Discussion in 'Northwest Hunting' started by daiello91, Jul 1, 2010.
Lawsuit Filed To Stop Oregon Wolf Hunt | Natural Oregon
This was forseen when the wolves were introduced back to the wild in North America. Now it's problematic for the sensitive type, but no issue for those who hunt. Meaning, those who enjoy the act in killing game will tend not to think twice about shooting these predators. WE brought them back and we can erase them again.
The only cause for concern is bad publicity the hunting will get. This hurts us with voters. Oh well, unless someone is going to follow us all around in God's country, then how are you going to stop us from shooting them?
Smoke a pack a day. :thumbup:
Has anyone else been to Imnaha? I assume they mean Imnaha and not "Imanaha" in Wallowa County. It is really in the middle of nowhere with a tiny population of mostly ranchers. From there to the Snake River is a real challenging drive to say the least. That is probably the most remote and least populated area in all of Oregon.
Those ranchers won't give a rip what those groups or LE or anyone else thinks. If they see a wolf they'll shoot it.
I recall a true story in that area of an Oregon game warden who left his pickup to check something out on foot. He came back to find his state police pickup rolled over onto its top.
I think those stupid groups should have to put up a large cash bond to pay ranchers for every domestic animal they lose to a wolf.
Aaaand the Feds caved....BREAKING: Feds Call Off Hunt For Oregon Wolves | Natural Oregon
Wolf hunt called off. Oregon Wild claims odfw was breaking the law?? Someone needs to counter sue Oregon Wild for all livestock loses.
Oregon Wild's just pushing for current regulations to be enforced. Can't sue 'em for that.
Anyway, here's the key part of that article:
The people rooting for Oregon hunters and ranchers need to make sure their voices are heard too.
The wolves and old grizz were eliminated for a reason by the folks that had to live and make a living off the land. The reintroduction will cause major problems for rural ranchers, farmers and hunters.
But the urban dwellers that sip their lattes in Eugene and work on their environmental law degrees need a project so they just flip from one lawsuit to another. Yes, they should be required to pay for the livestock they are responsible for killing. And be sued for the children and others that will be killed by these cunning predators, including the Cougars that are running amok now days.
I don't want to appear insensitive but I hope many of these folks take time off their busy protesting schedules and wander out into the liar of the wolves, cougars and grizz bears with their little bells to ward them off.
I can't imagine a rancher upon discovering several dead calves or sheep not taking out as many as possible, mailing back the collars, and burying the critters as deep as possible.
Time to put an end to these wacko special interest groups that have so much control over our lives. The libs like to say they are free from special interest group influence and yet support every wacko left wing group with a big mouth.
So you have a problem with the First Amendment? That's unpatriotic, un-American, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting the idea. Your suggestion is just as fascist and disgusting as anything the gun grabbers have ever tried to do.
Like it or not, our nation was built to be a free market of ideas. If a group of people gets majority support for doing something that you can't stand, you'd better figure out a way to make your ideas more appealing. If you can't do that, you have only yourself to blame.
Earlier in this thread I posted a suggestion about how you could get started. Preaching Stalinist doctrine on a gun board ain't it.
I fail to see the connection of freedom of speech to supporting special interest groups. When it comes to the liberal agenda, Freedom of Speech means you agree with them, if you disagree they will try to pass laws to shut you up, as in silencing talk radio. But that has nothing to do with the heading of this thread. Sorry if you were offended, that was not my intent.
It's the money buying the politicians that I can't stand, no matter who's side they are on. Special interest groups hire lobbyists and give big campaign contributions, making legislators and even the President beholding to them.
It's one thing to have the freedom of speech to say what you believe, and another to be able to buy politicians.
As you know, you'll find no arguments from me on that point... And I'm sure you'll agree that applies to "every wacko right wing group with a big mouth" as well as "every wacko left wing group with a big mouth."
Point being, the idea that we "put an end" to interest groups based on what they're interested in is unamerican.
It seems like most of this wolf stuff is being spearheaded by small, regional environmental advocacy groups. They're independent, privately funded, and staffed with smart, dedicated true-believers. They like to pick fights and they know how to win them. An organization like this would be an ideal way to fight back...
Of course, you've already brought up a fact that should have ended the discussion: since they have the means, ranchers will protect their livelihoods no matter what anybody says.
I think being able to buy politicians is unamerican. I see a huge difference between free speech where you can gather and rant and petition, etc., and outright buying votes.
You got that right.
Sadly, at this point it looks like there's no way to rein in the corruption outside of amending the Constitution. And that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Separate names with a comma.