on Carmen Creek, not far from Salmon, Ida. “We wanted to get away and have a few days together. We have teenagers and a business, and we don’t get much quality time alone. There’s a pretty spot near the Middle Fork of the Salmon River where my wife likes to go—where she killed her first elk. We’ve been going there for many years. It’s remote—about a 16-mile ride in from the trail head. We rode in with our horses and mules and set up camp that evening.

They woke next morning just before daylight, with a pack of wolves among their horses. “What woke me was their howling, and the horses were having a fit. I ran out with a flashlight and small revolver. I screamed and hollered—shot up in the air a few times and ran the wolves off.

Tim assumed it was over, that the wolves were afraid of people. So they cooked breakfast, sat around camp for an hour or so, then got their fishing gear ready. “We were going to hike up to one of those remote lakes that doesn’t have a name, Tim says. “We were going to spend the day up there just fishing and snoozing under the trees, leaving the horses and mules at our camp.

He turned a couple of head loose to graze and picked up his rifle as they started to walk out of camp, but Tim had an uneasy feeling. “We got about 100 yards out of camp where our two pack animals were grazing and a big grey wolf wassneaking up on them. He was real close, about 15 to 20 feet from them, and they weren’t paying any attention. In the back of my mind was the disquieting thought, ‘Where’s the rest of the pack?’ I had to assume these were the same wolves that were there a couple hours earlier, and there were a bunch of them!

He fired a shot over the wolf, trying to get it to run off, but it just turned on Tim and Diana. They didn’t know at the time it was the alpha male or that it was radio collared. “When I fired the shot over it, it came straight at me, full speed. I fired two more rounds trying to hit it, but a wolf running at you through the trees is really hard to hit. He got within 10 to 15 feet of me then veered off and circled around me. He turned toward my wife on the trail behind me—and was headed straight for her. I had a perfect broadside shot and was able to get my sight on him. He dropped just about 10 feet from my wife. To avoid being shot Diana had fallen to the ground, because she realized that when the wolf did a semi-circle around Tim, she was in Tim’s line of fire. “I was swinging the gun muzzle right toward her and when she saw that, she got out of the way, he says quietly. “If she’d been between me and the wolf, there’s no way I could have shot it.

When he saw the radio collar and the ear tags, he thought, “This vacation is over! At first he decided to keep the incident quiet, but then reconsidered. “One of the big lies the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [FWS] and the environmentalists are telling us is that wolves are not dangerous to humans. The longer I thought about that, the more I thought people have a right to know. If I keep this quiet, someone else might get hurt. The next time, it might be a little kid and then I’m going to feel partly responsible.

Tim came home from the camping trip and tried to find an attorney familiar with the Endangered Species Act, but couldn’t. He called county commissioners, legislators—a lot of people—but had no luck finding an attorney who could advise him. “I didn’t want to tell my story and end up being prosecuted. I found out there’s a law that says you’ve got to report the shooting of a wolf within 24 hours. It took us 48 hours to get out of the wilderness. So I was already in violation of that law by the time I found out about it, and I didn’t know what to do.

Because he couldn’t find an attorney he went public, at his own peril. At a mid-August public meeting in Salmon, Ida., Tim Sundles stunned the group with his account of shooting the radio-collared wolf in self defense. He hadn’t planned to speak. He merely wanted to talk with Senator Mike Crapo in private, but halfway through the meeting changed his mind. As one person in the audience recalls, “Sundles was the last speaker. What he told us was so shocking it made everything else insignificant. If he’d spoken earlier on the program, I think it would have ended the meeting right then. The purpose of the hearing was for input on delisting the thriving population of reintroduced wolves.

Tim Sundles came forward because the Constitution says he has a right to defend himself, his family and his property. “All three of those things were happening up there, and yet, out of fear of the way the government enforces the Endangered Species Act, I didn’t want to come forward. I finally became ashamed of my own cowardice and decided to tell people—and do it with the senator and the media there so I couldn’t be arrested and privately hung. I wanted publicity, he explains, “because that was my only protection.

After telling his story, FWS agents wanted him to show them the wolf to determine whether he actually shot it in self defense. “My attorney told me I didn’t have to, but I took them up there and we showed them the wolf,

where my camp was, and how things happened. They were real pushy and wanted me to take a lie detector test and videotape my testimony but I said no. The Custer County sheriff went up there with me because he didn’t want me to be alone with them. We just showed them everything and left; we walked away when they tried to interrogate me. The federal agents sent the wolf to a forensics laboratory. “As long as they don’t try to falsify evidence, like they did with Gene Hussey, everything will be fine; the facts will back up my story.

Within days after the first reintroduced wolves were released near Salmon, one killed a calf belonging to Hussey, an 83-year-old rancher, and was shot by a passerby on the road while the wolf was eating

the calf. An autopsy was done on the wolf and calf by local veterinarian Robert Cope. When federal agents arrived, they took both bodies for their own autopsies—and exchanged a stillborn calf for the one the wolf killed, claiming the wolf had not killed the calf. What they didn’t know was that Cope had a videotape of the original autopsy. “He had indisputable evidence that the calf was live born, says Tim. “The feds didn’t know about that tape. When they found out, they knew they’d hung themselves; it showed they were not honest, Tim continues. “So I did a like thing; I made some safety precautions. I don’t think the feds are going to falsify

evidence this time. I think they know they are being watched by our senators and they know I am not going to pay a fine just to make them go away.

The Sundles don’t have anything against wolves. “He was a big beautiful animal, Tim says. “The problem I have is the government has turned this wolf into something untouchable and is trying to run our lives and overturn the Constitution with it. The rancher who’s just trying to make a living is now put in the position of being a felon if he shoots one to protect his animals. My wife is hesitant to go in the woods again. If the wolves killed or injured one of our animals, I would have been physically ill over that, because I love my horses. Even if environmentalists could reimburse me for the ‘value’ of the animal, it would never replace that individual.









Tim Sundles, Jr., 15, and Jacob, 11, headed for the 13 lakes area at the head of the Selway River in the Bitterroot National Forest. Tim carries a rifle, like they all do now. TOP: The Bitterroot Mountains where the Sundles pack in.










Just recently, Tim Sundles and a friend went elk hunting, taking along a guard for their horses and mules. Where there were previously plenty of elk they were now scarce, but wolves were abundant, howling to one another in the night and sighted in packs as large as a dozen.

Heather Smith Thomas is a writer and rancher from Salmon, Ida.

BTS,

I'm not surprised to see you here. I'm not going to bother arguing because it'll fall on deaf ears. The wolves don't deserve to be slaughtered, period.If you don't want to encounter them, stay the hell out of their home. It's that easy.

If you don't support stopping the kill, then that's your call but I do and I will continue on my way to help do it.

RedGlitter;659836 wrote: BTS,

I'm not surprised to see you here. I'm not going to bother arguing because it'll fall on deaf ears. The wolves don't deserve to be slaughtered, period.If you don't want to encounter them, stay the hell out of their home. It's that easy.



If you don't support stopping the kill, then that's your call but I do and I will continue on my way to help do it.


I know TOUCHIE feely ol You......



I ask you, in all respect.... to read stories from those that have to deal with the killers that they are....

Plus the BS of their recovery.......... Such as they are NOT pure bred...

How they WRECK havoc on mankind





RANGE-Winter-06-Bad Wolf!

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Not even shy about having a picture taken, this wolf openly stalks cattle in the ... When three kills are confirmed, the wolf might be sent away for a year, ...

www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-06/bad-wolf.pdf - Similar pages

RANGE magazine.com - Winter 2002 - Wolf Attack



His fourth shot finally killed the large grey wolf that was charging at them, dropping the animal just 10 feet from her prone figure. ...

www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/ ... 2/wolf.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] RANGE Summer 2007-Land in Crisis



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

expected to cross with Mexican wolves or wolf hybrids ... The areas designated for Mexican wolf recovery are interspersed with ranches and small communities ...

www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07 ... crisis.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF] RANGE-winter 07-Fatal Encounter



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

biologists working in wolf. recovery have trouble dis-. carding the comfortable .... battle with a large grey wolf before a busload ...

www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-0 ... killer.pdf - Similar pages

out on the range



Montana sheep ranchers have had plenty to worry about, what with drought, foreign imports, wool prices and the economy—and now the big bad wolf is baaack. ...

www.rangemagazine.com/archives/spring20 ... baaack.htm - 21k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] FA02 layout ESA 7/15 END.cjg



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

wolf or when Bangs himself is not called out to .... In the spring of 2002,. at least 150 to 200 wolf pups were born in those packs. ...

www.rangemagazine.com/pdf/fall02_endangered5.pdf - Similar pages

RANGE magazine.com - Spring 2002 - Nature Faking



A prolific writer of popular animal stories, including one about a “king wolf, Burroughs objected to Seton’s claim that he once saw a fox jump on a sheep’s ...

www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/ ... faking.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] RANGE-Winter-06-An Act of Deception



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

How can they list the grizzly, wolf, and lynx in the northern .... (b) Wolf in the lower 48 states. (c) Lynx in the lower 48 states ...

www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-06/deception.pdf - Similar pages

out on the range



"I'd never seen a wolf up close before, and these were big animals. ... He would find wolf tracks in the nearby pastures the next day. ...

www.rangemagazine.com/archives/summer20 ... eberry.htm - 61k - Cached - Similar pages

One MAJOR reason I and others have with the Eniviro WACKOS claims!!!!!!!!

They Lie



Lynx Fur Flying: Political Meddling in Science



In December, 2001, the Washington Times ran a story about lynx biologists in Washington State. The story implied that a number of biologists, employees of the US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had conspired to defraud the public by planting lynx hairs into a wide ranging habitat survey to back some sort of secret, illicit environmental agenda.

Before agency scientists had a chance to respond, a number of politicians jumped into the fray, demanding hearings, investigations and even termination of the scientists involved.

The biggest victim in this political quagmire has been the truth. A review of the record of this case demonstrates conclusively that this has been more a matter of political posturing than scientific wrongdoing. A number of key points have been obscured and should be illuminated ... read more >>>

GAO: Lynx fur hoax was no secret



AHHHHH what they (ENVIROMENTALIST) will do to get their way.........



By Audrey Hudson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

March 7, 2002





The General Accounting Office reported yesterday that government

scientists knew they should not have submitted falsely labeled samples into a

national lynx survey and that some supervisors were aware but took no action.

"They all admitted they knew it wasn't in the protocol, they weren't

allowed to do this," said Ronald Malfi, acting managing director of the GAO

office of special investigations.

The investigation also found Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife

Service biologists discussed what they were doing, contrary to an initial

investigation in which employees said the unauthorized samples were submitted

without knowledge of each other's actions, Mr. Malfi said.

Additionally, employees from both agencies worked together to collect

fur samples from captive lynx, a species listed as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act, Mr. Malfi said.

The employees were orally reprimanded for the actions, but later

received bonuses for their work. Dr. Steven A. Williams, Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) director, said he is considering further disciplinary action.

The names of the four federal biologists involved were released

yesterday: Ray Scharpf, the whistleblower who informed his supervisor of the

unauthorized submission before retiring from the Forest Service; Mitch

Wainright at the Forest Service; and Sarah LaMarr and Tim McCracken at the

FWS.

The biologists maintain they submitted three samples of lynx fur they

falsely labeled as having been collected in two Washington state national

forests to test the lab's ability to analyze lynx DNA.

"They all knew they had no authorization to do this nor did they have a

technical order to actually test the laboratory," Mr. Malfi said.

Some scientists could not explain why they sent in the samples and were

"very guarded" in their comments, Mr. Malfi said.

Additionally, a Washington state employee submitted a fur sample into

the survey taken from a bobcat pelt, Mr. Malfi said.

Neither the GAO investigation nor a separate review by the Interior

Department's inspector general has shed light on the motivation of the

employees.

"We did not uncover what the motivation was, we just looked at the facts

and evidence to see what happened," Mr. Malfi said.

This angered some lawmakers, who said they remain convinced it was an

attempt to rig the study to restrict recreational activities on public land.

"The employees thought the lynx were out there and they may have hoped

to expand or extend the study to find more lynx or plant more samples," said

Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Resources

Committee subcommittee on forests and forest health.

If the biologists were testing the lab, "it shows a fundamental mistrust

that these scientists have for the very science they are using. This is very,

very troubling," said Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican and committee

chairman.

When asked by a committee member why the supervisors did not take action

to stop the false sample submission, Mr. McInnis said "they did take action;

they gave them bonuses."

Mark Rey, Agriculture Department undersecretary for natural resources

and environment, said a third investigation by his department is looking

specifically at the employees' motivation - a question that remains

"sufficiently murky," he said.

Mr. Rey, who kept his remarks brief "so as not to unnecessarily delay

the expected horsewhipping," said "we don't think this is a harmless error."

However, Mr. Rey said he did not believe the employees were maliciously

trying to affect the survey's outcome but added that "it is not their

responsibility to make it up as they go along."

Mr. Rey said he did not believe the actions are a widespread problem in

the Forest Service, but is a "widely held perception about the agency and we

are most interested in changing that."

The samples were submitted as part of a three-year survey to determine

Canadian lynx habitat in 16 states and 57 national forests.

Mr. Malfi said had the false samples not been uncovered, "it would have

been part of the national survey," leading to additional surveys and studies,

but the "integrity of the study is intact."

Which has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

I know you hate people who defend wildlife, I've seen your work. Maybe you could make your own thread about it instead of putting stuff here that is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Thanks.

RedGlitter;659854 wrote: Which has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

I know you hate people who defend wildlife, I've seen your work. Maybe you could make your own thread about it instead of putting stuff here that is irrevant to the subject at hand. Thanks.


Wolves that kill.... sorry that I went off on a tantrum (Lynx Lies by the enviro wackos) about how the facts get obscured with reality as the enviro wackos do..........



OK

4 U Red.......... Wolves that KILL!!!!!!!

















But this first to chew on...





Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves

July 07, 2007 01:17 PM EST



Once upon a time there was a happy land of happy sheep, and the sheep were fat and sassy and covered with lovely wool, and they romped and played and ate till their stomachs were full, and they slept the sleep of the contented. And the sheepherder was happy, too, and all was well. Well, almost all.



Unbeknownst to the sheep, there were wolves lurking just outside their sight and hearing. And these wolves would, from time to time, sneak into the outskirts of the herd and kill a sheep or two, but this was done so quietly and at such long intervals that the sheepherder didn't notice the missing sheep, or if he did, he thought they had just wandered off. He did hire a couple old, worn-out sheepdogs named CIA and NSA, but he didn't feed them very well and though they sniffed around some, they weren't very effective at wolf interdiction. Encouraged, the wolves became bolder.



One night the wolves went a little nuts and killed 3000 sheep at once, and the sheepherder awoke to find so many sheep destroyed that he knew that wolves were to blame. And so, as any smart sheepherder would do, he bought a dozen well-trained sheepdogs to guard the herd. Unfortunately, sheep are so stupid that they can't differentiate between the sheepdogs who are protecting them and the wolves who wish to eat them. And so they dashed madly about and complained to their congressmen that the sheepdogs were infringing on their civil rights. Some even became outraged when the sheepherder hired hunters to trap some of the wolves and cage them, and the sheepherder's approval numbers declined, even though his economic policies had helped bring the land of sheep out of a brief recession and had prevented any more attacks by the wolves. Sheep aren't known for long-term, in-depth strategic thinking.

I can't tell you how this story comes out, because we haven't gotten to the end yet. But thanks to all the sheepdogs out there doing their jobs without much appreciation from the sheep.



Attributed to George Orwell: "We (sheep) sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." This sounds Orwellian, but no one can definitively find where he said or wrote it. But it doesn't really matter. It's true no matter who said it.









Date:June 18, 2007Contact:Ed Mitchell

(208) 334-3700





wolf report: wolves kill sheep



Federal wolf managers are looking for the wolves that killed 15 sheep and injured two guard dogs on a Sawtooth National Forest grazing allotment.



Wolves killed 10 more sheep in the same area over the previous week.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services confirmed the kills on June 3. On June 7, Wildlife Services also confirmed that a wolf killed three lambs on private land near New Meadows. Efforts are under way in response to these incidents to remove the depredating wolves.

Representatives of various interests, including livestock owners, outfitters, hunters, environmental and wildlife advocates met with Idaho Fish and Game officials June 14 in Boise to discuss a wolf harvest management plan. Though they have widely ranging perspectives on wolves, they agreed on several points, including that control is needed in areas of conflicts between wolves and livestock.

They also agreed that widespread tolerance for wolf control would be higher if wolves are allowed to thrive in some areas; a wolf management plan should meet the needs of livestock owners, hunters and outfitters but also withstand critical national scrutiny.

Fish and Game officials are working on plans for proposed hunting seasons on wolves pending their removal from the endangered species list. They expect to have a proposal ready for Idaho Fish and Game Commission review by the fall.

Actual delisting could be a year or more away. Any wolf hunting seasons would first have to be approved by the Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the wolf recovered in the northern Rocky Mountains and has started the process to remove the wolf from the endangered species list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's weekly wolf reports as well as annual reports, can be viewed at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/.









Wolves kill numerous sheep near Burgdorf, Idaho



9-19-2003, updates 9-30, 10-3





Link: http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/burgdorf ... dation.htm
It had to happen sometime. In recent years, despite the growth of the wolf population in Idaho, livestock depredations have become so few they hardly make the news any more.While this doesn't seem to have hit the media yet, this week a pack of 4-5 wolves attacked sheep east of Burgdorf, Idaho and killed 52. This was on top of several recent depredations in this area of the Payette National Forest.. The total number of sheep killed now is over 100.

Sheep-eating wolves hunted by federal wildlife officials, ranchersBy SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff WriterLIVINGSTON -- Federal officials shot two sheep-killing wolves Friday morning and gave ranchers permission to kill two more.

One of the wolves was either on or close to the more than 20 sheep that wolves had killed in Paradise Valley earlier this week, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.Link: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ar ... bzbigs.txt

BTS,

the key is living as amiably among each other as possible. If you keep killing nature's predators you will continue to mess up the ecosystem. That's not "wacko" talk, that's common sense. Get sheepherders and cowboys like they used to do instead of letting them out of your sight. Of course thatwould mean effort, time and money spent. So it's easier to pop off some wolves instead.

I'm just curious, BTS, as you and I have always disagreed on this stuff in the past, as we do now...are you posting this stuff to try to change my mind or just as an outlet for what you believe?

posted by BTS

Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves

July 07, 2007 01:17 PM EST

Once upon a time there was a happy land of happy sheep, and the sheep were fat and sassy and covered with lovely wool, and they romped and played and ate till their stomachs were full, and they slept the sleep of the contented. And the sheepherder was happy, too, and all was well. Well, almost all.

Unbeknownst to the sheep, there were wolves lurking just outside their sight and hearing. And these wolves would, from time to time, sneak into the outskirts of the herd and kill a sheep or two, but this was done so quietly and at such long intervals that the sheepherder didn't notice the missing sheep, or if he did, he thought they had just wandered off. He did hire a couple old, worn-out sheepdogs named CIA and NSA, but he didn't feed them very well and though they sniffed around some, they weren't very effective at wolf interdiction. Encouraged, the wolves became bolder.

One night the wolves went a little nuts and killed 3000 sheep at once, and the sheepherder awoke to find so many sheep destroyed that he knew that wolves were to blame. And so, as any smart sheepherder would do, he bought a dozen well-trained sheepdogs to guard the herd. Unfortunately, sheep are so stupid that they can't differentiate between the sheepdogs who are protecting them and the wolves who wish to eat them. And so they dashed madly about and complained to their congressmen that the sheepdogs were infringing on their civil rights. Some even became outraged when the sheepherder hired hunters to trap some of the wolves and cage them, and the sheepherder's approval numbers declined, even though his economic policies had helped bring the land of sheep out of a brief recession and had prevented any more attacks by the wolves. Sheep aren't known for long-term, in-depth strategic thinking.

I can't tell you how this story comes out, because we haven't gotten to the end yet. But thanks to all the sheepdogs out there doing their jobs without much appreciation from the sheep.

Attributed to George Orwell: "We (sheep) sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." This sounds Orwellian, but no one can definitively find where he said or wrote it. But it doesn't really matter. It's true no matter who said it.


Rather silly analogy and nothing to do with george orwell. Instead of sheep substitute villagers, instead of wolves substitute raiders, and instead of sheepdogs substitute mercenaries or medeival warlords. There is little difference between a warlord and a raider except the way they go about exploiting the sheep -or villagers. Read animal farm and you might get the point George Orwell was trying to get across and appreciate liberals a bit more.

posted by red glitter

BTS,

the key is living as amiably among each other as possible. If you keep killing nature's predators you will continue to mess up the ecosystem. That's not "wacko" talk, that's common sense. Get sheepherders and cowboys like they used to do instead of letting them out of your sight. Of course thatwould mean effort, time and money spent. So it's easier to pop off some wolves instead.




Not being an american this hardly affects me but if you'll excuse a non emerican sticking in his tuppence worth we have similar issues.

I happen to live in a country where all the trees were chopped down and we now have vast acres of infertile mooorland where there once was a temperate rain forest. One of the main economic reasons so many people emigrated to the colonies A conservation lobby that would like to see everybody banned from the hills and landowners that pretend they are acting to protect the countryside when all they want to do is keep people off their shooting estates and cynically play the conservation card when it suits them while at the same time poisoning all the birds of prey, despite it being illegal, just so they can grow game birds to slaughter.

There are some nutters that want to re-introduce wolves (the last one was killed over three hundred years ago). The idea that they are harmless doggies belies the reality.

You need to strike a balance. If all you can say against the conservation lobby is that they are tree hugging lunatics you don't really have a case. You over exploit your environment at your peril, once you've done it you can't undo it. Wolves may not be the prettiest of animals but how does wiping them out completely make America a better place? Also should you really listen to people whose only answer is slaughter because they serve no good purpose?

I sent an email in support of your cause RedGlitter, I agree with you it's in defense of the wildlife that us humans keep pushing out of their own territory. I don't believe killing them all over the place is the answer, tag them, relocate them and watch if they re-offend. We have to do that in this city with the Bears. Crikey we darn near lost wolves, and how stupid to be out there killing them to take their numbers dangerously low again.



Thanks for the heads up RG

gmc;659931 wrote:

Not being an american this hardly affects me but if you'll excuse a non emerican sticking in his tuppence worth we have similar issues.



You don't have to be an American, Gmc, for this to matter. If the predator-prey balance/ecosystem is messed up in one part of the world, it will affect all the others in due time. We can't pull a thread without affecting the rest of the spiderweb.



I happen to live in a country where all the trees were chopped down and we now have vast acres of infertile mooorland where there once was a temperate rain forest. One of the main economic reasons so many people emigrated to the colonies A conservation lobby that would like to see everybody banned from the hills and landowners that pretend they are acting to protect the countryside when all they want to do is keep people off their shooting estates and cynically play the conservation card when it suits them while at the same time poisoning all the birds of prey, despite it being illegal, just so they can grow game birds to slaughter.

That's terrible!

There are some nutters that want to re-introduce wolves (the last one was killed over three hundred years ago). The idea that they are harmless doggies belies the reality.

They're not harmless, they can be dangerous animals in the right circumstance but they're not the rabid people killers they're often made out to be. I certainly wouldn't try to pet one, but I wouldn't flip out of I saw one either. I have ahealthy respect for them and for their place in the natural world. I learn as much about them as I can. I am always learning more.

You need to strike a balance. If all you can say against the conservation lobby is that they are tree hugging lunatics you don't really have a case. You over exploit your environment at your peril, once you've done it you can't undo it. Wolves may not be the prettiest of animals but how does wiping them out completely make America a better place? Also should you really listen to people whose only answer is slaughter because they serve no good purpose?


Very much agreed.

Thank you for your reply, Gmc.

minks;660054 wrote: I sent an email in support of your cause RedGlitter, I agree with you it's in defense of the wildlife that us humans keep pushing out of their own territory. I don't believe killing them all over the place is the answer, tag them, relocate them and watch if they re-offend. We have to do that in this city with the Bears. Crikey we darn near lost wolves, and how stupid to be out there killing them to take their numbers dangerously low again.



Thanks for the heads up RG


Thank you Minks!! I really appreciate you doing that!! :-4

I don't understand why they reintroduced the wolves if all they were going to do was kill them again. :-5

First of all, just to help balance things out... and this is no cut and paste, but my own personal experience with wild wolves. When I had my first house built, there was this white wolf (which was actually an endangered gray wolf, they just sometimes vary in colour a bit... ) that stayed on my porch and had apparently been living there quite some time when I was finally moving in. He was very gentle and to me seemed more like a stray domesticated dog and he even got along with my Rottweiler that roamed the yard outdoors... so did the rest of the pack.

Anyway, to make along story short, there was an incident here where a farmer rented land next to my land claimed that a pack of wolves killed and attacked some of his cattle... eight of them to be precise... mind you, in the time I had been there I'd never seen more than two or three cows ever over there and it was just a small fenced in area that was fully visible from the road. But anyway, the local sherrif was next door investigating this with some other officials, natural resources, the trustee... and there was a dead cow... supposedly attacked by a pack of wolves... yet, other than a few tiny bite marks... there was nothing fatal in my eyes... and besides, I've actually witnessed a pack of wolves attack a cow... they kill it to eat it... not to just murder it and leave the body... they're carnivores... predators! So I had them flip it over and lo and behold there's an entry bullet hole from a rifle. Case closed, right? Nope... the wolves were blamed for it and the farmer got his money for eight cows that nobody saw... that is until after the incident... but I saw him bring them all in from another property.

Later on another local witnessed one of his trucks beating one of the small wolf pups in an open field... I saw a wolf pup many days later that was badly beaten and shot several times... one bullet ripped his side open, his jaw was severely broken such that he couldn't eat or drink... he was essentially left to die a slow death. I rescued that wolf pup... in fact, I rescued the rest that were alive (the alpha male and his mother along with some others had been killed, as well and were just left out in the open) and set up an area for them where they are somewhat restricted from roaming (some eighty acres or so), the rest I had sent to sanctuaries with a generous donation.

The pup, however... I couldn't find anyone local that would do anything for it... one recommended having it euthenised, but... it's a gray wolf... so I kept him and did some research spoke to some experts and patched him up and fed and watered him through a bottle using some recommendations I got from experts and discovered online... it took months and he's still got scars that are no longer visible under his thick fur.

He may have been the alpha male of his litter, but... he's got nothing on my lil' 14 pound JRT who was very sweet to him whilst he was recovering, but it was all over once he was fully recovered. She got up on him and had him pinned to the floor barking wildly at him the poor thing was terrifed of her... mind you, she was the alpha female of her litter.

To be honest, sure I recognise that wolves are wild animals... even the pup that I rescued took down deer and turkeys, along with his brothers and sisters... that's what they do... but I've never once felt that I was ever in harm of being attacked by a wolf... or even a pack of wolves. It's just like with people, though... and I know the stats of both... and it's not even remotely close. :p

This thread is about the thinning of the re-introduction of this endangered species where it once flourished. Not about the ongoing debate as to whether or not they should be re-introduced. The wolves are important in maintaining a balance in the food web of local ecosystems... apparently this particular area is out of balance for some reason. The reasons why the gray wolf became endangered in the first place, is for the very same reasons that the bald eagle nearly went extinct as well, by the way. In this case, it was an experiment that was successful and they met their recovery goals many times over... now apparently the wolves are after livestock and/or threatening the big game populations in Yellowstone and this is their way of dealing with it... although, it seems a bit self-defeating in a sense, but I suspect it's financially the most feasible solution.

Here, we've recently had an overpopulation of deer... I suppose it would make sense to re-introduce wolves to this area to help balance that out... the problem with that is that this area is not as wild as it once was when wolves were prevalent here... I simply don't see that happening here, though... that's not happening way out in the middle of nowhere and here, it seems like everyone is afraid of pitbulls and Rottweilers... they're certainly not going to allow wolves to be re-introduced here.

Scrat;660001 wrote: Don't waste your time GMC. BTS and people like him are the reason for vegans. They like to kill everything in sight.



Just so you know BTS I am not a Vegan. I like a good steak but I make sure its bought locally, where there's not a bunch of redneck morons on mules destroying the treasures of our world.


Just another ignorant scrattt atttack!!!!!!!



Tell me then why conservationists say this about "redneck morons on mules destroying the treasures of our world."... lands





They say we need to preserve this land (the redneck's) as it is the last pristine land of it's kind ......



Huh?

I wonder why these mule humpin idiots land would be so pristine to Sierra Clubbbers or any of the land grabbers that say this. (and they do say it about ranch lands).

Could it be that it has been wisely managed by them after all?



Could it be they ARE REALLY good stewards of their land?





I will end it here as this is a thread about crammin wolves down poor "redneck morons on mules THROATS.........

AND.........Not about non-vegans that hate "redneck morons on mules......

BTS;662341 wrote:



I will end it here


Thank you.

[quote=gmc;659931]



I happen to live in a country where all the trees were chopped down and we now have vast acres of infertile mooorland where there once was a temperate rain forest. quote]





Thank GOD our (foresters in America) have re-planted until there are MORE trees than when Columbus arrived. The nation's forest land area is still about two-thirds the size it was in 1600. This is in spite the conversion of 307 million acres of forest land to other uses, principally agriculture and cities.

posted by scrat

Don't waste your time GMC. BTS and people like him are the reason for vegans. They like to kill everything in sight.

Just so you know BTS I am not a Vegan. I like a good steak but I make sure its bought locally, where there's not a bunch of redneck morons on mules destroying the treasures of our world.




Bit unkind I think. If all you can about those like BTS who disagree with you (I don't know you BTS so please excuse the generalisation) is that they are moronic destroyers just for the sake of it then you don't have much of a case. Course that may in fact be the case-but then I know some environmentalists that are just as nutty in their own ways-like the ones that object to really effective machines that help get rid of all the midges. Anyone that likes midges is off their head.

BTS;662341 wrote: Just another ignorant scrattt atttack!!!!!!!



Tell me then why conservationists say this about "redneck morons on mules destroying the treasures of our world."... lands





They say we need to preserve this land (the redneck's) as it is the last pristine land of it's kind ......



Huh?

I wonder why these mule humpin idiots land would be so pristine to Sierra Clubbbers or any of the land grabbers that say this. (and they do say it about ranch lands).

Could it be that it has been wisely managed by them after all?



Could it be they ARE REALLY good stewards of their land?





I will end it here as this is a thread about crammin wolves down poor "redneck morons on mules THROATS.........

AND.........Not about non-vegans that hate "redneck morons on mules......


Then again if the sierra clubbers hadn't grabbed the land it would have been grabbed and clear felled by other land grabbers. Is it land grab that you object to or just the wrong kind of land grab?

posted by BTS

Thank GOD our (foresters in America) have re-planted until there are MORE trees than when Columbus arrived. The nation's forest land area is still about two-thirds the size it was in 1600. This is in spite the conversion of 307 million acres of forest land to other uses, principally agriculture and cities.


Bet it was in the teeth of determined opposition from those that thought it a waste of good farming land.

RedGlitter;662346 wrote: Thank you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BTS





I will end it here







You missed most ALL of my quote red:



"I will end it here as this is a thread about crammin wolves down poor "redneck morons on mules THROATS.........



AND.........Not about non-vegans that hate "redneck morons on mules......"



FAR FAR.............. from :

I will end it here

BTS, you missed the whole point of this thread yourself.

It's not about your hatred of wolves or about the ignorance of ranchers.

This thread is not a platform for you to do your soapboxing about how you hate the wolf. That's why in my OP, I stated IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, then contact the right people.