Federal judge Molloy is a MORON!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter bullfrog123
- Start date
B
bullfrog123
ACCOUNT CLOSED
My point exactly!!! He is for the greenies and huggers anyway, so any facts and studies are a mute point to him.
BTW, is it still ok to call him a POS? After the beatin I took earlier I might have to be careful with my choice of words.
S
Snow Fox
Guest
As I said on the voting thread, who cares about the wolves, it's time to hunt some greenies.
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
"It may be that way up in the north and I wouldn't be surprised, but in th south and south east protion of the state I have yet to meet a person that is for it."
I am pro wolf hunting for management and personally feel we would be better off without, them but maybe you should climb out from under your rock (or at least out of your core circle), they are all over the place.....here in Boise, SunValley,etc. Just cuz your not hanging around them, don't be so nieve to think they are not there and taking notes on everything you say and do. Trust me, they are there. Just go look in the editorial section of your local rag and you will see.
But the reality is that it is just like voting for president, the small voice of mt,id,wy, isn't going to change anything, the deciding votes are in California and back east. That is where the powers decide federal elections on anything. Hell, they don't have to live with them.
I am pro wolf hunting for management and personally feel we would be better off without, them but maybe you should climb out from under your rock (or at least out of your core circle), they are all over the place.....here in Boise, SunValley,etc. Just cuz your not hanging around them, don't be so nieve to think they are not there and taking notes on everything you say and do. Trust me, they are there. Just go look in the editorial section of your local rag and you will see.
But the reality is that it is just like voting for president, the small voice of mt,id,wy, isn't going to change anything, the deciding votes are in California and back east. That is where the powers decide federal elections on anything. Hell, they don't have to live with them.
B
Bubba700
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Rock, I like that, probably have a more diverse group of "friends" than most, in the last 6 years I have lived in 8 diff states. Thats a big rock! lol
More seriously though. I know they are here to stay, thats an accepted fact now so I am all for puting plans in place to manage and keep the levels in.
Do I agree with having to take the law into ones own hands ie the S.S.S. method? Not really but to me it is more acceptable than habing ones horses/livestock killed. We have the right to protect our personal property.
Have you seen me make any statement to indicate or advacating going out and specificly trying to kill or eradict wolves?
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
No, and I think you feel exactly like most of us. My comment about them being here was meant about the pro wolfers in southern/eastern Idaho, not about the wolf being here.
LOL, your right that is a big rock. And if you have been around all that and not run into pro wolfers it is because your not socializing where they do or the subject never came up (which is usually the case). Walk into ANY bar and ask the question of who thinks the wolf reintroduction was a good idea, and somebody will support the pro wolf side (sad but true).
Guess my previous comment was mostly concern for your bold statement about "yet to run into one". The pro wolfers are out there and constantly searching for fuel to use against us. We have to watch how we act so as not to give them the fuel.
Rock --- no insult intended
LOL, your right that is a big rock. And if you have been around all that and not run into pro wolfers it is because your not socializing where they do or the subject never came up (which is usually the case). Walk into ANY bar and ask the question of who thinks the wolf reintroduction was a good idea, and somebody will support the pro wolf side (sad but true).
Guess my previous comment was mostly concern for your bold statement about "yet to run into one". The pro wolfers are out there and constantly searching for fuel to use against us. We have to watch how we act so as not to give them the fuel.
Rock --- no insult intended
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
Here is an interesting read of comments on the issue. This also supports that pro-wolfers are amongst us. Enjoy!
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_448588
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_448588
Trap and Release - wolves in The Mall.
Why is Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Alaska, still in the 9th circuit? That's what needs fixing.
Why buy the Judge's vote. Pay someone to collect dirt on the judge, and get him thrown out. That's probably how the greenies got him. You don't think a pretty little PETA girl wouldn't bed him to save the wolves?
When the Elk population falls to the point that hunting must cease for a while, it only takes one generation to kill the sport of hunting Elk. That's their real goal.
Don't feel too picked on, they reintroduced wolves (red wolves) in Tennessee Kentucky, and New York State. The Feds have been doing it quietly for years now. Lot easier to do it without local discussion or permission.
Start a campaign to save the Idaho Timberwolf, and it's genetic diversity. Their killing the poor little timberwolf, and it needs your financial support. greenie money, versus greenie money. Divide and conqueror.
Why is Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Alaska, still in the 9th circuit? That's what needs fixing.
Why buy the Judge's vote. Pay someone to collect dirt on the judge, and get him thrown out. That's probably how the greenies got him. You don't think a pretty little PETA girl wouldn't bed him to save the wolves?
When the Elk population falls to the point that hunting must cease for a while, it only takes one generation to kill the sport of hunting Elk. That's their real goal.
Don't feel too picked on, they reintroduced wolves (red wolves) in Tennessee Kentucky, and New York State. The Feds have been doing it quietly for years now. Lot easier to do it without local discussion or permission.
Start a campaign to save the Idaho Timberwolf, and it's genetic diversity. Their killing the poor little timberwolf, and it needs your financial support. greenie money, versus greenie money. Divide and conqueror.
B
bullfrog123
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Very, Very, well stated Wade!!!! The Native Timberwolf got NO consideration when it came down to what was going to be thrown in our back yard. It was all about the Canadian grey's.
My ? is, why in the HE!! were the natives tossed off the table in favor of a more aggressive and more destructive species? The native timberwolves were JUST FINE here. No herds were in danger with the wolves we ALREADY had.
My ? is, why in the HE!! were the natives tossed off the table in favor of a more aggressive and more destructive species? The native timberwolves were JUST FINE here. No herds were in danger with the wolves we ALREADY had.
Wolves and Greenies must go away. I say we arm the Greenies with asbestos free weapons and coral them with the wolves and see who survives. The winner will be hung in victory. YEAH YEAH 
S
Steve86
Member
Fact of the matter is it does not matter what the consesus is in Idaho. If 100% were against it wouldnt matter because we are controlled by the federal government. PERIOD. We are being played like a cheap fiddle. The only recourse we have is what we do in our own backyard because I think Idaho Fish and Game would turn thier back on wolf killings now. This has alot of govenment officials in Idaho pissed off and they could care less what happens to them (the wolves) now. They (DOW and Earthjustice) have called Butch Otter, Idaho Fish and Game and Dirk Kepthorne out.
Tim,
Go talk to some folks in Avery and St. Maries and all the little towns bordering the Clearwater and St Joe national forest and that consensus will be tilting anti wolf in a hurry. They are making thier own policies in those towns as they should. Its easy to sit in CDA, Spokane , Boise, Pocatello, Missoula, and decide whats best for these people and they dont get a say in it?? When one person makes that decision for them, folks, we are no longer a democracy that is enforcing a dictatorship. If someone can tell me one good thing that comes from reintroducing a wolf it will be the first. They kill the weak and sick? What a lame argument. I wonder how many healthy calves were killed this spring. Its not too hard to do the math. 1 elk every 2 weeks are the fish and game numbers to sustain a pack of 5-7. We will call the number 1200 in idaho making it low. So 250 packs in Idaho. 27 times 250. Thats roughly 7,000 elk a year. The moose will be wiped out even sooner. We know thats not all they eat but it gives you an idea of what kind of devistation the wildlife herds of Idaho are sustaining. Should people in Avery and Elk River decide a few things for Judge Malloy. Let me see, for you taking my hunting oppurtunites and taking food off the table when its getting harder to put it on with the economy the way it is I should get to take away something valuable to you and see how you like it. Should we find a way to reintroduce the dinasours, I know they could devistate the human population but cmon they were here before us, you can go on forever with this ridiculous argument of why things should be here and how humans have altered it since we have been here. The thing I dont understand is this. They delisted them with more than enough evidence of WHY. We hit the numbers they wanted now its time to manage.How is that not clear cut. We play by thier stupid rules which we shouldnt have had to in the first place and then they change the rules?? Now we can just put them back on the list. The law means nothing when it is ping ponged back and forth like this.
You growing up on a ranch in Colorado doesn't mean anything to this conversation! You don't have the wolves...yet. Trust me, they're already in the state of Colorado. Just ask your Game & Fish. And um..it's called freedom of speech!
Yes, very passionate about that also, but comparing the wolf situation to that of the grizzly delisting is another story!
" The whole point with the judge is that he made a desicion opposite of the supporting studys, opposite of the popular opinion in the area in question."
If you read the article closer you would see that Judge Molloy made the decision because Wyoming will not get on board with Idaho and Montana who have good management plans in place (according to Molloy). His purpose is to get Wyoming to get in line (in my opinion).
Personally, I agree with Wyomings thinking........but I also think that the way the feds are playing it means maybe Wyoming should devise a better plan so as not to hurt the other states. A couple more years from now with no control and the elk will have to be listed as endangered
For those that ask, here is a good place to start-
www.saveelk.com
The more organized opposition, the better!
mtn_extreme hit the nail on the head. Wyoming has long been trying to classify the wolf situation as predatorial status! A number of wolves have already been harvested in the state(trying to word that nicely to not hurt anyone's feelings). Judge Molloy(& friends) probably see this as a hatred towards wolves leading to a SSS movement. Frustrating. It will go to appeals again only to waste more time and let the population grow for another year. Wyoming is trying to make the wolf management a single state matter. The same idea the government did once the wolf population hit it's so-called 'quota' and cut funding. Wyoming is going to have to jump on the wagon with Idaho & Montana. This 'endangered species' topic will never quit. I posted above towards mtn_extreme's question about the delisting of grizzles and have to tread softly. The same will most likely happen with the grizzlies, and when the elk population finally hits an 'endangered status', read less harvesting, higher cost of hunting(license fees, many outfitters out of business), certain groups will do everything they can to keep them there also. Just my .02!
And while the feds play politics to get Wyoming to reform, the elk are running around trying to stay alive in a losing battle and we are left wondering when the govt will realize they muffed this one big time and admit to it and maybe just maybe do something RIGHT for a change.
steve
I never said i was for the wolf, just that there are people in idaho that are for the wolf. You are preaching to the choir on this one. lol
tim
I never said i was for the wolf, just that there are people in idaho that are for the wolf. You are preaching to the choir on this one. lol
tim
S
Steve86
Member
If anybody thinks this is all about Wyoming reforming thier wolf policies they are sorely mistaken. The minute these groups found out Idaho was declaring a hunting season on them they got the wheels rolling on the law suits real quick.
Tim,
Glad to hear that, I was starting to get worried about you there for a bit.
Tim,
Glad to hear that, I was starting to get worried about you there for a bit.
Last edited:
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
Gor news for you bud, the lawsuits were concieved a few years ago and were just waiting for the delisting to occur. This was not a last minute campaign by the pro wolfers, they are very organized and have numerous lawsuits waiting in the wings for the next go round.
I am very well versed in this wolf battle and if you do not think this is true, down the road I will be saying ' I told you so".
Sad but True!
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
Here is some responses that I have in another battle about this . It expresses how I feel.
I am chukarchump_
you should be ashamed...
Submitted by chukarchump on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 9:45pm.
I believe all you pro wolf advocates should feel ashamed of yourselves. You are promoting the extinction of a species of that which you say you are trying to protect.
The north american timberwolf, a species of it's own is slowly becoming extinct as it's food source and habitat here in Idaho are slowly being overtaken by the "newely introduced" canadian gray wolf. The timberwolf had free reign in the wilderness areas where it existed and maintained stable numbers for many many years. You have all supported the introduction of a natural competitor and predator to their homeland in the name of preservation of another species. The smaller timberwolf is no match for it's larger counterpart and will soon be eliminated. What gives you the right to decide who exists where? AND where do you get off criticizing those that want to manage the new species in an attempt to create an environment where ALL animals can exist? If you ask me, you are all a bunch of hypocrites. As pro wolf advocates, you should be contributing dollars to the State F&G's to help in the management so that both species can co-exist, not spend it to fight against management.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves!!
»
edit reply report this page
As expected
Submitted by voicebugler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 12:03am.
"I lied, I won't give you the last word, since your disrespect is so blatant"
Not a man of your word I see. That's common with the anti hunting and pro wolf groups also, much like Defenders of Wildlife changing what their collected "science" shows as criteria to be able to have sustainable numbers of wolves in ID, MT, and WY as time goes on and it helps to keep them delisted.
"If you crave elk meat, then that is your preference, yes, but again, must policy be oriented so that you can satisfy your craving? That is a matter of public discussion."
I will say your opinion is as valid as mine when your helping to pay for the state owned and managed resource that I do pay for through the purchase of my hunting and fishing license. The herds aren't managed for maximizing opportunity to shoot one, they're managed for sustenance, just as the management plan for wolves is designed. I, for one, am tired of seeing years worth of funding and management efforts become dog food at an uncontrolled rate!!!
"The role you say you play in maintaining healthy herds is the one wolves, bear, lynx, etc play. Those herds will remain quite healthy without your assistance."
Not without extreme swings in populations. Those predators, too, are state managed and are doing quite well I might add, minus the wolf. I don't know of a single one that has been removed to help out the elk hunters as you've insinuated and accused in earlier posts.
"You are not a society and your ancestors were agrarian"
I am part of society and many in this same society hunt, quite avidly. In response to your bewilderment that you expressed, I'm bewildered that you see my take of a healthy animal for food and promotion of herd health by trying to assist in managing numbers as opposed to seeing that same animal contract disease and/or starve to death as less humane. One is quick and the animal doesn't have to suffer a slow painful death, much like that of being torn apart by a pack of wolves.
"Human intervention with a species to try to produce a desired result as a consequence of destroying another factor of the environment"
Much like introducing the Canadian Gray Wolf is doing to Idaho's native wolves that were here at the time of introduction? Cause and effect.. Do you recall that?
""Harvest numbers". I love that phrase."
Same phrase as used by the livestock industry that you endorse so well. I'll depoliticize it for you. The kill amount.... Is that better? I'm not ashamed of hunting and am not afraid of the terminology, whichever way you want to hear it. You are the enemy that challenges my very way of life, which has been passed down for years. I do appreciate your retraction of including me as one that is for eradication.
There is one bottom line that discredits your arguments all day long more than any other. You continually talk about this natural balance and man's interaction.. Bringing wolves to Idaho when wolves were here and recovering is irresponsible at best. It is the very word you've spoken so negatively to all day.. Meddling. The wolves we had here were simply not coming back quickly enough for the tastes of those that wanted to desperately try to get their hooks into hunting with use of the ESA. The Canadian Gray Wolf is nothing more than that and with the change of "science" over the years and the fact that successfully adopted management plans were just button holed reiterates the reality of it all.
Good day..
»
reply report this page
a balance?
Submitted by chukarchump on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 2:00am.
From what I read here, the pro wolf advocate's reasoning is to achieve a balance within the ecosystem and restore it back to it's natural state.
In it's natural state the human animal also has a role and as a preditor that hunts to survive, has the right to eliminate competition for it's food source. Again, it is hypocritical to not allow the human to kill it's competition in a means of preserving it's supply, weather it be cows, sheep, elk, moose, etc.
Your really don't want a balanced ecosystem, you just oppose hunting and are using the wolf as a pawn in your game of deciept.
Again, shame on you!!
»
edit reply report this page
Agreed
Submitted by voicebugler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 10:30am.
All the natural balance talk continually REMOVES man as an active part of the ecosystem and as a predator. We are currently a predator currently and to change that goes back to that key word "meddling." This is a cause and effect relationship just as removing wolves, or any other animal is. Discussion has led to the desire for man to accommodate anything wild. I love how man is supposed to accommodate all things wild and tolerance is expected to occur to all things BUT man. That's a selfish point of view and you're asking people to change something that no scientific evidence indicates should happen. Expecting that those who hunt and are an active part of the food chain to simply turn and walk away from being a part of it because you don't understand it is WRONG!!! I'm not willing to halt doing what I do when successful management strategies have shown that MAN is and can remain an active part of the balance, doing the responsible thing for future generations to come, our planet, and the future of our wildlife populations.
The whole discussion can be found here -
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_448588
I am chukarchump_
you should be ashamed...
Submitted by chukarchump on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 9:45pm.
I believe all you pro wolf advocates should feel ashamed of yourselves. You are promoting the extinction of a species of that which you say you are trying to protect.
The north american timberwolf, a species of it's own is slowly becoming extinct as it's food source and habitat here in Idaho are slowly being overtaken by the "newely introduced" canadian gray wolf. The timberwolf had free reign in the wilderness areas where it existed and maintained stable numbers for many many years. You have all supported the introduction of a natural competitor and predator to their homeland in the name of preservation of another species. The smaller timberwolf is no match for it's larger counterpart and will soon be eliminated. What gives you the right to decide who exists where? AND where do you get off criticizing those that want to manage the new species in an attempt to create an environment where ALL animals can exist? If you ask me, you are all a bunch of hypocrites. As pro wolf advocates, you should be contributing dollars to the State F&G's to help in the management so that both species can co-exist, not spend it to fight against management.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves!!
»
edit reply report this page
As expected
Submitted by voicebugler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 12:03am.
"I lied, I won't give you the last word, since your disrespect is so blatant"
Not a man of your word I see. That's common with the anti hunting and pro wolf groups also, much like Defenders of Wildlife changing what their collected "science" shows as criteria to be able to have sustainable numbers of wolves in ID, MT, and WY as time goes on and it helps to keep them delisted.
"If you crave elk meat, then that is your preference, yes, but again, must policy be oriented so that you can satisfy your craving? That is a matter of public discussion."
I will say your opinion is as valid as mine when your helping to pay for the state owned and managed resource that I do pay for through the purchase of my hunting and fishing license. The herds aren't managed for maximizing opportunity to shoot one, they're managed for sustenance, just as the management plan for wolves is designed. I, for one, am tired of seeing years worth of funding and management efforts become dog food at an uncontrolled rate!!!
"The role you say you play in maintaining healthy herds is the one wolves, bear, lynx, etc play. Those herds will remain quite healthy without your assistance."
Not without extreme swings in populations. Those predators, too, are state managed and are doing quite well I might add, minus the wolf. I don't know of a single one that has been removed to help out the elk hunters as you've insinuated and accused in earlier posts.
"You are not a society and your ancestors were agrarian"
I am part of society and many in this same society hunt, quite avidly. In response to your bewilderment that you expressed, I'm bewildered that you see my take of a healthy animal for food and promotion of herd health by trying to assist in managing numbers as opposed to seeing that same animal contract disease and/or starve to death as less humane. One is quick and the animal doesn't have to suffer a slow painful death, much like that of being torn apart by a pack of wolves.
"Human intervention with a species to try to produce a desired result as a consequence of destroying another factor of the environment"
Much like introducing the Canadian Gray Wolf is doing to Idaho's native wolves that were here at the time of introduction? Cause and effect.. Do you recall that?
""Harvest numbers". I love that phrase."
Same phrase as used by the livestock industry that you endorse so well. I'll depoliticize it for you. The kill amount.... Is that better? I'm not ashamed of hunting and am not afraid of the terminology, whichever way you want to hear it. You are the enemy that challenges my very way of life, which has been passed down for years. I do appreciate your retraction of including me as one that is for eradication.
There is one bottom line that discredits your arguments all day long more than any other. You continually talk about this natural balance and man's interaction.. Bringing wolves to Idaho when wolves were here and recovering is irresponsible at best. It is the very word you've spoken so negatively to all day.. Meddling. The wolves we had here were simply not coming back quickly enough for the tastes of those that wanted to desperately try to get their hooks into hunting with use of the ESA. The Canadian Gray Wolf is nothing more than that and with the change of "science" over the years and the fact that successfully adopted management plans were just button holed reiterates the reality of it all.
Good day..
»
reply report this page
a balance?
Submitted by chukarchump on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 2:00am.
From what I read here, the pro wolf advocate's reasoning is to achieve a balance within the ecosystem and restore it back to it's natural state.
In it's natural state the human animal also has a role and as a preditor that hunts to survive, has the right to eliminate competition for it's food source. Again, it is hypocritical to not allow the human to kill it's competition in a means of preserving it's supply, weather it be cows, sheep, elk, moose, etc.
Your really don't want a balanced ecosystem, you just oppose hunting and are using the wolf as a pawn in your game of deciept.
Again, shame on you!!
»
edit reply report this page
Agreed
Submitted by voicebugler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 10:30am.
All the natural balance talk continually REMOVES man as an active part of the ecosystem and as a predator. We are currently a predator currently and to change that goes back to that key word "meddling." This is a cause and effect relationship just as removing wolves, or any other animal is. Discussion has led to the desire for man to accommodate anything wild. I love how man is supposed to accommodate all things wild and tolerance is expected to occur to all things BUT man. That's a selfish point of view and you're asking people to change something that no scientific evidence indicates should happen. Expecting that those who hunt and are an active part of the food chain to simply turn and walk away from being a part of it because you don't understand it is WRONG!!! I'm not willing to halt doing what I do when successful management strategies have shown that MAN is and can remain an active part of the balance, doing the responsible thing for future generations to come, our planet, and the future of our wildlife populations.
The whole discussion can be found here -
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_448588
Last edited:
