N CA Range Rider/Wolf Social Worker

[TI-tick]

Now here's an opportunity; protect cows from wolf's without killing a wolf in an area the size of W VA.

36-54K a year. You have to ride horseback and need two horses. Fed job; snitch on your neighbors.

Anyone want to tangle with wolf's w/o a firearm? I'll guarantee you a horse will say FTS!

Morons to the tune of 3M.
Bring the wolves into downtown LA and SF mutherfuckers!

https://www.aol.com/news/feds-want-range-rider-protect-120000375.html

 

[308Scout]

FYI

Referencing this?

Feds want a ‘range rider’ to protect California cattle from wolves, but no killing allowed

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article263113208.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article263113208.html

 

[TI-tick]

Referencing this?



https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article263113208.html

Yep, my posting skills are a bit lacking.
This chit really pisses me off; restrict hunting, re-introduce wolfs, pay the ranchers for their losses.

I will guarantee you nobody from LA of SF goes up there, but they **** around with the ranchers who have lived there for generations.

SSS and the Fed is not happy...

 

[Occam]

Wolves. That word you're looking for is wolves. "Wolf's" is possessive, singular. As in "Man, that one wolf's coat is beautiful!" But when you're worried about more than one wolf, you are worried about wolves.

We didn't rebel against King George and fight a revolution only to, hundreds of years later, abuse apostrophes! Ben Franklin would wag his finger.

There, my one grammar nazification of the year (and I waited all the way until July!). And boy oh boy to I resist hard the other 364 days. My dad told me that one of the ways he decided who to listen to was to read their writing, and see if they went out of their way to add apostrophes where they don't belong.

As for the gig being mentioned, I hope that even though the wolves aren't supposed to die, that the guardian is allowed to be prepared to make that happen if it must.

 

[TI-tick]

Wolves. That word you're looking for is wolves. "Wolf's" is possessive, singular. As in "Man, that one wolf's coat is beautiful!" But when you're worried about more than one wolf, you are worried about wolves.

We didn't rebel against King George and fight a revolution only to, hundreds of years later, abuse apostrophes! Ben Franklin would wag his finger.

There, my one grammar nazification of the year (and I waited all the way until July!). And boy oh boy to I resist hard the other 364 days. My dad told me that one of the ways he decided who to listen to was to read their writing, and see if they went out of their way to add apostrophes where they don't belong.

As for the gig being mentioned, I hope that even though the wolves aren't supposed to die, that the guardian is allowed to be prepared to make that happen if it must.

Nope; against CA law to kill wolf's.

 

[Doctor_M]

Against California law to kill people too... but it happens every day.

 

[MaxVO2]

Nope; against CA law to kill wolf's.

*****Hmmm...

Sometimes, things just need a Killin'

Big knockers at that castle too!

 

[TI-tick]

Against California law to kill people too... but it happens every day.

Had a big press write up about wolf's coming from (IIRC Oregon) to N CA. Had GPS tracker and following the progress. This was about 3-5 years back.

That wolf was found shot dead and the CA Dept of Fish and Pole Smokers has a hard on for the culprit. The article below is more recent than from what I recall of the first wolf that disappeared.

Like I said before let's bring back the wolf to SF and LA. Hell let's bring back the Grizzley bears there also.

That's nice country BTW; not the usual but nice.


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4e0e...XMlMjBoYXZlJTIwc3RlcHBlZCUyMGZvcndhcmQu&ntb=1

 

[Bob A]

Wolves. That word you're looking for is wolves. "Wolf's" is possessive, singular. As in "Man, that one wolf's coat is beautiful!" But when you're worried about more than one wolf, you are worried about wolves.

We didn't rebel against King George and fight a revolution only to, hundreds of years later, abuse apostrophes! Ben Franklin would wag his finger.

There, my one grammar nazification of the year (and I waited all the way until July!). And boy oh boy to I resist hard the other 364 days. My dad told me that one of the ways he decided who to listen to was to read their writing, and see if they went out of their way to add apostrophes where they don't belong.

As for the gig being mentioned, I hope that even though the wolves aren't supposed to die, that the guardian is allowed to be prepared to make that happen if it must.

Um, shouldn't that be "whom to listen to"?

 

[RoadDawg]

Nope; against CA law to kill wolf's.

Agin da law to keel wolf’s whut? Huh?
An witch wolf is we goin on ‘bout?

 

[Occam]

Um, shouldn't that be "whom to listen to"?

“Who” is a subject pronoun, while “whom” is an object pronoun. Like “he” and “him.”

So “He is the one to listen to” is the same structure.

 

[Boxcab]

“Who” is a subject pronoun, while “whom” is an object pronoun. Like “he” and “him.”

So “He is the one to listen to” is the same structure.

I see your lips moving, but I can't understand what your saying...



JK



.





Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Bob A]

"Whom" is either the object of the preposition "to" with the verb"listen being intransitive, or if you believe the verb phrase "listen to" is transitive, it is the object of the verb phrase.

Or so it seems to me. Merely pulling your chain, of course.

 

[rozellaabatovsf60]

Um, shouldn't that be "whom to listen to"?

Everything is well explained, in a fairly common language. Also happens when I need to write something for college, I use http://essaypapers.reviews/ for this. The best way for me to solve the problem is without applying force. So thank you.

nope