• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
By the lee

Listen to a bear die

Recommended Posts

It sounds gruesome indeed, but black bears here in my area are becoming a dangerous nuisance and need to be controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Only you can prevent forest fiii ... hey, what are you doing here? I already told you, my bookie has three large coming my way! Woah, what's with the gun and tape recorder, you don't need those, just relax, I got some nose candy here, hey! I'll get your money! No! No!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched and listened to plenty of people die. I can deal with it. Okay, with kids it is difficult. But there is no way I am listening to that bear dying, no fuking way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched and listened to plenty of people die. I can deal with it. Okay, with kids it is difficult. But there is no way I am listening to that bear dying, no fuking way.

Funny............same for me. I have seen lots of that. No way I'm listening to that bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck records something like that?

Who the fuck would want to hear something like that?

 

I fucking hate people- loathsome vile creatures they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck records something like that?

Who the fuck would want to hear something like that?

 

I fucking hate people- loathsome vile creatures they are

 

I don't get it either.....??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've turned cows, pigs, sheep and chickens into delicious protein sources with my own hands and 40 years later still feel badly about it.

 

There is no way in hell I'm listening to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've turned cows, pigs, sheep and chickens into delicious protein sources with my own hands and 40 years later still feel badly about it.

 

There is no way in hell I'm listening to that.

I am not listening to it either.

 

My cat on the other hand is encouraging me to play it and crank it up for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up on a farm with a slaughterhouse. I learned animals were food first. Did a lot of processing in that slaughterhouse. Chickens by the thousands every year, turkeys, goats, pigs, cattle. Was taught to be as humane as possible doing what we did.

 

That recording is in no way humane. Not even going to click on it to increase the hit counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've turned cows, pigs, sheep and chickens into delicious protein sources with my own hands and 40 years later still feel badly about it.

 

There is no way in hell I'm listening to that.

I am not listening to it either.

 

My cat on the other hand is encouraging me to play it and crank it up for her.

 

catse cane be eville...... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up on a farm with a slaughterhouse. I learned animals were food first. Did a lot of processing in that slaughterhouse. Chickens by the thousands every year, turkeys, goats, pigs, cattle. Was taught to be as humane as possible doing what we did.

 

That recording is in no way humane. Not even going to click on it to increase the hit counts.

 

Weaning the calves is bad enough for me. That can be up to 2 weeks of moms and calves desperately calling for each other.

Some will go hoarse, and that makes it worse. I've found getting them far, far away from each other alleviates it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds gruesome indeed, but black bears here in my area are becoming a dangerous nuisance and need to be controlled.

 

I heard different. That it was expansion of the 'burbs into bear habitat combined with bear ignorant people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

 

Nailed it FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the article. Got this mad desire to start singing Kumdayah half way through.

 

Then realised it was all about those nasty American Imperialists. Does the bear symbolise Putin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+1,000 This thread needs to be CLOSED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It sounds gruesome indeed, but black bears here in my area are becoming a dangerous nuisance and need to be controlled.

 

I heard different. That it was expansion of the 'burbs into bear habitat combined with bear ignorant people.

 

 

Oh, weird, I heard a piss poor retard from political anarchy trying to get his rocks off pissing people off in GA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

No shit. Next someone will start posting pictures of dead kids for a laugh. People suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

No shit. Next someone will start posting pictures of dead kids for a laugh. People suck.

 

wasn't that already done? the kid that drowned fleeing syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

No shit. Next someone will start posting pictures of dead kids for a laugh. People suck.

 

wasn't that already done? the kid that drowned fleeing syria?

 

Yes. Mercifully, the OP deleted it. I truly don't understand that kind of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it and thereby advocating for it.

No shit. Next someone will start posting pictures of dead kids for a laugh. People suck.

 

wasn't that already done? the kid that drowned fleeing syria?

 

Yes. Mercifully, the OP deleted it. I truly don't understand that kind of shit.

 

 

How's about live kids and dead bears?

 

IMG_2986-1024x768-510x383.jpg

 

Inculcate them young, man.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/27/the-lingering-stench-of-death-witnessing-the-developers-war-on-floridas-black-bears/print/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, pigs and cows aren't happy about dying either. Buildings, golf courses, and highways kill more wildlife, including bears, than hunters do. It's just that in the case of hunting you can not live in denial of what is happening, while most folks are quite happy living in denial of what their lifestyle costs wildlife as a result of loss of habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, pigs and cows aren't happy about dying either. Buildings, golf courses, and highways kill more wildlife, including bears, than hunters do. It's just that in the case of hunting you can not live in denial of what is happening, while most folks are quite happy living in denial of what their lifestyle costs wildlife as a result of loss of habitat.

I think your points are exactly correct. Still for those of us who are non-hunters listening to a recording of a large (or small really) mammal in its death throes is not a good thing. Its something we do not experience and so.........no thanks. I have from time to time evaluated whether I should remain a carnivore because I dislike some of the circumstances that exist the industry that supports my diet choices...........unfortunately I REALLY like ribeye and bacon so..............I avoid the messy details....and sure as hell am not going to click on that link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In other news, pigs and cows aren't happy about dying either. Buildings, golf courses, and highways kill more wildlife, including bears, than hunters do. It's just that in the case of hunting you can not live in denial of what is happening, while most folks are quite happy living in denial of what their lifestyle costs wildlife as a result of loss of habitat.

I think your points are exactly correct. Still for those of us who are non-hunters listening to a recording of a large (or small really) mammal in its death throes is not a good thing. Its something we do not experience and so.........no thanks. I have from time to time evaluated whether I should remain a carnivore because I dislike some of the circumstances that exist the industry that supports my diet choices...........unfortunately I REALLY like ribeye and bacon so..............I avoid the messy details....and sure as hell am not going to click on that link.

 

 

I won't click on it either. I have absolutely zero interest in hearing stuff like that. It is a necessary part of a successful hunt, but not a good one. I hope my post did not come off as too judgmental, I have no problem with non-hunters and I make use of denial quite a bit when it is convenient to me. For instance, my clothes all self clean and put themselves back into my drawers, or at least that is what I believe happens. My post was just in response to the anti-hunting aspects from the OP and the linked story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In other news, pigs and cows aren't happy about dying either. Buildings, golf courses, and highways kill more wildlife, including bears, than hunters do. It's just that in the case of hunting you can not live in denial of what is happening, while most folks are quite happy living in denial of what their lifestyle costs wildlife as a result of loss of habitat.

I think your points are exactly correct. Still for those of us who are non-hunters listening to a recording of a large (or small really) mammal in its death throes is not a good thing. Its something we do not experience and so.........no thanks. I have from time to time evaluated whether I should remain a carnivore because I dislike some of the circumstances that exist the industry that supports my diet choices...........unfortunately I REALLY like ribeye and bacon so..............I avoid the messy details....and sure as hell am not going to click on that link.

 

 

I won't click on it either. I have absolutely zero interest in hearing stuff like that. It is a necessary part of a successful hunt, but not a good one. I hope my post did not come off as too judgmental, I have no problem with non-hunters and I make use of denial quite a bit when it is convenient to me. For instance, my clothes all self clean and put themselves back into my drawers, or at least that is what I believe happens. My post was just in response to the anti-hunting aspects from the OP and the linked story.

 

Understood completely. Unless I was a vegetarian it would be a bit hypocritical to criticize people who do like to hunt and eat what they kill. Its just not for me. I have no problem at all with people who enjoy it. I have a little less room for people who hunt for stuffed heads, but even that is not immoral, unethical or anything I'd say anything but.....not for me. I'm an avid non-hunter because I absolutely hate killing critters myself, but have plenty of room for people who enjoy it. Still not clicking..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a forum where "offensive" is the coin of the realm, this thread is beyond the pale. I won't listen to an animal die and you know what else? Fuck you for posting it ,,,

:) , and the horse ya rode in on ,,

 

 

 

, strong in this one, the Pantywettedness is ,

06-2-tears.jpg

We recently did this, in the Bear Facts .

 

Until you get out there and RESCUE the baby booboo,

Stick a feather up yer ass

No clicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More current,

 

, and in the "Good News" category.

 

20 Wolves Shot

 

Oh yes, the wolf cull. Here's an interesting read. You can read, can't you?, Mike in Seattle.

 

Of Wolves and the Ethical Hunter

 

Posted By George Wuerthner On

 

April 21, 2011 @ 12:00 am

 

In light of the recent successful delisting of the wolf by Congress, I have been thinking a lot about why I so strenuously object to killing wolves. I can accept hunting that I feel is legitimate—such as the hunting for food done by those who pursue elk, deer, ducks, and so forth under legal seasons, bag limits and other modern wildlife management authority. Just because killing wolves will now be legal in states like Idaho and Montana does not make it legitimate to me.

 

I should interject here that I don’t believe the state’s goals are to extirpate wolves again. I’m not worried that wolves will disappear from Idaho or Montana. But I do not think we should take the killing of wolves or any other animal lightly. Unnecessary killing is not something that should be condoned.

 

This is not a blind opposition to all hunting. I believe that hunting can be a legitimate activity. The hunter is legitimate in my view when hunting is done with humility and respect for the animals. When the animal’s death is not taken for granted or trivialized. And the hunter must practice the up-most ethical behavior when pursuing animals. And sometimes I can condone hunting (or more properly perhaps I should call it shooting) when it is the best way to perform what I might call some ecological necessity–say shooting feral animals on some island that is raising havoc with native wildlife.

 

I also believe hunters, perhaps, more than other sub-groups have a moral and ethical responsibly to watch dog, monitor and police their own ranks. Hunters, by the right that society gives them permission to kill things, should be the ones that take killing seriously. And they have an obligation to really think about the killing they are doing, and whether that killing is warranted, and necessary.

 

Personally, I don’t use the word “harvest” when talking about killing wildlife. That kind of terminology in my mind minimizes what is being done–the killing of another creature–and I think words like “harvest” desensitizes one to what is happening.

 

When does hunting start to border on illegitimate? That is a hazy area, of course. In my view blasting “gophers” and “prairie dogs” for fun, coyote hunts, and that like are clearly illegitimate activities. I don’t think shooting “gophers” so you can see the “red spray” is ethical. It demonstrates no respect for the animals. It does not represent humility by the hunter. It trivializes the death of a creature.

 

What makes something legitimate gets back, in part, to why we do things. Shooting animals out of season is what we call poaching. And especially if someone were killing say elk to sell the meat and antlers, most of us feel is wrong, even though the person is just killing the elk, the exact same thing a hunter might do during hunting season. On the other hand, if someone shoots a deer out of season to feed their starving family most of us would at least be willing to forgive someone for such an offense, even if it were still illegal. But I would want to know that all other avenues for feeding their family were exhausted–i.e. you could not get food from welfare and/or donations from a church, etc. Nevertheless, you get the point. Depending on the circumstances, the same basic action can be ethical or unethical.

 

I can support the killing of an elk during hunting seasons, for instance, for many reasons. A person is going to eat something for food and killing an elk and/or say keeping a trout (or whatever animal is consumed) generally is in the category of a “necessity”. Not that there aren’t other alternatives to hunting and fishing–obviously one can buy meat or fish at the grocery store, grow veggies in their garden and so on. Still getting meat from a grocery results in the killing of an animal as well, and I can make a very strong case that agriculturally raised meat whether in a factory farm and/or range cattle out on public lands has a tremendous amount of negative impacts to the land and other wildlife, not to mention even serious ethical questions about how the domestic animals are treated themselves. Thus I don’t have a problem with someone killing an elk or deer to consume if they feel eating some meat is something they want in their diet. (Putting aside the legitimate question of whether one needs to eat meat in the first place for the moment, if one has decided that consuming meat is acceptable, than hunting is a legitimate means of obtaining food in my view).

 

I also place value on the pursuit of wildlife. Hunting, because it is serious business when done correctly, puts a person in more direct contact with the entire web of life. This is a difficult thing to explain, but it is real. And I think many hunters experience this when afield. Thus hunting has value to both individuals and society as a consequence. I would liken it to growing a garden. Most of us can get our vegetables from the grocery store, but as any gardener will tell you, there is value to growing one’s own food that goes beyond just satisfying a need for food.

 

But I don’t necessary support the killing of all animals just because someone is going to eat it. There are also other considerations in how I view and determine whether the hunting is ethical. I need to know that the hunter takes death of an animal seriously and does everything they can to avoid unnecessary suffering of the creature they are killing. Killing needs to be done quickly and as humanely as possible.

 

I also need to know that the animal being killed is relatively common so that killing it does not jeopardize its overall population. Obviously that is not an issue in most of the common species we hunt today like deer, elk, and so forth. For species that are rarer, I start to question whether hunting is legitimate even if one could argue you are eating the meat. For instance, I question hunting grizzlies for that reason. Grizzlies are not really common anywhere, even when they are not hunted as in some of the big parks in Alaska.

 

I then ask if hunting and taking a lot of these animals from the landscape going to have serious impacts on other wildlife (i.e. is the killing of that particular species in that particular part of the country taking food out of the mouth of other wildlife and/or seriously interrupting with some major ecological function–nutrient cycling, etc.) Nutrient cycling is a good example of why at least as far as catching salmon for sport doesn’t bother me, but I have some serious reservations about the degree of salmon removal by commercial fishermen in terms of nutrient return to headwater streams.

 

After that I look at how the animals are pursued. Running down a deer on a snowmobile and then shooting it would fall into the illegitimate category even if that person were going to eat the meat. This is all about what is commonly called “fair chase”. Fair chase is one of those changing values–what was “fair” in the past, isn’t necessarily fair today and technology has skewed the boundaries quite a bit. Is using GPS on hounds to chase down a cougar, then when the “treed signal” is heard, you get out of your pick-up truck and amble up to the tree and shoot the cat out of it fair chase? I don’t think so.

 

So these are some of the things that I consider to develop my current position about wolf management (which is just a euphemism for killing them). One of the reasons I am skeptical of state management of wolves is due to history. Can a species that has been so viciously maligned for so long be successfully “managed” by the same state agencies that depend upon license sales to hunt wolf prey like elk and deer to fund their bureaucracies? I recognize that there are many fine biologists working for these agencies who appreciate the important biological value of having wolf predation, but even they “must dance with the ones that brung ya”—and the majority of hunters want fewer wolves.

 

Because of this legacy of historic persecution, wolf “management” as it’s called by states like Idaho and Montana is, to my mind, is done for all the wrong reasons. Despite what some may say about how they just want to hunt wolves like they hunt deer, elk, etc. the bottom line for most hunters, and the reason for the ‘management’ is not any of the above legitimate reasons for hunting. We are persecuting wolves because they are thought to be competition for elk and deer and/or a threat to livestock producers.

 

I would not support wolf control and management even if I thought that wolves were a serious threat to elk and deer populations. However, the truth is that these justifications are more imaginary than real.

 

Even if I believed wolves did have a significant impact on state-wide elk and deer numbers, I would still argue that hunters have to accept that they are sharing the world with other creatures, and wolves have a greater “right” to the elk and deer than the average human hunter–in part because we do have alternatives. We are not going to starve if we don’t shoot a deer or elk.

 

The same can be said for livestock producers. There are many proven techniques to reduce predator losses that livestock producers can implement. While there may be the occasional need to surgically remove an individual animal or even a pack of wolves, if most livestock producers practiced better animal husbandry, much of the conflict would cease to exist–and I believe ranchers have an ethical responsibility to implement these measures so that both their animals and the predators do not have to suffer.

 

However, what particularly bothersome to me about this persecution of predators is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that “managing” wolves may actually be counterproductive for even the stated goals of wolf control proponents. Hunting predators can increase conflicts with livestock producers, and could under some circumstances, even hasten the decline of big game herds because of the social chaos and population structural changes that occurs with indiscriminate hunting.

 

Hunting can skew the wolf populations to younger animals, breaking up larger packs into smaller packs, which can lead to more conflicts. For instance, young animals are less skillful hunters, they do not know the territory as well as older animals—things like where the elk migrate or calve. Packs that are continuously suffering mortality from persecution have a more difficult time holding on to territory. Smaller packs cannot defend kills against other scavengers readily. A big intact pack can kill an elk and guard the carcass from bears, coyotes, ravens and other animals while consuming it entirely, reducing the need to kill another deer or elk. Thus wolves that suffer from wolf “management” are more likely to attack livestock and sometimes even consume more prey than unmanaged packs.

 

In addition, there is more and more evidence about the ecological role of predators in functioning ecosystems or what has been termed “trophic cascade”. This research suggests, among many ecological benefits associated with predators, that predator induced reductions in elk and deer numbers in some places, at some times, is “good” for ecosystem function. And since wolves have been doing this for eons eliminating these ecological influences is done at our peril. Just as we now understand that damming rivers and changing the flow has serious consequences for many fish, plants, and birds, we must recognize that predators have an important ecological function and eliminating that function across wide swaths of the land is probably not a good idea.

 

So when hunters say they are not opposed to having a few wolves around, but we need to control them so they don’t diminish the number of elk and deer, I believe it’s essential that thinking hunters respond by saying we shouldn’t be so quick to eliminate something that was so important to ecosystem health and function for so many centuries. We actually “need” to have wolves and other predators to reduce prey populations. Trying to “smooth” out these kinds of natural population fluctuations of prey species as is the accepted “goal” of wildlife management may not be a good idea for healthy ecosystems.

 

No only does predator “management” result in unnecessary killing, but it jeopardizes ecological function and doesn’t even achieve the stated goals of reducing conflicts with livestock producers and could even hasten decline in prey populations for hunters. Hunters as much as any group should be advocating healthy ecosystems—since in the end the long term value of habitat is dependent on healthy ecological function.

 

That’s why I believe that of all sub-groups of people who might be opposing wolf “management” it ought to be hunters who should be most strongly opposing this proposal. Yet, not surprisingly, what I hear is strident calls for killing wolves by most hunters, and even the ethically inclined hunters are generally silent, silenced because they are afraid to be called “anti hunting” or even worse, an “animal rights advocate”. But of all groups of people, I think hunters should be among the most outspoken advocates of predators.

 

I do not think wolf killing rises to that level of ethical hunting, ecological necessity, and/or food necessity.

 

GEORGE WUERTHNER is an ecologist and former Montana hunting guide.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/21/of-wolves-and-the-ethical-hunter/print/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coyotes behind my house catch housecats and dogs now and then, for some reason it's a sound I only hear about an hour after dusk. It's a miserable sound to hear the yips of the coyotes and the pet crying out like a child, they just don't have the emotional equipment to understand what it happening to them, they're like children. At least when the lions kill, you hear only a quick yip, they seem to kill pretty quickly.

 

Out of all the war stories my old man remembers, the one that seems to give him the most stress was hearing a German infantryman in Belgium sobbing all night and crying for his mother until he was dead in the morning, never saw him. One of the guy's in my pop's unit offered to pull him back and get him an ambulance, the Germans wanted him to die for some reason and replied that they would shoot anyone who tried to rescue him. Reminds me of that Man of La Mancha quote ...

 

I have been a soldier and seen my comrades fall in battle ... or die more slowly under the lash in Africa. I have held them in my arms at the final moment. These were men who saw life as it is, yet they died despairing. No glory, no gallant last words ... only their eyes filled with confusion, whimpering the question, "Why?" I do not think they asked why they were dying, but why they had lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? You hear peoples dogs (cats I can sorta' understand) left out after dusk being munched by the coyotes?

Wtf do you live in Moronville or something? Really? Coyotes roam the countryside but peeps where you live don't get it?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a miserable sound to hear the yips of the coyotes and the pet crying out like a child, they just don't have the emotional equipment to understand what it happening to them, they're like children.

Not sure I understand what that means... that thought must be from the stairwell.

 

I've always just assumed that animals dying at the hands of other animals were just momentarily suffering simple anguish borne of physical pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? You hear peoples dogs (cats I can sorta' understand) left out after dusk being munched by the coyotes?

Wtf do you live in Moronville or something? Really? Coyotes roam the countryside but peeps where you live don't get it?

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

It happens all the time, there are usually a few signs around the neighborhoods about "missing" pets ... yeah, they aren't missing, they're in some coyote's or lion's scat pile. The locals know better, I would never have a small dog around here, even on a leash. The problem is that we're getting hundreds of thousands of transplants in from the midwest, and California every year since the marijhuana law came in, they just have no clue. And people taking their garbage to the street the night before the trash comes instead of waiting until the morning ... the bears will find out about the smorgasbord waiting for them, it's just a matter of time. We typically have four-foot split rail fences around here, the coyotes and lions jump over those like they're not even there. Given the level of inexperience with the animals around here, I'm surprised there aren't more incidents, but supposedly most of them aren't reported, https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?authuser=1&mid=1pHO-7HmkqD6xeJgiIlMtcj0CkCs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a miserable sound to hear the yips of the coyotes and the pet crying out like a child, they just don't have the emotional equipment to understand what it happening to them, they're like children.

Not sure I understand what that means... that thought must be from the stairwell.

 

I've always just assumed that animals dying at the hands of other animals were just momentarily suffering simple anguish borne of physical pain.

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

From what I can tell, house pets have the intelligence of a small child, and that "momentary" pain you describe is something you hear for up to a minute. I've accidentally stepped on my dog's tail, that's a yip. The sound of getting killed by those coyotes is more like extended misery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a miserable sound to hear the yips of the coyotes and the pet crying out like a child, they just don't have the emotional equipment to understand what it happening to them, they're like children.

Not sure I understand what that means... that thought must be from the stairwell.

 

I've always just assumed that animals dying at the hands of other animals were just momentarily suffering simple anguish borne of physical pain.

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

From what I can tell, house pets have the intelligence of a small child, and that "momentary" pain you describe is something you hear for up to a minute. I've accidentally stepped on my dog's tail, that's a yip. The sound of getting killed by those coyotes is more like extended misery.

 

Good to know that house pets are more intelligent than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coyotes behind my house catch housecats and dogs now and then

 

 

Wait, what? You hear peoples dogs (cats I can sorta' understand) left out after dusk being munched by the coyotes?

Wtf do you live in Moronville or something? Really? Coyotes roam the countryside but peeps where you live don't get it?

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

It happens all the time,

 

That escalated quickly....

 

Make up your mind son!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The coyotes behind my house catch housecats and dogs now and then

 

 

Wait, what? You hear peoples dogs (cats I can sorta' understand) left out after dusk being munched by the coyotes?

Wtf do you live in Moronville or something? Really? Coyotes roam the countryside but peeps where you live don't get it?

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

It happens all the time,

 

That escalated quickly....

 

Make up your mind son!

 

 

I sometimes wonder if you guys study the bible itself as closely as you study what I write.

 

Here, look at the reports, which are about ten percent of the incidents, and decide for yourself, https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?authuser=1&mid=1pHO-7HmkqD6xeJgiIlMtcj0CkCs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More current,

 

, and in the "Good News" category.

 

20 Wolves Shot

 

Oh yes, the wolf cull. Here's an interesting read. You can read, can't you?, Mike in Seattle.

 

Of Wolves and the Ethical Hunter

 

Posted By George Wuerthner On

 

April 21, 2011 @ 12:00 am

 

In light of the recent successful delisting of the wolf by Congress, I have been thinking a lot about why I so strenuously object to killing wolves. I can accept hunting that I feel is legitimate—such as the hunting for food done by those who pursue elk, deer, ducks, and so forth under legal seasons, bag limits and other modern wildlife management authority. Just because killing wolves will now be legal in states like Idaho and Montana does not make it legitimate to me.

 

I should interject here that I don’t believe the state’s goals are to extirpate wolves again. I’m not worried that wolves will disappear from Idaho or Montana. But I do not think we should take the killing of wolves or any other animal lightly. Unnecessary killing is not something that should be condoned.

 

This is not a blind opposition to all hunting. I believe that hunting can be a legitimate activity. The hunter is legitimate in my view when hunting is done with humility and respect for the animals. When the animal’s death is not taken for granted or trivialized. And the hunter must practice the up-most ethical behavior when pursuing animals. And sometimes I can condone hunting (or more properly perhaps I should call it shooting) when it is the best way to perform what I might call some ecological necessity–say shooting feral animals on some island that is raising havoc with native wildlife.

 

I also believe hunters, perhaps, more than other sub-groups have a moral and ethical responsibly to watch dog, monitor and police their own ranks. Hunters, by the right that society gives them permission to kill things, should be the ones that take killing seriously. And they have an obligation to really think about the killing they are doing, and whether that killing is warranted, and necessary.

 

Personally, I don’t use the word “harvest” when talking about killing wildlife. That kind of terminology in my mind minimizes what is being done–the killing of another creature–and I think words like “harvest” desensitizes one to what is happening.

 

When does hunting start to border on illegitimate? That is a hazy area, of course. In my view blasting “gophers” and “prairie dogs” for fun, coyote hunts, and that like are clearly illegitimate activities. I don’t think shooting “gophers” so you can see the “red spray” is ethical. It demonstrates no respect for the animals. It does not represent humility by the hunter. It trivializes the death of a creature.

 

What makes something legitimate gets back, in part, to why we do things. Shooting animals out of season is what we call poaching. And especially if someone were killing say elk to sell the meat and antlers, most of us feel is wrong, even though the person is just killing the elk, the exact same thing a hunter might do during hunting season. On the other hand, if someone shoots a deer out of season to feed their starving family most of us would at least be willing to forgive someone for such an offense, even if it were still illegal. But I would want to know that all other avenues for feeding their family were exhausted–i.e. you could not get food from welfare and/or donations from a church, etc. Nevertheless, you get the point. Depending on the circumstances, the same basic action can be ethical or unethical.

 

I can support the killing of an elk during hunting seasons, for instance, for many reasons. A person is going to eat something for food and killing an elk and/or say keeping a trout (or whatever animal is consumed) generally is in the category of a “necessity”. Not that there aren’t other alternatives to hunting and fishing–obviously one can buy meat or fish at the grocery store, grow veggies in their garden and so on. Still getting meat from a grocery results in the killing of an animal as well, and I can make a very strong case that agriculturally raised meat whether in a factory farm and/or range cattle out on public lands has a tremendous amount of negative impacts to the land and other wildlife, not to mention even serious ethical questions about how the domestic animals are treated themselves. Thus I don’t have a problem with someone killing an elk or deer to consume if they feel eating some meat is something they want in their diet. (Putting aside the legitimate question of whether one needs to eat meat in the first place for the moment, if one has decided that consuming meat is acceptable, than hunting is a legitimate means of obtaining food in my view).

 

I also place value on the pursuit of wildlife. Hunting, because it is serious business when done correctly, puts a person in more direct contact with the entire web of life. This is a difficult thing to explain, but it is real. And I think many hunters experience this when afield. Thus hunting has value to both individuals and society as a consequence. I would liken it to growing a garden. Most of us can get our vegetables from the grocery store, but as any gardener will tell you, there is value to growing one’s own food that goes beyond just satisfying a need for food.

 

But I don’t necessary support the killing of all animals just because someone is going to eat it. There are also other considerations in how I view and determine whether the hunting is ethical. I need to know that the hunter takes death of an animal seriously and does everything they can to avoid unnecessary suffering of the creature they are killing. Killing needs to be done quickly and as humanely as possible.

 

I also need to know that the animal being killed is relatively common so that killing it does not jeopardize its overall population. Obviously that is not an issue in most of the common species we hunt today like deer, elk, and so forth. For species that are rarer, I start to question whether hunting is legitimate even if one could argue you are eating the meat. For instance, I question hunting grizzlies for that reason. Grizzlies are not really common anywhere, even when they are not hunted as in some of the big parks in Alaska.

 

I then ask if hunting and taking a lot of these animals from the landscape going to have serious impacts on other wildlife (i.e. is the killing of that particular species in that particular part of the country taking food out of the mouth of other wildlife and/or seriously interrupting with some major ecological function–nutrient cycling, etc.) Nutrient cycling is a good example of why at least as far as catching salmon for sport doesn’t bother me, but I have some serious reservations about the degree of salmon removal by commercial fishermen in terms of nutrient return to headwater streams.

 

After that I look at how the animals are pursued. Running down a deer on a snowmobile and then shooting it would fall into the illegitimate category even if that person were going to eat the meat. This is all about what is commonly called “fair chase”. Fair chase is one of those changing values–what was “fair” in the past, isn’t necessarily fair today and technology has skewed the boundaries quite a bit. Is using GPS on hounds to chase down a cougar, then when the “treed signal” is heard, you get out of your pick-up truck and amble up to the tree and shoot the cat out of it fair chase? I don’t think so.

 

So these are some of the things that I consider to develop my current position about wolf management (which is just a euphemism for killing them). One of the reasons I am skeptical of state management of wolves is due to history. Can a species that has been so viciously maligned for so long be successfully “managed” by the same state agencies that depend upon license sales to hunt wolf prey like elk and deer to fund their bureaucracies? I recognize that there are many fine biologists working for these agencies who appreciate the important biological value of having wolf predation, but even they “must dance with the ones that brung ya”—and the majority of hunters want fewer wolves.

 

Because of this legacy of historic persecution, wolf “management” as it’s called by states like Idaho and Montana is, to my mind, is done for all the wrong reasons. Despite what some may say about how they just want to hunt wolves like they hunt deer, elk, etc. the bottom line for most hunters, and the reason for the ‘management’ is not any of the above legitimate reasons for hunting. We are persecuting wolves because they are thought to be competition for elk and deer and/or a threat to livestock producers.

 

I would not support wolf control and management even if I thought that wolves were a serious threat to elk and deer populations. However, the truth is that these justifications are more imaginary than real.

 

Even if I believed wolves did have a significant impact on state-wide elk and deer numbers, I would still argue that hunters have to accept that they are sharing the world with other creatures, and wolves have a greater “right” to the elk and deer than the average human hunter–in part because we do have alternatives. We are not going to starve if we don’t shoot a deer or elk.

 

The same can be said for livestock producers. There are many proven techniques to reduce predator losses that livestock producers can implement. While there may be the occasional need to surgically remove an individual animal or even a pack of wolves, if most livestock producers practiced better animal husbandry, much of the conflict would cease to exist–and I believe ranchers have an ethical responsibility to implement these measures so that both their animals and the predators do not have to suffer.

 

However, what particularly bothersome to me about this persecution of predators is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that “managing” wolves may actually be counterproductive for even the stated goals of wolf control proponents. Hunting predators can increase conflicts with livestock producers, and could under some circumstances, even hasten the decline of big game herds because of the social chaos and population structural changes that occurs with indiscriminate hunting.

 

Hunting can skew the wolf populations to younger animals, breaking up larger packs into smaller packs, which can lead to more conflicts. For instance, young animals are less skillful hunters, they do not know the territory as well as older animals—things like where the elk migrate or calve. Packs that are continuously suffering mortality from persecution have a more difficult time holding on to territory. Smaller packs cannot defend kills against other scavengers readily. A big intact pack can kill an elk and guard the carcass from bears, coyotes, ravens and other animals while consuming it entirely, reducing the need to kill another deer or elk. Thus wolves that suffer from wolf “management” are more likely to attack livestock and sometimes even consume more prey than unmanaged packs.

 

In addition, there is more and more evidence about the ecological role of predators in functioning ecosystems or what has been termed “trophic cascade”. This research suggests, among many ecological benefits associated with predators, that predator induced reductions in elk and deer numbers in some places, at some times, is “good” for ecosystem function. And since wolves have been doing this for eons eliminating these ecological influences is done at our peril. Just as we now understand that damming rivers and changing the flow has serious consequences for many fish, plants, and birds, we must recognize that predators have an important ecological function and eliminating that function across wide swaths of the land is probably not a good idea.

 

So when hunters say they are not opposed to having a few wolves around, but we need to control them so they don’t diminish the number of elk and deer, I believe it’s essential that thinking hunters respond by saying we shouldn’t be so quick to eliminate something that was so important to ecosystem health and function for so many centuries. We actually “need” to have wolves and other predators to reduce prey populations. Trying to “smooth” out these kinds of natural population fluctuations of prey species as is the accepted “goal” of wildlife management may not be a good idea for healthy ecosystems.

 

No only does predator “management” result in unnecessary killing, but it jeopardizes ecological function and doesn’t even achieve the stated goals of reducing conflicts with livestock producers and could even hasten decline in prey populations for hunters. Hunters as much as any group should be advocating healthy ecosystems—since in the end the long term value of habitat is dependent on healthy ecological function.

 

That’s why I believe that of all sub-groups of people who might be opposing wolf “management” it ought to be hunters who should be most strongly opposing this proposal. Yet, not surprisingly, what I hear is strident calls for killing wolves by most hunters, and even the ethically inclined hunters are generally silent, silenced because they are afraid to be called “anti hunting” or even worse, an “animal rights advocate”. But of all groups of people, I think hunters should be among the most outspoken advocates of predators.

 

I do not think wolf killing rises to that level of ethical hunting, ecological necessity, and/or food necessity.

 

GEORGE WUERTHNER is an ecologist and former Montana hunting guide.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/21/of-wolves-and-the-ethical-hunter/print/

 

I don't think George Wuerthner has ever been around wolf kills. Wolves are very very brutal killers. More so than any other predator I know of. I've seen first hand lion kills. Even hyena kills. Nothing compares to wolves who tend to hamstring the animal and eat it while it slowly dies. They kill each other regularly as well. There's a good reason we killed all the wolves once. They are not good neighbors. The fewer of them around the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? You hear peoples dogs (cats I can sorta' understand) left out after dusk being munched by the coyotes?

Wtf do you live in Moronville or something? Really? Coyotes roam the countryside but peeps where you live don't get it?

Pics or it didn't happen.

You gotta remember he lives on top of rocky flats, so he is dealing with ultra smart coyotes that could give even our smartest scientists a run for their money and house pets who's brains are affected by the contamination and do not get past the awareness of a small small(in that part of the state at least) child... Give him a break would ya. Not many of us could carve out a living out there in the wasteland that is rocky flats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In brief, wildlife management by the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana is a corrupt and despotic system enslaved through culture and financial dependencies to serving the interests of those who have a worldview that features violence, iconizes weapons, makes fetishes of sexual organs, and instrumentalizes animals. Moreover, state wildlife managers have a history of demonizing carnivores in defiance of the best available science as part of a narrative that features killing predators to purportedly boost sport-hunting opportunities for “customers.” And, interestingly enough, all of this is realized through the services of people who are, by and large, well-intentioned nice guys. Leading, in turn, to what I call the “nice guy fallacy,” which is the chronic tendency of apologists for state wildlife management to conflate personality with institutions and culture.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/20/disserving-the-public-trust-the-despotic-future-of-grizzly-bear-management/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

More current,

 

, and in the "Good News" category.

 

20 Wolves Shot

 

Oh yes, the wolf cull. Here's an interesting read. You can read, can't you?, Mike in Seattle.

 

Of Wolves and the Ethical Hunter

 

Posted By George Wuerthner On

 

April 21, 2011 @ 12:00 am

 

In light of the recent successful delisting of the wolf by Congress, I have been thinking a lot about why I so strenuously object to killing wolves. I can accept hunting that I feel is legitimate—such as the hunting for food done by those who pursue elk, deer, ducks, and so forth under legal seasons, bag limits and other modern wildlife management authority. Just because killing wolves will now be legal in states like Idaho and Montana does not make it legitimate to me.

 

I should interject here that I don’t believe the state’s goals are to extirpate wolves again. I’m not worried that wolves will disappear from Idaho or Montana. But I do not think we should take the killing of wolves or any other animal lightly. Unnecessary killing is not something that should be condoned.

 

This is not a blind opposition to all hunting. I believe that hunting can be a legitimate activity. The hunter is legitimate in my view when hunting is done with humility and respect for the animals. When the animal’s death is not taken for granted or trivialized. And the hunter must practice the up-most ethical behavior when pursuing animals. And sometimes I can condone hunting (or more properly perhaps I should call it shooting) when it is the best way to perform what I might call some ecological necessity–say shooting feral animals on some island that is raising havoc with native wildlife.

 

I also believe hunters, perhaps, more than other sub-groups have a moral and ethical responsibly to watch dog, monitor and police their own ranks. Hunters, by the right that society gives them permission to kill things, should be the ones that take killing seriously. And they have an obligation to really think about the killing they are doing, and whether that killing is warranted, and necessary.

 

Personally, I don’t use the word “harvest” when talking about killing wildlife. That kind of terminology in my mind minimizes what is being done–the killing of another creature–and I think words like “harvest” desensitizes one to what is happening.

 

When does hunting start to border on illegitimate? That is a hazy area, of course. In my view blasting “gophers” and “prairie dogs” for fun, coyote hunts, and that like are clearly illegitimate activities. I don’t think shooting “gophers” so you can see the “red spray” is ethical. It demonstrates no respect for the animals. It does not represent humility by the hunter. It trivializes the death of a creature.

 

What makes something legitimate gets back, in part, to why we do things. Shooting animals out of season is what we call poaching. And especially if someone were killing say elk to sell the meat and antlers, most of us feel is wrong, even though the person is just killing the elk, the exact same thing a hunter might do during hunting season. On the other hand, if someone shoots a deer out of season to feed their starving family most of us would at least be willing to forgive someone for such an offense, even if it were still illegal. But I would want to know that all other avenues for feeding their family were exhausted–i.e. you could not get food from welfare and/or donations from a church, etc. Nevertheless, you get the point. Depending on the circumstances, the same basic action can be ethical or unethical.

 

I can support the killing of an elk during hunting seasons, for instance, for many reasons. A person is going to eat something for food and killing an elk and/or say keeping a trout (or whatever animal is consumed) generally is in the category of a “necessity”. Not that there aren’t other alternatives to hunting and fishing–obviously one can buy meat or fish at the grocery store, grow veggies in their garden and so on. Still getting meat from a grocery results in the killing of an animal as well, and I can make a very strong case that agriculturally raised meat whether in a factory farm and/or range cattle out on public lands has a tremendous amount of negative impacts to the land and other wildlife, not to mention even serious ethical questions about how the domestic animals are treated themselves. Thus I don’t have a problem with someone killing an elk or deer to consume if they feel eating some meat is something they want in their diet. (Putting aside the legitimate question of whether one needs to eat meat in the first place for the moment, if one has decided that consuming meat is acceptable, than hunting is a legitimate means of obtaining food in my view).

 

I also place value on the pursuit of wildlife. Hunting, because it is serious business when done correctly, puts a person in more direct contact with the entire web of life. This is a difficult thing to explain, but it is real. And I think many hunters experience this when afield. Thus hunting has value to both individuals and society as a consequence. I would liken it to growing a garden. Most of us can get our vegetables from the grocery store, but as any gardener will tell you, there is value to growing one’s own food that goes beyond just satisfying a need for food.

 

But I don’t necessary support the killing of all animals just because someone is going to eat it. There are also other considerations in how I view and determine whether the hunting is ethical. I need to know that the hunter takes death of an animal seriously and does everything they can to avoid unnecessary suffering of the creature they are killing. Killing needs to be done quickly and as humanely as possible.

 

I also need to know that the animal being killed is relatively common so that killing it does not jeopardize its overall population. Obviously that is not an issue in most of the common species we hunt today like deer, elk, and so forth. For species that are rarer, I start to question whether hunting is legitimate even if one could argue you are eating the meat. For instance, I question hunting grizzlies for that reason. Grizzlies are not really common anywhere, even when they are not hunted as in some of the big parks in Alaska.

 

I then ask if hunting and taking a lot of these animals from the landscape going to have serious impacts on other wildlife (i.e. is the killing of that particular species in that particular part of the country taking food out of the mouth of other wildlife and/or seriously interrupting with some major ecological function–nutrient cycling, etc.) Nutrient cycling is a good example of why at least as far as catching salmon for sport doesn’t bother me, but I have some serious reservations about the degree of salmon removal by commercial fishermen in terms of nutrient return to headwater streams.

 

After that I look at how the animals are pursued. Running down a deer on a snowmobile and then shooting it would fall into the illegitimate category even if that person were going to eat the meat. This is all about what is commonly called “fair chase”. Fair chase is one of those changing values–what was “fair” in the past, isn’t necessarily fair today and technology has skewed the boundaries quite a bit. Is using GPS on hounds to chase down a cougar, then when the “treed signal” is heard, you get out of your pick-up truck and amble up to the tree and shoot the cat out of it fair chase? I don’t think so.

 

So these are some of the things that I consider to develop my current position about wolf management (which is just a euphemism for killing them). One of the reasons I am skeptical of state management of wolves is due to history. Can a species that has been so viciously maligned for so long be successfully “managed” by the same state agencies that depend upon license sales to hunt wolf prey like elk and deer to fund their bureaucracies? I recognize that there are many fine biologists working for these agencies who appreciate the important biological value of having wolf predation, but even they “must dance with the ones that brung ya”—and the majority of hunters want fewer wolves.

 

Because of this legacy of historic persecution, wolf “management” as it’s called by states like Idaho and Montana is, to my mind, is done for all the wrong reasons. Despite what some may say about how they just want to hunt wolves like they hunt deer, elk, etc. the bottom line for most hunters, and the reason for the ‘management’ is not any of the above legitimate reasons for hunting. We are persecuting wolves because they are thought to be competition for elk and deer and/or a threat to livestock producers.

 

I would not support wolf control and management even if I thought that wolves were a serious threat to elk and deer populations. However, the truth is that these justifications are more imaginary than real.

 

Even if I believed wolves did have a significant impact on state-wide elk and deer numbers, I would still argue that hunters have to accept that they are sharing the world with other creatures, and wolves have a greater “right” to the elk and deer than the average human hunter–in part because we do have alternatives. We are not going to starve if we don’t shoot a deer or elk.

 

The same can be said for livestock producers. There are many proven techniques to reduce predator losses that livestock producers can implement. While there may be the occasional need to surgically remove an individual animal or even a pack of wolves, if most livestock producers practiced better animal husbandry, much of the conflict would cease to exist–and I believe ranchers have an ethical responsibility to implement these measures so that both their animals and the predators do not have to suffer.

 

However, what particularly bothersome to me about this persecution of predators is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that “managing” wolves may actually be counterproductive for even the stated goals of wolf control proponents. Hunting predators can increase conflicts with livestock producers, and could under some circumstances, even hasten the decline of big game herds because of the social chaos and population structural changes that occurs with indiscriminate hunting.

 

Hunting can skew the wolf populations to younger animals, breaking up larger packs into smaller packs, which can lead to more conflicts. For instance, young animals are less skillful hunters, they do not know the territory as well as older animals—things like where the elk migrate or calve. Packs that are continuously suffering mortality from persecution have a more difficult time holding on to territory. Smaller packs cannot defend kills against other scavengers readily. A big intact pack can kill an elk and guard the carcass from bears, coyotes, ravens and other animals while consuming it entirely, reducing the need to kill another deer or elk. Thus wolves that suffer from wolf “management” are more likely to attack livestock and sometimes even consume more prey than unmanaged packs.

 

In addition, there is more and more evidence about the ecological role of predators in functioning ecosystems or what has been termed “trophic cascade”. This research suggests, among many ecological benefits associated with predators, that predator induced reductions in elk and deer numbers in some places, at some times, is “good” for ecosystem function. And since wolves have been doing this for eons eliminating these ecological influences is done at our peril. Just as we now understand that damming rivers and changing the flow has serious consequences for many fish, plants, and birds, we must recognize that predators have an important ecological function and eliminating that function across wide swaths of the land is probably not a good idea.

 

So when hunters say they are not opposed to having a few wolves around, but we need to control them so they don’t diminish the number of elk and deer, I believe it’s essential that thinking hunters respond by saying we shouldn’t be so quick to eliminate something that was so important to ecosystem health and function for so many centuries. We actually “need” to have wolves and other predators to reduce prey populations. Trying to “smooth” out these kinds of natural population fluctuations of prey species as is the accepted “goal” of wildlife management may not be a good idea for healthy ecosystems.

 

No only does predator “management” result in unnecessary killing, but it jeopardizes ecological function and doesn’t even achieve the stated goals of reducing conflicts with livestock producers and could even hasten decline in prey populations for hunters. Hunters as much as any group should be advocating healthy ecosystems—since in the end the long term value of habitat is dependent on healthy ecological function.

 

That’s why I believe that of all sub-groups of people who might be opposing wolf “management” it ought to be hunters who should be most strongly opposing this proposal. Yet, not surprisingly, what I hear is strident calls for killing wolves by most hunters, and even the ethically inclined hunters are generally silent, silenced because they are afraid to be called “anti hunting” or even worse, an “animal rights advocate”. But of all groups of people, I think hunters should be among the most outspoken advocates of predators.

 

I do not think wolf killing rises to that level of ethical hunting, ecological necessity, and/or food necessity.

 

GEORGE WUERTHNER is an ecologist and former Montana hunting guide.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/21/of-wolves-and-the-ethical-hunter/print/

 

I don't think George Wuerthner has ever been around wolf kills. Wolves are very very brutal killers. More so than any other predator I know of. I've seen first hand lion kills. Even hyena kills. Nothing compares to wolves who tend to hamstring the animal and eat it while it slowly dies. They kill each other regularly as well. There's a good reason we killed all the wolves once. They are not good neighbors. The fewer of them around the better.

 

 

"GEORGE WUERTHNER is an ecologist and former Montana hunting guide."

 

Yeah, you're right, the dude is just blowin' hot air. Prolly never even been in the woods, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In brief, wildlife management by the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana is a corrupt and despotic system enslaved through culture and financial dependencies to serving the interests of those who have a worldview that features violence, iconizes weapons, makes fetishes of sexual organs, and instrumentalizes animals. Moreover, state wildlife managers have a history of demonizing carnivores in defiance of the best available science as part of a narrative that features killing predators to purportedly boost sport-hunting opportunities for “customers.” And, interestingly enough, all of this is realized through the services of people who are, by and large, well-intentioned nice guys. Leading, in turn, to what I call the “nice guy fallacy,” which is the chronic tendency of apologists for state wildlife management to conflate personality with institutions and culture.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/20/disserving-the-public-trust-the-despotic-future-of-grizzly-bear-management/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good articles from this Wuerthner fellow, I agree with him. It's one thing to kill an animal for food, or because they're causing problems for other animals. But the "pink mist" thing is ridiculous, the sign of an emotionally ill gun owner. And regardless how brutal some animals like wolves or lions kill, what Mother Nature gave them does not then create a need for us to indiscriminately kill them.

 

Hunters are losing herds to CWD and other diseases. If they expect to have vigorous, exciting hunting for their children and grandchildren, then the need for top predators like wolves and lions is key, and the "pink mist" animals are also key.

 

Research now suggests that the prions responsible for CWD can bind to plant proteins. It could be a matter of time before CWD resurges to livestock and eventually worse. The pink mist animals might be able to clear out infected plants and apex predators have been shown to control CWD, https://wiwildlifeethic.org/2012/06/18/coyotes-blamed-for-spread-of-lyme-disease-and-dnr-admits-wolves-help-contain-cwd/

 

Anyone who enjoys killing wildlife to see the pink mist or as more exciting target practice than a paper target, should consider a better hobby. And killing a few wolves to save some elk, while concurrently killing entire herds of elk and deer to control CWD, makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,, Wolves are very very brutal killers. More so than any other predator I know of. I've seen first hand lion kills. Even hyena kills. Nothing compares to wolves who tend to hamstring the animal and eat it while it slowly dies. They kill each other regularly as well. There's a good reason we killed all the wolves once. They are not good neighbors. The fewer of them around the better.

 

The Mt Lions, Black Bears, 'yotes LEARNED that attacking ranchers livestock is earns Pink Mist,

, and, mostly, stay in the mtns and eat Bambi & Ilk.

 

Wolves are the criminal cartel.

?? is more than 4 victims considered a "Mass Murder" ??

 

176 Sheep

 

Get a Llama to protect your sheep

 

19 Ilk

(17 calves, 2 cows, both of which were pregnant, the wolves ate one fetus )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to be awake when the milkman came by tonight, he came earlier than usual, I got to say hello. I guess he doesn't get to speak to many, or even any of the customers, because he immediately asked me about the mountain lion seen around the neighborhood. The previous route man gave him the warning. I suggested he not worry, the lion stays up on the hill.

 

But then I thought about it for a minute, he seemed genuinely concerned. Milkman might be the one job where you actually have to keep your eyes out for mountain lions ... you're out at night, you smell like milk, you have to be quiet for the neighbors and can't make a lot of constant noise to deter them. "Uh yeah, better keep an eye out for that one." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another imaginary friend met in the dark of night.

 

What a load of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wofsey thinks everybody is stupid enough to believe his horse shit.

 

It's an insult to everyone here's intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the story would have been better with a homeless guy instead of a milkman. After all, homeless people still exist, they sleep outside, they are often ill and weak, and so can't run away to escape. There are flaws with that story as well, but it works better than a milkman, you can get past the problems with a moderate suspension of disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:angry: I spent from end of Ilk season until the snow drove me out, last year,

. deliberately going into Mountain Lion's freakin' HOME !! ,,

(, where I'm pretty sure I saw Diego Doo,)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:( , if I had only thought to wear a milkman uniform ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:angry: I spent from end of Ilk season until the snow drove me out, last year,

. deliberately going into Mountain Lion's freakin' HOME !! ,,

(, where I'm pretty sure I saw Diego Doo,)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:( , if I had only thought to wear a milkman uniform ,

 

Remember it for this year.

 

My son will be out there then too if you need help carrying boo boo or Diego off the mountain, he has experience at least with boo boo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the story would have been better with a homeless guy instead of a milkman. After all, homeless people still exist, they sleep outside, they are often ill and weak, and so can't run away to escape. There are flaws with that story as well, but it works better than a milkman, you can get past the problems with a moderate suspension of disbelief.

 

As far as I know, there are no homeless people out here, they tend to stay in the more citified parts.

 

You don't use a milkman? It's a good service, once a week they bring over milk in glass bottles, orange juice, eggs, yogurt, cheese, coffee, half-and-half, whatever. Our teenagers drink the hell out of it. And they take away the empties. This is my local milk delivery company, you probably have one in your area too. http://longmontdairy.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we just all have our own cows that we milk each morning, I suppose the cows are at risk from the Mt Lions seeing as they smell like milk too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to repent of mocking the Woofer too much on this,,

 

It doesn't take too much looking to find cougar reports in Co, as well as Wa and most of the western states.

 

 

 

47.5187507,-122.1734459

 

residential all around.

 

A friend told me of seeing "some kind of cat " in early AM.

, too far to identify,

 

I asked if she could have seen a housecat

 

"No! ,, way too big"

 

I searched an image of Bobcat

" No, this one had a long tail."

 

I searched an image of Mt Lion

"That's IT!"

 

She has seen it a couple of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to repent of mocking the Woofer too much on this,,

 

It doesn't take too much looking to find cougar reports in Co, as well as Wa and most of the western states.

 

 

 

47.5187507,-122.1734459

 

residential all around.

 

A friend told me of seeing "some kind of cat " in early AM.

, too far to identify,

 

I asked if she could have seen a housecat

 

"No! ,, way too big"

 

I searched an image of Bobcat

" No, this one had a long tail."

 

I searched an image of Mt Lion

"That's IT!"

 

She has seen it a couple of times.

Woody is the expert on cougar sightings. In San Diego no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we just all have our own cows that we milk each morning, I suppose the cows are at risk from the Mt Lions seeing as they smell like milk too.

 

Maybe get a donkey to protect them?

 

A friend who has a 10k acre family ranch in Wyoming told me that the steers do a good job of protecting the calves, no other protection needed for them, but I assume milk cows are a more tempting target. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, difficult to get if you or a friend doesn't own a cow though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit ... Number 564 on the list of things I thought I would never see ...

 

I just grabbed a cab in downtown D.C. to Reagan Airport, the cab came down behind L'enfant Plaza I think, to go over the water to the airport, and the car in front of us hit a fully grown deer, nailed it, dead on the side of the road, a good stone's throw away (I think) from that seafood market at the wharf near L'enfant.

 

I've seen plenty of deer eating bumper out in the woods, but downtown friggen Washington D.C.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On May 27, Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch rocked the grizzly bear world in an unprecedented sentencing of a man to six months in federal prison for poaching a threatened grizzly bear in the Cabinet Yaak ecosystem last year (link). While the fine of $5,000 was stiff but not unusual for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), jail time is unheard of as a penalty for any infraction on imperiled species, let alone grizzly bears.

 

. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/will-jail-time-for-a-poacher-help-save-northern-rockies-grizzly-bears/

 

Florida’s 2016 Bear Hunt Options: a Continuing Experiment in Special-Interest Dominance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds gruesome indeed, but black bears here in my area are becoming a dangerous nuisance and need to be controlled.

Bears aren't the nuisance here, it's the idiots who leave garbage out, and set suet out for birds.

The bears are in their natural range. They eat what they can get, when they can get it. How many bears have attacked people in N. Fl. in the last decade? How many of those people were idiots who went out to take pictures, show their toddlers the pretty bear, or idiots who set their dogs on the bears rummaging through the garbage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No we just all have our own cows that we milk each morning, I suppose the cows are at risk from the Mt Lions seeing as they smell like milk too.

 

Maybe get a donkey to protect them?

 

A friend who has a 10k acre family ranch in Wyoming told me that the steers do a good job of protecting the calves, no other protection needed for them, but I assume milk cows are a more tempting target. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, difficult to get if you or a friend doesn't own a cow though.

 

 

Steers won't protect calves at all. Momma will. BUT I came upon coyotes eating the calf as she was calving it out. They also dis a pretty good number on her ass. There was nothing she could do. She was in the middle labor.

That put me into a massive rage.

 

Moral of the story?

We don't have coyotes anymore. I do have a coyote fur hat though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No we just all have our own cows that we milk each morning, I suppose the cows are at risk from the Mt Lions seeing as they smell like milk too.

 

Maybe get a donkey to protect them?

 

A friend who has a 10k acre family ranch in Wyoming told me that the steers do a good job of protecting the calves, no other protection needed for them, but I assume milk cows are a more tempting target. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, difficult to get if you or a friend doesn't own a cow though.

Raw milk is not at all hard to get. You make a lot of assumptions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but you need a local dairy. Raw milk isn't scalable. It should be allowed to be sold locally though, and is in lots of states so long as it's bought from the farm directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but you need a local dairy. Raw milk isn't scalable. It should be allowed to be sold locally though, and is in lots of states so long as it's bought from the farm directly.

It's not legal to sell in my State, along with about 20 States. There is a loophole if you own a share in the cow. http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005192

 

Very tasty stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AUGUST 12, 2016

 

Outrage in the Inland Empire: the Slaughter of the Profanity Wolf Pack

 

by GEORGE WUERTHNER


The recent decision by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to kill members of the Profanity wolf pack because they have killed a few cattle grazing public lands in NE Washington is more than sad. It is an outrage. That any wolves are killed merely to benefit the profit margin of private businesses utilizing public resources is reprehensible. The real tragedy is that this slaughter of wild predators is repeated over and over throughout the West.

Keep in mind that alien domestic livestock have been imposed upon our wildlife. The real crime is that these wolves will be killed to benefit the bottom line of ranchers grazing livestock on public lands. Shouldn’t a prerequisite for ranchers getting subsidized forage on public lands be the minimum requirement that they must accept any losses to predators? If they don’t want such losses, they can take their cattle and sheep home.

Rather than killing wolves for doing what wolves do—preying on large ungulates—we should be eliminating the source of the problem whenever there is a conflict—that is removing livestock.

If you leave your cooler on the picnic table in Yellowstone, or food accessible to wildlife in many backcountry areas, you can be fined for potentially introducing wild animals to human food sources.

Yet we allow ranchers to place four-legged picnic baskets across our public lands—typically without any supervision. Worse, if these predators, whether bears, cougars, coyotes or wolves, have the audacity to snack on these movable food treats, we kill the predators instead of holding the ranches accountable.

Keep in mind that the mere presence of domestic livestock compromises the habitat quality for public wildlife, including wolves in many ways. For instance, when domestic animals are released on public lands, it socially displaces wild ungulates like elk. In other words, when ranchers place their private animals on the public land they are creating a natural conflict because wolves have fewer wild prey to hunt.

Wolves raising pups cannot merely move to other lands to find prey. So when elk and other prey are socially displaced, they often resort to the only other available food source—which can domestic livestock.

There is no free lunch (though admittedly public lands ranchers do pay almost nothing for the forage their cattle consume). When domestic animals consume grass and other plants on public lands there is that much less to support native grazers like elk and deer. Since the vast majority of forage on public is routinely allotted to domestic livestock, this reduces the overall carrying capacity of the land to support native ungulates.

Domestic livestock also can transmit diseases to wildlife that can reduce prey for predators as well. For instance, domestic sheep can transmit pneumonia and other diseases that can ravage wild herds, again reducing potential prey for predators like wolves.

In effect, domestic livestock are essentially appropriating and limiting the natural food of native prey that sustains wolves, bears, cougars and coyotes.

The idea that our public heritage and patrimony should continue to be sacrificed for the private profit of individuals is no longer acceptable. By not challenging this paradigm, we all perpetuate the continued slaughter of public wildlife at the behest of private businesses.

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

More articles by:GEORGE WUERTHNER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Outrage in the Inland Empire" ,

, is at the piss poor performance by the gubmint shooters so far.

 

They only have two Profanity wolves down.

 

Good deal for Wuerthner, though, he can $ell another of hi$ hy$teric article$.

 

 

 

 

Again, back to Dab's "Bear Facts" thread.

 

I mentioned that our ancestors had sharp sticks against large dangerous animals,

, and somebody challenged me to hunt with ancestors weapons.

 

 

Someone did did exactly that.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spear-hunter-bear_us_57b268b4e4b0c75f49d7ec5e

 

So, of course, again,

 

 

, the pantewettednes 06-2-tears.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every hunter is a savage killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profanity Peak wolves again

 

Game dept. stopped after the first two wolves were shot, to see if attacks on cattle would stop.

 

They didn't.

 

Game dept restarted the cull & took out a few more.

 

Since yesterday, Game dept (and rancher) receiving death threats.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/environment/wolf-pack-killing-prompts-death-threats/310874679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of Grizzly Bears and Bureaucrats: The Quest for Survival

 

Posted By Joshua Frank On

January 6, 2017

 

6843888521_a138b6020d_z.jpg

 

 

I’ve always been attracted to grizzly country, or in other words, I’ve always been drawn to wilderness. Perhaps there’s no way around it, having grown up in Montana it’s likely a key strain of my DNA. We don’t call it real wilderness in Big Sky Country unless the place is inhabited by grizzlies, or at least what few still remain.

 

Arguably America’s greatest apex predator, no animal symbolizes the “wild” more than the grizzly bear, which thrives if given a roaming range of 70-300 square miles for females and up to 500 for males. Of course, humans (read colonial settlers) being attracted to the land of the grizzly is exactly what’s put this majestic wandering creature on the verge of extinction today.

 

Take the case of the Southern California grizzly (Ursus horribilis), which up until the late 1800s dominated the state’s southern coastline, where for centuries the great bears scavenged along the region’s rivers and wetlands hoping to snag the once abundant salmon and trout. As Mike Davis writes in Ecology of Fear, during a “national orgy” of killing between 1865-1890, upwards of 95% of California’s “wild game” was slaughtered. California grizzlies all but vanished during this short span of 25 years, likely the largest wildlife kill-off in history. That’s right, before orange groves and fruit orchards began to dominate the dry California landscape, there were grizzlies. Tens of thousands since the Pleistocene age, supported by an abundant, healthy ecosystem.

 

In this canyon were seen whole troops of bears; they have the ground all plowed up from digging it to find their sustenance in the roots, which the land produces,” Pedro Fages, a Spanish soldier and explorer wrote in his diary in 1769. “They are ferocious brutes, hard to hunt … They do not give up.”

 

The last known grizzly in So Cal was shot in 1916 by Cornelius Birket Johnson, an industrious farmer living at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in north Los Angeles. The hungry bear trampled the man’s newly planted vineyard, chomping on his young grapes for three straight nights. Ol’ Johnson wasn’t about to let the pesky bear get away with such thievery and destruction, so one night he lured the grizzly with a slab of beef and snagged him in a trap, but like all feisty grizzlies, this young guy wouldn’t go down easy. Johnson later shot the bear dead after finding it gravely injured, exhausted, bloodied and suffering, having dragged the metal trap far from where it was originally set. Thus, at the hands of Johnson, the extinction of the So Cal grizzly was complete.

 

It’s the same sad story virtually everywhere one looks across the West. Between the mid-1800s up until the 1920s, grizzlies were killed off in 95% of their native habitat by European settlers in the Lower-48. The only bears that survived this period lived in remote, mountainous regions like the Montana wilderness. As David J. Mattson and colleagues write for the National Biological Service, “Unregulated killing of bears continued through the 1950s and resulted in a further 52% decline in their range between 1920 and 1970. Altogether, grizzly bears were eliminated from 98% of their original range in the contiguous United States during a 100-year period.”

 

The numbers are startling. Scientists estimate there were at least 50,000 grizzlies living in the contiguous United States in the mid-1800s. Today that number has dropped to a measly 1,100. Certainly, it’s a miracle any grizzlies are alive today at all, and the ones that are continue to live under constant assault. While over-hunting and obscene Western expansionism has worked in tandem to annihilate the grizzly, which was listed as threatened in 1975 by the federal governmentclimate change is just one of the latest obstacles the bear faces in its quest for survival, despite the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) doesn’t believe so.

 

“[We] conclude that the effects of climate change do not constitute a threat to the [Yellowstone grizzly bear population] now, nor are they anticipated to in the future,” the FWS declared in the Federal Register in March, after concluding another “study” on the health of the grizzly in Yellowstone.

 

Leave it to the paper-pushers at FWS to deny the fact that grizzlies are impacted by our warming climate. Indeed that’s exactly what they are doing when it comes to Yellowstone’s grizzly bear population. Over 10 years ago the grizzly’s most important high-energy food source in Yellowstone, the whitebark pine nut (Pinus albicaulis), ceased to exist as winter temperatures rose. Warmer winters, a solid 2 degree rise since the 1970s, allowed pine beetle larva to survive the winter months and mature as summer approached. And we all know the devastation the pine beetle has wrought on Western forestsnow these important high-altitude trees are essentially non-functioning and no longer a food source for hungry grizzlies that dig up and munch on these pine cones prior to hibernation. This so-called whitebark blister rust has devastated an estimated 143,000 acres in the Northern Rockies. Indeed, the whitebark pine is just one indicator that climate change is forever altering the fragile Yellowstone ecosystem and the species that depend on it.

 

Today greater Yellowstone, which comprises of 31,000 square miles, sustains an estimated 600 grizzly bears. That’s 1 bear per 52 square miles. FWS actually believes this is a healthy number and is working hard to delist the bear, which they’ve attempted to do for the past two decades. FWS’s own staff initially believed only 16 percent of Yellowstone’s whitebark pines were infected by the pine beetle. Therefore, the FWS claimed, the little beetle served no real impediment to the survival of the grizzly. This estimate was later shattered by Dr. Jesse Logan, a decorated entomologist who is the former head of the FWS’s bark beetle research team. Logan’s own independent study suggested that nearly 95 percent of Yellowstone’s whitebark pine tree population was impacted. Following Logan’s analysis, FWS subsequently altered their estimate to 74 percent.

 

“The whitebark pine is both a foundation and a keystone species,” Jesse Logan tells Scientific America. “The health of the whitebark pine is very closely related to the health of the entire ecosystem.”

 

When the whitebark pines die off, so does a vital food source for bears. And when grizzlies go for good, there is no returning. Perhaps that’s FWS’s intention, despite their claims to have the best interest of the grizzly at heart. If they did actually give a shit, they’d learn from their own past mistakes. In 2007 FWS delisted the Yellowstone grizzly and the move had devastating impacts. In 2008, 54 Yellowstone grizzlies died37 of which were killed by hunters. It was likely the highest mortality rate of the Yellowstone grizzly in over 40 years.

 

“‘Known’ mortality is, as a rule of thumb, generally about half of actual grizzly bears dead. A hundred dead bears per year, no matter if the total number in the ecosystem is 200 or 600, means the [Yellowstone grizzly] population is crashing downhill,” writes author and bear advocate Doug Peacock. “This is especially true for the grizzly, one of the world’s slowest-reproducing mammals.”

 

Fortunately, in 2009 U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that Yellowstone’s grizzlies were not fully recovered, and cited the whitebark pine die-off as the reason the bears deserved to be protected by the Endangered Species Act once again. One major problem, noted Molloy, was there were no regulatory protections in place if the population began to decline, which clearly was happening.

 

“Even if the monitoring were enforceable, the monitoring itself does nothing to protect the grizzly bear population,” Molloy wrote. “Instead, there is only a promise of future, unenforceable actions. Promises of future, speculative action are not existing regulatory mechanisms.”

 

Now, FWS argues that it’s again time to strip these bears of their frail legal protection. No matter that the whitebark pine epidemic is far worse than it was ten years ago. No matter that the bear population is essentially the same size as it was in 2007. The delisting a decade ago shows us that the government does not have the capability to manage the delicate balance of grizzlies and their diminishing habitat. In fact, as climate change continues to kill off one of these bear’s main food sources, grizzlies will need more land to survive, not less.

 

Of course bears have no idea humans have drawn arbitrary lines around their habitat, dictating where they are allowed to roam and live. Whitebark pine trees are nearly gone in Yellowstone National Park and won’t be returning in our lifetimes. Sure grizzlies are highly intelligent, and will work hard to survive under adverse conditions. But if delisted, FWS will be setting up a major impediment that will forever devastate the grizzly as they face the bloodlust of trophy hunters near the park’s boundaries when they leave Yellowstone in search of food and new mates.

 

By denying that Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened by climate change (or greedy sport hunters for that matter), FWS is turning its back on science. It’s also turning its back on common sense. Delisting the grizzly serves no decent purpose whatsoever. There is no question that history will repeat itself if these short-sighted bureaucrats can pull it offin this case a history of avoidable extinction.

 

When we lose grizzlies, we lose wilderness, and when we lose wilderness we lose a piece of ourselves that can’t ever be replaced.

 

This piece first appeared in CounterPunch Magazine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profanity Peak wolves again

 

Game dept. stopped after the first two wolves were shot, to see if attacks on cattle would stop.

 

They didn't.

 

Game dept restarted the cull & took out a few more.

 

Since yesterday, Game dept (and rancher) receiving death threats.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/environment/wolf-pack-killing-prompts-death-threats/310874679

 

Ranchers simply should not be allowed to graze on public lands. Period.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Profanity Peak wolves again

 

Game dept. stopped after the first two wolves were shot, to see if attacks on cattle would stop.

 

They didn't.

 

Game dept restarted the cull & took out a few more.

 

Since yesterday, Game dept (and rancher) receiving death threats.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/environment/wolf-pack-killing-prompts-death-threats/310874679

Ranchers simply should not be allowed to graze on public lands. Period.

It's a good revenue source, helps the ranchers and the public. The problem is when the ranchers start thinking of the public land as their land. If they're going to graze BLM, then they're going to have to accept losing stock to predators, competing with wild horses and antelope, and then accepting drought restrictions.

 

They don't want to deal with all that? Cool, then lease private land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my sig, livestock wrecks the land for wildlife, and the streams for riparians.

Fuck the ranchers fucking revenue, beef production speeds climate change plus less beef consumption = a healthier human populace = less drain on healthcare resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my sig, livestock wrecks the land for wildlife, and the streams for riparians.

Fuck the ranchers fucking revenue, beef production speeds climate change plus less beef consumption = a healthier human populace = less drain on healthcare resources.

I'm with you on the damage they do. The land can recover pretty quickly in the wetter climates like where Austin lives, but out West, overgrazing can cause some damage that will take years to recover.

 

But I think it's unrealistic to turn off the BLM money pump for grazing, drilling and mining. It's the emerging model for government, self-funded like FHA, BLM and USPTO, Red and Blue both love it.

 

Best first case scenario is probably to get people out on BLM land for hunting and mustang tours ... raise awareness, get people onto their BLM land other than the lessees who think they own it.

 

Have you seen Unbranded? It was on Netflix, I'm not sure if it's still there ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my sig, livestock wrecks the land for wildlife, and the streams for riparians.

,,,

 

This research study contradicts "wrecks land and streams"

 

In a Nutshell

Wild bird populations can thrive in properly managed working landscapes.

http://www.practicalfarmers.org/app/uploads/2016/12/16.L.Monitoring_Birds_Rotationally_Grazed_Pasture.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites