Printable View
So? Did you vote? Sure it's a goofy poll but if you're going to read the ridiculous article then why not vote. It's bull#*it articles like this - over and over - that sway the rest of the undecided. Our complacency has gotten us to where we are today!Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
Anti's are well know for skewing results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
SK33T3R, Thanks for posting, what a one sided article and slanting of the facts. Same misinformation style campaign they use against us in regards to African hunting being applied here.
Interesting argument by increasing the cull of wolves, rather than reducing their numbers, it leads to the breakdown of pack units and ends up fostering splinter groups, which leads to the development of additional packs and in turn increases the level of predation on the local herbivores. If there is any veracity to this, and there just might be having read studies on wolf family units, then it would be better to retain the current limits on the number of wolves that can be culled. Otherwise you can continue to watch the decline in the numbers of moose tags being made available. Of course, if you would rather dine on wolf instead of moose by all means vote against this proposal. But just maybe, you should be voting in favour it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
I'm not too sure what you guys were expected but 40/60 is actually a pretty good result!
I bet that for 90% of people, wolf should have priority on us. Meaning, we got grocery store and they don't......
vote is in
Attachment 32285We shot this wolf on Sunday.
The anti's were winning the bear pole too and look what happened!!
You were always able to take 2 wolves a year. Still only 2 wolves, what's the problem??
Voted still 60,40
Why is there a collar on that supposed wolf ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker