Comment from Piker
Time: April 27, 2008, 11:34 am

The wolf was 8 years old. Any large canine that old is not long for the world, even domesticated, well cared for and well nourished house pets. His better days were definately behind him.
God’s speed, Limpy.
I’m sure he’s running with the pack in the happy hunting ground or puppy heaven or valalla.
If you are a bleeding heart animal lover stop reading.

Ok… let’s be real for a minute.
Leave it to the anti hunting crowd to give the animal a name and turn this into the Diane Fossey Mountain Gorrila scene in the movie, “Gorilla’s In The Mist” where she’s fighting mad because a poacher killed a gorrila that she came to be attached to. Cheap. pretty cheap tactic to get the bleeding hearts in a tizzy.
Let’s look at some facts and set aside the warm fuzzies and bleeding hearts for a moment.
“A total of 102 wolf deaths documented in 2007, 73 were related to livestock depredations, seven were killed illegally, and six were struck by vehicles or trains. Others died from a variety of causes common to all wildlife species, including poor health and old age. Despite the loss of 102 wolves, the Montana wolf population is still very secure. FWP documented a minimum of 163 pups at the end of 2007.

Confirmed cattle deaths in Montana increased from 32 in 2006 to 75 in 2007, and confirmed sheep death losses increased from four to 27. Three wolf packs accounted for 25 percent of the confirmed cattle losses and 30 percent of the wolves authorized to be killed in response. One wolf pack and lone wolves were responsible for all confirmed sheep losses. Two llamas and three dogs were also confirmed killed by wolves. Additional losses and injuries occurred, but either could not be verified or were determined to be “probable” wolf kills.

“We know Montana’s wolves inhabit places where people live, work and recreate,” Sime said. “We expect and try to anticipate conflicts and gear much of our wolf management work toward helping landowners reduce the risk of livestock depredations.”
This was from the Official Montana State web site
( http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_6577.aspx )

I’ll say it again,
If there is no regulated culling of the wolf population, the unregulated killing that put the wolf on the endangered species list in the first, place will happen again.

That is a simple fact.
By giving these animals a cutesie name isn’t going to protect them from that cold hard reality.
When Cowboy Bert loses a moo cow worth $1500 to Limpy and his pals, he’s going to follow the time honored and bloody efficient tradition of “shoot, shovel and shut up.”
Wolf watchers are going to watch the wolf population get anhilated again.
If you can’t understand that a state controled culling is the best bet for this animal’s continued survival, you’re not using any common sense and need to read the title of this web site once again.
ok let loose the hounds…

Comment from arthist99
Time: April 27, 2008, 7:50 pm

First of all, he was named a long time ago, because he was a well-known member of an introduced pack of Yellowstone wolves.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/04/13/editorial/forum/89a0bd58d9dea5728725742900065e4e.txt

I’ll address the rest of your ignorance later, if Robert doesn’t beat me to it.

Comment from arthist99
Time: April 28, 2008, 10:03 am

You obviously haven’t even read how inadequate and ramshackle the so called “regulation plans” are. You have a bunch of ranchers who think they run the world and don’t want anything to get in their way, be it wolves, mustangs, or anything else. Even when it involves the use of PUBLIC land for grazing. This whole thing happened as a result of the wishes of a RICH MINORITY. Nobody wants to have the country overtaken by rabid packs of wolves, but this delisting was extremely premature and the “management plans” are horribly underthought.
Aside from that, there are programs in place to compensate (at fair market value) any cattle lost to wolves, so that should not be a matter of contention. It’s all a matter of spite and arrogance at this point.
I honestly don’t have energy for you Piker, so Robert, please take over. From one day to the next I either want to kiss him or strangle him. Today is definitely a strangle day.

Comment from Piker
Time: April 28, 2008, 3:30 pm

Obviously… ya…ok…
I looked at the link you provided and read the article but then I went further and read the readers comments…
I’d say the minority is the other way around, judging by the response this article elicited.

Everyone is entitled to an oppinion and your oppinion that the policy is “ramshackle” and “premature” and “underthought” isn’t in the majority of people responding there.

Comment from Robert
Time: April 28, 2008, 7:05 pm

Well, I am an animal lover. I’d much rather be around animals than people. People suck.

So, because the wolf was 8 years old … it’s okay to chase it down and shoot it? Let’s just start killing all the old animals … and aren’t humans animals? Let’s track down all the old people, with helicopters and pickup trucks and snow mobiles and shoot the motherfuckers when they collapse from exhaustion.

I couldn’t give two shits whether the “majority” of readers agree with the article. I’m not going to jump off the cliff just because the rest of the idiot lemmings jump. Give me a fucking break already.

The course of action is wrong. The wolf was delisted too soon. Period.

I don’t care if a rich, corporate rancher loses a few head of his herd. I don’t care if joe blow small time rancher loses a few head of his herd. They all get my FUCKING MONEY from the FUCKING GOVERNMENT to prop up their mismanaged, over-priced, slaughering business. What the fuck are they whining about? That’s the fucking risk they understood when they went into that business … cows die … sometimes they feed the wildlife. Price of doing business in the jungle. Greed has taken over and these wolf killers have sold their souls to Mammon … whatever it takes to make the most money possible.

The cheap labor immigrants have ruined my industry … can I go shoot them for hurting my business?

Otherwise … I don’t feel to strongly about it.

Comment from Piker
Time: April 29, 2008, 12:02 am

Well I really don’t think a bunch of out of state anti-hunting/ anti-meat/anti fur, know-nothing, do-gooders should be exploiting the sound scientific predator population control of a state government for the purpose of filling their coffers from other neo libral hippie facist tree hugging green peace intelectual mendicants who get a warm fuzzy thinking that the wolf is something more than it is.
Before you try and say that The Defenders of Wildlife aren’t a libral agenda organization, keep in mind Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club are in fact opposed to, and have a law suit pending in federal court opposing a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out… keep that in mind when you send them a donation to save the wolf, part of your dollar goes to help saving the free range mexican cheap labor immigrant, and to help make border crossings easier for terrorists.
These wolves were eradicated from the region for a reason and for the government to re-introduce them back into the region, knowing full well that they would have a population explosion and would eventually, once again run up against the human population, well THAT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

Here’s a interesting read from Jim Beers
Jim is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wetlands Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Congressional Fellow, and Wildlife Biologist.
http://jimbeers.blogster.com/wolves_law

Comment from Piker
Time: April 29, 2008, 4:06 am

Another interesting read:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/07/wolves-and-the-second-amendment/

In the response section they point out that Defenders of Wildlife excecutive VP Charles Orasin is formerly of Handgun Control, INC.
No hidden agenda there either.

Comment from arthist99
Time: April 29, 2008, 9:51 am

Yeah, reintroducing a native predator to return the natural order of things is such a stupid idea. I would hardly say there’s been a population “explosion.”

And don’t try to veer off course by bringing up the border fence (which is just a stupid waste of money - there are better ways to handle the situation) and handgun control. That’s fodder for a different discussion altogether. That’s the same tactic you call other people out on.

Nobody said they weren’t liberal. Apparently in today’s world, having a conscience and not prioritizing the almighty dollar above all else means you are a liberal fanatic, so yeah, go ahead and tag me with that. I don’t need your approval to know that I’m a well-educated, well-informed individual. (Who, as you should know by now, is not a vegetarian and not anti-hunter.)

Seriously Piker, you should move to Georgia. It’s calling you home like the mother ship.

Comment from Piker
Time: April 29, 2008, 11:58 am

Everthing is connected when it comes to liberal agendas.
You may be educated but your information is one sided and agenda driven.
I pointed out a connection and you choose to ignore it or side step it, that is a problem.
When Elk hunting guides say that it’s been years since they have seen a cow elk with more than one calf in the areas that once thrived and had hundreds of elk but now have seen the reintroduction of the wolf, I’d say that is a problem.
When cattle losses more than double in a single year, that is a problem.
When you swallow, hook line and sinker the anti hunting pro predator propoganda of BIG ANIMAL RIGHTS LOBBYS that rake in $Millions for their executive officer saleries, I’d say that is a problem too.
The problem is that reintroducing the native predator to “return the natural order of things” doesn’t take into consideration the existance of human beings in the area.
The problem is a 20% - 25% per yer increase of these predators numbers in a limited area with limited wild prey means that cattle are going to get taken that sheep are going to get taken, that dogs are going to get taken and eventually a human being is going to be harmed, despite the myth that is propogated and dispersed like it was the gospel “that wolves don’t attack humans”. THAT is bullshit.
There is a problem with the wolf population and your answer dosen’t address the issues.
You say there aren’t enough wolves to maintain a “healthy” breeding population. How many is “enough?
Meanwhile the elk population is being whittled down and the states lose $millions in revenue that was being generated by hunting license fees and sales tax from hunters, and despite the myth of Defenders of Wild Life compensating ranchers for their losses, the rancher is going to foot the bill to feed these predators as they take the easy pickings found on cattle ranges.
“Apparently in today’s world, having a conscience and not prioritizing the almighty dollar above all else means you are a liberal fanatic”
Don’t confuse “having a conscience” and having the ability to have objectivity on an issue, because clearly you are not seeing only but one side.
And do not think for one minute that the all mighty dollar isn’t a priority for these people behind all these liberal causes.
Speaking fees and huge saleries motivate the leaders of these high churches of liberal causes too y’know.
Al Gore and his private jet for example…

Comment from Piker
Time: April 29, 2008, 11:59 am

Oh, and as a side note, Georgia is a very lovely state but Michigan is home.