The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12, 2005, 01:15 AM   #26
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
What would you do about the wolves?

Shoot everyone of them that cross my sights. Damn things are overunning us up here and an average pack takes down a full grown moose or caribou every three days.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old August 12, 2005, 08:26 AM   #27
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
Carbine-
I don't think anyone is making the claim that wolves threaten our food supply. They threaten the livelihood of ranchers in specific areas. Minn is already looking to reneg on reimbursement since the funds set aside based on loss estimates have not been near enough in the past couple of years.

Bottom line is this:
If a wolf comes into your back yard to eat your chickens and dog, should you have a moral right to kill it? If so, should ranchers not have the same rights on their own lands? I see no reason to punish them simply because their back yards are larger. They paid for those lands; they own 'em. They have every right to protect their livestock.
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
Old August 12, 2005, 08:59 AM   #28
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
Well, if the wolf is actually causing losses, I'd agree. It's just that in my opinion, many (not all) people get kind of hysterical when it comes to anything with teeth and claws.

I knew a guy in NH that was very nervous because he saw a fox on his property. Didn't admit that of course, as he was a "tough guy"... but it was plain to see - he said "hey! I don't want carnivores on my property!". No, he didn't have any animals or anything else that could even conceivably be attacked by the fox - he was just afraid... which I thought was pretty darned rediculous. Here is this big guy, and a critter the size of a house cat, and he is getting all jumpy and upset.
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 12, 2005, 01:37 PM   #29
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
impact, the BLM didn't gain new, previously privately-held lands under the Clinton administration. There was the closing of BLM lands to other uses in SE Utah (if I have the location correct) via a National Monument designation, for example. This closed it grazing and mining--particularly for mining of antracite coal.

There have been changes in grazing "allowables", and in many areas a reduction was warranted. Others? Subject to legitimate argument.

I'm basically pro-wolf, with the proviso that if I identify a particular wolf or pack that's killing my livestock, I should be able to protect my property.

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old August 15, 2005, 02:34 PM   #30
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Rangefinder,

If ranchers should just accept predators as the cost of doing business, should employers accept theives in the company? Should shopkeepers just accept shoplifters?

I think that a wolf pelt brings a couple of hundred bucks if put up when prime. Give the rancher a permit to shoot the wolf, sell the pelt, and he has made more than he would have on the calf. Or sell wolf permits to trappers, with the money going to offset livestock losses.
artsmom is offline  
Old August 15, 2005, 02:39 PM   #31
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
/*... it's just hard to understand how there'd be any significant impact, even if every wolf ate only livestock.*/

One car being stolen and chopped isn't a big deal either, unless it happens to be your car.

Same with cattle. It wouldn't be a big deal if you owned all of the 95 million cattle, but if you only owned a couple of hundred, one is a BIG deal.
artsmom is offline  
Old August 15, 2005, 11:13 PM   #32
Rangefinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
Artsmom>> I'm not opposed to permits and regulation, just like any other animal. But the extermination way of thinking is what upsets me, ESPECIALLY whan it's on PUBLIC land. I've seen too many instances where a herd of cattle is released on BLM (legally) and the owner of said cattle has the attitude that it suddenly belongs to him (several of my hunting areas growing up were closed off illegally by people with that attitude). And the "shoot, shovel, and shut-up" thing just makes me wild.

I guess in all honesty two things are a factor in my personal feelings, and wolf management is only part of it. Yes, there is the factor of protecting one's livelyhood, but it had been mismanaged on all levels for so long that it got completely out of control. In a way I have a bit of a personal vendeta against ranchers I've dealt with, and (unfortunately, but I admit) it bleeds over to my general attitude. For example, where I live now--110 miles of highway and the only accessible route where I currently live is surrounded by public land that is also designated as "free range". Every year there is an average of 10-12 accidents on hwy 95 and hwy 276 here in southern Utah involving a vehicle and a cow (both recieve HEAVY traffic from March through October). According to state law, the driver is responsible for repaying the loss of the cow AND 3 offspring it would have potentially produced at a later time, averaging around $5000. NOT to mention a totaled vehicle, or worse, injury to the driver and passengers, occasionally death. ON A STATE HIGHWAY! I'll also need to mention most of the cattle in the area are owned by individuals within the state government. This is an example of laws to protect the livelyhood of the rancher in my area, so the "free range" status of the area will not be changed, nor will the laws governing it.

Sorry this went a little off-topic from wolf management, I guess I'm just mad at the cattle industry in general.

OH, and I had an Alaskan Timberwolf that was put down by the state just because it was suspected that he was part wolf--it's the only reason they could muster quickly. The later revised excuse was that wolf and wolf hybrids were potential rabies carriers and he needed to be checked---the only way of course was to cut off his head and check his brain for swelling. I had to drive an hour to pick up his body and another two to pick up his head in order to bury him. Oh, and no trace of rabies was found.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?"

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Rangefinder is offline  
Old August 16, 2005, 04:51 AM   #33
LAK
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
What would you do about the wolves?

I'd study them. Forever.

Why? Because it is a neat lifetime occupation; living out in the bush on someone else's money, driving, boating and flying around etc. All on someone else's money.

I mean we will never really know enough about them - hence we must have perpetual research. Yes, I'd study them.
LAK is offline  
Old August 16, 2005, 10:10 AM   #34
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Rangefinder,

As far as I am concerned, the rancher should have to pay the motorist damages if his livestock is involved in an accident on a public road, as well as a fine for endangering the public. I think that is inherently unfair for a motorist to be responsible for the safety of wandering livestock. I share your sense of unfairness with what you describe.

Cattlemen should be responsible for cattle, Fish & Wildlife should be responsible for wildlife, since they both make their livings off their respective animals.
artsmom is offline  
Old August 16, 2005, 10:18 AM   #35
Rangefinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
artsmom>> my thoughts exactly.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?"

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Rangefinder is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 08:04 AM   #36
N.H. Yankee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Rural N.H.
Posts: 1,586
We just had a federal judge decide that the wolf MUST be reintroduced to vermont, N.H. and Maine due to a lawsuit by a bunch of envrironmental whacko's in vermont. They claim the wolf will not hurt the deer population or livestock. These idiots have never seen what a coyote does to wildlife or domestic animals, or perhaps they have and dont care. If we all sit in a circle and hold hands and sing CUM-BYE-YAH the world will be a better place, love will replace evil and animals will live in harmony.
__________________
The real danger to America is not abroad but within..
Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brains fall out!
Save America, abort liberalism.
N.H. Yankee is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 01:09 PM   #37
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
N.H.Yankee - how many wolves were in the US when the Europeans arrived??? And you realize of course that the numbers of prey animals were much greater then than they are now? How many wolves are north of you, up in Canada??? Have you heard of any lack of deer/moose/elk in Canada? Is it impossible to raise livestock in Canada, which has 55,000 wolves?

There is nothing to fear. If wolves are reintroduced, I am sure there will be some level of predation on deer as well as livestock. But, it will not threaten the numbers of either one. It's real easy - just look back in history to when they were all over the lower 48, or look north today into Canada to see what will happen.
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 01:55 PM   #38
MeekAndMild
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
You've got to feel sorry for the wolves. Much of their former habitat has been taken over by big blue cities.

I'm all for restocking them in Eastern Massachusetts, Southern California, the Chesapeake Bay area, southeast Florida, the formerly swampy areas between Virginia and Maryland, down the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. Not only would they be safer from hunters and angry ranchers but they would provide urban children with the chance to see ecological balance at work.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

Last edited by MeekAndMild; August 21, 2005 at 05:04 PM.
MeekAndMild is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 02:34 PM   #39
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
Yep, everyone knows that the Canadians are forced to stay indoors 24 hours a day to reduce attacks from the wolves and grizzlies there. Frequently they fall prey in their driveways as they step in/out of their cars trying to get to their safe havens though. Fortunately, the sound of 20 million whacko Canadians holding hands and singing "Coom-bay-ah" drowns out the screams of their neighbors as they are devoured by these bloodthirsty predators though. Phew! thank God we live in the US! I am afraid to travel to Canada where all those big teeth and claws are *wets pants and gets into the fetal postion at the mere thought of a predator, clutching his rifle and trembling in fear*.

P.S. Sarcasm meets with sarcasm
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 02:58 PM   #40
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarbineCaleb
Have you heard of any lack of deer/moose/elk in Canada? Is it impossible to raise livestock in Canada, which has 55,000 wolves?
There is nothing to fear. If wolves are reintroduced, I am sure there will be some level of predation on deer as well as livestock. But, it will not threaten the numbers of either one.
Carbine-
This is simply naive and patently untrue.

The Canadians don't exactly have a love affair with wolves; and they are hardly living in "harmony" with the rest of the pretty forest animals:
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/wolves/evol.html

What you will see on this site is a proudly reported Government history of wolf "management" results over a 60 year period:
- Step 1: Reintroduce and protect the wolves
- Step 2: The wolves significantly reduce ungulate numbers so we ban hunting those ungulates
- Step 3: The prey continues to dwindlle, so we retrict human travel in those areas.
- Step 4: The prey population is depleted to the point that the wolves cannot be supported so they eat each other and starve. (Of course, in many parts of the US, they'll eat livestock before starving....then the "bad" ranchers will shoot them and be arrested.)
- Step 5: "Equilibrium" achieved. Of course, that equilibrium is defined thusly: "natural wolf-ungulate systems tend to stabilize at low numbers."....and this is a good thing?

Quote:
By the mid-1970s, the management perspective began to change again. Wolves had returned to abundance, livestock problems had increased, and hunters complained of too many wolves and too few ungulates. Studies in Alaska, Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan, quantified wolf kill rates and revealed situations where predation was the dominant depressant of ungulate populations
Quote:
In Alberta, wolves returned to public prominence during the early 1980s. In 1982, Albertans reported more sightings, including packs in or near settlements. Livestock kills were up, and hunters renewed their complaints. There was no doubt that wolves had taken advantage of favorable conditions. Biologists reported die-offs of moose from ticks across a wide belt stretching from east-central to northwestern Alberta during the preceding winter. Wolves apparently found a plentiful food supply, which allowed high reproduction and survival of pups leading to resurgence in populations. Resulting public discussion prompted government to announce several provisional wolf management strategies in January 1983.
Quote:
Strategies were designed to encourage a trapping harvest of 30 percent of the provincial wolf population. During 1983-1985, wolf trapping instruction and complimentary equipment were provided to trappers.
Quote:
During this period, investigations of Alberta's only migratory herd of woodland caribou in Willmore Wilderness-Grande Cache, revealed wolf predation was a likely contributor to the herd's decline. The caribou, which numbered 1000 to 1600 in the 1960s, had plummeted to about 300 by 1980. Caribou were classified as threatened throughout the province, and the hunting season was closed in 1981, but the herd did not respond. Ten of 12 deaths of radioed caribou were thought to be predator-caused, and wolves were implicated in several of them. To assist the herd, the provincial caribou plan of 1986 recommended wolf reductions as one component of restoration.
Quote:
control of traffic to reduce mortalities on the Grande Cache highway.
Quote:
By the mid-1980s, wildlife managers were reporting fewer wolves on winter moose surveys. This decline was not unexpected because many of the northern herds were at low densities and could support few wolves. Rapid declines had been observed in Minnesota, Isle Royale, and in Jasper National Park following the demise of principal prey species. In these situations, wolves invade neighboring territories, fight and kill one another, and starve. This course of events undoubtedly occurred in parts of northern Alberta. Scientists postulate that natural wolf-ungulate systems tend to stabilize at low numbers.
Anybody who believes wolves can simply be air-dropped into the US, without controlled hunting programs, had best go out and take some pictures of our Elk Herds now. Pass 'em on to your kids.....chances are, they'll never have the opportunity to see what you photographed in the wild.
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 03:26 PM   #41
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
Well Rich - you have indicated that it's not always smooth sailing, at least in modern times, with predators. Fair enough. If the Canadians kill off every last wolf and grizzly though to approach the American methods of simply eliminating all predators, I for one think it would be tragic. Predators are no more "good" or "bad" than prey are. On both sides of that equation, the players are just out there, trying to survive.

In the case of your caribou - they apparently had an isolated and marginal herd in one province - hmmm, wonder how that happened? ...that became threatened by increasing wolf populations. That's not the whole story of wolves in Canada though.

When I went to England, I visited the countryside and the small towns, and was struck by the landscape, which has been thoroughly tamed. It's all just one big garden. It may be green, but it's anything but natural. I would hate to see Canada become a bigger England.

I am not unduely afraid of predators, and I have slept alone, in wolf and grizzly country, miles from anyone and without even a tent to cover me. I am no hero though - lots of people do that - backpackers. And yes, I read "Night of the Grizzlies" and all those tall tales in "Outdoor Life" and "Field and Stream" when I was back in grade school.

To me, viewing predators as cuddly is naive', viewing them as evil, or inherently dangerous and incompatible with man, is equally naive'. Biologists, who study animals for a living, tend to have a more neutral perspective on critters of all types, different than the tree-huggers, and different than the ranchers. They just see them for what they are. I am also a proponent of that perspective.

I like life, in all it's variety - eradicating it, is not, in my view, a positive thing.
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 03:42 PM   #42
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
Carbine-
I'm not arguing for extinction here. But the exact OPPOSITE of that absurdity is what is going on right now and what you seem to be praising. Wolves have virtually no natural predators on the North American Continent; they are voracious killers; and, when food is plentiful as it is in the north and west, they breed like bunnies.

Alberta's experience is exactly what will happen if we don't have a controlled program for keeping them in check. I note a number of biases in your position that cause me to think you don't do much hunting; apologies if that's inaccurate. But it seems as though you believe there are only two alternatives, Kill 'Em All or Protect Them All. That is simply not how hunting works in this nation.

In virtually every State, 90% hunter fee and donation funded, we have game management that includes herd counts, careful license apportionment and extreme punishment for poaching. It works pretty damned well, too. See, we're the Ultimate Predator, but our effect is self limited by laws, fines and jail time. (One of the few things I believe our government does right well).

Introduce a predator without constraint and they will certainly change the face of the ecologic mix.....but not in the manner you have claimed in your earlier posts. One simple way to control the wolf population here while allowing them to flourish on public lands is to allow ranchers to kill every single wolf that shows on their lands.....wolves are territorial and, by definition, have therefore claimed that rancher's land as their own hunting grounds. (Baiting and Bait-Trapping should be punishable in these circumstances.)

Another step is for the states to do exactly what they do with white-tail, mulie, elk, moose, bear, duck, quail and bobcat: Manage the numbers with carefully controlled licensing in designated areas at designated seasons.

Make more sense than the current "endangered" myth?
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 04:00 PM   #43
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
If wolves and grizzlies get established in the lower 48, I would not be against hunting them, any more than I am against hunting other animals.

When I talk about predator eradication - for decades, that was official Federal policy, with bounties to provide incentive - it wan't managed hunting, it was organized extermination. They were shot, trapped, poisoned, bludgeoned (the young) - you name it, if it killed 'em, it was used. That's where all the wolves and grizzlies went.

Now they are beginning to get reestablished in some locations in the lower 48, due to some new efforts in recent decades. Many people say, kill 'em all - it's not possible to live with them. All I am saying is, yes it is possible to coexist with predators. Just will take a little thought and effort is all.

I don't know if bears and wolves mix it up - bears aren't pure carnivores, and meat is if I recall a minority of their diet, often scavenged, so they may overlap without any competing interests. I do know that wolves and mountain lions kill one another, and in fact wolves and wolves kill one another. They are competitors, and are territorial as you said, and defend their territory against invading rival packs. By the way, many people say that coyotes are out of control today - as competitiors, one thing wolves do, is keep down the coyote population to livable levels.
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 04:06 PM   #44
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
OK, we're basically on the same page now.

But I will point out:
1) The Policy of Eradication of any domestic species of animal or plant in this nation is decades since dead and will never return.

2) I have not seen anyone here argue for "eradication"; nor have I ever heard such statement from any hunter or rancher I know......that includes the only man I know who ever shot one in defense and told .gov to "shove it".

3) Wolves will kill wolves over territory, yes. But the weaker packs will eventually move further away....that's how they propagate. Only after they've decimated their primary food source will they tend to hunt other wolves for food.....and they most certainly WILL decimate their primary food source unless checked by man.
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 04:32 PM   #45
Rojoe67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2005
Location: Wolverine State
Posts: 767
State controls

Nice if each state had more control over the come back of the wolf. In some areas in the U.P. of Michigan the wolf is again becoming a problem. They take down calves, sheep, chickens and anything they can get. I know first hand that these wolves don't have enough fear of humans again. When we look back at history of game and managment we can learn from our wrongs and rights. The Black Bear in Michigan is hunted on a close monitor system. The state makes some good revenue on the circus of handing out tags. I think the states could manage it's own wolf issues with a regulated and close watched system. Seems like another simple one to me.......But then again Michigan can't even secure a legal Dove hunting season. Millions of the birds are here but the small group of animal rights activist are working at it......... It is now a dead issue until it goes up for a future vote........

Ignorant people scare me........... Yep, I may as well be ignorant but not to the degree of that insanity......
Rojoe67 is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 04:43 PM   #46
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
One old fashioned way of discouraging wolves and coyotes is to get a German Shepherd or Great Pyranees or two (or any of the other dogs developed as flock guarders)... my understanding is, although low-tech, when properly trained, these guys really work - and they're on the job, even when the farmer is elsewhere or sleeping.
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 04:56 PM   #47
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
Agreed. Same holds true of Cattle Dogs and Aussie Shepherds.

No problem in lush, densely livestocked areas or when the rancher needs to work the herd. But dogs tend to need an active job....herding and the like. They generally will not simply patrol 5 square miles of barren cattle land looking for trouble....at least not day in and day out.

As I understand it, the nature of ranching is that you really aren't out there "tending" every herd on a daily basis. Our TX hunting lease is a 140K acre cattle ranch....count that 11X20 miles! Imagine how many dogs you'd need to control that? And how many more ranch hands you'd need to control the dogs? Imagine the cost of raising, training, feeding and vet bills for the dogs alone!

Besides, the dogs really don't impact the wolf numbers. They just encourage them to move onto your neighbor's property. That's not game management.
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 05:41 PM   #48
CarbineCaleb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
Hmmm... well, not being a rancher, this is getting around the edges of what I know... but I think with the dogs, you have your hyperactive, hypersmart little guys (like Border Collies) whose job it is to keep the animals more or less organized, and also to move them onto fresh pasture or into an enclosure. Then you have your laid back, big brutes, like the Pyranees, that I think just lie about among the animals, and keep a sharp eye for trouble, providing security if needed. Like you're saying, I don't think they really patrol and keep the land predator free, so much as go where the animals go and keep them safe.

At least from what I read about German Shepherds (used to have one), they have the energy, endurance and intellect to do the herding, but also the strength and courage to do the guarding. I haven't really heard about German Shepherds being used for this kind of work in modern times though - more like city jobs - security guard, bomb/drug sniffer, seeing eye dog. Maybe in Germany someone would still breed and train them for livestock duties?
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”
Niels Bohr
CarbineCaleb is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 06:03 PM   #49
redhawk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 752
i find it interesting that most folks who advocate bringing the wolves back usually live quite a distance from where said wolves will actually be. of course CarbineCaleb, i have no idea where you are, so you may live with the wolves, you may not.

but ...
Quote:
Hmmm... well, not being a rancher
indicates to me that you are so gung-ho about bringing the wolves back because they will have no negative impact in your life. perhaps you enjoy going to Yellowstone every few years and are satisfied knowing that wolves are living there.

alot different than actually living with the wolves.

Quote:
One old fashioned way of discouraging wolves and coyotes is to get a German Shepherd or Great Pyranees or two
are you seriously advocating heading off a pack of a dozen or more wild wolves with a couple of domesticated dogs? it sounds like a suicide mission to me.

as far as wolves and bear (polar) in Canada, perhaps that is why the area is so sparsley populated, along with the harsh weather conditions.

you've got to be one tough SOB to make a living in that wilderness.
__________________
{thought cloud}
redhawk41 is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 08:00 PM   #50
redhawk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 752
http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/BIOLOGY.htm
http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/research/c...st%2031(2).PDF
__________________
{thought cloud}
redhawk41 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14878 seconds with 7 queries