Posts: 41,856
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(08-22-2013, 07:51 PM)csrowan Wrote: I mean, if we're really going to manage wildlife as a business, why allow wolves at all? They just cut into the profits.
I didn't say a cutthroat business. I'm trying yo explain how not to trip over a dollar to save a dime.
Didn't I ask you why you wanted more wolves? And didn't I show that we have several times more than was planned.
Seriously it IS a sustainable business so use some logic. What makes YOU think we need more Wolves? Yeah wolves are beautiful magnificent animals. WE DID reintroduce them.
And the very people that will be harmed if we allow to many are the ones who paid for the wolf reintroduction in the first place.
Posts: 3,193
Threads: 71
Joined: Mar 2011
(08-22-2013, 08:02 PM)csrowan Wrote: I wasn't suggesting it would become a reality, only sharing what I would prefer to be a reality.
OK.
Posts: 41,856
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
08-22-2013, 08:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013, 08:07 PM by tvguy. Edited 1 time in total.)
(08-22-2013, 08:02 PM)csrowan Wrote: I wasn't suggesting it would become a reality, only sharing what I would prefer to be a reality.
I would prefer it also. I would prefer that we still had salmon by the tens of thousands swimming up our river without us lifting a finger or paying a dime.
But we screwed that pooch. WE traded it off for other things. Now we have to pay to keep it all going with fish hatcheries. It's the same song all over.
Posts: 384
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2009
(08-22-2013, 08:02 PM)csrowan Wrote: I wasn't suggesting it would become a reality, only sharing what I would prefer to be a reality. Got it. Go south and visit Mickey. He lives with a" reality" too. You know the made up kind?
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
08-22-2013, 08:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013, 08:13 PM by csrowan. Edited 1 time in total.)
TV,
I don't see why it ought to be a business in the first place. We've already made huge changes that no other species is even capable of making. Why shouldn't we bear a responsibility to restore what we can if it doesn't cause that much hassle for us?
We have the money. We could give hunting permits for free to low income families that applied for them, and base the wolf population numbers around what's needed for that. Cheaper than food stamps, right?
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
08-22-2013, 08:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013, 08:13 PM by csrowan. Edited 1 time in total.)
(08-22-2013, 08:09 PM)charger Wrote: (08-22-2013, 08:02 PM)csrowan Wrote: I wasn't suggesting it would become a reality, only sharing what I would prefer to be a reality. Got it. Go south and visit Mickey. He lives with a" reality" too. You know the made up kind?
I don't suppose you have any realities you'd like to see? I don't think there's a single person in the world who doesn't want something changed, whether its's feasible or not.
It's called "having an opinion."
Posts: 41,856
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(08-22-2013, 08:11 PM)csrowan Wrote: I don't see why it ought to be a business in the first place. We've already made huge changes that no other species is even capable of making. Why shouldn't we bear a responsibility to restore what we can if it doesn't cause that much hassle for us?
We have the money. We could give hunting permits for free to low income families that applied for them, and base the wolf population numbers around what's needed for that. Cheaper than food stamps, right?
This is the part where you insert silly unproven hippie logic to the real world. It's been nice until now. And I see where this is heading.
"Business" is just a word I used. What it is really is something that evolved in to something good. We ARE restoring what we can, WTF are you talking about??
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
08-22-2013, 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013, 08:19 PM by csrowan. Edited 2 times in total.)
We're not restoring what we can if we base wolf populations on what will leave a specific amount of prey for humans to kill. Especially if those decisions are profit-based.
Posts: 3,193
Threads: 71
Joined: Mar 2011
(08-22-2013, 08:18 PM)csrowan Wrote: We're not restoring what we can if we base wolf populations on what will leave a specific amount of prey for humans to kill. Especially if those decisions are profit-based.
I don't believe those decisions are entirely profit based. Yes, profits and our economy play into it. That's what happens in a capitalist society.
That said, these are the public's animals and there is a significant portion of that public that for various reasons, wishes to pursue, harvest and consume some of the wildlife we all own. And, I believe they should have the right to do so, under the tightly regulated system that we have.
Posts: 384
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2009
(08-22-2013, 08:18 PM)csrowan Wrote: We're not restoring what we can if we base wolf populations on what will leave a specific amount of prey for humans to kill. Especially if those decisions are profit-based.
Wildlife management Experts don't know what they are doing. Apply for the job so you can tell them how wrong they are.
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 106
Joined: Apr 2013
Not familiar with wolf issue to say anything except I know there were a lot of ranchers who fought the introduction. But I do recall a large winter kill of white tail in eastern Washington/West Idaho blamed on over population, not enough of feeding area, weather, and reduced numbers of natural predators.
So, its a tough balance. What's that old saying..."it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature?"
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
08-22-2013, 08:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013, 08:35 PM by csrowan. Edited 2 times in total.)
Yup. And I don't know enough about wildlife management to try to make my opinions into reality.
If 150 wolves is all that the area can take, regardless of human hunting, then 150 is what there should be. If the number is limited to 150 specifically for the purpose of permitting a set amount of human hunting, I think the priorities are messed up.
I understand that other people may not agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just trying to explain what I feel and why.
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 106
Joined: Apr 2013
(08-22-2013, 08:34 PM)csrowan Wrote: Yup. And I don't know enough about wildlife management to try to make my opinions into reality.
If 150 wolves is all that the area can take, regardless of human hunting, then 150 is what there should be. If the number is limited to 150 specifically for the purpose of permitting a set amount of human hunting, I think the priorities are messed up.
I understand that other people may not agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just trying to explain what I feel and why.
I think a lot of us try to do that but get slammed from any direction for expressing an opinion.
Back to the point I made in the other thread, "November"
Thought this was what the forum was for.....
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
Speaking of wolf hunting...
It was either here or the 'no politics best of facebook' thread, and I thought we could do with a little fun in this thread.
|