Dr D

oops :lol: :lol: looks like a newbie to me:smashfrea hang on to it son

a few people hoofin it up the mtn. you can see chair one being torn down in the right side of the pic. new high speed next season.

No violence in me either just the capacity for it if needed:biggthump These aren't my words but they fit my thinking so I passed them on. They are remnants of the greatest generation I would guess.

Defenders Creed I accept and understand that human predators exist. Criminal or terrorist, they take advantage of our civilized society to prey upon the weak. They represent evil and must be confronted and defeated. I believe that self-defense is a moral imperative, and that illegitimate force and illegal violence must be met with righteous indignation and superior violence. I will not rely on others for the security of myself, my family and my community. I proudly proclaim that I run with a like-minded pack. I do not amble through life with the mind-numbed herd. I will train with my chosen weapons, maintain them and carry them in a condition of readiness at all times. I will be mentally prepared and physically equipped to effectively respond to an attack or emergency. I will constantly test myself against realistic standards to discover my strengths and weaknesses. I will turn weakness into strength. I will seek to learn new skills and techniques, and then teach what I have learned to other members of the pack. Be it with firearm or blade, empty hand or blunt object, I will hit my enemies hard, fast and true. I will live a quiet and unobtrusive life, but I will develop and retain the capacity for swift and decisive violence. I recognize that I am the modern equivalent of the traditional Minuteman, and that I may be called to service at any time against heavily armed enemies. I will respond effectively. I accept that I am a pariah among some of my countrymen, and a quaint anachronism to others. I will not hold their ignorance against them. I will win, or die trying. I swear this creed before God, my family and my fellow citizens. Author Unknown Emphasis mine

I merely note that we collectively know about 5% of what we think we know. I also point out that the data responsible for the studies you cite is heavily weighted by statistical analysis and not on hard numbers. The data itself is of the nature that requires hours upon hours in a wilderness environment that the people responsible for collecting it are ill suited to endure. The largest group of people in the closest contact with the wolf populations are the ones that live and work among them. Hunting guides and the like. Farmers and ranchers report data regularly that is poo pooed and ignored. Hunters report what they see and are told they msut be mistaken the study says --- I am telling you that the conclusions of the studies you cite are not what we see on a daily basis here in real life. A little Objective thought brings me to the conclusionm that the study is flawed. I suspect from my interactions with the people tasked with collecting the data that they aren't savvy enough in the woods to know a tree from a bears ass or at least not savvy enough to realize that the ridge they are sitting on might not be the only hang out for the local elk herd. I have yet to see a game warden look at a kill and say yep that was a wolf alright. so either they are activley hiding the facts or they don't know wolf sign when they see it. gross negligence or conspiracy your choice. I can go on and on as can anyone who farms and ranches or interacts with nature in the west. suffice it to say that I don't agree with the accuracy of your study. For that I am truly sorry:rolleyes: I reitterate my statement concerning don't believe it just because its in print and on the tv. go see for yourself.

Godawful beast of a board I can't stay on the thing long enough to pass judgement on its carvability. I am digging my flowboard though.

They added a kicker off of a narrow approach and a four foot drop to the water:lol: good luck next year:eplus2: maybe third years the charm

The plural of ELK is ELK not ELKS what we are saying is the studies are wrong. we live here in the middle of it. The wolves are killing the elk which are their prefered prey. They are supposed to kill only old bulls (according to biologists) they are killing everything under 2 yrs of age in some areas. They shift back and forth on their preferences and this years study of yellowstone wolves showed them eating young elk instead of the "normal" old bull population. They aren't effecting the deer population at all. There is some predation to be sure but whitetail deer seem to be ideally suited to prosper anyway. Mule deer populations are drying up due to overpopulated mtn lions. You only have to meet one of the counters in the woods to understand that the studies will never be right. They are by in large young college grads with little or no wilderness experience sent out with a preassumed result inorder to confirm said result. the grizzly bear counter I met last summer would have had trouble finding her way across the street let alone far enough afield to actually count a predator population. As for population control or the killing of wolves found to be killing cattle, It just doesn't happen while they are listed. I don't think there needs to be a hunting season for them but they need to be delisted so the states can control the populations without cowtowing to washington. long story short most if not all of that expensive education is flawed if not out and out wrong and is near useless in the real world. College is supposed to teach objective thinking not indoctrinate. please don't take that as a personal attack its just a sad observation and personal experience of college education in general.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Gawd I love this place its like a good local pub in many respects. we even throw someone out on the sidewalk occasionally. the guy who likes the berry coolers with his bud lite is getting weird stares from the rest of the bar. A heated which Guinness is best and how it compares to Heidi Klums sweaty arse argument is developing over in the corner booth. etc etc its beautiful I personally couldn't choke down a light anything if I had to. coors and bud being the lowest on my list. Guinness saved me from a life of shame drinking wine coolers. I never liked beer before my first guinness I still don't like the hoppy sugary american basics. I prefer brown ales now and the occasional stout. BLack and tans top the list of faves. local best is MOOSE DROOL:biggthump

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. <o:p></o:p> The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law. <o:p></o:p> Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available - for the year 2005 - show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. <o:p></o:p> (Story continues below) <o:p></o:p> By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. <o:p></o:p> This was not what some predicted. <o:p></o:p> In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city . soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show. <o:p></o:p> Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre. <o:p></o:p> Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime . and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta. <o:p></o:p> The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer." <o:p></o:p> Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence - especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible. <o:p></o:p> Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself. justina I love the dead horse smiley <o:p></o:p>

Amen I hunt the Frank Church wilderness and have for 20 years. The last two years I was there I saw not one elk and lots and lots of Wolves. ITs a shame to lose the balance we have had for so many years. On a side note we had a pair of wolves living on my folk's place in the late eighties and early nineties. According to the biologists there were no wolves in MT at the time. here's one for skategoat:eplus2:

The only proponent of large decreases I am aware of is the Governor of IDaho. he is responsible for the 1/2 figure. I personally believe it was a political stunt that he has since retracted or moderated. Landowners just want to be able to protect their property without reprisal. Currently it is legal to kill a wolf if it is killing livestock BUT...... irregardless of proof witnesses etc. It is near impossible to get the governing agencies to admit that wolves are responsible and landowners have been prosecuted for taking steps to protect their livestock. So its a case of legal but unheard of. Taking them off of the endangered list puts the various states in charge of management. Local control would reduce tension on landowners and any hunting seasons would be limited and highly controled much as mtn lions are handled currently. We have to many of those to so in the long run the only change would be farmer john can shoot when he sees one killing a cow without fear of losing his freedom or his farm.

I am glad you live in Canada where everything is so crystal clear.:rolleyes: It is my strong personal belief that we should take our troops and our money and trade and go home. Build a wall on the north end and the south plant our unemployed troops on the wall and let the rest of the world sort it out among themselves. Just think no more foreign aid money no more economic booms from american troops and bases no more free reign to ruin the american economy with cheap slave labor produced goods. No more open arms reception to the world's poor tired and wretched teeming for liberty. (they can go to Canada) Sounds good to me. Maybe the world would have less to Bitch about then but somehow I doubt it:freak3: As for Darfur and Rwanda I don't see The UN rushing in to do anything about it. I would heartily support intervention in either place. The attrocities occurring there trouble me. The UN refuses to intervene or to even discuss it near as I can tell. disagree with their ideology? I would hope so. There ideology requires them to force all other people on the planet to worship and live as they do or to KILL them as an alternative. I would have to say I disagree with their ideology. Naturally I will have to qualify this statement so no one misunderstands I don't mean muslims in general or in particular those identified as moderates and that don't feel obligated to at least half of the quaran. I guess in the end I am what I am and you are what you are. No point beating each other up over it. :) Self-loathing is a horrible place for a person or a nation to live. Perfection does not exist so become comfortable with the best you are personally capable of:biggthump

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OMG I don't even know where to start on that one?!? suffice it to say that fences and :lol: herd dogs :lol: :lol: are not a viable option. they have fences. Wolves will kill and eat lesser predators like coyotes and yes even the loyal Herd dog. well you got me to snort I was laughing so hard. dont' believe everything you read in the paper. they don't live on a diet of field mice either even though there is a movie to prove the theory.:lol: there are areas here where the wolves have killed all the elk under the age of 2 years. they will be putting other creatures on the endangered list before long. The book says they only kill old bulls but that wouldn't account for the decimation of the entire herd that we are seeing "out West"

Wolves are also becoming a threat here. two female friends of mine were walking home at dusk the other night. This is 8 miles off of the highway in the mtns. They were shadowed for over a mile by a pair of wolves. They didn't attack but the possibility is there and the girls carry a gun now on such walks. They would only shoot if attacked of course but the ability to make that choice is comforting. As for undoing the progress made??? They are so prolific here that the elk and deer populations are plummeting.

I don't carry most of the time. I choose to carry when traveling and when I am going into areas with a known risk or areas that I am unfamiliar with. In MT most of my carrying is in the woods and the danger is large predators other than man.

Well since the countries you mentioned are the world equivelant of a mugger or Rapist I think its safe to say that we are as justified keeping ours and removing theirs as we are in taking away the rights of felons to own guns:smashfrea The use of military force is justified even more, IMHO , for human rights violations and genocide than for stockpiling WMD and then shipping them into Syria before the UN can locate them.

A mugger by definition is armed or presents the appearance of being so. Nobody is walking up to me and demanding my wallet that isn't armed. I think laughing at him would do the trick in that scenario:lol:

WHAT!!!????!! lets see my choices are maybe he'll walk away and maybe he'll kill me?? Well hell why not take a chance maybe he's a good church goin fella after all??:rolleyes: I would Draw on a mugger any day. Would I shoot him? only if I couldn't convince him to back down. The gun gives you choices. If he is sane and lucid and is willing to run or lie down and wait for the cops that's ideal. If he's hopped up on magic dust and "bullet proof" he gets Stopped end of story. I hope it never happens but if it does me and mine will walk away from it.

I started out as a guinness man myself. I couldn't choke down a coors but the dark stuff was A-ok. I find myself mellowing out a little and I now prefer Brown Ale. Newcastle and the local delicacies Moose Drool out of Missoula and Bitterroot Brewing companies Nut brown ale from Hamilton that is actually better than NEwcastle original.

Great guy I don't suppose it has occurred to many on the antigun side that owning and carrying a gun for selfdefense is not an act of violence? I would rather carry one every day of my life and never need it than not have it the one time I might. What happened to our dear friend gahndi in the course of his life? I don't wish that for my kids.

the Beer of your choice:boxing_sm Come on Gleb now your stirring up the Beer snobs, myself included:lol:

read more guns less crime by John Lott ITs probably the most complete grouping of statistics I have seen on the subject. ITs a real eye opener.

INDEED let the crazies commence to calling us crazy Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you right:eplus2: That is the meat of the subject though however improbable it may seem. History bears out the theory, tyrants will rise whenever a nation loses its direction and its founding purpose.

AS a veteran both active and reserve over 12 years service I feel competent to comment on rank and file servicemembers. We swore an oath to the constitution not to the "government. I can't think of any one I know in the service who would side against the people. I can think of more than a few cops though who would in a minute. Since Roman times getting an army to fight its own people has been almost a non starter. Rebellion need only survive the law enforcement stage to have a fighting chance. The true point is that with heavy civilian ownership of guns there is a deterrent factor to any would be tyrant. Loss of the 2nd amendment rights makes TYRANNY possible on a grand scale. Pick your genocide anytime in history including present times and find one that wasn't predeeded by disarming the populace.