If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7996081


(International Business Times)   Conservatives outraged over proposed endangered species listing of Mexican Wolves, since they take jobs like threatening livestock and scaring children away from American wolves   (ibtimes.com) divider line 89
    More: Obvious, Lists of IUCN Red List endangered species, Mexican, Americans, Mexican Wolves, Utah State University, wolf attacks, private property rights, American Southwest  
•       •       •

1860 clicks; Favorite

89 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-03 09:26:28 AM
In other news, regressive rural Americans are easily controlled by fear.

Where's Ric Romero when you need him?
 
2013-11-03 09:30:24 AM
In the village of Reserve, N.M., kids wait for the bus in protective cages made of wood and chicken wire. It's unclear just how many cages there are, or how long they've been around...

Or even if they really exist, I suspect. This sounds like one of those FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! things.
 
2013-11-03 09:31:20 AM
Don't forget about the health care they get for free too.
 
2013-11-03 09:32:09 AM
When it comes to endangered species, it makes sense to try to protect them from poaching and destruction of their habitat. It doesn't really make sense to add a dangerous animal like the wolf to the list to protect it from non-existent threats such as hunters or encroachment.

Restricting the citizens of those areas from protecting themselves does not encourage wolf populations. They will still be hit by cars, starve to death in the desert, and fail to breed.

Put a few in a zoo breeding program and increase the population to whatever number the scientists feel is right, but don't impinge on the rights of the people living there to be safe at their own bus stops.
 
2013-11-03 09:34:33 AM

jayhawk88: In the village of Reserve, N.M., kids wait for the bus in protective cages made of wood and chicken wire. It's unclear just how many cages there are, or how long they've been around...

Or even if they really exist, I suspect. This sounds like one of those FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! things.


Oh, the cages exist.  They don't generate a need for themselves simply by having been put up as certain evidently quite dense people try to logick it out.
 
2013-11-03 09:36:55 AM

jayhawk88: In the village of Reserve, N.M., kids wait for the bus in protective cages made of wood and chicken wire. It's unclear just how many cages there are, or how long they've been around...

Or even if they really exist, I suspect. This sounds like one of those FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! things.


Well, the bus shelters exist here in Massachusetts. They're usually solid wood, no chicken wire. I never realized they were to protect the kids from Mexican Wolves, though.
 
2013-11-03 09:37:51 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: When it comes to endangered species, it makes sense to try to protect them from poaching and destruction of their habitat. It doesn't really make sense to add a dangerous animal like the wolf to the list to protect it from non-existent threats such as hunters or encroachment.

Restricting the citizens of those areas from protecting themselves does not encourage wolf populations. They will still be hit by cars, starve to death in the desert, and fail to breed.

Put a few in a zoo breeding program and increase the population to whatever number the scientists feel is right, but don't impinge on the rights of the people living there to be safe at their own bus stops.


I could be wrong but if I remember correctly the Mexican wolf isn't even endangered. Just a very low population within the American part of its range.
 
2013-11-03 09:40:29 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Restricting the citizens of those areas from protecting themselves does not encourage wolf populations.


Still allowed to defend yourself if attacked, and still allowed to protect livestock.
 
2013-11-03 09:40:34 AM

jayhawk88: In the village of Reserve, N.M., kids wait for the bus in protective cages made of wood and chicken wire. It's unclear just how many cages there are, or how long they've been around...

Or even if they really exist, I suspect. This sounds like one of those FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! things.


They exist, but are wood and chicken wire structures are completely ineffective against wolves.  They can easily blow those things down.  I read about this a long time ago.
 
2013-11-03 09:42:27 AM

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Restricting the citizens of those areas from protecting themselves does not encourage wolf populations.

Still allowed to defend yourself if attacked, and still allowed to protect livestock.


'if attacked' is going to be too late for some 8 year old kid on his way to school.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:38 AM
I'm much more worried about coyotes and javelina than I am about wolves.
 
2013-11-03 09:44:21 AM
If my relatives from Wyoming are correct, people out there will just keep shooting wolves on sight out there as they do negatively impact ranchers and occasionally kill pets. They really don't want the wolves around out there, and there's so much open space and so few people that it's not hard for people to get away with killing them.
 
2013-11-03 09:45:10 AM

picturescrazy: I could be wrong but if I remember correctly the Mexican wolf isn't even endangered. Just a very low population within the American part of its range.


As far as I know, the Mexican Wolf is not considered endangered, but then with this being an official designation under either the federal government or United Nations no organism on either list was before being placed on the list. However, as far as I know you are quite wrong as the Mexican Wolf is basically only the few packs talked about in the article, the some seventy-five or so and exists nowhere else.
 
2013-11-03 09:48:15 AM
If you're not watching your children closely enough that they're in danger of being attacked by a wolf, you should be more concerned about human predators.
 
2013-11-03 09:50:14 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131029-wolf-protectio n -cages-southwest/

'I think kid cages are publicity stunt designed to stoke opposition to wolf recovery and the government'.

Well, no shiat sherlock.
 
2013-11-03 09:50:25 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: 'if attacked' is going to be too late for some 8 year old kid on his way to school.


'if attacked' is when 'protecting' happens. Please feel free to rephrase your initial post since you suggested there is no threat to this population by proactive slaying and feel reactive slaying is too late.
 
2013-11-03 09:50:49 AM

my lip balm addiction: In other news, regressive rural Americans are easily controlled by fear.

Where's Ric Romero when you need him?


If you take the opposite position from the one that "Americans for Prosperity" is pushing then you're probably in the right.
 
2013-11-03 09:53:44 AM
Do these f*ckheads EVER stop whining? Seriously just ONCE I'd like to hear about a neo conservative stance that isn't completely dripping with selfishness, ignorance and evil. What happened to trying to reduce government waste and (responsibly) lowering taxes?
 
2013-11-03 09:54:20 AM
I need to send a link to this, with FW: FW: Fw: FW: at the beginning of the subject line, then wait for my teabagger relatives to go apeshiat.

There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska.  Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.

Here's a link to a story about the first fatal wolf attack in the North America, which happened in November 2005.

Here's another article about how non-threatening wolves are. If they are accustomed to getting food from people (much like any other large wild animal) they can become a problem.  Other than that they stay away as best they can.
 
2013-11-03 09:54:57 AM
Last paragraph of the article:  Many people "attach a lot of rancor to wolf recovery that isn't about wolves," said John Horning, executive director of the Santa Fe, N.M.-based environmental group WildEarth Guardians, told the L.A. Times. "It's a symbol. It's about the loss of political capital, the economic decline of rural life. Wolves are a surrogate for all the changes that are happening that are very frightening."

He's absolutely correct but probably not in the way he thinks.  Most environmental groups are far less concerned with the welfare of any given species or habitat and far more concerned with controlling property and property owners.  If an environmental group can find some threatened species on your land or if they can define a particular part of your land in a way that they feel makes it environmentally sensitive, they seize control of your property and define what property owners are allowed to do on their own property.  I'd bet that none of the leaders of WildEarth Guardians wants anything to do with Mexican wolves, or even cares one way or another about them.  Their end-game is about controlling the activities within the defined range of the Mexican wolf.  If the wolves aren't thriving, ranchers whose cattle graze that area shouldn't be allowed to protect their investment.  Or the folks in New Mexico who enjoy hunting the elk and other wildlife (that most of them use for food or as a means of earning a living by guiding hunts) shouldn't be allowed to compete with the wolves for what is rightfully (in their minds) the wolves'

The changes that happen when environmentalists take over are scarey precisely because they want to assume control of private property and destroy livelihoods without compensation.
 
2013-11-03 09:57:32 AM

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: 'if attacked' is going to be too late for some 8 year old kid on his way to school.

'if attacked' is when 'protecting' happens. Please feel free to rephrase your initial post since you suggested there is no threat to this population by proactive slaying and feel reactive slaying is too late.


You completely missed the point of my post. There isn't any deliberate hunting of these animals. However, there is a danger posed by them when they venture too close to populated areas, and removing the ability of people to take actions against threatening (not attacking) animals is going too far, IMO.

Moreover, such restrictions do not limit the actual dangers to the animals. Disease, starvation, and inability to breed dwarf the impact of human populations on wolf populations.
 
2013-11-03 10:00:25 AM

Mr. Right: .  Most environmental groups are far less concerned with the welfare of any given species or habitat and far more concerned with controlling property and property owners.


bullshiat
 
2013-11-03 10:01:34 AM
Mexican Wolves? So, regular wolves who wear sombreros and drink tequila?
 
2013-11-03 10:02:14 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska. Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.


Well, as others have suggested in this thread, I guess that means it's time to start shooting dogs, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!@!@#@!!
 
2013-11-03 10:02:36 AM
It's almost amusing how protection for wolves as an endangered species is being eliminated by convenient  logic.

Former wolf territory in the eastern US has suddenly been declared to have belonged to a separate species of Eastern Timber Wolf newly recognized by United States government officials and no one else, eliminating the problem of restoring them at a single stroke - just a few of said "species" now supposed to only exist at the southeastern edge of Canada in places like Algonquin park, a thin stripe under the populations of other wolves.

You would think this was a highly endangered species, but it'll get on the list over the dead, buried, and rotting bodies of those who declared it a separate species, so that in the US these have NO PROTECTION AT ALL, instead - they would certainly have IUCN red list mention if the IUCN considered them a different species, but in Canada the few remaining of the type get absolutely no protection more than other wolves.
 
2013-11-03 10:03:16 AM

Mr. Right: Most environmental groups are far less concerned with the welfare of any given species or habitat and far more concerned with controlling property and property owners.


deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!!! !1 1111shiftelevenzors
 
2013-11-03 10:03:56 AM

Mr. Right: The changes that happen when environmentalists take over are scarey precisely because they want to assume control of private property and destroy livelihoods without compensation.


Yeah, there are groups that set out to destroy livelihoods without compensation.  That's what they talk about in their meetings. [rolls eyes]
 
2013-11-03 10:04:25 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I need to send a link to this, with FW: FW: Fw: FW: at the beginning of the subject line, then wait for my teabagger relatives to go apeshiat.

There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska.  Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.

Here's a link to a story about the first fatal wolf attack in the North America, which happened in November 2005


So since the law won't completely solve the problem we should just do nothing? Where have I seen that before? We get it. You don't care if our children are eaten by wolves. That, or you want to give each kid their own wolf to protect them from illegal wolves. Sociopaths like you make me sick. Show a bit of empathy for your fellow man once in awhile.
 
2013-11-03 10:04:57 AM

Richard C Stanford: Mexican Wolves? So, regular wolves who wear sombreros and drink tequila?


They hang out at Home Depot and burden the system by seeking day labor for cash.
 
2013-11-03 10:05:45 AM

Vangor: picturescrazy: I could be wrong but if I remember correctly the Mexican wolf isn't even endangered. Just a very low population within the American part of its range.

As far as I know, the Mexican Wolf is not considered endangered, but then with this being an official designation under either the federal government or United Nations no organism on either list was before being placed on the list. However, as far as I know you are quite wrong as the Mexican Wolf is basically only the few packs talked about in the article, the some seventy-five or so and exists nowhere else.


You should cite sources. However, I looked it up and you are correct. That changes my stance on the issue.
 
2013-11-03 10:05:58 AM
Thanks for that,  Don't Troll Me Bro! Now I don't have to do that work myself. The world these people live in amazes and fascinates and frightens me. It's like they seek out as many reasons as possible to have to (or be allowed to) shoot someone or something so they can justify their Second Amendment SolutionsTM lifestyles and remind us how Un-Murican the leftist, elite east coaster, "sciencey", demoncrat liebruls are.

Here in the reality-based community...oh what am I saying? They'll never listen.
 
2013-11-03 10:07:25 AM
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net
 
2013-11-03 10:11:08 AM

umad: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I need to send a link to this, with FW: FW: Fw: FW: at the beginning of the subject line, then wait for my teabagger relatives to go apeshiat.

There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska.  Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.

Here's a link to a story about the first fatal wolf attack in the North America, which happened in November 2005

So since the law won't completely solve the problem we should just do nothing? Where have I seen that before? We get it. You don't care if our children are eaten by wolves. That, or you want to give each kid their own wolf to protect them from illegal wolves. Sociopaths like you make me sick. Show a bit of empathy for your fellow man once in awhile.


We get it.  You couldn't care less if wolves actually pose any danger whatsoever to children. You simply want to invent such a danger whether there is one or not, and based on your psychopathic fears you want to build a structure to support those fears and have them validated by others, and if possible, existing higher authority. 

Any attempt to determine an actual level of danger, or lack thereof, you will simply turn away from, and declare your fantasies should be translated into public policy instead.
 
2013-11-03 10:11:26 AM
 That ol Dracula can git five of them ol' Mexican wolfs for what he'd give  one hard workin merican wolf. Taint fair I tell ya!!
 
2013-11-03 10:12:38 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: There isn't any deliberate hunting of these animals. However, there is a danger posed by them when they venture too close to populated areas, and removing the ability of people to take actions against threatening (not attacking) animals is going too far, IMO.


Except when an animal is threatening, i.e. behaviors which suggest willingness to attack, then a person is well within rights to defend themselves; the physical attack does not have to occur, only the belief of an attack (especially relevant for bears which take threatening but vulnerable postures and are difficult to stop when charging due to thickness of the skull). Unless you are trying to suggest being in the range of the predator is cause enough, but then this is hunting.

AverageAmericanGuy: Moreover, such restrictions do not limit the actual dangers to the animals. Disease, starvation, and inability to breed dwarf the impact of human populations on wolf populations.


When populations are as small as for this animal, any death which is avoidable has massive repercussions. Further, the restrictions are one facet of protections, and unless bacteria and food scarcity start listening to legislation then the restrictions target what we are able to control rather than making excuses because something else is worse.
 
2013-11-03 10:14:06 AM

umad: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I need to send a link to this, with FW: FW: Fw: FW: at the beginning of the subject line, then wait for my teabagger relatives to go apeshiat.

There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska.  Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.

Here's a link to a story about the first fatal wolf attack in the North America, which happened in November 2005

So since the law won't completely solve the problem we should just do nothing? Where have I seen that before? We get it. You don't care if our children are eaten by wolves. That, or you want to give each kid their own wolf to protect them from illegal wolves. Sociopaths like you make me sick. Show a bit of empathy for your fellow man once in awhile.


The only thing that can stop a bad man with a wolf is a good man with a wolf.  Or a man with a bad wolf versus a good wolf.  Which is more important, the nature of the man, or the wolf?  In any case, bring some damn poop bags for your stupid wolf.
 
2013-11-03 10:15:46 AM
wow. Just...wow.

i6.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-03 10:17:16 AM

here to help: Mr. Right: Most environmental groups are far less concerned with the welfare of any given species or habitat and far more concerned with controlling property and property owners.

deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!!! !1 1111shiftelevenzors


You know, while I too find Mr Right's post ridiculous, your response makes you look like an idiot.
 
2013-11-03 10:17:40 AM

picturescrazy: You should cite sources. However, I looked it up and you are correct. That changes my stance on the issue.


Listen: we are on Fark. I cite sources in research articles, academic discussions, presentation materials, and professional resources, not here. Plus, you should cite sources if you want me to.
 
2013-11-03 10:18:32 AM

umad: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I need to send a link to this, with FW: FW: Fw: FW: at the beginning of the subject line, then wait for my teabagger relatives to go apeshiat.

There have been two fatal wolf attacks in the history of the United States, the latest being Candice Berner (32) in 2010, who was out jogging in Alaska.  Large dogs pose a greater threat to children than wolves, even in areas with considerable wolf populations.

Here's a link to a story about the first fatal wolf attack in the North America, which happened in November 2005

So since the law won't completely solve the problem we should just do nothing? Where have I seen that before? We get it. You don't care if our children are eaten by wolves. That, or you want to give each kid their own wolf to protect them from illegal wolves. Sociopaths like you make me sick. Show a bit of empathy for your fellow man once in awhile.


That was either PocketNinja level excellence, or sincerely constructed strawman followed by a whole bunch of incoherent herpa-derp.  So depending on which one it was, my response is one of the following:

a) Bravo, good sir.  Well played.
b) Your sh/t is weak and tarded and that's sad.
 
2013-11-03 10:19:24 AM

Voiceofreason01: If you take the opposite position from the one that "Americans for Prosperity" Astroturfers for Plutocracy is pushing then you're probably in the right.


/Call those Koch suckers by their real name
 
2013-11-03 10:21:21 AM
Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: There isn't any deliberate hunting of these animals. However, there is a danger posed by them when they venture too close to populated areas, and removing the ability of people to take actions against threatening (not attacking) animals is going too far, IMO.

Except when an animal is threatening, i.e. behaviors which suggest willingness to attack, then a person is well within rights to defend themselves; the physical attack does not have to occur, only the belief of an attack (especially relevant for bears which take threatening but vulnerable postures and are difficult to stop when charging due to thickness of the skull). Unless you are trying to suggest being in the range of the predator is cause enough, but then this is hunting.


If there were hunting going on, I would absolutely be in favor of shutting that whole thing down. There are 75 individuals in this group. The loss of any one of them would be a major loss to them. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of hunting going on, or even the insinuation that hunting this species is something people want to do.

But people do want to have the option of protecting themselves, and this law does nothing but muddy the water around taking such an action against an encroaching animal.

AverageAmericanGuy: Moreover, such restrictions do not limit the actual dangers to the animals. Disease, starvation, and inability to breed dwarf the impact of human populations on wolf populations.

When populations are as small as for this animal, any death which is avoidable has massive repercussions. Further, the restrictions are one facet of protections, and unless bacteria and food scarcity start listening to legislation then the restrictions target what we are able to control rather than making excuses because something else is worse.


And what I'm saying is that "what we are able to control" is almost completely irrelevant in counting towards the survivability of these animals.
 
2013-11-03 10:22:19 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: That was either PocketNinja level excellence, or sincerely constructed strawman followed by a whole bunch of incoherent herpa-derp.  So depending on which one it was, my response is one of the following:

a) Bravo, good sir.  Well played.
b) Your sh/t is weak and tarded and that's sad.


Well I certainly wasn't being sincere, so thanks?
 
2013-11-03 10:25:42 AM
Were these the wolves that ate Gerald Ford? Are conservatives pissed because it was Mexician Wolves that found out he was delicious? Taking food of the table of American Wolves.
 
2013-11-03 10:26:01 AM

SwiftFox: jayhawk88: In the village of Reserve, N.M., kids wait for the bus in protective cages made of wood and chicken wire. It's unclear just how many cages there are, or how long they've been around...

Or even if they really exist, I suspect. This sounds like one of those FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! things.

Oh, the cages exist.  They don't generate a need for themselves simply by having been put up as certain evidently quite dense people try to logick it out.


Catron county is the largest county in New Mexico, almost 7000 sq miles with a population of less than 4000. Aside from the few wolves, there's mountain lions, bears, bobcats, coyotes (though they know they get shot so they don't bother people), so the cages are a safety measure. Even a deer or elk in rut can be dangerous.
I've seen the cages & they're not really a new thing, they've been around for many years.
 
2013-11-03 10:26:03 AM
I'll also add: I'm an avid hunter, both because it cuts the grocery bill way down and because i believe in playing a part in controlling populations of animals that don't have many remaining natural predators and reduced habitat because of mankind. Hunting an endangered species is just stupid.
 
2013-11-03 10:27:54 AM

umad: Well I certainly wasn't being sincere, so thanks?


Very subtle sarcasm gets lost in the derp here on FARK.  There's far too many people just itchin' to be outraged, and why we have so many weak trolls to begin with.

You should take pride whenever you write something that gets taken seriously by the frothers,and as a joke by only one or two people.  Especially if they play along.
 
2013-11-03 10:29:29 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: But people do want to have the option of protecting themselves, and this law does nothing but muddy the water around taking such an action against an encroaching animal.


Then people should educate themselves rather than make assumptions about protections.

"Many ranchers and other rural residents strongly oppose the move, painting a portrait of the Mexican wolf as a menace."
"Some residents have told of children getting cornered by wolves, and ranchers fear losing livestock in already troubled times."

These protections would not limit the options of any person in such situations nor well before this supposed getting cornered of loss of livestock.

AverageAmericanGuy: And what I'm saying is that "what we are able to control" is almost completely irrelevant in counting towards the survivability of these animals.


Again, one facet of protections, and you agreed above 'the loss of any one of them would be a major loss to them'. While no one appears to be hunting them, there is a discussion happening on the right to hunt them due to unsubstantiated fears.
 
2013-11-03 10:32:28 AM

Kit Fister: I'll also add: I'm an avid hunter, both because it cuts the grocery bill way down and because i believe in playing a part in controlling populations of animals that don't have many remaining natural predators and reduced habitat because of mankind. Hunting an endangered species is just stupid.


Here in Maryland, the deer populations are really getting out of control.  Nobody wants them hunted, because Bambi...until they start running into the street and denting their BMWs.  There are actually people around here that think Hunters for the Homeless is a bad thing.

I'd love to know an experience hunter to train with (and the space to keep a freezer-full of venison).

/Not hitting on you.
 
2013-11-03 10:33:17 AM

axeeugene: Thanks for that,  Don't Troll Me Bro! Now I don't have to do that work myself. The world these people live in amazes and fascinates and frightens me. It's like they seek out as many reasons as possible to have to (or be allowed to) shoot someone or something so they can justify their Second Amendment SolutionsTM lifestyles and remind us how Un-Murican the leftist, elite east coaster, "sciencey", demoncrat liebruls are.

Here in the reality-based community...oh what am I saying? They'll never listen.


Incoming CSB:  About 5 years ago I was backpacking in wolf country.  One night a pack came through the area.  First we heard them way off in one direction, then their howls got louder and louder.  Pretty soon the howls were from every direction.  Then they ended up far off in the distance in the other direction.  We couldn't see any of them, but I have to believe there was at least one that was within 150ft or so.  It was really cool, and a wolf howl is really loud, like it hurts the ears loud.  This was probably 3 weeks before Thanksgiving, so I didn't get to tell my parents or siblings about it until we got together for the holiday.  Had my teabagger (well, I guess he wasn't officially a teabagger yet, but he was already that ignorant and stupid) uncle and cousin there, so they heard the story as well.  They couldn't understand why we were out there without a loaded gun, or why we would put ourselves in such grave danger in the first place.  They couldn't understand that we were sitting there enjoying it, and not cowering in fear wishing we just had a gun to protect us.  At one point he says he'd have gone out away from camp with a flashlight (not a headlamp, a flashlight) and his gun and killed one of those wolves to let the others know not to mess with him.  He also told me that we were all lucky (4 of us) to survive the encounter.  Crazy how twisted and frightening some people's worlds are.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report