Federal Wildlife Agents Shoot 14 Wolves from Helicopters

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Your clear lack of knowledge is showing quite clearly

First of all using quality sources is basic...yours are weak in several ways. Citing 6-7 year old posts on a message board as authoritative is at best silly, and demanding citations when none is needed is even worse.

For example, my comment on horse meat is obviously true to anyone who knows American history. Then there is also Wikipedia (Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat scroll down about 80% to the US section). While not addressing the Indian Wars and prior, even then it is clear that it has been eaten with some regularity in the US. Of course someone knowledgeable in US history would have known that without discussion or demanding a citation.

Like many others, you seem to believe that deer are as plentiful in the western US as they are in the eastern US. A clear fallacy for any number of reasons. In the eastern US, deer over population is a serious problem. There are few if any natural predators for deer in places like Maryland or Vermont. They take out cars and motorcycles with some regularity. Its different out west where there are wolves, cougars, etc that do prey on deer. Deer are not nearly the nuisance that they are back east. Finally there is California where in 1990 Prop 117 banned the hunting of cougars. The result was a population growth in the big cats, who's primary prey is deer. Eventually Malthus caught up with them too, and we had a spate of attacks on humans. Things have balanced out somewhat since then, but the California deer herds have never recovered. My comment about asking any California deer hunter was sarcastic, since most go to Utah and elsewhere to hunt...the deer are that sparse here and plentiful over there. The data that supports the above is clearly available form the California Dept of Fish and Game. The page titled "Long Term Trends in California's Deer Population" is somewhat misleading, you need to dig to find the census data deeper down.

You can quibble all you want over the meaning of subsistence hunting. I am also quite sure I could find a web site that supports what follows, though the labels might vary: Subsistence hunters are those who are counting on taking at least one large game animal to be able to feed their household. That differentiates them from survival hunters (anything that is edible, often regardless of season), and meat hunters, who could afford to buy food, but prefer wild game. Those distinctions are fairly important, whether you understand the nuances or not.

Your fixations on citations is almost amusing. A good source needs to be credible, accurate, and current. Bill Gates once declared that no one need more than 640KB of memory...I doubt anyone would consider that valid today. As others have observed, 90% of the web is crap, and citing web content just invokes Gigo's law. It is also not required to cite that which is obvious and well known (like the consumption of horse meat in the US). Another way to phrase that is QED (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QED since you like citations, #3 and #4 are relevant here)

Finally you seem fixated on trying to tar me with a Sarah Palin smear. Sorry bubba, I won't play that game. Maybe some other sucker will fall for your trolling.