The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 16, 2011, 02:34 PM   #26
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 11:30 AM #24
sirgilligan
Senior Member

Join Date: October 28, 2009
Location: Utah/Kentucky
Posts: 138
I hunted in Wyoming this year. My family that lives there recommended certain areas to avoid because of the Grizzly. The Grizzly is more aggressive because of the wolves pushing the elk (and other prey) into more populated areas. Now the elk are down amongst the cattle and Wyoming is not a "bangs free" state anymore.
I hadn't put together the grizzly aggressiveness and the wolf population increase, but I think you have made a valid point. Bears may be more on edge finding food and being aware of attack from wolves themselves. Great point sirgilligan.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 03:05 PM   #27
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
+1 these last couple years has shown a huge increase in bear attacks despite decreased numbers of people venturing into the wild
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 03:33 PM   #28
sirgilligan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2009
Posts: 614
Quote:
Bears may be more on edge finding food and being aware of attack from wolves themselves.
Thanks, but I am just reporting what was told by those that have lived there, their family has been there over 100 years now. They know the area, the dangers, the animal populations, the interaction with their cattle herds, all of it.

The main point is that unless you talk to those that deal with it every day and put behind you the stereotype of a rancher being a big dumb brute and realize that ranchers are mechanics, veterinarians, soil conservationists, workers with chemicals, genetics, and a plethora of other sciences and fields of study and take them for their word things would not be where they are now. When they tell me it is too dangerous, I believe them. When the tell me why, and when it started, and how they witnessed the situation progress it all makes sense.

Yes, I am a simple software engineer with a graduate degree in Physical and Mathematical Sciences, but that doesn't make me smart. I grew up on a dairy farm. I treated sick calves, I poured cement, I built buildings, I repaired machinery, and I know, from first hand experience, that farmer, rancher, or computer scientist, people are smart through work and effort and experience. Poor speaking skills or writing skills doesn't make one stupid.

I wonder why it seems, and it does seem so, that people think ranchers and their ilk are stupid. My rule is that if someone thinks someone else is stupid then they are arrogant. I have met very few stupid people. Plenty of ignorant ones, but few stupid ones.

I don't know why I went down this particular rat hole. Sorry.

Local Wyoming ranchers have told me personally that the Grizzly bear is more aggressive since the wolves pushed the food supply into more populated areas. The elk then brought disease to the cattle. It is all connected.
__________________
SirGilligan - "If you find your back is up against a wall, maybe you have been backing up for too long."
iOS Apps: BallisticsGL Gun Log Gun Log SPC WatchForce
sirgilligan is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 04:07 PM   #29
hooligan1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Location: Independence Missouri
Posts: 4,582
They march straighter than some of those REP 63's I trained in the Guard, Captain. They will probablty have to be hunted annually to keep their numbers down, and if the authorities get it right, the state will profit from a good program of season limits and so forth. And that helps the economy at the local level.
__________________
Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.
hooligan1 is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 04:22 PM   #30
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
All you have to do is watch the movie "Cry Wolf".That movie is proof wolves subsist entirely on mice and are nothing to worry about.:-)

I had one elk season in the Flat Tops in Colorado.I missed the next hunt,but two brothers and a friend went back.

All spent a lot of years outdoors in Colorado,all know what a coyote is.One spent his young life living in Alaska,and served on the military there.He knows what wolves are.One of my brothers on this hunt spent his career in SOCOM,and was an A team Commander for many years.

These folks are not prone to sensationalize seeing some coyotes.

They heard wolves,wolve left tracks through camp while they were hunting,and the elk had moved on.

They told DOW,and they said,"No,no wolves in the Flat Tops".Later,they changed their mind,and said there are wolves in the Flat Tops.

Huntergirl,who posted here,encountered wolves in Wyo.I consider her quite credible.

Doggone,I have been on the verge of ordering a Lipsey Special Ruger with Bisley grips....

But that pic is enough to make me think double stack 10 mm,maybe a fusion 1911 kit!!
HiBC is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 06:11 PM   #31
cornbush
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,408
Wolves have expanded alot, they are now about 50 miles outside of Salt Lake City.
I'm all for wolves.......skinned and tanned!
We had a growing number around Bear Lake in south eastern Idaho when I lived there, and you could definitely notice the change in numbers of the rest of the critters around.
Quote:
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.
I whole heartedly agree, maybe we should release a few dozen around Washington DC and see how harmless they are...........
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident
cornbush is offline  
Old December 16, 2011, 11:19 PM   #32
Tuzo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 797
" . . . why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000." In Idaho for 1988 to 2010.

This is true for the Lolo Zone and somewhat true for the Sawtooth Zone. Depletion of elk herds in both zones is primarily due to wolf predation and to periods of harsh weather. Other Idaho elk zones seem to be holding their elk populations at reasonable levels.

Very interesting read - http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf
Tuzo is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 03:13 AM   #33
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
I am not a Zoologist, but I find Zoology interesting.

In principle, I find humanity's constant ability to wipe stuff out, not simply accommodate somewhat depressing.

Still,I do not know the ins and outs of this situation, nor to I have a definitive answer to whether this species ever roamed these areas. So I will leave my own views there for now.

I would like an honest answer though. Do those people who are against this species living in the wild and doing what evolution designed it to do resent it because it is no longer doing what it should be in nature, or because it means they get fewer elk to shoot?

Flame if you will, but I actually just want an honest answer from people.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 03:53 AM   #34
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
As in any invasive species, they are out of place and not doing what "evolution" meant them to do in that ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem has checks and balances for the prey and predators. This is technically an invasive subspecies that is the most aggressive and largest of all the extant wolves. It is also a cruel killing machine that often kills and doesn't bother to eat the kill. Grizzly bears, black bears and mountain lions only kill what they can eat. Not so with this invasive beast. Take a look at the following link to see why ranchers want to rid the land of these beasts. (Not for the faint of heart)

http://washingtonwolf.info/livestock_attacks.html

"Evolution" placed this beast in the northern, subarctic and Arctic regions where caribou have a much better chance of survival in huge numbers than elk, deer and even mountain lions, grizzly bears and black bears who are no longer the highest on the food chain the northern Rockies. They are out of place. This is not an experiment that nature produced but man instead. It is one more in a long line of ill fated interventions in nature by man.

Lastly, look up the history of wolves in Russia and Finland and you will see the battle waged against these beast that are not only deadly in their own right, but also carry a deadly parasite that infects all the creatures in the woods that contaminate themselves in the ever present wolf scat. Humans can bring them home on the bottom of their shoes where people become infected with a parasite that can form huge cysts throughout the body. Treatment for these parasites are less than adequate and they kill many people in Russia and Finland.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010...datid-disease/

Worst of all, the Feds knew all of this information about this subspecies BEFORE they introduced them to a perfectly functioning ecosystem. It is no longer in balance. Wolves are known to eat every game animal in an area until they starve themselves to death unlike most other predators. One wolf will kill up to 50 elk every year. Do the math on how many wolves it takes to wipe out an entire ungulate population.

Most folks truly have never heard the whole story about wolves and why the folks out west hate them with a passion. We did a good thing banishing them to the far reaches of the northern territories nearly a century ago and ridding populated areas of this beast. We are simply foolish to place people, livestock and game animals at risk from this invasive species. The people in Russia and Finland are befuddled by this unique experiment which makes no sense to them. For any one that digs deep into this controversy, I suspect it won't make any sense to them either.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 08:14 AM   #35
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Well, firstly, there are many animals that may hunt and kill for what we may see as just pleasure, or leaving most of the carcass untouched. It is may be means of pack cohesion reinforcement or social structuring. Grizzlies will kill a salmon, just to eat a few grams of roe, killer whales kill a humpback, just to eat the tongue, and cute dolphins do kill for the fun of it, at face value.
Humans do the same: we sometimes kill for a trophy, a tusk or a skin and leave the rest. Humans at least have a moral self awareness allowing us to decide if it is right or wrong.

My point is that this behaviour would not take place if it did not serve some purpose, even if it is not nutritional. Wolves, being fairly intelligent simply would not expend that energy, nor put themselves are risk of physical harm for no benefit at all...
So my guess is they do this for a reason, not because they are inherently "evil".
I have not looked at the link relating to wolf kills. Any animal killed by a predator and not eaten whole, instantaneously is not a pretty sight, not just those by wolves.
The difference with livestock is people attribute a financial value: its not that the wolf kills, its that it affects someone's paycheck.
My point here is that an animal's means of killing can't be used as a legitimate reason to wipe it out again.

I understand that you say that this species is invasive.
I will refrain from judging that one way or the other as other members seem equally sure that it was a native species at sometime in the past. I simply don't know enough about this species to judge.

You also rightly say that human intervention is often cock-eyed and meddlesome, but that statement is even more true of the unfettered eradications and extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.

With respect to disease, wolves are not the only vectors of parasites and disease in the wild. Indeed, this is a potent means of control for any number of species in the wild. There are lots of animal carriers.
Ticks are worse in Scandinavia, or at least far more publicised as a threat than wolf poo. At least with the latter you can wipe your feet, or leave the shoes outside. Not so easy with Borealiosis, or Encephalitis.
Should we wipe out any and all carriers of disease or try and deseminate a viable treatment into their habitat? If not all, then why just wolves on this basis?

My general point in all of this is, if we leave the question of whether they are native or not out, as I don't know either way, all the other reasons could just as easily be pointed at other species than the wolf, yet they are not spoken of with such vehemence.
I'm left with the impression that many dislike either the effect on income (livestock) or the competition for game (hunting sports). That was why I was asking for people's honest views on their reasons against.

BTW, is there a reason you type evolution in inverted commas?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; December 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 08:29 AM   #36
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
In a post above, I tried to address this, PJP.

If the humans hadn't wanted to take over the lands that are prime habitat for the ungulates and wolves, I wouldn't think highly of wolf killers. They serve a purpose when the rest of a population base has no other means of population control other than disease and lack of food. It is best to keep populations in check "mechanically" than to wait until over population puts severe suffering into the equation.

But man is in charge of the critters whether it be thru some religious book one believes or thru legislated powers.

Once we chose to move our pets, livestock, children and belongings into an area to live, we begin making the area suitable.

One thing man has the ability to do is to remove critters that may be thinkin' the man and his charges would fit on their menu or play time list of fun critters to play with.

Not only did we move west but we took over much of the land other critters once had access to.

So now you have fewer elk and other animals. More calving cows and children though.

Everything was fine since wolves were eradicated to a very low population... Some will even say that the original native subspecie was made extinct.

Now we have even MORE humans and FEWER other animals and they think it is smart to introduce a subspecie known as one of the largest to ever roam the face of the earth.

And rather than try this on a smaller scale to try it out using the Red Wolf who roamed up that way as his northern limits...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 08:37 AM   #37
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.
Why? Were the elk populations getting out of control?


Seems like a perfect example of the government fixing something.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:06 AM   #38
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
Seems to me that many government actions are predetermined solutions looking for a problem.
JimPage is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:13 AM   #39
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
Were the elk populations getting out of control?
Perhaps not in the case of elk population, but extinctions are happeining left right and centre and typically the result of carelessness or short-sightedness and sometimes the solutions are not as simple as a reintroduction.

Our attitude to how we interact with our environments (I won't call it manage as I believe that to be a fallacy) is historically nothing to be proud of and yet we continue in the same manner....
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:42 AM   #40
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
@Hogdogs

I can see where you are coming from and to add to it I would firstly say that we are not in charge of the critters. We only think we are.

They and the systems they inhabit, the laws of nature and physics don't give two hoots for whatever our various writings may proclaim.
It just doesn't work that way.

However, your observation about the ratio and movement of Man and how these wolves interact with that movement is probably right. They do appear to be in direct competition.

Based on that it seems that the reason there are fewer elk is more a product of man's growing activities rather than those of wolves.
This reintroduction is simply exacerbating Man's own effects.

So, my view is that there is just as strong an arguement for changing our behaviours in this and other environments as there is an arguement against reintroducing wolves. Both actions would have beneficial effects on elk populations.

Needless to say, I can guess which comes in second place.

The questions that come to mind for me are:
What will happen to the elk populations if Man's expansion is such that they then become the nuisance species?
Will they, too, become candidates for eradication?
Or will they die out just because we clear their habitats of trees?

It is also worth noting that, arguably, livestock is probably more of an invasive species than the wolves...

Either way, thanks for helping to answer my question.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; December 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:43 AM   #41
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
For those will all the skill points in self delusion, maybe read up on the facts. The grey wolf is the natural species for the Rockies and beyond, the red wolf never extended much past the south eastern US. As for their reintroduction, all we're doing is maintaining a highly artificial zoo anyway. The dominant species are human and cattle, we're just assigning some spots for our preferred "wild" animals. Elk hunts like more elk, less wolf, people getting their food from the supermarket believe in "natural balance". It's just like balancing the budget without touching social security, medicare and defense spending; if you've reserved 98% of land for human use the rest is just pretending.
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 10:42 AM   #42
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
mquail stated...
Quote:
The photo is real and was taken by Chadden Hunter in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park

http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com/bl...ack-train.html
So I am curious. How is it that the wolves in the OP image are any threat to elk in Wyoming some 1100 miles away? It would appear that the entire basis of this thread is centered around incorrect information - using a misattributed image of a large wolf pack that isn't even the same subspecies about which folks are complaining.

Quote:
I am pretty sure that the elk populations are not what they were in the early 1800's before man moved into their territory.
In North America, 'man' has been in elk territory for at least the last 12,000 years or so. Those involved in the largely anglo-oriented 1800s Manifest Destiny were not the first humans into the elk territory and not even the first westerners there. Historically, elk had a near bi-coastal distribution and were encountered by early French and Spanish explorers in Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California (and probably in several other states as well). Many of these explorations were soon followed by settlements in elk territory well prior to the 1800s.

Quote:
and I cant believe the level of ignorance here. the indigenious wolves of the contiguous US are red wolves. lone hunters, high infant mortality rates, a good 30-50 pounds lighter than gray wolves and they didn't carry disease. they were little more than coyotes.
Well that makes two of us given that your statement about red wolves is incorrect. Gray wolves are here naturally, entering the New World near the end of the Pleistocene along with a variety of other animals that are considered indigenous to North America. Red wolves never roamed the contiguous US, but were largely limited to the easter portion of the US and up into Canada. Red wolves are not special or magical in any way when it comes to disease. They suffer pretty much the full range of diseases common to many mammals and in particular to canids.

You are right in that red wolves are one of the smaller varieties and they often do hunting singly. This is because their primary prey are smaller animals such as rabbits and rodents. They also pair hunt and they will pack hunt, however, when trying to take larger prey such as deer.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/red-wolf-facts.html
http://library.fws.gov/Pubs4/endangered_red_wolves.pdf
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/redwolf.htm

If by your what you said you are suggesting that gray wolves are not indigenous to the United States because they originated in the Old World and came to the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, hence the gray wolves don't belong here, then neither do the elk that are the focus of the OP. Elk also entered the New World along with Gray Wolves at the end of the Pleistocene.

Quote:
pictures of the old timers with wolves are pictures of red wolves, not gray wolves. if they weren't in black and white then maybe some people could open their eyes to the stupidity that was the introduction of gray wolves to the US.
You know, there were a lot of biologists and naturalists documenting North American wildlife back at least as far as the 1700s and before photography, and there are no red wolf records from the western US, but there were plenty of gray wolves. See...
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3747/0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wol...istoric_record

Also see...
Hall and Kelson's Mammals of North America which is a compendium of traits, documented ranges, and marginal records as well.
http://www.science.smith.edu/departm...22-01-0001.pdf
http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf...37-01-0001.pdf
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; December 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 11:27 AM   #43
Ricky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: N.California
Posts: 408
Wolves

This past August my wife and I visited Yellowstone N.P.. We spent spent most of our time in the Lamar valley where we saw 4 or 5 wolves, 3 Grizzly bears as well as elk, antelope, coyote and a few thousand buffalo.
I don't at all think that this makes me an expert on the topic. I talked to a lot of people who visit the park quite often. Several people told me similar tales of a few years after the wolves were re-introduced to the park there were large, healthy packs of wolves and it seems that is wasn't uncommon to see wolves take down elk. The elk in the park didn't know how to deal with the wolves, they were fairly easy prey. Over time the elk have learned how to deal with the wolves and don't put themselves in the places where they are easy pickins. The wolves also have succumbed to mange and distemper, greatly decreasing their numbers. It has taken time but there seems that nature has balanced the animal population pretty well without people shooting the wolves.
The day before we arrived a spike elk was killed ( presumably by wolves or a grizzly bear ) on the bank of the Lamar river. We were able to see at least 2 grizzly bears and several wolves taking turns eating on the carcass for 4 days until the meat was gone. The bears eat when they want and the wolves wait their turn from maybe 20 yards away. I guess if there were enough wolves they might eat first but I don't think anything less than 6 wolves would mess with a grizzly. During our time there we didn't see more than 3 wolves in the same area. I was told there are now 2 small packs of wolves in and near the Lamar valley.

Last edited by Ricky; December 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM.
Ricky is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 11:55 AM   #44
mquail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2011
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 148
Quote:
The wolves also have succumbed to mange and distemper, greatly decreasing their numbers. It has taken time but there seems that nature has balanced the animal population pretty well without people shooting the wolves.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regio...dfdb4b11e.html
mquail is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 12:49 PM   #45
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 01:01 PM   #46
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
I allways felt that the re-introduction of wolves was a bad idea thought up by people who don't live there and have no real concept of the reality of the situation. You know, PETA philes. If I lived up there I would shoot them on sight regardless of what Washington thought, just like the feral hogs down here. At least the pigs taste good!
arch308 is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 01:02 PM   #47
mquail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2011
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 148
Quote:
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.
A friend of mine who works for the Govt origionally told me about the origin of mange. I didn't believe him! I do now.

When it comes to wolves I'm on the fence. I think they have a place as a big game animal in the US and can fill a niche in the wild. But we've changed things so much in the last couple of hundred years those niches that have been vacated were often filled by those critters that could such as the coyote or they don't exist now. Anyway I think the wolf is here to stay though how many is probably the most important question.

Last edited by mquail; December 17, 2011 at 01:40 PM.
mquail is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 01:03 PM   #48
Ridgerunner665
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2007
Location: Upper East Tennessee
Posts: 476
The problem is.....they released the wolves in Yellowstone, but they didn't stay there. They were supposed to keep a close eye on the population, but they didn't!

Now there are wolves scattered from Oregon to Michigan...not so long ago I was one of those guys saying that a few wolves would be a good thing. But after seeing what they have done to the elk herds...I say


KILL EM ALL!...every last one of them! We no longer have room for them here...thats the difference between the lower 48 and Canada. Canada has LOTS, LOTS more wilderness than the US....they still have room for nature to take care of itself up there....down here we have taken too much land for farming and agriculture, that leaves no room for wolves.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 01:16 PM   #49
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 01:26 PM   #50
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 10:16 AM #49
kraigwy
Senior Member

Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 6,134
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

+1, Just one more way the govn't is making everyone dependent on them in total. The wolf reintroduction is making havoc with subsistance hunting here in Idaho. I know folks that need to put an elk and a deer in the freezer every year to feed the family. The govn't knows that as well.
Alaska444 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 06:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11029 seconds with 8 queries