Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[SuburbanFarmer]

Why on earth would they need to spend anything??? Just print out some extra licenses and wolf tags.

[Okeefenokee]

Given that the majority of that money comes from hunters, fishermen, and gun owners in the first place, and it comes from a pool that is shared across all fifty states, and given that hunting has been in a steady decline for a long time, their ability to raise extra dough through more licenses probably isn't great.

[nmoore63]

Why on earth would they need to spend anything??? Just print out some extra licenses and wolf tags.

Not sure about Idaho, but in Washington the way the system works is that you get paid for the price of killed livestock and then if it’s systemic get kill authorization.

It’s the government. Both those verification process require bureaucracy.

[Speaker to Animals]

You'd have to pay bounties for something like that, and I'd imagine they are very selective about which particular wolves they want culled.

If you just made it open season (with a license), most hunters wouldn't really give a shit about hunting wolves since you can't really eat them. But the ranchers will definitely want to get into it and they will deliberately select wolves with the intent of extinction. I don't blame them, but that's how it is. I knew of some of these ranchers when I lived out there. They are great guys, but they are cutthroat poker players..

[C-Mag]

I've hunted wolves and they are by far the most elusive of North American animals. I've never gotten one. However, I have gone with a friend of mine who traps them and we got two. Didn't put a dent in them. The damage to North American wildlife due to wolves is terribly under reported and the data is hidden from the public. We need transparency on this subject.

There's myths on both sides of the issue, one of the big ones is wolves only kill the sick and old, that's a lie, they are opportunity killers. Look at those number of elk total herd reductions, that's an 85% loss of herd size in 18 years. Now when you take into account the reproduction numbers of a heard that starts out at 19,000 animals, the total number of elk killed are not merely 16,000 but likely over 40,000 elk killed by wolves in Yellowstone Park alone.

So that is one national park, how many elk do you think have been killed throughout the rest of the elk range ?

[C-Mag]

You'd have to pay bounties for something like that, and I'd imagine they are very selective about which particular wolves they want culled.

Yes, that's the way my ancestors did it a hundred years ago.

[Otern]

Wolves are not a huge problem.

Correction; wolves are not a huge problem for most people.

For small farmers, on the other hand, when they become a problem, they are instantly a huge problem. And the fact that most people that won't have to deal with that huge problem, ignores the problems, play them down, and otherwise meddle with the statistics, makes it yet another problem, which is why these wolves do get shot on sight by many farmers in pure anger.

There are farmers here who have had to quit holding sheep, because they're not allowed to let them out in the nature anymore. And plenty of farmers that have lost the majority of their flocks, in areas where it is allowed to let them out, and been forced out of farming that way. The requirements of evidence when it comes to reimbursements due to protected predator attacks have changed in the later years, so it's pretty much impossible to get them.

And since the evidence requirements have gone up, the statistics relating to loss to protected predators have gone down, so the clueless urbanites have been pushing the whole narrative of "only 1% of losses are due to predators". A farmer with 200 sheep could have lost 5% each year to natural causes, then one year, a wolf is in the area, he loses 50%. The authorities investigates, find ten dead sheep, with bite marks, but are only able to determine for sure that two of them were killed by a wolf. The farmer then gets reimbursed for those two sheep, and the compensation is not even enough to cover the true value of them. The other 88 sheep, that must've been taken by that wolf, just falls under the statistics of "unknown" causes, to be further pushed by urbanites that farmers "don't take care of their sheep".

It used to be more reasonable, in that excessive losses, over the natural causes, which has been determined by analyzing the statistics for years, would be used to compensate the farmers, if it could be reasonably determined that they were lost due to a wolf attack. This changed when the wolf was introduced, to make it look like they cause less harm than they actually do, to the general public, who is largely ignorant of how farming, and compensation of losses work.

And still, the largely urbanite media push the narrative that farmers are just greedy bastards going for compensation, and don't really care about their animals. Even though the farmers where never the ones determining compensation.

[C-Mag]

Wolves are not a huge problem.

Correction; wolves are not a huge problem for most people.

For small farmers, on the other hand, when they become a problem, they are instantly a huge problem. And the fact that most people that won't have to deal with that huge problem, ignores the problems, play them down, and otherwise meddle with the statistics, makes it yet another problem, which is why these wolves do get shot on sight by many farmers in pure anger.

+1
Turning wolves loose on farmers is analogous to turning thieves loose on business men in towns and cities. It's largely a burden bore by a few for the decisions that make urbanites feel good about things, reintroduction sounds nice from a far off urban center but has real effects on people in wolves range.

[TheReal_ND]

An Army instructor is facing a court martial after he filmed a female recruit and reduced her to tears in a shocking video that has been watched more than 250,000 times online. Last night furious top brass were trying to track down the corporal, who may be booted out of the Army after using a phone to record the moment he subjected the distraught trainee to a torrent of verbal abuse during a bayonet exercise.

Defence sources said the instructor should not have filmed the recruit during her training, with or without her consent. She is named in the footage which has been shared and ‘liked’ thousands of times over the past three days.

The instructor’s behaviour was described as ‘totally unacceptable’ by Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army. The disturbing footage is particularly embarrassing for defence chiefs as it comes just weeks after an advertising campaign aimed at prospective female recruits which said they were welcome to get emotional or even cry.

But the instructor’s video, which appeared on the ‘Forces Bible’ page on Facebook, suggests otherwise as it appears to show the instructor punishing the recruit after she bursts into tears. He even appears to feign sympathy and hoodwink her into thinking she has completed the exercise successfully.

She cries uncontrollably and is reduced to a quivering wreck, before the instructor launches another verbal attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tears.html



Look at Cuck Island yall

[Speaker to Animals]

This shit will not end well for them.