Defenders file suit

[DH]

Conservation and Animal Groups Move
to Keep Wolf Recovery On Track

Defenders of Wildlife Lead Plaintiff in Challenge of Bush Administration
Moves to Strip Gray Wolf Protection

WASHINGTON, DC – Defenders of Wildlife and 16 other organizations today filed suit to block Bush Administration plans to change the endangered status of wolves in the U.S., lessening protections in most regions, and sharply limiting the areas where wolves will be protected during recovery.

The groups say that plans to change the wolf's status from "endangered" to "threatened" are premature, and noted that several state governments which are scheduled to take over management of the species under the Bush plan have declared their intent to initiate aggressive wolf killing programs.

"It saddens us to have to take this step, especially when we've made such a tremendous start toward real, sustainable wolf recovery," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. "But Secretary Norton is backing away from wolf protection before the job is finished and is jeopardizing all the progress her agency has made so far."

A March 18, 2003, FWS decision downlists the wolf from "endangered" to "threatened" throughout the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest, even though only three of nine states in the region with vast areas of suitable habitat have seen recovery efforts. The rule also downlists wolves to threatened throughout the Great Lakes and Northeast. The rule would sharply limit wolf recovery in the West to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and preclude wolf recovery in northern California, Oregon, Washington, northern Colorado, Utah, and the Northeastern United States.

The Bush Administration's plan would ultimately hand over management of gray wolf recovery to various state governments, even though many of those states have made it clear that they intend to encourage large-scale wolf killing as soon as they have the authority to do so. For example, Idaho's legislature recently passed a resolution calling for elimination of wolves from the state "by any means necessary," and Wyoming intends to permit the shooting of wolves on sight anywhere outside of national park lands. Minnesota continues to offer a bounty for killing wolves.

"Even though poll after poll shows that the citizens of Idaho, Wyoming, and other states with wolves want this important species protected, many of these state governments are in the grip of anti-wolf hysteria. Rather than working for a consensus that helps wolves, ranchers and citizens, Secretary Norton can't wait to hand off wolf management to those who would kill them instead," Schlickeisen said.

Parties to Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton are: Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, American Lands Alliance, Animal Protection Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Forest Watch, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Help Our Wolves Live ("HOWL"), The Humane Society of the United States, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ("PEER"), Minnesota Wolf Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, RESTORE: The North Woods, Sinapu, and the Wildlands Project

A deal should be a deal. Now they are filing suit. Is anyone suprised?

Paul

[Sundles]

These lawsuits were part of the "plan" to stop delisting (downlisting in this case) from the very beginning of the wolf reintroduction.

Over two years ago,I told you this would happen. The enviros will file suit after suit to stop any control of wolves--and here is the good part: the enviros planned this with the USFWS from the onset.

[Sundles]

Folks,

BTW, when I first discussed the law suit that "our" side is going to file, (several months ago) coruja posted that we (by filing a suit) would be destroying "due process". GEE, the enviros have filed hundreds of suits just like this one in order to push thier agenda. Have the envrios destroyed "due process" or exercised it???? DUH!

[don]

It is important to note that the " Wildlands Project" is now openly lobbying in this case.
don

Sundles, still grinding that axe I see.

Sundles
***
BTW, when I first discussed the law suit that "our" side is going to file, (several months ago) coruja posted that we (by filing a suit) would be destroying "due process".
***

I think you're confused again. Maybe you could post the "quote" to show us where that statement was made. I think that what Coruja was trying to tell you was that a law suit could complicate things, and possibly destroy chances of wide latitude negotiations ... NOT due process. In otherwords, a court ruling could narrow the possibilities of all parties concerned to come up with viable solutions ... court rulings tend to tie hands and close options.

boone

[Kevin]

And how do you negotiate with those who want you to cease to exist? Such a view is naive. The organizations that sued are populated by those who want hunting to end, and hunters to quit hunting forever. Negotiation with them is like being nibbled to death by ducks.

kevin,
I don't profess to know the answer, it's a complex situation. Your right though. Negotiating with some of the orginizations that are pro-wolf is about as easy as trying to negotiate with those that want the wolf removed from the face of the earth. Some where in between there is a balance. It may end up as a matter of laws and ruling, but what's needed most is common sense.
boone

[Sundles]

boone,

I see you are still defending your pup. What a suprise! (NOT) A little axe grinding yourself?????

I know exactly what coruja wrote. He said that filing a law suit against the USFWS for wolf reintroduction was going to "destroy due process". Water it down any way you want. Coruja had no idea what he was writing.

No, Im not going to spend my valuable time going back several months and finding what coruja wrote, just to prove it to you. I dont care about you. Go find it yourself as you are far better at that kind of stuff than I am.

Sundles,

No axe to grind on my part, your statement wasn't directed at me. Just tired of you spouting sh** without backing it up. I'm not saying you're right or wrong ... I just want to see the quote.

Quite simply Tim, take some of your "valuable" time and put up or shut up. Or would you rather be known as the board's bullshipper who has no time? Everybody's time is valuble ... prove it. Show me the quote, or keep the babbling to yourself.

boone

The scary thing is that some people just won't adapt to a changing world, be it currently held ideas on biodiversity or using computers.

I first learned to use computers along time ago, and how to program them with machine language. Nowadays, all you have to do is point-and-click. For instance, in the time it takes to reply to this or any other message, I could have clicked on the link here http://www.kifaru.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search;search_forum=2 , type in the words "destroy" "due" and "process", hit return and run through the list.

Sometimes I just find it all so overwhelming.

Yep, David, it's not too tough. Did several searches. I know what I came up with ... let's see what Sundles can produce.

[DH]

David,

Thanks for the tip. Here is what I found.

"Due Process, Ive explained this one. Much of the planned litigation in the name of due process will actualy do away with alot of due process."

Good job DH. That's closer than what I came up with a couple hours ago

From: The Legendary Custer Wolf
May 24, 2003
11:10 pm
Coruja
Member # 195

To Sundles
***
Sundles
I like your change in tone, you never are 100% sure of yourself are you? There were and are plenty of provivisions within the ESA to hear all sides of the issue, hence "due process". Just because you dont agree with the out come doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What many of the lawsuits and the Bush administration intend to do is take away your voice, And sure you dont mind right now because you agree with the agenda, what about when you dont? As for individuals lawsuits, Wa wa wa wa wa Im a big whiny pussy that likes to use lawyers to complicate issues and attempt to justify theft. The issue on the plate right now is management, the wolves are here, the herds are still intact, no ones been killed (or even bitten by an introduced wolf), there have been no hybrids introduced (if so prove it), and what do you know we still have our guns.
***

From: The Legendary Custer Wolf
May 25, 2003
12:19 am
Sundles

To Coruja
***
Since you are unable to define "due procces" yet agian, I'll tell you about it. Due process is all the processes of the government as defined by the consitution. The three branches of government, ie the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. All three branches have due process that are intertwined with each other in order to counterbalance each other. When the judiciary is used (law suits) to decide constitutionality (legality) it is in fact the very due process you stated it was destroying!!!!! The very act of suing in court is due process--even though you stated that due process was being destroyed by suing in court. You are simply devoid of "facts"! "Facts" like "it is a fact that chickens kill more humans and wildlife, globaly I might add, than wolves ever will". Oh, I forgot, your the guy with "broad" knowledge.
***
Gee, Tim must be really busy or something. I would have thought we would have heard from him by now.

[Sundles]

Folks,

Along with the last post from DH, here is the other post in wich coruja claimed that law suits will destroy (his words: "do away with") due process.

posted march 26, 2003 at 01:24 AM by coruja: "What these lawsuits and the Bush Administration ultimately seek is to do away with due process............ By doing away with due process........

"doing away with due process" equals destroying due process! And I am still at a loss as to how using due process (in court) is doing away with due process. This one little point was one of the many points that coruja was clueless about. I was reminded of the "due process" arguement when this string was started about the Defenders law suit and how silly it would be for any one to argue that Defenders et al were destroying due porcess by by using due process. DUH again.

David,

Thanks for showing me how to do the search. Honestly, it isnt that I refuse to change with the times, it is simply that it is not a priority for me to learn all the ins and outs of computers. I use this machine for my E-store at BBA and for some recreating, but beyond that, the computer holds little interest for me. Perhaps that will change in the future depending on my needs. Doing things I have no interest in is not "overwhleming" (your word) it simply is not worth the time or effort. Got it?

Sundles,
Good job. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I do believe you found the post of origin ... it was the closest I could find. I waited a long time for you to find it ... even though I wanted to post it.

Earlier, Sundles wrote;
***
I know exactly what coruja wrote. He said that filing a law suit against the USFWS for wolf reintroduction was going to "destroy due process". Water it down any way you want. Coruja had no idea what he was writing.

No, Im not going to spend my valuable time going back several months and finding what coruja wrote, just to prove it to you. I dont care about you. Go find it yourself as you are far better at that kind of stuff than I am.
***

Tim, I'm a lot better at a lot of things, than you are. Same, I'm sure, as you are a lot better, at some things, than I am. Point is, you just spout it out and don't back it up. It's time you started backing it up or keeping it to yourself ... we are, after all, talking about more than an opinion here. You're just going to have to use some of your valuble time and do a little better job ... as you did in last your post.

>>> Here is the post "in context".

From: "kill a wolf" bumper stickers
March 26, 2003
1:24 am
Coruja to Sundles

***
Sundles
The reason you cant get anywhere with some people is because you dont backup your arguement with anything reliable.

You claim there were no wolves in significant numbers in north or south america in the last 100 years, LIE!
You claim that deaths by wolf attacks cant be found in the historical records because the victims were "consumed entirely" including the bones, At best this is a whimsical fairy tale
You claim to have seen the same with a whitetail?
Should I go on?

How do you feel about tree spiking, and burning ski resorts. Some see your views on killing off wolves to be a similar extreme.

It comes down to integrity, when you quit telling stories I might start believing what you say.

BIG PICTURE:
Keep this in mind. Many of the state lawsuits that are being developed right now are being done so with the knowledge that the current Bush administration is making attempts to quote "limit" the ESA. The Bush administration along with these states want more of their "own control" over the ESA. What these lawsuits and the Bush administration ultimatly seek is to do away with due process, an integral part of constitutionality. By doing away with due process they ultimatly take away your right as an american to be a part of, and have a voice in your goverment. Now tell me, is this battle about the american individual versus big goverment? or is it about fear and selfishness? How many of yours and my freedoms, rights, and privledges are you willing to trade for short sighted fear driven attempts at security and false victory?

Even as I write this, the wolf has been delisted and the states are drafting managment plans of their own design, with input from their residents. But thats not enough for some, the lawsuits march on. And even better some states are joining with others in defiance of the very constitution that they claim to be defending. For many this issue is not even about wolves. In much the same way that big corporations destroyed the livlyhoods, and once sustainable forests of the small timbertowns. There are large corporations, many foriegnly owned or with overseas ties waiting to grab our publicly owned resources. They just need a little help from you. You have every right to hate wolves, fear wolves, and not want wolves in your part of the world, But think long and hard about how it is that you intend to reach your objective.
***

[imported_Randy]

Why David Lowry,

I am a bit surprised, the comments about using the computers was about as snide as I've witnessed from you. Maybe it wasn't intentional, perhaps just a hurried post nevertheless, Sundles response was to the point.
I too am one of those people that are not as computer literate as perhaps the times dictate and I've heard Patrick express like shortcomings.
I'm sure in the halls of acadameia or science computers have been around much longer and have played a bigger role in the lives of those that reside there. There's also the age thing, those of us on the far side of 40 were certainly not as exposed to computers as the younger guys, and being in peak earning years it is as Sundles mentioned more of a recreational pursuit. To draw the inference that you attempted to do that lack of computer skills equal an unwillingness to either be knowledgeable or rigid in a persons view of biodiversity was in error IMO. It would be like equating opinions on any subject tied to income or net worth....and I would venture that more than a few of us might be behind the curve compared to Sundles or Patrick who both seem to run a successful business.
Only you know what your intent was or was not and I will leave it up to you whether clarification or apology is merited. Just my view fom AK

Randy,
My interp. on what David was say had a whole bunch to do with "willingness" to learn. I'm on the far side of 40 and still trying to learn. My father is in his 70's and still believes there is something new to be learned every day ... he's willing to learn. It's a little harder for him because there are many things that he truely has to re-learn ... the world around him has changed ... but as best he can, he learns and changes with it. My "old man" is still hanging in there. So as best you can Randy, hang in there.
Just my thoughts from down here in UT.
boone

[DH]

Randy,

I agree that the remark was not Dr. Lowery's norm. Someone from the academia should express themselves a little better when instructing. I am sure I can find many subjects that Dr. Lowery has ignorance and I imagine he could care less about them.

Boone,

Too many people, when arguing, play on semantics to try to prove a point when they have no point.

I feel that any reasonble unbiased person when comparing the phrases "do away with" and "destroy" would conclude they have essentially the same meaning in a given context.

[DH]

News: Casper | Wyoming | National

Wildlife Federation officials dismayed over wolf lawsuit

MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) - A top official with the National Wildlife Federation says he was dismayed that 17 other conservation groups filed suit this week to stop efforts to reduce federal protections for gray wolves.

Tom France, general counsel for the federation, said the return of healthy wolf populations to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is a success story unequaled in the history of endangered species management, but that some conservationists seem intent on derailing that victory.

''I am disappointed that these groups cannot find another, better way to move wolf recovery forward,'' France said Thursday at the 27th Public Land and Resources Law Conference in Missoula.

Seventeen environmental and conservation groups filed suit Wednesday in federal court in Portland, Ore., hoping to stop the eventual removal of wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Wildlife Federation is not part of the lawsuit and has no plans to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf recovery, France said.

The lawsuit asks a judge to find that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it changed the gray wolf from an endangered to a threatened species April 1. It is the first step in the eventual delisting of the animals.

The lawsuit alleges that Fish and Wildlife's decision ignored the fact that several states within the wolf's historic range still don't have any wolves. It also says the decision was not based on the best scientific and commercial information, and failed to recognize that hunting and habitat destruction would resume once endangered species protection was lifted.

France said that when work first began two decades ago on a wolf recovery plan, those involved probably had no realistic expectation that there would be 800 wolves successfully inhabiting Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by the year 2003.

The fact that some conservationists don't see that as a success is unbelievable, France said.

''Yet that is precisely what has happened,'' he added. ''We cannot find a way to make this success real, and that failure threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act.''

Ultimately, environmentalists risk losing ''an opportunity to gain the confidence of the American public'' by attempting to delay the removal of wolves from the endangered species list, France said.

''This is our chance to show that conservation can be woven into the fabric of society in creative ways,'' he said. ''And why? Why can't we celebrate that success?''

[Sundles]

boone,

I will do what I need or want to do, regardless of your input or what you like or what you think or suggest, etc. I will back up what I want when I want if I want. Point is, when I write something here, it is the truth to the best of my knowledge and that is good enough for me--I dont care if it is good enough for you.

You can whine, complain, dislike or ignore me--it is of no consequence to me--NONE.

You'll be defending your son and trying to smooth over his ignorant comments, for as long as you breathe. I would be a fool to expect differently.

Deer season opens tomorrow and I am taking an extended pack trip into the wilderness. Bye.

DH,
***
I agree that the remark was not Dr. Lowery's norm. Someone from the academia should express themselves a little better when instructing.
***
I'm not sure I understand why Dr. Lowry should be held to a higher standard than anyone else ... say, for instance, Tim Sundles, or you, or myself. If you're going to hold Lowry to a standard of any level ... then so should we all be held.

***
Too many people, when arguing, play on semantics to try to prove a point when they have no point.
***
There is a point.
Sundles said:
***
I know exactly what coruja wrote. He said that filing a law suit against the USFWS for wolf reintroduction was going to "destroy due process". Water it down any way you want. Coruja had no idea what he was writing.
***
I'm in agreement on the sematics of "do away with" and "destroy" meaning basicly the same thing. However, in context as you said, they may not mean "exactly" the same thing. When GW says, we are going to do away with Sadam and his regiem, does he mean destroy? Probably. When the judge says, I'm going to do away with your driving privlages, does he/she mean destroy? I'm not so sure.

1+3 = 4 same as 2+2 = 4, the end result is the same, but 1 and 3 are not "exactly" the same as 2 and 2. To say that you know "exactly" what someone else has said, and insert your own word for a phrase, is not exact. It leaves me wondering what Sigmund would have to say about this word association.

Randy,
***
I am a bit surprised, the comments about using the computers was about as snide as I've witnessed from you. ...(cut) ... Only you know what your intent was or was not and I will leave it up to you whether clarification or apology is merited. Just my view fom AK
***
Why is it that you think clarification or apology are merited? To begin with, dito what I said to DH. To follow up, you seem to have no problem with attaching a label, such as liberal, to a person or group and then following it up with, or attaching to it, what appears to be a snide remark. You seem to do so without any hesitation or thought of being called upon to clarify or apologize for what you have to say ... why should Lowry be called upon. It seems to me that you have, for some reason, taken offence to something that wasn't even directed at you personally. And to top it all off, you try to bring Patrick into the picture ... to what purpose I can't even imagine. Your prowess, or lack thereof, with a computer are in a big way a personal choice. You choose whether you want to be proficient or just recreate. I think I told DH at one time to "adapt or die" ... funny that DH thanked Lowry for the search tip. And as you sometimes say, no offence intended, just my view from UT.

Sundles,
***
I will do what I need or want to do, regardless of your input or what you like or what you think or suggest, etc. I will back up what I want when I want if I want. Point is, when I write something here, it is the truth to the best of my knowledge and that is good enough for me--I dont care if it is good enough for you.
***
Once again, you've given us a fine display of your childish attitude. It's not unlike that of a defiant 2 year old ... I will ... I need ... I want ... regardless ... I want ... I want, etc. Point is--me. Truth is Tim, I'd like to thank you.

***
You can whine, complain, dislike or ignore me--it is of no consequence to me--NONE.
***

Thank you for giving me the freedom to express to you whatever I feel like expressing. I have been blessed with a distingtion few are awarded ... free speach with "no consequence". I'll have a little cheese with my whine while I complain about how much I dislike your ignorance ... knowing all the while that it is of no consequence--NONE.

***
You'll be defending your son and trying to smooth over his ignorant comments, for as long as you breathe. I would be a fool to expect differently.
***
Tim Sundles, you are a fool.

***
No, Im not going to spend my valuable time going back several months and finding what coruja wrote, just to prove it to you. I dont care about you. Go find it yourself as you are far better at that kind of stuff than I am.
***
And after spouting this you're compelled, for some reason, to come back several hours later with (at least part of) the post. One of the benefits of spending valuable time on something worth-while (even if you're not interested in it) is the potential of learning ... did you learn something? It doesn't hurt to learn something new. Got it ? ... Enjoy your hunt.

>>> And as my good bud Tim so much likes ... an apple peel to the masses

Folks,
... oh never mind, I have nothing worth while to say.

boone

[DH]

Boone,

"I'm not sure I understand why Dr. Lowry should be held to a higher standard than anyone else ..."

No one is holding Dr. Lowery to a higher standard. Dr. Lowery is a member of the academia and should know how to instruct with out belittling the student. It is not a higher standard to expect folks who know better to do better.

"I know exactly what coruja wrote. He said that filing a law suit against the USFWS for wolf reintroduction was going to "destroy due process". Water it down any way you want. Coruja had no idea what he was writing."

You lost me on this one.....

"I'm in agreement on the sematics of "do away with" and "destroy" meaning basicly the same thing. However, in context as you said, they may not mean "exactly" the same thing."

They do to me in the context in this thread....

DH,
As an x-memeber of academia David, the least you could do is show David the respect of spelling his name correctly.

[imported_Randy]

boone,

I guess my communication skills are about on par with my computer skills, both just sufficient enough to get me into trouble. But my thought processes are sufficient enough to refuse to get drug into your personal vendetta or dislike of Sundles and this is what this diatribe has become again. As to my post to David Lowry, I believe I have been fairly clear about my respect of and for David's postings, he has taught me a bit for which I am grateful and the manner in which he posts have allowed me to learn. I believe you quoted me correctly that I gave David the benefit of the doubt that he may not have meant to draw the inference that if you are not proficient in one area it automatically assumes you are deficient in others! I also believe that was reinforced by "I'll leave it up to you whether clarification or apology is merited" In retrospect I should have added or no response at all, but I gave David some latitude that he could figure that out all on his lonesome.

As to "drawing Patrick into it" I thought it was a good example of another person that everyone is familiar with and that most seem to hold in some regard that has stated personally his computer skills lack a bit of refinement, yet I have seen no one say "Geez ole Patrick is pretty weak on the computer... maybe I better not buy a tipi, there's a guy who doesn't keep up with the times perhaps his gear is not all it's cracked up to be" it's the same point stated a different way that a persons income doesn't necessarily enhance their opinion on unrelated matters. If I didn't communicate that clearly enough, sorry, if most folks understand that point but you just can't get it, sorry for you.

As to my posts where I have expressed my frustration and sometimes anger over other posters thought processes, GUITLY AS CHARGED, most of the time most of us that accuse some fault have the same fault to varying degrees ourselves. But again if the context of my posts as a whole have not shown that I will attempt to be courteous to other posters regardless of their viewpoint until I feel that same courtesy is not extended to my viewpoint, I apologize. For that is how I try to conduct my life, I will extend courtesy until it is not reciprocated and then if you want to show your behind, I'll be happy to show you mine! Again if it's just you that hasn't seen that in my efforts where most others have, I'm just sorry for you.

In fact to further illustrate that point you accuse Sundles of being childish, probably accurate on occasion. Yet David, appears to offer him a slight based on his computer skills (which I thought I took some effort to point out that is not necessarily David's modus operandi) and you are jumping up and down (at least it seems to me) Yea, someone else help me slam that arrogant SOB Sundles and whether your point has merit or not I will defend you. David doesn't need defending, he's quite capable, and I don't believe my bringing up that this one time he wasn't up to his usual standards in his posting of inference left him much to be defended from. Sundles is no more childish than you IMO, just different styles. He's damn the torpedos straight ahead and you're a bit more subtle. Your kid made some statements that weren't well thought out after deciding that Sundles was a liar. Sundles didn't back down from him and they entered into a pissing contest. You have been in constant defense of your son, which is understandable and admirable, after all he's your flesh and blood and you should be in his corner right or wrong. Sundle's calls you on it and it seems to tweak you, don't know why perhaps it was the subtlety that I referred to earlier, guys that don't use it generally don't appreciate it, especially when thinly veiled.

Sundles killed a wolf that was harassing his family. NO BIG Deal, your son said he would do the same. Anyone should.

Sundles didn't hide it in fact he brought it public. Pretty sure that wasn't for his benefit.

He has been investigated by the authorities and to my knowledge no charges have been filed.

Because of his apparent efforts to show the other side of wolf behavior and the federal government. Some here have decided he's not a good egg. Their choice, your son being one of them that was particularly vocal about it. Sundles met that charge head on, like he seems to do most. Pissed your son off and subsequently you.

On this board Sundles has been accused of being a wife beater, criminal rogue all stemming from this wolf kill incident, again those charges seem to be unfounded. Yet until met head on they persisted.

It's just a character flaw of mine, but I have a tendency to pull for the underdog, you'd have to do some "research yourself" to go back and see my posts to Linda, Sundles first real critical opponent on this board regarding his wolf encounter. I didn't much care to see her kicked around, and I have attempted to aid Sundles when I thought he was being kicked. And yeah most of my life all it has done has gotten me a black eye in a fight that wasn't even mine, but I still do it and probably always will until I pay the ultimate price. But for now I'm still alive and still kicking back. hope this makes sense boone, sorry for the length, don't know if that will help you understand my take on this any better or not, but at least thought I would try.

David, I hope you took my post for what it was not an insult just an observation that your normally well thought out stuff had a hiccup.
Randy checking in and out while waiting for his welfare check (oops meant PFD) /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

DH,

Thanks for posting the Wildlife Federation article. I was going to post it but see you beat me to the punch. I think this is the correct logic to use when responding to the pro-wolf, anti-hunting crowd. Leaves them with a lot of explaining.

Paul

Randy,

Thank you for the lengthy reply. Even though I've been a bit childish, I think you understand my take on things, most of the time. After all, you seem to appreciate a subtle statement as much as I. And I'll probably keep kicking back and getting black eyes to the end as well ... it's my nature.

I do believe I undertsand your take on things, most of the time, and really don't have a problem with it, or you ... but I do sometimes stir the pot. BTW, much of the archives are missing. What really set me off, was DH's inference that someone on this board should be held to a standard based on position in life. If that's a standard to be upheld, then there are a lot of us that post here that should have been checked a long time ago.

Please, don't feel sorry for me. I know who's fault it is when I grab hold of the frying pan without a hot pad. Just a little ol' nobody from UT (does that give me latitude?) /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

boone

[imported_Randy]

boone,

No prob amigo, as long as you're a "nobody" It won't be so lonely for me on the board. But you are somebody, somebody that evidently loves his son and that is enough to make you admirable in my eyes.

The real tragedy, is a point I tried to make many posts long ago. Under different circumstances you, your son and Sundles would have probably hit it off rather well. All 3 have a love and repsect for the outdoors, all seem to be accomplished outdoorsmen, your son made firearms, Sundles makes ammo and any of the 3 of you would probably do to ride the river with. Unfortunately our kind is very independent and not much group oriented, even when we have the major issues in common, we get distracted by the minor ones and bicker amongst each other. In the long haul that has probably been to the advantage of the folks that see the major issues different than us. They will march and organize and protest and be heard with a common voice, the people that tend to see the world from the same slant as myself, do just not seem to be into that sort of thing and neither am I, So advantage goes to those that will. Good speaking to you, better get some work done or my wife will be blacking both my eyes! /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Randy

[me]

/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif , Somthings never change.
Pro-wolf is still synonamous with anti hunter.
Sundles still cant let it go /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif , I havent posted in weeks.
The Antis lawsuits are good But not the pros, I dont believe I've ever sanctioned a pro-wolf lawsuit, In fact I've publicly denounced one of defenders.
And as usual this is about the percieved power struggle not the wolf.

If anyone is truly interested in "Due process" And what my "ignorant comments" were all about, Go see what you can find in regards to Bush's attempts to take away the public input process of the ESA and EIS's. And pay attention to the wrapping paper, Its as important as the gift. And keep in mind that many on this board are all for this "power transfer", huh, how does that go? If it sounds to good to be true.....anyway.

I think thats it, After reading all that I have a bad case of De Ja Moo.

Lowery
I think what they are trying to say is that you should know better than to cozy up to a couple of long hair pro-wolfers from Utah. I didnt think it out of character, I've seen you write worse, They just think they got it this time. Frankly I enjoy your sense of humor, Its something that many dont have. Maybe a word search like Humor, Latin, root words, would clarify alot around here. besides $&^%'em if they cant take a joke.

Boone
You really should quit defending me and what I say, no one else is defending anyone else or what they say. :rolleyes:

[imported_Randy]

Josh/Coruja

I suppose since you use the word "they" to respond to Lowry you must mean me since only myself and one other poster responded to Lowry's post and subsequent inference. So no I didn't mean that David should not cozy up to long haired pro wolfers, I meant exactly what I said to David.... this one instance poor way to make your point David.

I'm not sure what your definition of "pro-wolfer" is but if it means I don't want to see them wiped off the face of the earth I would have to be included in the pro-wolf group. But as stated before and the best analogy I can think of I'm pro campfire as well, but you better have firm control over both or things can quickly get out of hand.

As for enjoying David's sense of humor, I believe I'm on record as stating that I have particularly enjoyed some of the bantering that he and Stan have had on occassion, both are intelligent and good writers. But I can appreciate your attempt to try to "cozy up to David" by your rather wild interpertation of my post to him. Whatever rocks your boat!

And as far as "*&%#%@" em if they can't take a joke" I didn't see David make any effort to make his inference as a tongue in cheek sort of statement. Perhaps it was over my head, but I don't think so, I think David did just what I posted earlier had a hiccup in what is usually a pretty sharp poster.
So back to the "##%% em" part
"*&^&$#" YOU TOO
You once mentioned you are almost always the alpha male... regardless of the group you are in
I suggest you have spent too much time pissing on bushes and not enough time marking the trees.
Lift your leg a little higher son, I'm not much to be cussed at and just let it go.

BTW welcome back to the board. Randy

Hey Randy:

http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg21.wav

I'm laugh'n /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

[imported_Randy]

That's all I wanted from you David, back to your original wit and savoir faire! /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif I'm laughing just like this little guy now ceptin' he's got all of his teeth left. BTW Foghorn leghorn and Pepe Lepeu are my all time favorite cartoon characters. Thanks, Randy

[me]

Randy
Higher?, did I miss someone? There was no real harm intended, Just my harsh synicaly sarcastic perspective. :p

[imported_Randy]

Coruja,

No real harm taken, my bones are intact, my bank account still has all $7 in it /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif
It's the trouble with middle age, having wife and kids etc. etc. Used to be out at the bars every night hoping to fornicate, fight or throw rocks and didn't care what order it happened. Now about the only dustups I get into are on this board or with the missus (at least you can't take 1/2 my $7 if I piss you off /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif )
I take punishment fairly well, always have, ceptin my eyeballs, the other kind too that don't see, and my ego (always been my most tender part) Thanks for the reply, I've always been quick to anger, but I am making rapid progress, by 70 something I expect to have it firmly under control. Randy

[me]

Randy
Glad to hear it. $7 huh, no kidding /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif could I borrow a few /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[imported_Randy]

As long as the missus doesn't hear of it and it's for a worthy cause, like beer or sumpthin /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif Randy

[JLBrush7x57]

Randy,

Foghorn Leghorn I can see, one of the all time best cartoon characters ever, no arguement there. But Randy, Pepe Lepeu?! C'mon man, I had you figured for Yosemete Sam. Sigh. Pepe Lepeu...guess you learn something new about people every day... /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[imported_Randy]

Just ask my wife I'm always in the "mood for love" a guy has to do something in between hunting seasons! LMAO Randy and oh yeah Yosemite would do to ride the river with too.