1 posted on
10/19/2012 5:43:50 AM PDT by
SJackson
To: Iowa Granny; Ladysmith; Diana in Wisconsin; JLO; sergeantdave; damncat; phantomworker; joesnuffy; ..
If you’d like to be on or off this Outdoors/Rural/wildlife/hunting/hiking/backpacking/National Parks/animals list please FR mail me. And ping me is you see articles of interest.
Really not all that controversial.
2 posted on
10/19/2012 5:45:45 AM PDT by
SJackson
(none of this suggests there are hostile feelings for the US in Egypt, Victoria Nuland, State Dept)
To: SJackson
Shoot every last one of em, the activists and then take care of the wolves.
3 posted on
10/19/2012 5:51:27 AM PDT by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: SJackson
In Russia you don’t need license to kill a wolf. In some states government pays hunters ~$230 for every wolf killed.
To: SJackson
It’s sad that the animal activists don’t understand how ecology works. It is a good sign that we have enough wolves to hunt now, and historically it will take sound wildlife management — including hunting — to ensure that they aren’t taken to near extirpation again.
It is also sad that folk on the other side, the “kill ‘em all ones,” don’t realize that if we do just that we risk a major ecological disaster. Thank god for knowledgeable, responsible hunters!
To: SJackson
I love how these Libs call wolf hunting in rural areas “controversial.” If a wolf was running around some rich, Liberal New York City, Washington or Connecticut suburb, you can be damn sure the Libs living there would be screaming for it to be shot.
8 posted on
10/19/2012 6:08:57 AM PDT by
Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
To: SJackson
Killing wolves is a GOOD thing. If they’re going to allow wolves to roam around the country side, the wolves need to be scared poopless of human beings so that they will avoid peoople, dwellings, and, hopefully, pets and livestock.
10 posted on
10/19/2012 6:15:31 AM PDT by
Little Ray
(AGAINST Obama in the General.)
To: SJackson
They should do this for coyotes! Those things are everywhere! I had one run up onto my driveway while I was mowing. Filthy buggers!
11 posted on
10/19/2012 6:17:07 AM PDT by
Conservative_Jedi
(Give me Liberty or give me Death!!)
To: SJackson
It’s only controversial because the animal rights lackeys are up in arms about it.
12 posted on
10/19/2012 6:19:40 AM PDT by
Conservative_Jedi
(Give me Liberty or give me Death!!)
To: SJackson
15 posted on
10/19/2012 6:27:50 AM PDT by
FightforFreedomCA
(I WILL be voting on November 6th to evict the current pResident.)
To: SJackson
16 posted on
10/19/2012 6:27:50 AM PDT by
FightforFreedomCA
(I WILL be voting on November 6th to evict the current pResident.)
To: SJackson
If those animal rights activists just looked at the national statistics on missing pets, and compared them to the growth and expansion of wolf and coyote populations/ranges, they would see a direct correlation.
So which animals gets protected?
Can’t we all just get along?
18 posted on
10/19/2012 6:32:37 AM PDT by
petro45acp
(The question isn't "are you better off?" it should be "is it really the government's job?")
To: SJackson
Controversial hunt? The wolves are against it?
25 posted on
10/19/2012 7:38:11 AM PDT by
righttackle44
( I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine . . .)
To: SJackson
I strongly believe that wolves shouldn't be shot, but rather trapped and relocated to Washtington DC, New York City and Los Angeles.
If control freak liberals are so keen on wolves, they should welcome their fair share to hang out in their back yard, around their kids and their pets!!
31 posted on
10/22/2012 11:55:48 AM PDT by
TChris
("Hello", the politician lied.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson