Pink Kate
#661
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
The world just keeps turning. 40 years back when I was a Cadet at the
Air Force Academy, we suplimented the measly amount we were paid by
taking a weekend or so a month hunting varmits (mountain lion and
coyotes) for the scalp bounty the offered by the state. I remember
commenting at the time that it looked like we were making the same
mistake they made down in West Texas in the early 50's when I helped a
state trapper hunt down coyotes. He maintained (and it was easy to
see what he meant even then) that it was job security for him. Soon
as you thin out the coyotes to a critical number, the damned jack
rabbits would do what rabbits do and over-run the place. Sure enough,
the late 50's saw jack rabbits explode out there and then he got paid
to hunt rabbits. Around here, deer and rodents exploded after the
coyotes were pretty much hunted out so they over-reacted and protect
the mountain lion and coyote (and suffered the costs of protecting the
Prebbles Jumping Mouse, which were a favorite coyote snack) until now
rodents and deer are to the point that they offer extra season hunting
much of the time.
When I taught feedback control systems, I always used a simulation
called "Sharks and Fish" to illustrate feedback stability. So much
available fish food, each fish needed a certain amount to survive and
breed. Sharks ate fish, each shark needs a certain amount of fish to
survive and breed. In an undisturbed setting, the whole system would
settle to an equilibrium state where there were not enough sharks to
eat all the fish, there were not enough fish to eat all the food so
there was a fairly stable number of sharks, fish, and available extra
fish food. Stick your finger in and disturb the stable state and you
start to oscillate between either fish starving to death because there
weren't enough sharks, or sharks starving because there weren't enough
fish. Given enough time, a permanent alteration in one of the
parameters would result in a new equilibrium for each population if
the disturbance persisted or it would return to the original
equlibrium once the disturbance was removed. Same analogy holds for
pretty much the entire ecosystem. If we meddle, the equlibrium is
altered. If we try and go to extremes and completely remove an
established factor or introduce a new factor (like rabbits in
Ausatralia) all bets are off. There is a place for wolves and
mountain lions in some number - but not in my front yard!
I still can't find any jsutification for armadillos, though.
on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:32:14 UTC "Earle Horton"
<NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> If your Montana locals are anything like the specimens we have in Colorado,
> they are dumb as a post, and self-serving too. If you have any backbone at
> all, you will sooner or later come into conflict with them, and then you
> will find out exactly how ignorant people can be. Where can you go next,
> after you burn your bridges in Montana?
>
> You don't know much about politics, if you think Colorado is full of "tree
> huggers". The tree hugger belt extends from Denver to Boulder, with small,
> and I do mean small, centers scattered throughout the rest of the state.
>
> I do not claim to "understand" the wilderness, but I do tolerate it a lot
> better than you do. I don't have plans to kill all the wolves, lynx,
> cougars, bear, rattlesnakes, and anything else that has claws or teeth to
> defend itself, and turn the place into another North Carolina.
>
> I didn't notice the pictures, but here's one. http://www.pweeta.org I
> figure a wolf has just as much right to eat a hamburger, as I do.
>
> Earle
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:bea2g.46$2i5.6578@news.uswest.net...
> > "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:44490aaf$0$24450$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > overly romantic East Coast
> > > city refugee mountain man wannabees stick out like a sore thumb and
> > > disturb
> > > that natural order.
> >
> > drop the ignorant horseshit until you spend some time up here with the
> > locals. where the hell do you think i learned it? oonce upon a time i
> was
> > just as ignorant as you are (in relation to the wolf). i thought they
> were
> > beautiful animals and couldnt understand why so many NATIVE montanans ride
> > around with "kill wolves" bumper stickers on their vehicles........until
> it
> > was explained to me and then i saw it for myself. continue to sit in your
> > house and think the wolf looks pretty in pictures all you want. when you
> > really want to find out for yourself, drag your *** out of your house and
> go
> > see for yourself. i notice you didnt respond at all to the pictures i
> > linked you to. as ive said, youve spent to much time with the tree
> huggers
> > in colorado.
> >
> >
> > > The ranchers out here lease federal and state lands for pennies, know
> > > which
> > > side their bread is buttered on, and rarely take such a hostile attitude
> > > towards the local wildlife and the people who are looking out for it.
> > > Many
> > > of them are even conservationists of one kind or another.
> >
> > lol you cant begin to compare colorado ranchers with rural
> montanans/wyoming
> > folks where the wolf was dumped in their back yards.
> >
> >
> > > It is odd, that many of those who would escape from the cities to live
> in
> > > the wilderness, cannot really stand the wilderness the way it is either.
> >
> > and YOU "understand" wilderness from colorado? lol.
> >
> > --
> > Nathan W. Collier
> > http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> > http://7SlotGrille.com
> > http://InlineDiesel.com
> > http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> >
> >
>
>
--
Will Honea
Air Force Academy, we suplimented the measly amount we were paid by
taking a weekend or so a month hunting varmits (mountain lion and
coyotes) for the scalp bounty the offered by the state. I remember
commenting at the time that it looked like we were making the same
mistake they made down in West Texas in the early 50's when I helped a
state trapper hunt down coyotes. He maintained (and it was easy to
see what he meant even then) that it was job security for him. Soon
as you thin out the coyotes to a critical number, the damned jack
rabbits would do what rabbits do and over-run the place. Sure enough,
the late 50's saw jack rabbits explode out there and then he got paid
to hunt rabbits. Around here, deer and rodents exploded after the
coyotes were pretty much hunted out so they over-reacted and protect
the mountain lion and coyote (and suffered the costs of protecting the
Prebbles Jumping Mouse, which were a favorite coyote snack) until now
rodents and deer are to the point that they offer extra season hunting
much of the time.
When I taught feedback control systems, I always used a simulation
called "Sharks and Fish" to illustrate feedback stability. So much
available fish food, each fish needed a certain amount to survive and
breed. Sharks ate fish, each shark needs a certain amount of fish to
survive and breed. In an undisturbed setting, the whole system would
settle to an equilibrium state where there were not enough sharks to
eat all the fish, there were not enough fish to eat all the food so
there was a fairly stable number of sharks, fish, and available extra
fish food. Stick your finger in and disturb the stable state and you
start to oscillate between either fish starving to death because there
weren't enough sharks, or sharks starving because there weren't enough
fish. Given enough time, a permanent alteration in one of the
parameters would result in a new equilibrium for each population if
the disturbance persisted or it would return to the original
equlibrium once the disturbance was removed. Same analogy holds for
pretty much the entire ecosystem. If we meddle, the equlibrium is
altered. If we try and go to extremes and completely remove an
established factor or introduce a new factor (like rabbits in
Ausatralia) all bets are off. There is a place for wolves and
mountain lions in some number - but not in my front yard!
I still can't find any jsutification for armadillos, though.
on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:32:14 UTC "Earle Horton"
<NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> If your Montana locals are anything like the specimens we have in Colorado,
> they are dumb as a post, and self-serving too. If you have any backbone at
> all, you will sooner or later come into conflict with them, and then you
> will find out exactly how ignorant people can be. Where can you go next,
> after you burn your bridges in Montana?
>
> You don't know much about politics, if you think Colorado is full of "tree
> huggers". The tree hugger belt extends from Denver to Boulder, with small,
> and I do mean small, centers scattered throughout the rest of the state.
>
> I do not claim to "understand" the wilderness, but I do tolerate it a lot
> better than you do. I don't have plans to kill all the wolves, lynx,
> cougars, bear, rattlesnakes, and anything else that has claws or teeth to
> defend itself, and turn the place into another North Carolina.
>
> I didn't notice the pictures, but here's one. http://www.pweeta.org I
> figure a wolf has just as much right to eat a hamburger, as I do.
>
> Earle
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:bea2g.46$2i5.6578@news.uswest.net...
> > "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:44490aaf$0$24450$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > overly romantic East Coast
> > > city refugee mountain man wannabees stick out like a sore thumb and
> > > disturb
> > > that natural order.
> >
> > drop the ignorant horseshit until you spend some time up here with the
> > locals. where the hell do you think i learned it? oonce upon a time i
> was
> > just as ignorant as you are (in relation to the wolf). i thought they
> were
> > beautiful animals and couldnt understand why so many NATIVE montanans ride
> > around with "kill wolves" bumper stickers on their vehicles........until
> it
> > was explained to me and then i saw it for myself. continue to sit in your
> > house and think the wolf looks pretty in pictures all you want. when you
> > really want to find out for yourself, drag your *** out of your house and
> go
> > see for yourself. i notice you didnt respond at all to the pictures i
> > linked you to. as ive said, youve spent to much time with the tree
> huggers
> > in colorado.
> >
> >
> > > The ranchers out here lease federal and state lands for pennies, know
> > > which
> > > side their bread is buttered on, and rarely take such a hostile attitude
> > > towards the local wildlife and the people who are looking out for it.
> > > Many
> > > of them are even conservationists of one kind or another.
> >
> > lol you cant begin to compare colorado ranchers with rural
> montanans/wyoming
> > folks where the wolf was dumped in their back yards.
> >
> >
> > > It is odd, that many of those who would escape from the cities to live
> in
> > > the wilderness, cannot really stand the wilderness the way it is either.
> >
> > and YOU "understand" wilderness from colorado? lol.
> >
> > --
> > Nathan W. Collier
> > http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> > http://7SlotGrille.com
> > http://InlineDiesel.com
> > http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> >
> >
>
>
--
Will Honea
#662
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
The world just keeps turning. 40 years back when I was a Cadet at the
Air Force Academy, we suplimented the measly amount we were paid by
taking a weekend or so a month hunting varmits (mountain lion and
coyotes) for the scalp bounty the offered by the state. I remember
commenting at the time that it looked like we were making the same
mistake they made down in West Texas in the early 50's when I helped a
state trapper hunt down coyotes. He maintained (and it was easy to
see what he meant even then) that it was job security for him. Soon
as you thin out the coyotes to a critical number, the damned jack
rabbits would do what rabbits do and over-run the place. Sure enough,
the late 50's saw jack rabbits explode out there and then he got paid
to hunt rabbits. Around here, deer and rodents exploded after the
coyotes were pretty much hunted out so they over-reacted and protect
the mountain lion and coyote (and suffered the costs of protecting the
Prebbles Jumping Mouse, which were a favorite coyote snack) until now
rodents and deer are to the point that they offer extra season hunting
much of the time.
When I taught feedback control systems, I always used a simulation
called "Sharks and Fish" to illustrate feedback stability. So much
available fish food, each fish needed a certain amount to survive and
breed. Sharks ate fish, each shark needs a certain amount of fish to
survive and breed. In an undisturbed setting, the whole system would
settle to an equilibrium state where there were not enough sharks to
eat all the fish, there were not enough fish to eat all the food so
there was a fairly stable number of sharks, fish, and available extra
fish food. Stick your finger in and disturb the stable state and you
start to oscillate between either fish starving to death because there
weren't enough sharks, or sharks starving because there weren't enough
fish. Given enough time, a permanent alteration in one of the
parameters would result in a new equilibrium for each population if
the disturbance persisted or it would return to the original
equlibrium once the disturbance was removed. Same analogy holds for
pretty much the entire ecosystem. If we meddle, the equlibrium is
altered. If we try and go to extremes and completely remove an
established factor or introduce a new factor (like rabbits in
Ausatralia) all bets are off. There is a place for wolves and
mountain lions in some number - but not in my front yard!
I still can't find any jsutification for armadillos, though.
on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:32:14 UTC "Earle Horton"
<NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> If your Montana locals are anything like the specimens we have in Colorado,
> they are dumb as a post, and self-serving too. If you have any backbone at
> all, you will sooner or later come into conflict with them, and then you
> will find out exactly how ignorant people can be. Where can you go next,
> after you burn your bridges in Montana?
>
> You don't know much about politics, if you think Colorado is full of "tree
> huggers". The tree hugger belt extends from Denver to Boulder, with small,
> and I do mean small, centers scattered throughout the rest of the state.
>
> I do not claim to "understand" the wilderness, but I do tolerate it a lot
> better than you do. I don't have plans to kill all the wolves, lynx,
> cougars, bear, rattlesnakes, and anything else that has claws or teeth to
> defend itself, and turn the place into another North Carolina.
>
> I didn't notice the pictures, but here's one. http://www.pweeta.org I
> figure a wolf has just as much right to eat a hamburger, as I do.
>
> Earle
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:bea2g.46$2i5.6578@news.uswest.net...
> > "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:44490aaf$0$24450$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > overly romantic East Coast
> > > city refugee mountain man wannabees stick out like a sore thumb and
> > > disturb
> > > that natural order.
> >
> > drop the ignorant horseshit until you spend some time up here with the
> > locals. where the hell do you think i learned it? oonce upon a time i
> was
> > just as ignorant as you are (in relation to the wolf). i thought they
> were
> > beautiful animals and couldnt understand why so many NATIVE montanans ride
> > around with "kill wolves" bumper stickers on their vehicles........until
> it
> > was explained to me and then i saw it for myself. continue to sit in your
> > house and think the wolf looks pretty in pictures all you want. when you
> > really want to find out for yourself, drag your *** out of your house and
> go
> > see for yourself. i notice you didnt respond at all to the pictures i
> > linked you to. as ive said, youve spent to much time with the tree
> huggers
> > in colorado.
> >
> >
> > > The ranchers out here lease federal and state lands for pennies, know
> > > which
> > > side their bread is buttered on, and rarely take such a hostile attitude
> > > towards the local wildlife and the people who are looking out for it.
> > > Many
> > > of them are even conservationists of one kind or another.
> >
> > lol you cant begin to compare colorado ranchers with rural
> montanans/wyoming
> > folks where the wolf was dumped in their back yards.
> >
> >
> > > It is odd, that many of those who would escape from the cities to live
> in
> > > the wilderness, cannot really stand the wilderness the way it is either.
> >
> > and YOU "understand" wilderness from colorado? lol.
> >
> > --
> > Nathan W. Collier
> > http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> > http://7SlotGrille.com
> > http://InlineDiesel.com
> > http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> >
> >
>
>
--
Will Honea
Air Force Academy, we suplimented the measly amount we were paid by
taking a weekend or so a month hunting varmits (mountain lion and
coyotes) for the scalp bounty the offered by the state. I remember
commenting at the time that it looked like we were making the same
mistake they made down in West Texas in the early 50's when I helped a
state trapper hunt down coyotes. He maintained (and it was easy to
see what he meant even then) that it was job security for him. Soon
as you thin out the coyotes to a critical number, the damned jack
rabbits would do what rabbits do and over-run the place. Sure enough,
the late 50's saw jack rabbits explode out there and then he got paid
to hunt rabbits. Around here, deer and rodents exploded after the
coyotes were pretty much hunted out so they over-reacted and protect
the mountain lion and coyote (and suffered the costs of protecting the
Prebbles Jumping Mouse, which were a favorite coyote snack) until now
rodents and deer are to the point that they offer extra season hunting
much of the time.
When I taught feedback control systems, I always used a simulation
called "Sharks and Fish" to illustrate feedback stability. So much
available fish food, each fish needed a certain amount to survive and
breed. Sharks ate fish, each shark needs a certain amount of fish to
survive and breed. In an undisturbed setting, the whole system would
settle to an equilibrium state where there were not enough sharks to
eat all the fish, there were not enough fish to eat all the food so
there was a fairly stable number of sharks, fish, and available extra
fish food. Stick your finger in and disturb the stable state and you
start to oscillate between either fish starving to death because there
weren't enough sharks, or sharks starving because there weren't enough
fish. Given enough time, a permanent alteration in one of the
parameters would result in a new equilibrium for each population if
the disturbance persisted or it would return to the original
equlibrium once the disturbance was removed. Same analogy holds for
pretty much the entire ecosystem. If we meddle, the equlibrium is
altered. If we try and go to extremes and completely remove an
established factor or introduce a new factor (like rabbits in
Ausatralia) all bets are off. There is a place for wolves and
mountain lions in some number - but not in my front yard!
I still can't find any jsutification for armadillos, though.
on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:32:14 UTC "Earle Horton"
<NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> If your Montana locals are anything like the specimens we have in Colorado,
> they are dumb as a post, and self-serving too. If you have any backbone at
> all, you will sooner or later come into conflict with them, and then you
> will find out exactly how ignorant people can be. Where can you go next,
> after you burn your bridges in Montana?
>
> You don't know much about politics, if you think Colorado is full of "tree
> huggers". The tree hugger belt extends from Denver to Boulder, with small,
> and I do mean small, centers scattered throughout the rest of the state.
>
> I do not claim to "understand" the wilderness, but I do tolerate it a lot
> better than you do. I don't have plans to kill all the wolves, lynx,
> cougars, bear, rattlesnakes, and anything else that has claws or teeth to
> defend itself, and turn the place into another North Carolina.
>
> I didn't notice the pictures, but here's one. http://www.pweeta.org I
> figure a wolf has just as much right to eat a hamburger, as I do.
>
> Earle
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:bea2g.46$2i5.6578@news.uswest.net...
> > "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:44490aaf$0$24450$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > overly romantic East Coast
> > > city refugee mountain man wannabees stick out like a sore thumb and
> > > disturb
> > > that natural order.
> >
> > drop the ignorant horseshit until you spend some time up here with the
> > locals. where the hell do you think i learned it? oonce upon a time i
> was
> > just as ignorant as you are (in relation to the wolf). i thought they
> were
> > beautiful animals and couldnt understand why so many NATIVE montanans ride
> > around with "kill wolves" bumper stickers on their vehicles........until
> it
> > was explained to me and then i saw it for myself. continue to sit in your
> > house and think the wolf looks pretty in pictures all you want. when you
> > really want to find out for yourself, drag your *** out of your house and
> go
> > see for yourself. i notice you didnt respond at all to the pictures i
> > linked you to. as ive said, youve spent to much time with the tree
> huggers
> > in colorado.
> >
> >
> > > The ranchers out here lease federal and state lands for pennies, know
> > > which
> > > side their bread is buttered on, and rarely take such a hostile attitude
> > > towards the local wildlife and the people who are looking out for it.
> > > Many
> > > of them are even conservationists of one kind or another.
> >
> > lol you cant begin to compare colorado ranchers with rural
> montanans/wyoming
> > folks where the wolf was dumped in their back yards.
> >
> >
> > > It is odd, that many of those who would escape from the cities to live
> in
> > > the wilderness, cannot really stand the wilderness the way it is either.
> >
> > and YOU "understand" wilderness from colorado? lol.
> >
> > --
> > Nathan W. Collier
> > http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> > http://7SlotGrille.com
> > http://InlineDiesel.com
> > http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> >
> >
>
>
--
Will Honea
#663
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Guy I worked for in Virginia, went bear hunting with his friends and too
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#664
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Guy I worked for in Virginia, went bear hunting with his friends and too
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#665
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
Guy I worked for in Virginia, went bear hunting with his friends and too
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
many dogs one day. They came on a big black bear, surrounded by dogs, all
hollering and trying to get a piece of the bear. Henry couldn't get a shot,
so he waded in and dispatched Mr. Bruin with a knife.
Hunting with dogs, is like the fox hunting with horses and dogs, that we
still have in parts of the U.S., and the foot hunting of rabbit with dogs,
that they still do in Virginia, and using retrievers to fetch fowl that you
shoot. It is what the dogs were bred for. It's an anachronism, for sure,
but another name for anachronism, is "tradition".
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:444AB7CC.3731901A@sympatico.ca...
> You are correct, BUT here in Ontario Canada, they are allowed to run
> deer and bear with dogs and even use radio collars on them. I couldn't
> freakin' believe it when I first saw the hunt camps with all the dog
> houses. What kind of freakin' 'sport' is that eh? Run them to the
> ground with the dog and walk up and shoot them....
>
> Big 'he-man' hunters Ya Right....
>
> Mike
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Those dogs should have been shoot on sight as they have no fear of
> > man.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife and I saw gutted deer on our way home from our New Years Jeep
> > > run. The dogs were still on that one and these 'dogs' had collars
> > > on... I didn't hear what the local's version was, but it sure wasn't
> > > wolves that live in the area that brought 'that' deer down... I did
get
> > > a photo of what I believe was a wolf's track on top of a deer trail a
> > > few miles back the road too. They are in my sig line link. I didn't
> > > bother taking a photo with the dogs on the guts...
> > >
> > > But you know. I saw fresh wolf tracks on that deer trail about 10
> > > minutes back so the natural reaction might have been to think the wolf
> > > gutted the deer if I hadn't seen the dogs in action and known
better...
> > > I know wolves 'eat' deer, they don't gut and leave them.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#666
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
#667
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
#668
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
news:ljil4296l3995b62iss519e82obv753oi9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:49:35 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> >news:j2ok42drnu4f1fj5atglb9g2fa8f7ucgf3@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:09:00 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole thing hinges on
> >> >how you define a "child".
> >>
> >> Absolute, illogical nonsense. A child (any life, actually) is what it
> >> is regardless of any definition. Definitions are conceptual not
> >> actual.
> >>
> >> Worse, such logical contortions never improve civilization, quite to
> >> the contrary they reduce life to whatever we want it to be. Does
> >> gulag ring any bells? How about killing fields? Holocausts?
> >>
> >It doesn't matter whether you think it is logical or not. What matters,
is
> >what the congress, various state legislatures, and the supreme courts
have
> >to say about it. And "definitions", which you seem not to like, perhaps
> >because you can't provide one, are the stuff out of which laws are made.
>
> I can provide any number of 'definitions' all as arbitrary and
> capricious as those which apparently anchor your morality.
>
> That was my point, Earle, anybody can make a definition, but they
> can't make it real. How about your lawn, Earle? That's just folks
> defining things for you. You think the definition it correct?
>
Apparently, you have never been to court. They make definitions real enough
there. As far as the lawn goes, I moved somewhere, where people don't give
a damn. I hear that in the Front Range they are releasing the restrictions
now, because of the water shortage and expense. I guess I was just ahead of
my time.
Earle
#669
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:nYt2g.41$b26.5682@news.uswest.net...
> ......anyway, i got a late start today because my original planned camping
> spot is under 3' of snow so im headed south instead. see you guys
> tomorrow.
spent 2 hours loading the camper, and another 2 hours driving to the
campground. unloaded the rhino and drove 7.5 miles (20 mile trip to the
actual trail head) when i found several feet of snow blocking the road,
despite 75 degree ambient temp. tried the snow and got stuck (high
centering on the skid plates!). drove back to the camper, loaded up and
drove 2 hours home, spent a couple hours unloading the camper, and then
several hours pressure washing everything down. lol. i did get some pics
and video of mule deer, i didnt get far enough into the mountains to see any
bear this trip.....will post the pics later. looks like its gonna be
another couple weeks at least before ill be able to find any good off
roading.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:nYt2g.41$b26.5682@news.uswest.net...
> ......anyway, i got a late start today because my original planned camping
> spot is under 3' of snow so im headed south instead. see you guys
> tomorrow.
spent 2 hours loading the camper, and another 2 hours driving to the
campground. unloaded the rhino and drove 7.5 miles (20 mile trip to the
actual trail head) when i found several feet of snow blocking the road,
despite 75 degree ambient temp. tried the snow and got stuck (high
centering on the skid plates!). drove back to the camper, loaded up and
drove 2 hours home, spent a couple hours unloading the camper, and then
several hours pressure washing everything down. lol. i did get some pics
and video of mule deer, i didnt get far enough into the mountains to see any
bear this trip.....will post the pics later. looks like its gonna be
another couple weeks at least before ill be able to find any good off
roading.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
#670
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:nYt2g.41$b26.5682@news.uswest.net...
> ......anyway, i got a late start today because my original planned camping
> spot is under 3' of snow so im headed south instead. see you guys
> tomorrow.
spent 2 hours loading the camper, and another 2 hours driving to the
campground. unloaded the rhino and drove 7.5 miles (20 mile trip to the
actual trail head) when i found several feet of snow blocking the road,
despite 75 degree ambient temp. tried the snow and got stuck (high
centering on the skid plates!). drove back to the camper, loaded up and
drove 2 hours home, spent a couple hours unloading the camper, and then
several hours pressure washing everything down. lol. i did get some pics
and video of mule deer, i didnt get far enough into the mountains to see any
bear this trip.....will post the pics later. looks like its gonna be
another couple weeks at least before ill be able to find any good off
roading.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:nYt2g.41$b26.5682@news.uswest.net...
> ......anyway, i got a late start today because my original planned camping
> spot is under 3' of snow so im headed south instead. see you guys
> tomorrow.
spent 2 hours loading the camper, and another 2 hours driving to the
campground. unloaded the rhino and drove 7.5 miles (20 mile trip to the
actual trail head) when i found several feet of snow blocking the road,
despite 75 degree ambient temp. tried the snow and got stuck (high
centering on the skid plates!). drove back to the camper, loaded up and
drove 2 hours home, spent a couple hours unloading the camper, and then
several hours pressure washing everything down. lol. i did get some pics
and video of mule deer, i didnt get far enough into the mountains to see any
bear this trip.....will post the pics later. looks like its gonna be
another couple weeks at least before ill be able to find any good off
roading.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com