Update: Wolf ‘war’ will heat up in Washington and Montana
Washington State’s wolf debate has taken on a new dimension with the announcement by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that a rancher in Stevens County has received a permit to kill a wolf if the animal is caught attacking livestock.
http://www.examiner.com/article/upda...id=db_articles
The terrible thing is that this is such a terrible thing. Man has a right to protect his family and livelihood, and I would just kind of naturally assume that meant killing predators on his land...guess I am wrong, and just another knuckle draggin' Neanderthal...
Originally Posted by Dave Workman
Washington and Montana requires you to ask permission to protect your livelihood? It sounds like the most dangerous predators aren't in the woods and mountains but in Olympia and Billings.
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Washington and Montana requires you to ask permission to protect your livelihood? It sounds like the most dangerous predators aren't in the woods and mountains but in Olympia and Billings
Bingo!
Something is very wrong here. You can thank Bruce Babbitt for the "re-introduction" of wolves.
Babbitt, like as not was simply the means to the end. The fault is in the people themselves allowing their employees to grab that much power in the first place.Bingo!
Something is very wrong here. You can thank Bruce Babbitt for the "re-introduction" of wolves.
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Washington wolf debate enters new, lethal arena
The Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife announced Tuesday that it had killed a wolf in the “Wedge” region of upper Stevens County, and indicated that by Wednesday afternoon, another of the predators would be killed.
http://www.examiner.com/article/wash...id=db_articles
I liked this line:
This is why the rule of Three S exists.If the rancher actually kills a wolf, he will be subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny.
"There is no lie too grotesque, too stupid, or too base for leftist extremists to retell." -- Standing Wolf
Posted from my Ubuntu machine.
Bingo,.....It's worked for many of us down here in AZ.
Chris
Yep.......It is the motto of game violators everywhere!
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.
It's also the motto of private property owners who want to make use of the property that they worked hard to acquire.
"There is no lie too grotesque, too stupid, or too base for leftist extremists to retell." -- Standing Wolf
Posted from my Ubuntu machine.
Rule of Three S?
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Shoot.
Shovel.
Shut up.
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
Ah, now I understand, thank you.
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Tempest in a tea cup...
Wolves kill cattle and sheep and... coyotes. In the past wolves killed so many coyotes that historically, coyotes only lived on the most marginal lands in North America. The eradication of wolves led to the spread of coyotes across the country, and those coyotes are in far denser populations than wolves ever were. And of course, coyotes also kill livestock, they just concentrate on the younger animals.
So, to my way of looking at it, the return of the wolf is just trading one predator for another.
In a wolf pack, only one alpha female will breed. This keeps the pack from overpopulating its territory. Unless... the pack gets heavy losses, whereupon all the females will breed to replace the losses. A decimated pack will break up into pairs to form new packs and take over new territories.
In effect, if you cull an occasional cattle killing wolf from a pack, you just keep their numbers in check. If you shoot them up good, you start a breeding epidemic which moves into new territories.
A Kodiak Bear Mauling: http://www.amazon.com/A-Kodiak-Bear-...910559&sr=1-13
Now that the wolf is off the endangered list in areas where there are enough numbers to be a problem, the states have control over population densities and the issuance of depredation permits. States in these same areas pay compensation to livestock owners if it is deemed that the damage was really caused by wolves. If one does not know this they are uneducated and/or uninformed. I see no other way of how the wolf may restrict a property owner from making use of their property......unless you are little Red Riding Hood on your way to Grandma's house. One does not have to S-S-S anymore unless they are just shooting for the thrill of killing. Generally most S-S-S practitioners are doing it for just that....the thrill to kill something they have no legal right to or any other legitimate reason. They can't really kill a wolf using legal methods......and somehow killing something illegally makes them feel, you know, more like a real man. They are just plain ol' everyday dirtball violators. Those that suggest or condone illegal game violations to others aren't too far behind.
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.
Maybe in some cases, but across the West, a lot of people who simply don't care to feed predators with their cattle, sheep, house pets, llamas, goats, children... have had a rough go of it in some places.
As for your suggestion that there is no legitimate reason to kill a wolf, that's nonsense. Tell that to the parents of the teacher who wass killed by wolves two years ago up in SW Alaska, or the guy who was killed by wolves in northern Canada a few years back. Or tell it to the lady who shot and killed a wolf last fall in a confrontation by Headquarters, Idaho.
There's a rancher in Washington who was issued a permit to kill a wolf, though the Wildlife Department pulled the trigger.
I'd call defense of life and property a good enough reason.
The environmental factions have made it impossible to protect property through multiple lawsuits, so when the Congress turned over management to the states, it was a crippling blow to the greenies, and perhaps overdue.
I know of nobody who approves of poaching or thrill killing, but for someone who shoots a wolf to protect the herd or himself...I don't have a problem with that.
85% of Alaska is wolf habitat, and we've had one person killed in the last 100 years, so they're hardly a menace. How many people are been killed by dogs every year...? Lots.
Even the woman killed was largely responsible for her own demise - yeah, I know that's harsh... But, if you go jogging in the wilderness wearing an Ipod then you're pretty much asking for a predator to drag you down. It's only surprising it was wolves instead of a grizzly.
People should be able to shoot wolves killing their livestock, but let's not let hyperbole make wolves out to be a menace because they simply aren't.
A Kodiak Bear Mauling: http://www.amazon.com/A-Kodiak-Bear-...910559&sr=1-13
You need to go back and reread my post Dave. Maybe slower this time. No where did I say there is no legitimate reason to kill a wolf. The words Kill and Legitimate came in this sentence.......Generally most S-S-S practitioners are doing it for just that....the thrill to kill something they have no legal right to or any other legitimate reason.Those are good reasons Dave, no denying it. But if one truly is shooting in defense of life and property, why the need to S-S-S? Maybe cause it wasn't really a life and death situation? Maybe we just wanted to kill something and now we don't wanna hafta explain it to the authorities? Only reasons I can think of.
....and neither do I. Again reread my post you quoted. All I said is that there is no legitimate reason to violate, and no reason to promote or to suggest to others to violate. There are legal ways to control wolves and to protect livestock. If it is truly a life and death situation it is not violating. Shooting a wolf illegally just cause it's a wolf is.
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.
I'm not an advocate of SSS. That's someone else's foolishness.
I'm no fan of wolves, either, at least, not the way their management is being treated, as if they are some kind of royalty in the animal kingdom.
But, for your further reading enjoyment
Seattle urban v. Washington rural in wolf war
The Seattle Times is finally catching up on its wolf war coverage, but public reaction to Friday’s wolf update about plans to kill at least four of the predators is as interesting, if not moreso – and telling – than the story.
http://www.examiner.com/article/seat...id=db_articles
When the predator has a hunting season or is a protected species and the prey has no legal standing you must prove your property was actually in jeopardy. This means you must allow the predator to actually kill your livestock before you can shoot without the risk of having your weapon confiscated and being charged having to prove your case in court. If the livestock in question has no monetary value- say a barn cat you are particularly fond of that has no desire to be domesticated- you are guaranteed to be found guilty and suffer fines whether the prey is alive or dead. To paraphrase Alice Cooper... Dead coons, can take care of themselves. To directly quote my Dad- I have a rifle, a backhoe and twelve hundred acres where nobody will notice fresh digging, don't mess with my livestock.
When it comes to coyotes, I'm kind and forgiving.
But they get in my chickens when they are tired of living!
Last edited by Selena; September 7th, 2012 at 03:10 PM.
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Perhaps because bureaucrats living elsewhere had deemed the value of the predator to be higher than the value of a person's property? Or maybe because bureaucrats are just . . . too . . . bureaucratic?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...ending-family/
Follow up - criminal charges dropped, but still costs $$$.
http://www.khq.com/story/15413849/ch...killed-grizzly
In this case it was a bear, but much the same could happen with wolves, mountain lions, whatever.
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote