Kill the wolf?


Well I dont agree......blowflys are carnivorous too.....would rather they fed off the dead carcasses thwt i create.....
And if you feel the need to eliminate some of the worst of society..please feel free.....start and end in your own state....then move northerly......
 
People try to humanize animals to gain sympathy for them
not George and Angela?!?
iu


this AH was the original wolf hugger, with his fictional propaganda book. All the events in this book were false, the guy never even went on the "field study" that he made up.
 
I just read this unbiased report on how humans do so much damage to the earth , but we are such a small part of the earths " biomass". Rofl, then threw up in my mouth ! Wow ! People actually get paid to put this crap out ? Let's compare our impact on the earth as compared to bacteria living miles below the earth's surface , REALLY ?
The totally unbiased flavor of this wonderful piece of work is driven home when I see a smiling , arms open advertisement from candidate Warren , exclaiming " win a trip to come see ME !". Give me a break !
 
I would welcome UNBIASED studies, but when 95% of scientific study is funded by animal rights and climate change doomsday groups, I fail to see the results as possibly being unbiased. There has been many studies about climate change by objective scientists that shows it's a natural phenomenon that has cycled many times throughout history , but those studies get flushed down the toilet by the left wing media because it doesnt fit their need to scorn and control the people of America. Same /same with amimal control groups and so called studies of animal populations. I'd love to hear unbiased reports on all the ailments that are apparently happening these days. I just dont see it happening when the reports all seem to lean one way and reports that are contrary to that lean dont ever make it to the news cycle.
Not true that 95% of science is funded by animal rights and client change doomsday groups, where did you get that? Most research is funded by corporations and government, which now is in Republican hands. Yes, climate change has occurred since the beginning of the planet, but the causes have been different and now it's us. Bottom line is, after 26 pages, it still boils down to human nature that rejects information that doesn't support our pre-existing beliefs. I admit I do it too. For instance, I was just watching a documentary "Cowspiracy" that says livestock agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels—and water consumption. And because I like to eat animals and I grew up on a ranch, I immediately rejected it and began looking for contrary information to support my position. After all, didn't we have tens of millions of bison here and the same or more ungulates across Africa and other grasslands that didn't cause climate change? But if I'm being honest with myself, we now have many more livestock animals than there ever were wild animals. I'm still resisting the idea, but I have to do more research.
 
Well I dont agree......blowflys are carnivorous too.....would rather they fed off the dead carcasses thwt i create.....
And if you feel the need to eliminate some of the worst of society..please feel free.....start and end in your own state....then move northerly......
I didn't quite understand this post completely; I think you wanted me to do something in my state and limit it to my state (?). States (and countries) are arbitrary borders as far as nature is concerned.
 
Sorry, I didnt mash reply from Gunhawks reply to a previous post. This is your response, Gunhawk..............



The lions share of funding for climate change studies comes from the government, I will give you that. The Paris climate agreement is where most of it comes from, with a huge helping hand from the American rehabilitation blah, blah, blah of 2009. It gives unelected government lifers the power to disperse 100s of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to scientist to convince us its dooms day. Why would those scientists lie, right ? Maybe it's because you dont need climate scientists unless there is a climate issue and since that profession has grown from a hundred 20 yrs ago to literally 1000s now. , and there is 100s of billions in grant money laying around, they want their research to skew the direction that the funding comes from , unelected burocrates looking to keep their gravy jobs .
There are alot of people getting very rich off the climate change amagedon rhetoric. It's a business, not unbiased research.
 
Last edited:
I don't blame you for your opinion Brother. You have a right to it.
But I have seen with my own eyes the damage these wolves do and once prime hunting areas.
They kill more than they eat, they are multiplying like jack rabbits and spreading across the state unfettered.
Ok cool. I don't dispute what you've seen either, but it is just one (or a few) snapshot in time. Most likely their population will eventually crash and the remaining (hopefully) elk will rebound and the process will start again, like the graph I posted. Today there may be too many wolves for the system, tomorrow there may be too many elk, that's all I'm saying.
 
And you dont think some of this so called scientific data is skewed. What about the biologist that was caught planting lynx hair? That's just one example I will bet theres more.
Skewed in what way and why? One bad biologist doesn't represent all biologists (unless you want it to). There seems to be this idea that scientists are conspirators with some evil agenda. They, being human, have some biases but not conspiracies.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top