OMG! Look What The Libtards Are Saying About Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's Bruce? · Mar 21, 2014

This just makes my blood boil. One big fat lie. The pinheads don't even know the difference between a deer and an elk.

http://www.flixxy.com/how-wolves-cha...stem.htm#.UwN7

dangerousD · Mar 21, 2014

Saw that a couple weeks back. Got into a debate about it...

Where's Bruce? · Mar 21, 2014

The whole video is BS pro-wolf propaganda that ignores the tremendous harm they've done, how badly they need to be managed and how catastrophic their "reintroduction" has actually been historically. Our forefathers were right to shoot em all, they were smarter back in the day. These wolves are not containable, their numbers are growing and they are branching out. Look at the Yellowstone ELK population since wolves were plopped in it over the years: http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2013/03...ion-falls.html

The video is dishonest by misleading people about the real world impact of wolves and is part of a liberal fundraising agenda...just like man-made global warming.

JShurtz087 · Mar 24, 2014

[QUOTE=Where's Bruce

Nick Muche · Mar 24, 2014

JShurtz087 said:
Where's Bruce[/QUOTE said:

Well said!

Click to expand...

Clarktar · Mar 24, 2014

Something for you to consider....

Elk populations were dwindling before the wolf pack. Yes wolfs are having an impact, no doubt. Grizzlies were already increasing their predation on elk calves due to the decrease in yellowstone lake cutthroat trout. Classic trophic cascade. Just to be clear, I am not siding with either camp in the wolf debate, I am simply interested in empirical studies versus anecdotal....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.483/abstract

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1762/20130870.short

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/Forestry/FOR230/Trout.pdf

Where's Bruce? · Mar 24, 2014

Clarktar said:
Something for you to consider....

Elk populations were dwindling before the wolf pack. Yes wolfs are having an impact, no doubt. Grizzlies were already increasing their predation on elk calves due to the decrease in yellowstone lake cutthroat trout. Classic trophic cascade. Just to be clear, I am not siding with either camp in the wolf debate, I am simply interested in empirical studies versus anecdotal....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.483/abstract

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1762/20130870.short

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/Forestry/FOR230/Trout.pdf

If you compare the hibernating grizzly population and diet versus the non-hibernating wolf population and diet you will quickly realize which is taking the lion's share of the prey animals.

ftballman125 · Mar 24, 2014

Where's Bruce? said:
The video is dishonest by misleading people about the real world impact of wolves and is part of a liberal fundraising agenda...just like man-made global warming.

Global warming is a fundraising scheme? I for one am very concerned about conservation so that I have animals to hunt in the future and find the scientific method quite reliable as a tool for learning about the world. As a result, climate change is concerning to me. I doubt Teddy Roosevelt would be claiming that global warming is just some conspiracy, and it's his sort of conservatism that I support. I'll leave it there, as it is a hot button issue for some. But, people who care about the health of the Yellowstone Elk population should be quite concerned about the effects climate change might have on it in the future (link). It's not a partisan issue.

Clarktar · Mar 24, 2014

Some other interesting dynamics in the GYE, is the response from Moose, beaver and songbird all rebounding in their numbers, likely due to increased forage.

Bruce, please compare the diets of Wolf and Grizzly... due you have some literature supporting the the relative impact hypothesis you are claiming? Not being argumentative, just curious if these are things you are coming across in your research of the topic. Invertebrate population dynamics is a great subject, and it has been pretty clearly shown that Lambda (population growth rate) is most sensitive to fluctuations in recruitment.

Shrek · Mar 24, 2014

You're right about the grizzlies being a problem also. I'm all for trimming the grizzlies back to what is sustainable in the zoos. If thats too much of a burden then I'm fine with extinction like I advocate for wolves. The only good wolf is a dead wolf !

Topgun 30-06 · Mar 26, 2014

Clarktar said:
Some other interesting dynamics in the GYE, is the response from Moose, beaver and songbird all rebounding in their numbers, likely due to increased forage.

Bruce, please compare the diets of Wolf and Grizzly... due you have some literature supporting the the relative impact hypothesis you are claiming? Not being argumentative, just curious if these are things you are coming across in your research of the topic. Invertebrate population dynamics is a great subject, and it has been pretty clearly shown that Lambda (population growth rate) is most sensitive to fluctuations in recruitment.

Excuse me, but there are hardly any moose left in the GYE!!!

Clarktar · Mar 26, 2014

Correct, "rebounding in their numbers" does not constitute a particular level of abundance. It simply implies the populations are experiencing positive rates of growth.

In God We Trust · Apr 3, 2014

Too Clarktar and others,
If you are insinuating that elk numbers were already on the decline because of grizzlies and the wolf has not been a huge impact on elk and moose populations then you are mistaken. I agree that mountain lions, grizzlies, and coyotes all feed on elk and moose calves as well as some adult ungulates. All of that aside the wolves have wreaked havoc on elk and moose populations. We as sportsmen and women were lied to when they reintroduced a wolf population to the western U.S. We were lied to about the number of wolves that would be allowed to populate each state as well as the impact they would have on game species. I am not one of the "eradicate all predators" crowd because I believe predators have a place in the west but they must be manged just like all other game animals if the North American conservation model will continue to succeed. I think most hunters are bitter about being bull shitted and lied to by environmental groups and the government after we have spent countless dollars and hours through the RMEF and other organizations to build the most successful wildlife model in the world and see it negatively affected by the reintroduction of predators without checks and balances. Until the "other side" comes to the table with science based ideas instead of using emotion to argue their side I am against saving or helping predator populations that can harm hunting and this great wildlife system hunters not environmentalist have created through sweat, hard work, and hard earned money.

Where's Bruce? · Apr 4, 2014

ftballman125 said:
Global warming is a fundraising scheme? I for one am very concerned about conservation so that I have animals to hunt in the future and find the scientific method quite reliable as a tool for learning about the world. As a result, climate change is concerning to me. I doubt Teddy Roosevelt would be claiming that global warming is just some conspiracy, and it's his sort of conservatism that I support. I'll leave it there, as it is a hot button issue for some. But, people who care about the health of the Yellowstone Elk population should be quite concerned about the effects climate change might have on it in the future (link). It's not a partisan issue.

You think global warming is real? WTFU! Do you also believe arctic and antarctic ice cores lie? The planet is cooler now than it usually is....at least if you compare it over eons. As for the hoax well...here ya go.

[video=youtube;nq4Bc2WCsdE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE[/video]

Where's Bruce? · Apr 4, 2014

Clarktar said:
Some other interesting dynamics in the GYE, is the response from Moose, beaver and songbird all rebounding in their numbers, likely due to increased forage.

Bruce, please compare the diets of Wolf and Grizzly... due you have some literature supporting the the relative impact hypothesis you are claiming? Not being argumentative, just curious if these are things you are coming across in your research of the topic. Invertebrate population dynamics is a great subject, and it has been pretty clearly shown that Lambda (population growth rate) is most sensitive to fluctuations in recruitment.

First you explain to me how it is possible to "reintroduce" a wolf species into an area they never inhabited. The wolves they PLANTED are not the same breed that lived there before...they are Canadian and twice as big! Don't believe the BS. I look at the net result.

A Yellowstone-sponsored report from the mid-1990s stated "Fifteen North American wolf experts predicted that 100 wolves in Yellowstone would reduce the elk by less than 20 percent, 10 years after reintroduction." In reality, that number turned out to be 44 percent. If you look back at the elk count of 1994, the year before the start of the wolf reintroduction program, the size of the elk herd is now down by 80 percent!

Year Elk Population
2012 3,915
2011 4,174
2010 4,635
2009 6,070
2008 6,279
2007 6,738
2006 6,588
2005 9,545
2004 8,335
2003-02 9,215
2001 11,969
2000 13, 400 (prior to late season elk hunt)
1999 14,538 (prior to late season elk hunt)
1998 11,742
1997 no count taken
1996 no count taken
1995 16,791 (when wolf reintroduction began)
1994 19,045 (year before wolf reintroduction)

Believe what you want to believe and so will I.

Grizzly bears are Omnivores! Their diet can vary widely. They may eat seeds, berries, roots, grasses, fungi, deer, elk, fish, dead animals and insects. In the late summer and early fall, grizzlies enter hyperphagia, a period of 2-4 months when they intensify their calorie intake to put on weight for winter denning. During this time period they can gain more than three pounds a day!

Historically, there were around 50,000 grizzly bears in North America. Today, there are an estimated 1,800 grizzly bears remaining in five populations in the lower 48 states. Most of these bears are located in the Northern Continental Divide Population (including Glacier National Park) and the Yellowstone Population. Alaska is home to a healthy grizzly (sometimes called brown bear) population. 92% of all U.S. brown bears currently inhabit Alaska.

Wolves are CARNIVORES!! They prey on large ungulates: hoofed animals like elk, deer, and boar. When livestock is readily available to them, wolves have been known to prey on animals like sheep and cows. When ideal prey is unavailable, wolves will eat smaller mammals, reptiles, insects, and fruits and berries. Since wolves may have to wait for days between big kills, they eat a lot when they can. They can consume as much as 22lbs (10kg) in one sitting. They hunt in the winter, they don't hibernate. Wolves are also known to thrill kill...killing entire herds of sheep without consuming them. What part of this do you have trouble grasping?

Coyote Commander · Apr 5, 2014

If you like elk, deer, or moose, or anything for that matter, than wolves are bad news. Period.

Couple that with a blossoming grizzly population, and its a recipe for disaster (which is what the wolf lovers want). Sure, grizz dont kill many elk, but they run wolves off a lot of kills. So, the wolves are killing not only to feed themselves, but are feeding a lot of grizz too (not to mention the fun killing they do, which they do, ALL predators do).

If you havent watched this, you should.

http://cryingwolfmovie.com/

Some really crooked, underhanded dealings within the USFWS and Dept of Interior, dare I say, infiltration of its ranks by the worst type.

ftballman125 · Apr 6, 2014

Where's Bruce? said:
The planet is cooler now than it usually is....at least if you compare it over eons.

The planet is cooler now than it has been in past epochs; that's true. Humans also didn't live in those epochs.

If you want the facts, look to the scientists not the political pundits paid to misinform you.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf

If you think that the world's leading scientists and scientific bodies are all involved in some sort of elaborate hoax, then there's probably not much to argue with you about. Hope you keep your tinfoil hat at the ready...

Darren Best · Apr 6, 2014

Humans were on the planet for the last ice age.

Anyone with a fourth grade education can deduce that man made global warming "science" is bunk.

The data is manipulated and tailored to show a certain point of view.

ftballman125 · Apr 6, 2014

Elkhunter_241 said:
Humans were on the planet for the last ice age.

Anyone with a fourth grade education can deduce that man made global warming "science" is bunk.

The data is manipulated and tailored to show a certain point of view.

Ah, you're right. I wrote epoch, meant eon (what Bruce said).

The criticism that the world's leading scientists and scientific bodies are all in cahoots to manipulate the data is a pretty outlandish one... scientists are made famous by proving other scientists wrong (in a rigorous way) and are destroyed if there's any evidence that they fabricated their data. Lots of examples of this.

I guess it's about whom you trust... scientists that really don't have any direct financial incentive to claim global warming exists, or people paid by industries who stand to lose billions, possibly trillions of dollars in net present value if carbon emissions are stringently regulated.

All I can say is that I'm pretty damn sure that the only true conservative position on the issue is to be 'conservative' by taking an honest look at the risks and seeking to avoid the worst of them. Even if there's only a 1% chance that the scientists are right (which in my estimation is probably the inverse of the truth), that probability times the potential costs makes the issue one worth being concerned about.

Where's Bruce? · Apr 6, 2014

ftballman125 said:
Ah, you're right. I wrote epoch, meant eon (what Bruce said).

The criticism that the world's leading scientists and scientific bodies are all in cahoots to manipulate the data is a pretty outlandish one... scientists are made famous by proving other scientists wrong (in a rigorous way) and are destroyed if there's any evidence that they fabricated their data. Lots of examples of this.

I guess it's about whom you trust... scientists that really don't have any direct financial incentive to claim global warming exists, or people paid by industries who stand to lose billions, possibly trillions of dollars in net present value if carbon emissions are stringently regulated.

All I can say is that I'm pretty damn sure that the only true conservative position on the issue is to be 'conservative' by taking an honest look at the risks and seeking to avoid the worst of them. Even if there's only a 1% chance that the scientists are right (which in my estimation is probably the inverse of the truth), that probability times the potential costs makes the issue one worth being concerned about.

Buckle Up! You are in a for a bumpy reality trip.

Volcanic eruptions undo all climate change measures

The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.

The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single effort we humans have made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet.

Of course you know about this gas we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for all animal life.

The volcanic ash has erased every effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.

And there are about 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this gas every day.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth.

Should I mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change?

I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bushfire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.

Do your homework and stop believing anything anyone tells you cuz many people on the left are full of chit and have a financial interest and/or gun control agenda so they are only interested in fooling you.

OMG! Look What The Libtards Are Saying About Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WKR

WKR

WKR

FNG

WKR

WKR

WKR

FNG

WKR

WKR

Banned

WKR

WKR

WKR

WKR

WKR

FNG

WKR

FNG

WKR

Similar threads

Featured Video

Stats

Latest Articles