Paul- I'm not Ithaca, but I will give you my opinion of the WY plan. I believe it is the predator status in some parts of the state that is the biggest sticking point and the part I disagree with. I don't the the 'pro-wolf' crowd or the fed. gov. will allow for an open season on these animals anywhere and at any time. I think if that part of the plan was restructured (like a more liberal tag allotment etc.) that the plan would have a better chance of getting accepted.
Killing Machines - Wolves
- Thread starter Leanwolf
- Start date
I was not going to get involved in this one but I live right in the middle of wolf country and deal with them often. On our farm we have had several cattle killed over the last few years by wolves. You call the Wardens out and they send trappers to investigate. Results Well there is definately wolf sign all over but we can not conclude the kill was 100 percent wolf. Must have been lightning or something. When the cows are calfing the wolves would come right up behing the shed and take the calf as it was born. Conclusion, well can't shoot them but was told to shoot by them to try and scare them off. What do you think happens if you start shooting at 3 in the morning in the barnyard with a bunch of pregnet cows. Ya they run fall down and loose the unborn calf. Anothr time the Warden came by and said wolves couldn't of taken that yearling - there are three deer right over there. All I could say was what is easier a yealing in a fenced in pasture or a deer in the wide open. What would you rather eat prime rib or venison in feb. For the deer well in our area they run them 12 months out of the year. If wolves are there the deer are gone. When the wolves leave the deer come back. The do not eat the young and sick they kill what ever they can catch. And yes I say kill because I have seen first hand where wolves have gotten into deer yards and left without eating what they killed or left alive to die with wounds. The local warden had to shoot the ones still alive. Yes dogs and coyotes do this too. We have always had a few wolves around and as the population grew so did the problems. As with everything there has to be a balance.
Muledeer4me
New member
Gun Dog,thank you for posting.
I hear the same type of stuff from other people that live in and around the area's the wolves are.
It's hard for anyone to tell you that you are lying when it is thing's you are seeing up close and personal.
Paul, The post from the bow sight,is one of the best I have read as it put's alot of the thing's some of us have been trying to say down in a more readable manner.
Not all of us are computer wise or have the time to cut and past everything we come across.
Great Stuff guy's.
I hear the same type of stuff from other people that live in and around the area's the wolves are.
It's hard for anyone to tell you that you are lying when it is thing's you are seeing up close and personal.
Paul, The post from the bow sight,is one of the best I have read as it put's alot of the thing's some of us have been trying to say down in a more readable manner.
Not all of us are computer wise or have the time to cut and past everything we come across.
Great Stuff guy's.
Ithaca 37
New member
Paul, The thing I don't like about the WY plan is that it's not going to be accepted by the Feds. It's holding up the delisting. The Feds aren't going to go along with some plan that allows a state to classify the wolves as a predator with an open season on them any time someone sees one outside some boundary.
So if the WY legislature thinks they can win in a standoff over wolf plans they are crazy. They'd be better off coming up with a plan that has a realistic chance of being accepted by the F&W Service, as the other states have done.
That's what I don't like about it.
What do you like about it? Just the fact that the WY Legislature is going around tilting at windmills? That's what it amounts to.
So if the WY legislature thinks they can win in a standoff over wolf plans they are crazy. They'd be better off coming up with a plan that has a realistic chance of being accepted by the F&W Service, as the other states have done.
That's what I don't like about it.
What do you like about it? Just the fact that the WY Legislature is going around tilting at windmills? That's what it amounts to.
BigHornyRam
New member
Ithaca and 1 pointer,
Minnesota has a line in the sand, wolves OK here but not OK there. Why can't Wyoming? Coyotes are considered preditors or varmints and are doing quite well for themselves. Why would you think wolves would be wiped out under similar status? What if Wyoming guarentees a minimum number of packs at all times? If the number of packs drops to 10 then the preditor status goes on stand by. This would allow for control for ranchers, and guarentee that the wolves would not be exterminated. Would this work for you guys, and more importantly for the feds? Why or why not?
If Wyoming gets the wolf delisted, they certainly will not kill them off so they can be relisted. They know they need to maintain 10 breeding pairs. They will not go out of their way to kill wolves just to kill them. They just want to be able to kill the wolves that are getting in trouble, WHEN they are getting in trouble. The Wyoming plan addresses these issues very well in my opinion.
Paul
Minnesota has a line in the sand, wolves OK here but not OK there. Why can't Wyoming? Coyotes are considered preditors or varmints and are doing quite well for themselves. Why would you think wolves would be wiped out under similar status? What if Wyoming guarentees a minimum number of packs at all times? If the number of packs drops to 10 then the preditor status goes on stand by. This would allow for control for ranchers, and guarentee that the wolves would not be exterminated. Would this work for you guys, and more importantly for the feds? Why or why not?
If Wyoming gets the wolf delisted, they certainly will not kill them off so they can be relisted. They know they need to maintain 10 breeding pairs. They will not go out of their way to kill wolves just to kill them. They just want to be able to kill the wolves that are getting in trouble, WHEN they are getting in trouble. The Wyoming plan addresses these issues very well in my opinion.
Paul
BuzzH
Well-known member
Where to start on this one...
Paul C. said, "Coyotes are considered preditors or varmints and are doing quite well for themselves. Why would you think wolves would be wiped out under similar status?"
In case you didnt notice there is quite a big difference between coyotes and wolves. Do you have any idea how many coyotes there are in Wyoming? Do you also have any idea how few wolves there are in Wyoming? Lets see, I get into a pack of 10 wolves and blast the shit out of them, I've severly reduced the population. I go out in a day and shoot 10 coyotes, then 500 come to their funeral. Get the idea?
Paul C. said, "What if Wyoming guarentees a minimum number of packs at all times?"
They have to already under the initial wolf management plan, that wouldnt be changing or guaranteeing anything they arent already required to do.
Paul said, "This would allow for control for ranchers, and guarentee that the wolves would not be exterminated. Would this work for you guys, and more importantly for the feds? Why or why not?"
Once the wolf is delisted they will have more authority to deal with problem wolves. Remember, once the wolf is delisted, the management will fall under state control. That will give them a lot more latitude.
Paul said, "If Wyoming gets the wolf delisted, they certainly will not kill them off so they can be relisted. They know they need to maintain 10 breeding pairs. They will not go out of their way to kill wolves just to kill them. They just want to be able to kill the wolves that are getting in trouble, WHEN they are getting in trouble. The Wyoming plan addresses these issues very well in my opinion."
I dont agree, people have been killing wolves all along "just to kill them". Its been all over the news. This in spite of the fact they could get in some real serious trouble with the feds. How many ranchers, hunters, etc. currently shoot coyotes, "just to shoot them"?
Bottom line is the Wyoming plan wont work because no measure of protection is given to the wolves outside the Wilderness or the Park. No animal in Wyoming under the classification of "predator" is protected at any time. This would include the wolf if Wyoming classifies it as such. Its that simple, and its been stated by both sides thats the intent of Wyomings plan. Ranchers want the absolute authority to kill any wolf on sight outside the boundaries, whether its killing stock or not.
That doesnt make a lick of sense and will only mean that in a very short time the feds will step in and take control, not only in Wyoming, but also in MT and ID. If the states want more say and more control they need to delist. Anything that is slowing this process will only mean the feds remaining to control wolves. Meanwhile the wolf population continues to build, while WY plays hardball.
If you want more wolves, support Wyomings classification.
Paul C. said, "Coyotes are considered preditors or varmints and are doing quite well for themselves. Why would you think wolves would be wiped out under similar status?"
In case you didnt notice there is quite a big difference between coyotes and wolves. Do you have any idea how many coyotes there are in Wyoming? Do you also have any idea how few wolves there are in Wyoming? Lets see, I get into a pack of 10 wolves and blast the shit out of them, I've severly reduced the population. I go out in a day and shoot 10 coyotes, then 500 come to their funeral. Get the idea?
Paul C. said, "What if Wyoming guarentees a minimum number of packs at all times?"
They have to already under the initial wolf management plan, that wouldnt be changing or guaranteeing anything they arent already required to do.
Paul said, "This would allow for control for ranchers, and guarentee that the wolves would not be exterminated. Would this work for you guys, and more importantly for the feds? Why or why not?"
Once the wolf is delisted they will have more authority to deal with problem wolves. Remember, once the wolf is delisted, the management will fall under state control. That will give them a lot more latitude.
Paul said, "If Wyoming gets the wolf delisted, they certainly will not kill them off so they can be relisted. They know they need to maintain 10 breeding pairs. They will not go out of their way to kill wolves just to kill them. They just want to be able to kill the wolves that are getting in trouble, WHEN they are getting in trouble. The Wyoming plan addresses these issues very well in my opinion."
I dont agree, people have been killing wolves all along "just to kill them". Its been all over the news. This in spite of the fact they could get in some real serious trouble with the feds. How many ranchers, hunters, etc. currently shoot coyotes, "just to shoot them"?
Bottom line is the Wyoming plan wont work because no measure of protection is given to the wolves outside the Wilderness or the Park. No animal in Wyoming under the classification of "predator" is protected at any time. This would include the wolf if Wyoming classifies it as such. Its that simple, and its been stated by both sides thats the intent of Wyomings plan. Ranchers want the absolute authority to kill any wolf on sight outside the boundaries, whether its killing stock or not.
That doesnt make a lick of sense and will only mean that in a very short time the feds will step in and take control, not only in Wyoming, but also in MT and ID. If the states want more say and more control they need to delist. Anything that is slowing this process will only mean the feds remaining to control wolves. Meanwhile the wolf population continues to build, while WY plays hardball.
If you want more wolves, support Wyomings classification.
Paul- I think the inherent differences between wolves and coyotes preclude them from being able to be held to the same standards. They are different enough, IMO, that a blanket management policy wouldn't work. FWIW, I don't think they would be wiped out either by having a predator status. If this was to happen I think it (predator status) should only be on private lands at a maximum. On public lands, I think there should be more regulated management (ie tags or a quota).
My main problem is with WY proposing a plan, which I'm sure, that they knew had no chance of passing. Why? I feel they would be better off in the long run by giving more to gain more, as Buzz outlined. Once they are delisted they would have more control for problem animals, but they are just extending the time til they can do so.
My main problem is with WY proposing a plan, which I'm sure, that they knew had no chance of passing. Why? I feel they would be better off in the long run by giving more to gain more, as Buzz outlined. Once they are delisted they would have more control for problem animals, but they are just extending the time til they can do so.
Ithaca 37
New member
Mike,
"what ever hppened to letting the states run the states??"
That's not going to happen so you might as well get used to it and the WY ranchers might as well quit playing games if they want wolves delisted. Who are they hurting while they play their games---besides themselves?
Buzz and 1 pointer, Thanks for explaining this stuff. I'm real busy for awhile and don't have time to post.
"what ever hppened to letting the states run the states??"
That's not going to happen so you might as well get used to it and the WY ranchers might as well quit playing games if they want wolves delisted. Who are they hurting while they play their games---besides themselves?
Buzz and 1 pointer, Thanks for explaining this stuff. I'm real busy for awhile and don't have time to post.
To start the whole thing off, the pro wolf people all stated that these predators could be trained and maintained, any one with any sense, knew this was a big farce, some animals can be conditioned, and some just become sneakier... It was also stated that after a certain amount of time that the Feds would step away from the can of worms they opened and let the states then have the mess. Of course they flowered it up a lot to get the news to report what they wanted the general public to hear, not really the truth. I am all for Wy. not wanting to kowtow to the feds on this subject and just blindly role over and give them the power to rough shod over there state like the rest of the states have, if one looks at the whole picture here, and not just the subject at hand. This is nothing more than a play for the pro-wolfers or any of these organizations to show the kind of muscle they have and push some thing down every ones throats with out putting out what the truth really is. Just one more way to push their selfish agenda, it shouldn't matter to these people any way, the wolf, griz, spotted owl...etc...have nothing really to do with these people’s lives any way. Just another drum to beat and another $$$ to requisition from the fed. Gov. on studies and other what nots to feed their own personal vanities and to see how many sheep (people) will buy into their nonsense...
Ithaca 37
New member
Even in Idaho, the polls show that the majority of people want wolves reintroduced.
funny how nobody ever asked me..
funny how I don't know of anybody that was asked.
Could that be because most of the people I know feel the same way as I do about this whole mess?
I have seen several polls conducted on hunting boards and they have all ran heavily against wolf reintroduction.
I will start another thread asking if people ever participared in a poll?
funny how I don't know of anybody that was asked.
Could that be because most of the people I know feel the same way as I do about this whole mess?
I have seen several polls conducted on hunting boards and they have all ran heavily against wolf reintroduction.
I will start another thread asking if people ever participared in a poll?
BigHornyRam
New member
Buzz,
Did you attend the recent Wyoming wolf meetings? Did you talk to any USFWS representitives while you were at these meetings. Lots of other cards the wolf wackos are going to try to play other than pounding on Wyomings plan. Are you ready to defend delisting or not? Yes or no. Will Jellystone, Teton, and surrounding wilderness support 10 packs of wolves. If yes than I have no problem with Wyomings plan and neither will the courts.
Paul
Did you attend the recent Wyoming wolf meetings? Did you talk to any USFWS representitives while you were at these meetings. Lots of other cards the wolf wackos are going to try to play other than pounding on Wyomings plan. Are you ready to defend delisting or not? Yes or no. Will Jellystone, Teton, and surrounding wilderness support 10 packs of wolves. If yes than I have no problem with Wyomings plan and neither will the courts.
Paul
Ithica,
those polls are a joke!!!!
lets assume there are roughly 5 million people in Id, Wy, Mt. those polls typically are around 500 people.
so that would mean that 1 person in Idaho Falls was polled?
Where did they conduct those polls? in one of the ritzie upscale boise neiborhoods that are mostly a bunch of califorication transplants?
If you polled 5000 people that is still only 1000 0f the aproximatly 5 mill in the three states.
It would be simple to poll areas that are conservative to get those polls to show exactly what they do.
Before I put any stock in those polls I would like to see how, where, when, and by whom they were conducted.
those polls are a joke!!!!
lets assume there are roughly 5 million people in Id, Wy, Mt. those polls typically are around 500 people.
so that would mean that 1 person in Idaho Falls was polled?
Where did they conduct those polls? in one of the ritzie upscale boise neiborhoods that are mostly a bunch of califorication transplants?
If you polled 5000 people that is still only 1000 0f the aproximatly 5 mill in the three states.
It would be simple to poll areas that are conservative to get those polls to show exactly what they do.
Before I put any stock in those polls I would like to see how, where, when, and by whom they were conducted.
Ithaca 37
New member
mike, You must not know anything about random sampling and how polls are taken.
Here's one of the polls:
Idaho Poll Indicates that Idahoans Want Wolves to Remain in Yellowstone
from The Spokesman-Review
A recent poll taken in Idaho indicates that the majority of Idahoans support Yellowstone's wolves.
Of the 200 Idaho residents randomly selected to participate in the poll, 55% supported the Yellowstone and central Idaho wolf reintroduction program. Only one in three said that the wolves should be removed. 60% said they strongly believe that humans have a moral obligation to save wolves from extinction.
http://www.yellowstone.net/newspaper/news021198.htm
"Ferris acknowledges that a vocal minority among rural residents will always oppose wolf restoration. He is quick, however, to cite polls in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, all far more rural in nature than California, that show a majority of residents support wolf restoration efforts. And another recent poll taken in Oregon this past spring came to the same conclusion: most of the state's citizens, even in rural areas, support wolf restoration in their state. Indeed, the only group that consistently opposes wolf restoration is livestock producers.
http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/winter2000/html/wolf2.html
Even in WY more people said "Yes"
The sample size was 816 persons. Forty-six per cent supported allowing wolves to roam outside Yellowstone, while 43 per cent did not. This is not a statistically significant difference. It would be pretty hard to devise a wolf management alternative that would please a state so divided. It is important to note that only 11 per cent were undecided or gave no opinion. This indicates to me that opinions are probably set.
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wywolfpoll.html
In Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, cattle and sheep interests financed a major education effort. Yet, even here in the heart of cattle country, the public saw through the propaganda and chose the wolf.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/yeswolf.html
Notice the chart!!
Here's the search results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=majority+idaho +want+wolves+poll&btnG=Google+Search
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2003 17:04: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
Here's one of the polls:
Idaho Poll Indicates that Idahoans Want Wolves to Remain in Yellowstone
from The Spokesman-Review
A recent poll taken in Idaho indicates that the majority of Idahoans support Yellowstone's wolves.
Of the 200 Idaho residents randomly selected to participate in the poll, 55% supported the Yellowstone and central Idaho wolf reintroduction program. Only one in three said that the wolves should be removed. 60% said they strongly believe that humans have a moral obligation to save wolves from extinction.
http://www.yellowstone.net/newspaper/news021198.htm
"Ferris acknowledges that a vocal minority among rural residents will always oppose wolf restoration. He is quick, however, to cite polls in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, all far more rural in nature than California, that show a majority of residents support wolf restoration efforts. And another recent poll taken in Oregon this past spring came to the same conclusion: most of the state's citizens, even in rural areas, support wolf restoration in their state. Indeed, the only group that consistently opposes wolf restoration is livestock producers.
http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/winter2000/html/wolf2.html
Even in WY more people said "Yes"
The sample size was 816 persons. Forty-six per cent supported allowing wolves to roam outside Yellowstone, while 43 per cent did not. This is not a statistically significant difference. It would be pretty hard to devise a wolf management alternative that would please a state so divided. It is important to note that only 11 per cent were undecided or gave no opinion. This indicates to me that opinions are probably set.
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wywolfpoll.html
In Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, cattle and sheep interests financed a major education effort. Yet, even here in the heart of cattle country, the public saw through the propaganda and chose the wolf.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/yeswolf.html
Notice the chart!!
Here's the search results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=majority+idaho +want+wolves+poll&btnG=Google+Search
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2003 17:04: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
Ithaca 37
New member
"Wyoming official admits faulty wolf plan needs changes"
"Wyoming's current plan to manage wolves probably won't be acceptable to the federal government and will need to be altered before it's finalized early next year, said the director of the state's Game and Fish Department."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2002/12/14/build/wyoming/25-wolves.inc
"Wyoming's current plan to manage wolves probably won't be acceptable to the federal government and will need to be altered before it's finalized early next year, said the director of the state's Game and Fish Department."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2002/12/14/build/wyoming/25-wolves.inc
Muledeer4me
New member
"bunch of califorication transplants?"
Hey Mike ,now go easy on some of us california transplants
Calif.Hunter,although still living there has more sense then some people I know from this state
Hey Mike ,now go easy on some of us california transplants
Calif.Hunter,although still living there has more sense then some people I know from this state
Paul C, "I am getting the picture"- don't worry about"nasty words" I've got thick skin, thanks for noting it though.
Michealr, originally when i entered this discussion i did so after reading alot of hate post towards the wolf. My impression was that you guys hated wolves and we should kill them all, however because it carries such stiff penalties we should just injure them and let them die on their own ( read under sportsmans issues) That is not right and therefore i entered the discussion. After reading the posts and hearing from so many different individuals I have to say I am seeing your issues clearly and that I agree. It is not that everyone hates the wolf it is clear that you guys hate the way the wolf was rammed down your throats. Who wouldn't dislike anything rammed down their throats. you mention a critical factor in this whole debate "the number of people". Wolves and large numbers of people do not mix. The more wolves that inhabit a populated area the more problems that will occur. That is not good for people and is definitely not good for wolves. I truly beleive that our world has been mezmorized by Walt Disney Movies. I would challenge anyone in Canada or the Us to find one person who has never heard of Bambi. The problem with Disney is they do not depict wildlife the way it really is. Anyone who has spent time in nature knows it can be a brutal place where survival is a daily chore until one day you die! When you die it isn't usually from old age and very peaceful it is usually the opposite. My own kids watch Disney and enjoy it, however they also understand the role we play as ethical hunters, and they understand that what they are watching is not exactly what it is like out there! I believe there are alot of people making decisions as to where they stand on this issue based on mezmorized love affair with the cuddly wolf. Cuddly they are not. Personally while hunting wolves I have been hunted. One of the tactics we use is to travel in wolf country the first day. You get noticed because you are in their area. I slow my pace and begin dragging a leg to simulate injury on the second day. By the third day I will lay down in an opening perfectly still for hours as the wolves move closer. At the right time I begin shooting using my 30-30 winchester. If I was in fact injured and unarmed you would not hear of my attack, only that I went missing never to be found. Wolves are opportunistic feeders. The reason i am rambling these stories is to highlight the point that urban dwellers do not have negative experiences with wolves because the only exposure they have to them are under controlled circumstances. They are not directly affected by the decisions they make in the "polls" that are conducted. They have the numbers over rural dwellers and always will. The power of their numbers will always slant the polls that are taken and therefore these polls must be looked at with a skeptical eye. I read the poll conducted by Dateline. People sitting in their warm living room relaxing watching tv take 30 seconds to make a call that has no direct impact on them. Too easy. Put each pollster into a wolf inhabited area for one year. An equal balance of rural people who are against the wolf and urban people who are for the wolf. After one year poll that group and I beleive you would see different results because you have brought the pollsters onto an even playing field. The other problem with polls is what are the questions? If each person included in this discussion were polled and asked "Do you feel the wolf should be exterminatd from the US" yes or no. I believe the answer would be no, however the true feelings of the group have not been captured. Living in Northern Ontario I am very aware of issues being rammed down our throat because the populated cities to the south have created the legislation that affects us and we have very little say because our number are low. a perfect example is the recent legislation that came into effect january 1,2003 with regards to firearm registration. Rural Canada was against it but the city slickers feeling it will curb crime in their city voted it in. It is total bs and does not do what it was intended to do. ( another whole discussion) In summary I understand your issues and agree that the reintroduction was not fair in that it does not provide for population control and it negatively affects people's livelihood. It is different than wolves in my area because they occur naturally and therefore they are managing their own population. The government was wrong and therefore should recognize what is happening and change it(probably wishful thinking)
Michealr, originally when i entered this discussion i did so after reading alot of hate post towards the wolf. My impression was that you guys hated wolves and we should kill them all, however because it carries such stiff penalties we should just injure them and let them die on their own ( read under sportsmans issues) That is not right and therefore i entered the discussion. After reading the posts and hearing from so many different individuals I have to say I am seeing your issues clearly and that I agree. It is not that everyone hates the wolf it is clear that you guys hate the way the wolf was rammed down your throats. Who wouldn't dislike anything rammed down their throats. you mention a critical factor in this whole debate "the number of people". Wolves and large numbers of people do not mix. The more wolves that inhabit a populated area the more problems that will occur. That is not good for people and is definitely not good for wolves. I truly beleive that our world has been mezmorized by Walt Disney Movies. I would challenge anyone in Canada or the Us to find one person who has never heard of Bambi. The problem with Disney is they do not depict wildlife the way it really is. Anyone who has spent time in nature knows it can be a brutal place where survival is a daily chore until one day you die! When you die it isn't usually from old age and very peaceful it is usually the opposite. My own kids watch Disney and enjoy it, however they also understand the role we play as ethical hunters, and they understand that what they are watching is not exactly what it is like out there! I believe there are alot of people making decisions as to where they stand on this issue based on mezmorized love affair with the cuddly wolf. Cuddly they are not. Personally while hunting wolves I have been hunted. One of the tactics we use is to travel in wolf country the first day. You get noticed because you are in their area. I slow my pace and begin dragging a leg to simulate injury on the second day. By the third day I will lay down in an opening perfectly still for hours as the wolves move closer. At the right time I begin shooting using my 30-30 winchester. If I was in fact injured and unarmed you would not hear of my attack, only that I went missing never to be found. Wolves are opportunistic feeders. The reason i am rambling these stories is to highlight the point that urban dwellers do not have negative experiences with wolves because the only exposure they have to them are under controlled circumstances. They are not directly affected by the decisions they make in the "polls" that are conducted. They have the numbers over rural dwellers and always will. The power of their numbers will always slant the polls that are taken and therefore these polls must be looked at with a skeptical eye. I read the poll conducted by Dateline. People sitting in their warm living room relaxing watching tv take 30 seconds to make a call that has no direct impact on them. Too easy. Put each pollster into a wolf inhabited area for one year. An equal balance of rural people who are against the wolf and urban people who are for the wolf. After one year poll that group and I beleive you would see different results because you have brought the pollsters onto an even playing field. The other problem with polls is what are the questions? If each person included in this discussion were polled and asked "Do you feel the wolf should be exterminatd from the US" yes or no. I believe the answer would be no, however the true feelings of the group have not been captured. Living in Northern Ontario I am very aware of issues being rammed down our throat because the populated cities to the south have created the legislation that affects us and we have very little say because our number are low. a perfect example is the recent legislation that came into effect january 1,2003 with regards to firearm registration. Rural Canada was against it but the city slickers feeling it will curb crime in their city voted it in. It is total bs and does not do what it was intended to do. ( another whole discussion) In summary I understand your issues and agree that the reintroduction was not fair in that it does not provide for population control and it negatively affects people's livelihood. It is different than wolves in my area because they occur naturally and therefore they are managing their own population. The government was wrong and therefore should recognize what is happening and change it(probably wishful thinking)
Very well said Wolf..
This is the way it will alway's be in our present set ups though, "MOB RULES". There is not really any thing any one can do against it, ceptin if they could start getting every one together and do as the hippies did in the 60-70s and start doing sit ins and what not, but that takes a conserted effort of every one involved, or it won't work...
This is the way it will alway's be in our present set ups though, "MOB RULES". There is not really any thing any one can do against it, ceptin if they could start getting every one together and do as the hippies did in the 60-70s and start doing sit ins and what not, but that takes a conserted effort of every one involved, or it won't work...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
2024 College Football 🏈 Season starts tomorrow…. Yee Yee- Latest: Little Big Man MT Chris
-
-
