The Firing Line Forums

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

View Poll Results: Should WA State Control their wolf population
Yes, this is an invasive and destructive subspecies. 37 66.07%
No, let nature take it's course. 19 33.93%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 9, 2012, 06:00 PM   #26
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Native Rocky Mountain wolf is now extinct at the hands of the Feds wolf "reintroduction" program. Several of my friends, one a rancher born, and raised here in northern Idaho used to see this wolf very frequently on his property. That is until the Feds "reintroduced" the Mackenzie Valley wolf which has brought this subspecies native wolf into extinction.

Quote:
Canis lupus crassodon (Vancouver Island Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus fuscus (Cascade Mountains Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus hudsonicus (Hudson Bay Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus labradorius (Labrador Wolf-ENDANGERED)
http://canislupus101.blogspot.com/p/wolf-species.html

Here is an excellent commentary and summary of these two subspecies and the impact on the people that now live with this experiment gone wrong.

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Editoria...periment_2.pdf
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 06:10 PM   #27
cornbush
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,390
Religion, bashing, bickering and picking each other apart........ ya this one is done
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident
cornbush is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 10:16 PM   #28
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,187
Id expect the population of wolves in WA and ID are way over the 'target pop' set by CITES when the wolves were listed, probably in the 70s. 6-8 times that population 'goal' that they all agreed on.

In MI there are officially 637, if I recall correctly. Many say it is about 3x that many. In WI, I dont know. Perhaps someone could chime im.

The 'goal' for MI and WI was 100 wolves. When MI should attempt to set a season the weirdos will think the sky is falling.

The best thing we can do in MI is send the wolves back to the HILLS- Irish Hills, Rochester Hills, and Farmington Hills and see how they fit in!!
langenc is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 12:56 AM   #29
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
The data on wolves in the Rockies is that they take 40-50 elk for each wolf each year. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what kind of impact that has on the elk population.

Many of these kills are left to rot without eating in what the scientists call thrill kills just for the fun of it.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 09:24 AM   #30
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,135
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 11:32 AM   #31
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 07:24 AM #30
Strafer Gott
Senior Member

Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 207
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?
+1 Strafer Gott, go hug poison ivy. LOL.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 04:32 PM   #32
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,641
Alaska444: Washington state does have a wolf management plan.

The people that keep crying wolf need to get a grip.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/
Quote:
The purpose of the plan is to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage social tolerance for the species by addressing and reducing conflicts. Goals of the plan are to:

Restore the wolf population in Washington to a self-sustaining size and geographic distribution that will result in wolves having a high probability of persisting in the state through the foreseeable future (>50-100 years).

Manage wolf-livestock conflicts in a way that minimizes livestock losses, while at the same time not negatively impacting the recovery or long-term perpetuation of a sustainable wolf population.

Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters.

Develop public understanding of the conservation and management needs of wolves in Washington, thereby promoting the public’s coexistence with the species.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/0000..._wolf_plan.pdf

Quote:
While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
And yes the plan includes...
Quote:
Lethal Removal

Lethal control of wolves may be necessary to resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts and is performed to remove problem animals that jeopardize public tolerance for overall wolf recovery. Large numbers of wolves have been killed in control actions in both the northern Rocky Mountain states (1,517 wolves from 1987 to 2010, with 7-16% of the population removed annually since 2002; Table 5) and Great Lakes states (3,145 wolves from 1978 to 2008, with 3-4% of the population removed annually; (Table 6) during the recovery of wolf populations. While federally listed, most lethal control of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain states was performed by wildlife agency staff. As wolves became more common, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gradually loosened restrictions on this activity to allow increased take by agency staff and private citizens with a federal permit (Fritts et al. 1992, Bangs et al. 2006). In Washington, if wolves are federally listed in any part of the state, WDFW would consult with and coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any lethal removal proposal to ensure consistency with federal law.
In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, agency decisions to lethally remove wolves have been made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account specific factors such as a pack’s size and conflict history, status and distribution of natural prey in the area, season, age and class of livestock, success or failure of non-lethal tools, and potential for future losses (Sime et al. 2007). Where lethal removal is deemed necessary, incremental control is usually attempted, with one or two offending animals removed initially. If depredations continue, additional animals may be killed. Stepwise incremental control can result in the eventual elimination of entire packs if wolves repeatedly depredate livestock (Sime et al. 2007).
Lethal control of wolves by agency staff can have the advantages of being swift, effective, and tightly regulated. The benefits of allowing lethal removal by livestock producers are that offending wolves are more likely to be targeted, it can eliminate the need for agency control, shooting at wolves may teach them and other pack members to be more wary of humans and to avoid areas of high human activity, it allows producers to address their own problems, and it may reduce animosity toward government agencies and personnel (Bangs et al. 2006). Drawbacks of lethal control are that it is always controversial among a sizeable segment of the public, depredation may recur, there is uncertainty whether the wolves killed were the offending animals, wolves may respond by becoming more active at night to avoid people, it can be costly when performed by agencies, and it is open to abuse when conducted by the public, thereby requiring law enforcement follow-up (Fritts et al. 1992, Musiani et al. 2005, Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Bangs et al. 2006). Two recent analyses of long-term lethal control of wolves found that removals generally have limited or no effect in reducing the recurrence of depredation (Harper et al. 2008, Muhly et al. 2010a).
Here in Washington state we have a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Part of their job is to figure out how to handle the new wolf population. So far they seem to be doing a better job than anyone on the internet.

BTW
Quote:
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
African lions would not be very good at doing the cougars job.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 04:48 PM   #33
ripnbst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,389
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.
ripnbst is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 04:49 PM   #34
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear Buzzcook,

Let's discuss this looking at the data instead of throwing unneeded personal invectives my way.

I am aware of the WA program to PROMOTE wolf populations and I have seen those sites, but that was not the question that I posed. I seriously doubt that WA state will have the political will to control the wolf population through hunting once it reaches a level that seriously impacts other game animal populations and threatens human populations directly through encroachment in suburbs and through public health issues related to the spread of hydatid disease.

Will WA state keep wolf numbers under control through hunting of wolves to prevent damage to the entire ecosystem or will the false propaganda associated with wolves dominate the political debate preventing control of this species leading them to paralysis of what will one day be a significant issue. My guess is that WA will not be able to come to a consensus politically like ID and MT who see the great public health risk posed by wolves and aggressively control their populations and wolves will overwhelm the entire ecosystem. It will be interesting to see how popular those cute little wolves will be in WA state in the next 5-10 years.

Let's stick to the issues since your view is in the minority here on TFL and since we are discussing real issues, TFL has to date allowed the discussion to progress.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 04:52 PM   #35
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 02:48 PM #33
ripnbst
Senior Member

Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 667
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.
Management of most game animal populations almost always involves one form or another of culling a herd of critters when they go beyond their sustainable resources.

Quote:
Types of wildlife management

There are two general types of wildlife management:

Manipulative management acts on a population, either changing its numbers by direct means or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering food supply, habitat, density of predators, or prevalence of disease. This is appropriate when a population is to be harvested, or when it slides to an unacceptably low density or increases to an unacceptably high level. Such densities are inevitably the subjective view of the land owner, and may be disputed by animal welfare interests.

Custodial management is preventive or protective. The aim is to minimize external influences on the population and its habitat. It is appropriate in a national park where one of the stated goals is to protect ecological processes. It is also appropriate for conservation of a threatened species where the threat is of external origin rather than being intrinsic to the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_management
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 07:13 PM   #36
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
I am aware of the WA program to PROMOTE wolf populations
I gave you a link to the wolf management program, you can read it or not as you wish.

Invective? http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...on&FORM=DTPDIA

Quote:
+1 Strafer Gott, go hug poison ivy. LOL
There ya go.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 10, 2012, 07:42 PM   #37
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Already read it and others before I put my post up. The wolf management plan is not my question. The wolf management plan is a "custodial" management plan to increase the wolf population.

My question and my post concerns whether WA will ever must the political will to introduce a "manipulative" management program once the wolf population outstrips its resources as it did in WY/ID and MT? I seriously doubt WA state will muster that political will since the wolf is shrouded in propaganda and the darker side of this killing machine is not mentioned. The Discovery channel program is one example of this propaganda that does not give a clear presentation of why that man was hunting wolves in Idaho.

Instead, they only presented a slanted view of wolves as an endangered creature when that is laughable given their huge numbers in Alaska and Canada. We have had a very sustainable ecology in the Pacific Northwest without any wolves whatsoever. As essential as the propaganda shows allege, game and forest lands have flourished for the several decades these critters were gone.

Now with an invasive subspecies that belongs on the tundra and not in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies bringing in deadly public health diseases to boot, I believe WA state deserves the full truth of the experiment that their state government is about to engage.

If you wish to believe that the Mackenzie Valley wolf is native and belongs here, so be it. The data and information appears to be something you simply wish to ignore. However, 2/3rds of those responding to the poll know the facts and understand the danger of this invasive species. Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on this subject than government websites. That is why I posted this since the majority of people believe what is stated on the Discovery channel program linking in my OP. It is completely devoid of the reality of living with wolves in large numbers.

BTW, hugging poison ivy is quite humorous response and that is why I noted it. Lighten up guy and go learn some more about this entire issue.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 12:31 PM   #38
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,401
Quote:
While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
this is clear and utter nonsense. pure propaganda.
my family owns a large portion of land on Craig MT south of Lewiston and near one of the first canadian gray wolf populations established in Idaho. they have had cattle there since before the indigenous wolves were completely killed out. they rarely lost cattle and when they did it was normally a sickly one that had left the herd to die. there are coyotes, bobcats, cougars, unconfirmed sightings of lynx, dogs,I laugh at the stories of eagles killing livestock but we have those too, foxes, badgers, and bears. the number of livestock that has disappeared or found dead has always remained about the same...until recently. I do not buy for one second that the amount of cattle that my uncles have had disappearing(which has increased exponentially over the the last decade) has anything to do with the NATIVE PREDATORIAL SPECIES. I do believe that these canadian gray wolves that have adapted to a much harsher environment are 100% to blame for the reason that it is next to impossible to get drawn for elk, moose or deer tags in the mountains. it is why I am seeing elk and moose in lower elevations than anyone has seen since the first settlers have arrived. their instincts tell them to kill anything that comes along because in a canadian winter they don't know the next time they will find food again, here in idaho it is not so tough...or at least it wasn't before they started wiping out entire herds of elk and leaving them to rot.
washington is notorious for incredibly strict hunting laws and an inability to deal with over population. along the snake/columbian river basin there are herds of whitetail deer that contain over 400. the land can not sustain a population that large and washington only allows the taking of bucks 2 points or larger(that's 2 points on each antler) so these herds containing over 90% does and most of the bucks being spikes are largely untouched by hunters. they are starving, they are diseased, and washington refuses to thin them out. not only that but they've gone one step further. a handful of people have been taking matters into their own hands and started a non-sanctioned thinning of these herds and washington fish and game started ordering patrol boats on the river to prevent this "poaching" and protect these herds... what is going to happen when all the blacktail, whitetail, mule deer and what few elk they have are gone and the wolves start killing livestock? I think I have a pretty good idea what they will do based on previous population control measures they've taken.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.

Last edited by tahunua001; July 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 12:38 PM   #39
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
+1 tahunua001, great summary of the situation in Idaho and in WA state. I believe that WA state is facing a grave problem in 5-10 years since it is very unlikely that they will have the political will to control this aggressive wolf. Great summary.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 12:50 PM   #40
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,372
Maybe we need to send some of our NM wolves up to the poor guys in Idaho, they're doing population control hunts here. The few grey wolves they introduced don't seem to be making the promised dent.
As for the "50 elk per year per wolf" number, that's 20-30 lbs of meat per day for each wolf. I don't think they'd be running down that many elk with their belly dragging on the ground. 50 elk per pack sounds more reasonable.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 01:11 PM   #41
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,401
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 03:16 PM   #42
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here
Really? You have proof of that?
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 04:07 PM   #43
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 10:50 AM #40
mapsjanhere
Senior Member

Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,078
Maybe we need to send some of our NM wolves up to the poor guys in Idaho, they're doing population control hunts here. The few grey wolves they introduced don't seem to be making the promised dent.
As for the "50 elk per year per wolf" number, that's 20-30 lbs of meat per day for each wolf. I don't think they'd be running down that many elk with their belly dragging on the ground. 50 elk per pack sounds more reasonable.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
Actually the figure is correct. It is about 3 elk per wolf each month according to several studies. That is about 40-50 elk per year.

http://rliv.com/pic/USGS%20Wolf%20Kill%20Rate.pdf

What is not taken into consideration, is that these wolves kill many more animals than they eat. I have foregone placing some of the websites showing how wolves eat the cows from the rear, pull out the entrails and then leave them alive to die a death of pure misery. Thrill kills are a part of the Mackenzie Valley wolf behavior.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 05:13 PM   #44
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 533
Quote:
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.
+1 on wanting to see a source that proves that wolves get that big.

Quote:
We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.
Yup, and there are nine innings. We got rid of wolves and cougars here in Maine, and we got huge coyotes (not 200-300 pounders, but big).
Mainah is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 06:11 PM   #45
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 03:13 PM #44
Mainah
Senior Member

Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 345
Quote:
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.
+1 on wanting to see a source that proves that wolves get that big.

Quote:
We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.
Yup, and there are nine innings. We got rid of wolves and cougars here in Maine, and we got huge coyotes (not 200-300 pounders, but big).
That is not the issue in the wolf "reintroduction" here in the Pacific northwest and northern Rockies. I would have fully supported protecting the returning population of the native Idaho wolf but that is not what the Feds chose to do. They sold the public a bill of goods that is false with an interloper from Canada.

When I lived in Maine we didn't have any moose at all. Now, today, moose are hunted with a recovered population. I suspect in time, the cougars will return as we have sightings of them even in Connecticut of all places. Coyotes are taking over the entire country and are alive and well here in Idaho as well.

The monster wolves from Canada are a true wolf disaster as declared by the Governor of Idaho last year. This has nothing to do the excesses of the past. It has all to do with betrayal and falsehoods perpetrated by the Feds against the populations in these areas.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 09:46 PM   #46
MarkDozier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
FrankenMauser says -Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.
Dude you are so wrong. The breed reintroducing in WA are not native species anymore then scotch-broom is a native weed.
MarkDozier is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 11:20 PM   #47
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,401
^ agreed. there are several different subspecies of gray wolves. saying that these wolves are indigenous because they are gray wolves is like saying that an Akita is a good choice to replace a labrador as a bird dog because...well they are both dogs.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.

Last edited by tahunua001; July 12, 2012 at 07:27 AM.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 11:23 PM   #48
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,641
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...slap-on-wrist/
Quote:
Wolf poachers get more than slap on wrist

A federal judge in Spokane on Wednesday strengthened the penalty against three members of a Twisp family who pleaded guilty to killing wolves from the first wolf pack spotted in Washington since the 1930s.

Senior U.S. District Judge Frem Nielsen confirmed $73,000 fines against William, Tom and Erin White. But he sentenced William White to six months’ home confinement and Tom White to three months.

Under a much-criticized plea bargain agreed to by federal prosecutors, the three poachers were to get off with probation.

The poachers’ crimes came to light when a woman, believed to be Erin White and giving a false name, tried to ship a blood-dripping parcel containing a wolf pelt to Canada from the Federal Express office in Okanogan. She claimed it was a rug.

The two wolves killed were part of the Lookout Pack, first identified in 2008. The pack was reduced to two (possibly three) animals and has not produced pups since the killing. A pack in the Teanaway River, north of Cle Elum, is now the only breeding pack in the Cascades.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 12, 2012, 08:33 AM   #49
mquail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2011
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 145
This isn't the first time this has happened. The eastern peregrine falcon was supposed to be extinct although there were confirmed reports of that peregrine all the way up until 1980. A known wild produced male bred with a released falcon in 1980 and a pair of unbanded birds produced young that same year in Maine. Anyway to make a long story short about 7 subspecies of peregrine were released east of the 100th meridian. The idea was to throw them all together and let nature sort it out. The birds were very successful and have recovered to be delisted in 1998 by the feds. Sadly some states still carry them on their endangered lists.

So far as I know there hasn't been any problems with those birds. They eat a bunch of stuff we'd rather not have such as pigeons and starlings but the facts are the Feds and others released different subspecies of peregrine falcons in the east when they could have waited longer and allowed the Canadian and Western US captive populations of peregrines to begin to produce enough birds to begin releases a few years later. West of the 100th meridian there were populations of peregrines so it was agreed upon to release only birds from that subspecies. For the life of me I can't figure out how the birds could tell where the 100th is. So far as I'm concerned it's water over the dam but I thought I'd bring it up. To so many a peregrine is a peregrine and that's that.

I wonder if the Feds have done this more than a couple of times. Florida panthers? Red wolves? Others?
mquail is offline  
Old July 12, 2012, 09:46 AM   #50
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahunua001
I do not buy for one second that the amount of cattle that my uncles have had disappearing(which has increased exponentially over the the last decade) has anything to do with the NATIVE PREDATORIAL SPECIES.
Tahunua001,

Not to change the subject, but when you say "disappearing" do you mean completely? Like, no trace ever seen again? No carcasses or bones? I ask just because I saw a news story that cattle rustling had been making a big comeback, particularly in the southern states, and wondered if it had maybe worked its way up into your neck of the woods.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:38 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 0.18043 seconds with 8 queries