>>> hw f wrote:
>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>> hw f wrote:
>>>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>>>> hw f wrote:
>>>>>>>> Buffalo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> hw f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Buffalo" <E...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:k4fd32$sr2$1@dont-email.me:

>>>>>>>>>>> hw f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Big Steel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2012 5:15 PM, hw f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wyoming sucks donkey dicks in hell...

>>> <http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/wyoming-wolf-holocau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> st-be gins-tomorrow/> vow not to spend money there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man's ability to destroy other life is despicable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And predictable...
>>>>>>>>>>> Wildlife management is necessary. Sometimes they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> always get it right. Of course, you know better than they do.
>>>>>>>>>> Its not being done for "management". Its entirely political.
>>>>>>>>>> The science community has already condemned the de-listing of
>>>>>>>>>> wolves. Now go stand in the corner, dolt.
>>>>>>>>> Still shooting from the hip before learning the facts.
>>>>>>>> We're well aware of your posting history, Net Loon. I have
>>>>>>>> evidence to back up my assertions, unlike you.

>>>>> <http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2011/summer/pro_con_delisting.
>>>>> pdf>
>>>>>>>> "Wyoming's wolf management plan is poor policy, weak in its
>>>>>>>> protection of wolves, and is based on flimsy science," said
>>>>>>>> Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist who lives
>>>>>>>> in the Jackson Hole area. "Wyoming's plan sets a very disturbing
>>>>>>>> precedent for other states by abdicating management
>>>>>>>> responsibility of a native wildlife species over nearly 90
>>>>>>>> percent of the state."

>>>>>>>> <http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120910.asp>

>>>>>>>> Perhaps the best and most readable article discussing the
>>>>>>>> necessity of maintaining wolves on the landscape:

>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html?
>>> _r=0>
>>>>>>>> Note the discussion of "tropic cascade" and how removal of any
>>>>>>>> species impacts other species.
>>>>>>> Yes, but we aren't talking about 'removing' the species, are we?
>>>>>>> We are talking about reducing the population of wolves in
>>>>>>> Wyoming, not eliminating it. WM.

>>>>>>> Here are some opinions on both sides of the issue, which I doubt
>>>>>>> you even knew their were 'two' sides. Just like political liars,
>>>>>>> they only present the 'facts' that help them out, even it is
>>>>>>> misleads away from the truth.

>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wolves-wyoming-endangered-hunted/story?id=1713
>>> 0423
>>>>>>> "Our primary goal, and that of the states, is to ensure that gray
>>>>>>> wolf populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains remain healthy,
>>>>>>> giving future generations of Americans the chance to hear its
>>>>>>> howl echo across the area," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>>>>>>> Director Dan Ashe in a prepared statement.

>>>>>> Huh...straight from the article you CITE:
>>>>>> "This isn't good wildlife management," she said. "There will be no
>>>>>> regulation whatsoever on killing wolves in most of the state."

>>>>>> Your point, again? The wolves were de-listed for entirely POLITCAL
>>>>>> reasons. The democrat legislators that were up for re-election
>>>>>> used wolves as a bargaining chip to get elected. It was them
>>>>>> showing the largely redneck voting block of the redstates where
>>>>>> wolves now have no protection that they were "really good ol'
>>>>>> boys" and deserved the redneck vote. This wasn't based on sound
>>>>>> science and has been criticized by a majority of wildlife
>>>>>> biologists. Now put that dunce cap back on and get back in your
>>>>>> corner.
>>>>> Yes, as I said, both sides and different opinions, unlike your
>>>>> one-sided opinions.
>>>>> Afraid of the other side?
>>>>> Buffalo
>>>>> PS: There is a lot about it on the Internet: if you want to find
>>>>> out more about both sides of the story.
>>>>> But then again, why give people both sides when it is easier to
>>>>> convince them with just one side.

>>>> I'm arguing for the reality-based position, unlike you.

>>>> Now get back in your corner, dunce.
>>> --
>>> Arrogant and narrow-minded SOB.  :(
>>> Buffalo

>> I like your new sig file; very accurate :)

> You are a childishly clever person, but you are still an arrogant and
> narrow-minded SOB.
> Buffalo
> PS: Next time , show both sides of the story, or are you so insecure that
> you 'fear' doing that?