Now this is good news, 188 wolves killed

[goldeneye]

Wow I finally had time to read this post. My 2 cents.
I used to like seeing the wolf when my father and I deer hunted up in northern MN. Then one day I watched a pack kill a dog that was next to the hunting shack. I don't think a Protected animal would of crossed my mind if that would have been my dog. (and i know they did not need the food because they never ate the dog. Just killed it) I think like all animals they should be in check. I like seeing the wolf but hate seeing them over run themself.
How long will it be till the cougar is a issue? I know they are in MN I have seen them on my land.

 

[jnormanh]

How do you accect to feed the world if all you tree huggers want to save some wolf or other stupid animal the tree huggers feel fit to save. Watch the news channel people kill people in very large scale when hungry. Is this what you want. I'm all for conservation, but explain to me when the tree huggers are going to end. How much land do you want to set aside for nature. I want to feed the world not wolfs. What the tree huggers going to come up with next selective killing of the less worthy humans so they can bring back more animals that didn't have the ability to addapt. Or one they think would be cool to introduce all at the expense of hard working americans. Maybe your house or city is built on the greatest wolf breeding ground they ever seen. Should we destory it for the sake of the wolf.

Human population control is a good thing.

 

[mnmthunting]

Man sure enough is responsible for the extinction of a few species.

We know that of all the species that once roamed, crawled or swam on this Earth about 90% have gone extinct. And it had nothing to do with man.

It was a combination of events that let to the extinction of the passenger pigeon.

Some creatures cannot mix or should I say live in proximity of humans.

For the sake of the future of the gray wolves, even the staunchest of proponents, if they think hard enough should realize that control is in the best interest of the future for wolves in the wild.

 

[Uncle Buck]

captaincoot: What species ruined the hunting of Passenger Pigeons? What species depleted Bison? Pronghorn Antelope? Elk everywhere East of the Mississippi? Moose all over the Northern Plains? Bobwhite Quail in the Southeast? Ruffed Grouse most everywhere? Pheasants in OH, IL, PA? What species depleted the groundfish off the Grand Banks? Lobster off Maine? Bluefin Tuna worldwide?

What species kills entirely for fun, and spreads faster than any wildfire?

Canis lupus? Nope. Try Homo sapiens. Look in the mirror.

And who brought most of them back? Why don't we turn the wolves out on the "wild" horse sanctuaries that are deystroying the habitat? The pheasant is a non-native species and should be eliminated with the brown trout.
Humans have done some bad things,some good things. As the animal with the most advanced brain, we are in a position to control some things. It is a natural element of being human and we should accept the power and the responsibility. It is nothing to be ashamed of.
It has gotten so bad with horses that you now have to bury your animal when it dies and the "casual" horse owners are going to disappear when they have pay someone to dispose of the body.
PS Saw a tv show re how the Maine lobster fisherman could not get rid of their catch during the recent recession. Too many lobsters, too few humans eating them.
Re what species kills for fun, I presume you do not mean soley for fun. The market hunter was responsible for most of the depletion, feeding the east coasties who could not feed themselves. I do not think all of the parties on this site kill for fun, nor are they the prolific breeders overpopulating the earth as you suggest. I think most of the breeders are in New York and California. Our population densities in wolf country are reasonably low. Would not smart minds agree on that?

 

[EEK]

Human population control is a good thing, might sound good till your the one deemed unfit, Eugenics on a hunting fourum, see something new every day i guess. Wolfe discusions always boil down to this, the people in the states that have wolves want them gone, the people who are not affected in states that have none want the other side to just roll up the carpet, give up and go do something else, these ranchers are some of the hardest working, honest people left on the planet, they just want to be left alone to work their land and raise their families. ,I dont see the West telling everyone else how to manage the land or live their lives, so if you dont like it, shove it and leave us alone, we dont want or need liberal furries here ,there are plenty of place for you that are far far away from here.

 

[mnmthunting]

It's true that decisions are being made from the urban segment and will be more and more so as time goes on. Majority will rule. Not going to be a good thing for those on the land.

Of coarse hunger will change opinions very rapidly.:thumbsup:

 

[landman]

aren't we conservationists?

A few years ago I was in Yellowstone park and one evening we were driving the loop when I noticed a whole lot of folks on a ridge with spotting scopes and high powered binoculars hoping to see a wild wolf.

I'm guessing that they were enjoying watching wolves about as much as many of us enjoy pheasant hunting.

Yet there are cries to control or eliminate the wolf because some feel that have no value or cause too much harm.

But there are many who would like to see less pheasants or canada geese too. Some would just as soon see geese eliminated because geese cause damage to crops or are a nuisance in urban areas. Some folks want pheasants reduced or eliminated because they cause wildlife folks to put in more CRP and other wildlife habitat, which they say takes land out of production causing higher rent, food costs and land prices. Even worse, some say, urban hunters buy land and turn much of it into habitat, which helps destroy small communities and farms.

We all have our self interests and sometimes we forget how important a certain animal is to someone else.

I'm probably too old to hunt elk or deer in the mountains of Montana but I still like what was done to restore the wolf to some of our remaining wild areas. If we use the argument that a critter must go because they might cause someone harm or an inconvenience then its going to be a sad day for conservationists. I am very thankful that we have conservationists with enough foresight to prevent the total destruction of wolves, grizzlies, canada geese or pheasants. Count me in as one of them.

 

[kansasbrittany]

LM,

I very much agree with your stance. Terms like "tree huggers" make little sense to me in this application. Wanting to eliminate any species scares me a bit, but on the other hand, maintaining control of predator populations I support. I believe we outdoorsmen should demonstrate a little more tolerance for species other than the ones we hunt. It makes us look very selfish to want to control wolves, then turn around and support additional habitat for pheasants. I don't personally care for wolves. Haven't thought much about their impact until reading this thread. If one killed my dog or attacked a person near me, I'd probably do my best to control the population within a close proximity to me.....that's just the way I am and I believe it is sort of a natural reaction of man. Lion's will kill anything that threatens them b/c they're king of the jungle. Well, we're king of the jungle here and I imagine that if wolves are threatening human populations, we'll react by taking them out first. IF they're ONLY threatening populations of species we like to hunt, perhaps a better solution would be to improve habitat for the affected species.

Many hunters claim to be huntsmen and conservationists....I think Landman just made some points that make many of you look like anything but conservationists. I'm more of a hunter than a conservationist and I'll admit that. I'm most interested and in support of the initiatives that will provide more for the game animals I pursue. That doesn't mean that other animals don't have their place in the wilderness. The animals we pursue don't have invasive populations b/c we keep them in check. I think keeping the wolf population in check is probably the best solution.

Before anyone implies that I'm a left-wing, liberal, tree-hugger or whatever you want to call it. I want to look out for the interests of outdoorsmen and women in our country. Outside of that, I don't care much for politics. I love this country and I hope all of you do too. Don't forget that everyone is entitled to their opinions and though you may not like them, name calling and being so hard-headed you can't see someone else's point will get you nowhere in swaying votes to our side.

 

[EEK]

I agree that there is room for wolves, go to Yellowstone and look at them all you want, cause thats all there will be to watch eventually, keep the overall numbers to the point other big game has a chance to exist and the result will be very little interface with man or livestock, we have LOTS of mountain lion here and there really is never any problem whatsoever, there is a hunting season on them and has been for a long time. only thing they get is a few pet cats from time to time in the foothills. I am all for consevation but whenever the govement gets involved a balance is never found. Its important to not get into the rut of thats not the gun i like so ban them, or thats not the game i hunt so who cares or they dont kill dogs and stock here so who cares. I have over 100K in black rifles but i find immence beauty in the O/U shotguns i see here, i dont hunt geese but i think others should be able to.
this is a great country and the people are as varied as the continent itself, so if anyone wants to come up here i will take then to see the west and show them things they wouldnt imagine couldnt exist, then maybey a broader undertanding of what i am trying to convey will come about. Besides Wolfe season is just a few months away:cheers:

 

[onpoint]

It is NOT the government that is preventing the hunting and controlling of the wolf population. It's 4 ENVIRONMENTAL groups and a law firm from Minneapolis

http://www.startribune.com/local/29898014.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUgOahccyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

A court decision means the species will revert to federal protection, which brings with it tighter rules.

By Tom Meersman , Star Tribune


In a victory for environmentalists, a federal judge has returned the gray wolf in the Upper Midwest to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Monday's action overturns a 2007 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that "de-listed" the wolves, and turned over their management to state natural resource officials in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The immediate effect of the court ruling, said Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wolf specialist Dan Stark, is to tighten up on conditions under which wolves may be killed in Minnesota.

"The biggest change that people need to be aware of is they can no longer take a wolf to protect their livestock or pets," he said. "The only way a person can do that is if there's an immediate danger to human safety."

The ruling also sets back the clock for the earliest time that a wolf-hunting season might be permitted in Minnesota. State law authorizes wolf hunting, but not before at least five years have elapsed after federal delisting, and only under certain conditions.

Federal protection also means stiff fines and penalties for illegal killing.

Brian O'Neill, Minneapolis attorney for the four environmental groups that filed the lawsuit, said that the main concern is that wolf populations under state control will nosedive in a few years because of habitat loss and hunting.

"This is just a continuation of the desire for whatever odd reason by the state of Minnesota to kill wolves," O'Neill said. "We've sued and we've sued and we've sued, and we won and we won and we won, and they never go away with this idea."

The groups included the Humane Society of the United States, Help Our Wolves Live, the Animal Protection Institute and the Friends of Animals and Their Environment.

The case, decided in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., focuses on the legal issue of whether the Endangered Species Act allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to take a species off the federally protected list if its population is recovering in one part of the country, but not everywhere across its native range.

The Fish and Wildlife Service contended that gray wolves numbered about 4,000 in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, and no longer needed federal help. After years of work and public hearings, the agency removed the wolves from the list in March 2007.

But the court ruled that the Endangered Species Act is ambiguous about whether "distinct population segments" of animals, such as the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves, may be identified and de-listed separately, whereas the original listing was nationwide.

As a result, the judge reinstated protections for the gray wolf to its previous status as threatened in Minnesota and endangered in Wisconsin and Michigan. He directed Fish and Wildlife to reconsider its 2007 rule and provide a "reasonable explanation" if it intends to de-list the wolf again in the Upper Midwest.

Agency may appeal

Jason Holm, regional spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency is disappointed with the decision and may appeal the case. "We are confident that the wolves have recovered in the three states," Holm said. "We believe this is more a procedural issue than a biological one."

DNR's Stark also said that decision was technical.

"The ruling does not suggest that wolves are imperiled in Minnesota or that state management has been inadequate in any way since they were taken over by the state in 2007," he said.

However, O'Neill said that Fish and Wildlife acted illegally in de-listing the wolves, and that what's at stake is long-term survival of the species. Wolves face shrinking habitat from increased development and road-building in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, he said, and that will only increase in the next 20 or 30 years. "Any thought that a [wolf] population is going to be safe from the pressures of civilization is foolhardy," O'Neill said.

The status of gray wolves has also been challenged recently in the West. Two months ago, a judge agreed with environmental groups and issued an injunction against state wolf plans in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Wyoming opened a hunting season shortly after Fish and Wildlife officials de-listed the Northern Rockies population of wolves in March, and by July at least 130 wolves, or 10 percent of the region's population, had been killed by hunters. Last week the Wildlife Service said it plans to relist the wolves so that they can again receive federal protection while the agency reconsiders how to manage them.

Tom Meersman â?¢ 612-673-7388

 

[Uncle Buck]

Well you see guy's, the wolves were supposed to be smart enough to know the boundries of the Park and stay within them. They have now eaten their way out of the park and are searching elswhere for food.

 

[jmac]

yup thats right

you nailed that on the head. uncle buck lol, ups what happened.lol and iam not a tree hugger c.c.

 

[captaincoot]

I'm the tree hugger jmac I've changed my mind on the wolves. Lets free them in the cities two plenty to eat cats dogs rabbit. If people just leave them alone they'll do just fine. Ducks geese deer elk and other animals do just fine in the city why not wolves? We all got to learn to be better conservationist.

 

[blackcloud27]

wow what a hot topic. my point of view is it is ok to protect a species and control it.. i have hunted in quebec. the caribou were many,the bears were fat and sassy,the wolves were healthy and nervous because they get hunted,the natives had all the meat they wanted,and thier pocketbooks were fat from the revenue of hunting all these animals. all species were in balance because one species wasn't managed ahead of others. i have deer and bear hunted in manitoba. could hear wolves at night and would find thier tracks in mine when i walked out of woods. lots of deer in the area, lots of fat and sassy bears,moose in the swamps,elk in the hills, and the cow calf ranchers were happy. lots of fat calves in the pasture. again all animals living in balance with one another and all were hunted. also lots of happy outfitters and taxidermist. many happy hunters as well. now here comes the problem like in yellowstone wolves are brought in and totally protected with no control system in place. i took my family to yellowstone last year and it was great. even saw wolf tracks while on a 9 mile hike. some of people from the cities had NO IDEA what wild is or meant to be. watched a father try to walk up to a bear with cubs and got mad when ranger told him to stop and slowly walk back. said his boy (6 years old) wanted a closer look ranger told him how dangerous it was and how he was tired of protecting stupid people from themselves. IMO i think that people who have not had the privilege to live in the west want to do all that they can to protect it so they can go out there some day and see it first hand. this is great but DONT force your views on others. nature needs to be balanced and controls need to be in place to help achieve this. now i know what you are going to say, controls controls are bad they should run free! there should be more, more, more. well the rancher cant live with this or afford it so people can drive out west to see what thier version of what wild is. the elk and deer herd cant support this either. NO we cant have controls if controls are so bad then why do most towns and cities have laws against exotic pets and allegedly vicious dogs such as pit bulls,rottwiellers,and other large breeds. when i take my dog for a walk he MUST be controlled on a lease because thats the law. also if you save a dog or cat frome the humane society it MUST be spayed or neutered to help control the pet population. some towns have laws saying how many dogs or cats you can own to control the population of pets and for the safety of the people. so now for the $64000 question, why is it ok to have controls for our pets and our urban areas but it is so BAD to do it in the wild when it truelly needs to be done.

 

[captaincoot]

You should control cylde blackcloud. If he wasn't fixed and on a leach city would have a major problem. Probably have to call in the national gaurd. Very well put blackcloud.:thumbsup: But who decides whats to many tree hugger or the people thats being affected by them. God it will never end No hard feeling guys great topic no real easy answer thats for sure

 

[blackcloud27]

bears were cute and cuddly in new jersey until they started showing up in peoples backyards and houses. now they are going back to hunting to control population. deer were cute until they ate most peoples lawn plants now are controlled with urban bow hunts. seems like it is only a problem when its in thier backyard, but overpopulation of wolves isn't when it is on someone elses land where they can't see the damage it does.

 

[onpoint]

I have just a couple of things to add

I wonder how much money was spent between all these wolf populated states, between the likes of state money's spent, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild sheep foundation Mule Deer and Whitetail Org. Etc over the last 50 years or more. To increase habitat and grow a huntable population of these animals so people who would not otherwise get a chance to hunt them, because of low populations and high costs of very limited Lic.

Would you support a 365 day, 24 hours a day hunting season for these big game animals for humans?

Wolves hunt unchecked 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They are the ultimate poacher of game.

I would hate to say the money that was wasted by these conservation Org. The 100's of 1000's hours donated by volunteer's over the years, wasted. The introduction of these wolves may be the biggest attack on our hunting rights by these anti-hunting groups ever. Their aim is and always was to keep you and I from hunting "Their" animals. They would much rather see a wolf eating these animals over you and I.

I refuse to join hands with them and will NOT support the introduction of wolves or the continued ban on hunting of them in most area's. If you are supporting these acts, you IMO have joined hands with the likes of The Humane Society, friends of wildlife, PETA, Etc. This whole wolf issue was help implemented by these groups.

The Elk, deer, sheep and other big game herds have been set back 50 years or more. I would like to know the revenue loss that's to come for these states, in the form of loss of non resident tags being allotted. Outfitters loss of business, hotels, restaurants, lodges, Etc.

Quote this is from Wyoming Game and fish
"To determine the impacts wolves are having on elk, biologists looked at trends in calf:cow ratios over a 26-year period, both in areas where wolf populations have been established and in areas where wolves are not present. Of the 21 elk herds included in the analysis, eight are currently occupied by wolves.

“We have seen a downward trend in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Chief Jay Lawson. “That trend is likely due to long-term drought and other habitat related factors. But in half of the herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can’t attribute that increased rate of decline to any factor other than wolves.”

Biologists feel an elk herd’s population can be maintained at objective and provide some hunter harvest when the ratio of calves to cows is around 25 to 100. Once ratios fall below 20:100 there is very little opportunity for hunting. Four elk herds in Wyoming with wolves present have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds are below 20 calves per 100 cows. All four herds had declining ratios before wolves were present, but the rate of decline increased significantly after wolves were established. Currently, the only elk herds in the state with recruitment rates that will not support hunting, or possibly even stable populations, are those with significant wolf predation.

_____________________________________________________



From Idaho Fish and game

Nine of 25 (36%) mortalities among adult cow elk from January 2002 through March 2006 were attributed to wolves. Wolf-caused mortality was not detected during 2002 or 2003; whereas 1 death was attributed to wolf predation in 2004 and 8 through 1 March 2006. Three additional losses resulted from predation, but species of predator could not be determined; 4 were attributed to mountain lions; and 9 were attributed to factors other than predation (e.g., hit by a vehicle, harvested, disease) or cause of death could not be determined.

Similar survival and cause-specific mortality data for elk in GMU 17 does not exist because of logistical difficulties with capture and monitoring of elk in designated Wilderness.

IDFG used the available data and assumptions based on peer-reviewed literature to simulate the impacts of wolf predation on elk populations in north-central Idaho. All simulations revealed a lack of cow elk population growth in the presence of wolf predation. Most simulations suggest moderate to steep declines in abundance caused by wolf predation. Regardless of the approach we used to model elk populations, all simulations used suggest wolves are limiting population growth.

4. Why wolf removal is warranted.

Several factors may have contributed to the elk population decline in the Lolo Zone, including harvest management, habitat issues, and predation. The Department and collaborators have aggressively addressed each of these factors for a number of years. Nevertheless, the Lolo Zone does not meet state management objectives. Without an increase in cow elk survival, the Lolo Zone elk population is unlikely to achieve management objectives.
The available data indicate that wolf predation is, at a minimum, partly additive and likely contributes to low adult female elk survival. Based on our evaluation and analysis, the State has determined that wolf predation is having an unacceptable impact on elk populations in the Lolo Zone. This evaluation demonstrates that wolves play an important role in limiting recovery of this elk population and that wolf removal is warranted as allowed under the 10(j) rule.

______________________________________________

Do any of you understand whats being said here? Where wolves are present, the herds don't support hunting. "THEY SHOOT THEY SCORE" the groups who pushed for these wolves release into the wild have achieved their objective....STOP THE HUNTING OF THESE ANIMALS". The herds no longer support huntable numbers.

Minnesota is facing the same thing with their deer herd in central and northeastern parts of the state. They have cut or totally stopped doe permit's in near every zone. We have NOT had a bad winter in years. It's not because of weather or habitat. Our Moose are on a steady decline. They have talked about closing the season all together. A moose calf is the easiest meal in the woods for a wolf. They are unable to evade a wolf attack at all. They are slow and at birth can't even stand for hours. Nothing but a ready made meal for a wolf.

I ask that you think about what you support. Many of you, the only info you get comes from that box in your living room. Spend some time, read from reputable sources with real facts. Pictures don't lie. Our ancestors knew what they were doing, they lived with the effects of the wolves everyday. Now those who live in the safety of their housing development in the city want to make the rules in areas 100s if not 1000s of miles from real wilderness areas. These areas are not some zoo to be saved for city folks once a year vacations with camera in hand. There are real survival things at hand here, including the survival of the sport of hunting, along with many species of big and small game. All because of one animal that has been proven to not be a needed tool in the conservation of our wildness populations of game animals.

Onpoint

 

[tmrichardson]

I have just a couple of things to add

Wolves hunt unchecked 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They are the ultimate poacher of game. .....

I would hate to say the money that was wasted by these conservation Org. .....

........ If you are supporting these acts, you IMO have joined hands with the likes of The Humane Society, friends of wildlife, PETA, Etc. This whole wolf issue was help implemented by these groups.

The Elk, deer, sheep and other big game herds have been set back 50 years or more. .....

Minnesota is facing the same thing with their deer herd in central and northeastern parts of the state. They have cut or totally stopped doe permit's in near every zone. We have NOT had a bad winter in years. It's not because of weather or habitat. Our Moose are on a steady decline. They have talked about closing the season all together. A moose calf is the easiest meal in the woods for a wolf. They are unable to evade a wolf attack at all. They are slow and at birth can't even stand for hours. Nothing but a ready made meal for a wolf.

"The ultimate poacher of game"? It's pretty clear this is an emotional topic for you, but lets try to keep it factual.

The western situation gets complicated but lets be honest there too--there were elk populations that were sky high before wolves were introduced in some areas, and people were hand feeding them to keep them alive in winters. In yellowstone they've documented improvements in stream quality and fish populations due to Elk spending less time pounding the banks of rivers, due to wolves....

There are still and will continue to be game to hunt in the west.

In MN you continue to ignore reality too. The decline in deer was by design and openly acknowledge as so by MN DNR. And we did have a bit of tough winter a few years ago that did take some of the northern deer down a bit. Any possibility of linking it to wolves completely ignores the fact that the highest ever population of deer in parts of the same area occurred with just as high a population of wolves. Wolf numbers in MN have actually been fairly stable for awhile, they've had a tough time with the preponderance of easy winters and have pretty much filled available habitat.

Moose calves are easy for wolves yet--but if you had ever spent any time around them, you'd know that a mama moose is serious trouble and a VERY vigorous protector of here calves or calf. There is a period shortly after birth where they are more vulnerable but as they get their legs under them and can get around, few of the wolves here are willing to go after them unless there is something wrong with mama. I don't fear wolves or bears--cow moose with calves scare the #@*& out of me and I've come close to be stomped into the ground a few times.

Moose numbers are declining in MN it's true, but it's not due to wolves. Again, wolves have been followed for 30 some years there with radio collars and dead moose observations are followed up and checked by biologists.

All indications are the NW MN moose decline is directly linked to climate change, and strong suspicion that the same thing is going on in NE MN exists.

No one that I saw advocated total protection of wolves in this thread. It was going fine until the three S folks started ranting. Control of wolves is fine. Eradication calls and wildly inaccurate statements aren't doing us any good. It would be a fine idea to wipe this whole thread off the board in fact.

 

[onpoint]

I guess Idaho and Wyoming fish & game are wildly inaccurate. They said that where wolves are, the herds aren't supporting huntable numbers. No wonder people are resorting to SSS.

Where is your facts, other then personal opinion you have proven none of your points.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2010/Heat.htm

RMEF Turns Up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups

MISSOULA, Mont.â??Pro-wolf groups were admittedly â??surprised and disappointedâ?� when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation publicly challenged their mischaracterizations of the real impacts of wolves in the northern Rockies and are feeling even more heat today. Their recent call for a truce has been met with a scathing letter from RMEF President and CEO David Allen, who says Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others are party to what may become â??one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century.â?�

Allen said, â??These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose.â?� One can find the text of both letters here:

 

[kansasbrittany]

Right tmrichardson,

I went back through the thread and didn't find a single person advocating the complete protection of wolves. There are folks on here that think we should control them and there are some folks that think we should eradicate them entirely. Not sure which posts these "no-control" views were derived from...?????

I appreciate everyone keeping the name-calling to a minimum.