And Out Come The Wolves

[dalton916]

Yep.

 

[BTaylor]

Respectfully, you've avoided most of my questions..

That's the convenience thing in a nutshell.

I never said the furniture wouldn't work without the washer. I asked you if you could prove that the furniture wouldn't work better with it, and asked you if you didn't generally agree that we should seek better solutions to broken furniture.

I think it's incredibly self-centered to be a species with options and control, and consign a species without those things to extinction.

I've read a little Kricher. I agree that nature is not in a perfect, static, delicate balance. But there's a big difference between the genetic arms race and the memetic one that we've foisted upon the rest of our cohabitants. I'm not accusing you directly of doing this, but the people who site this fact often use it to write man a blank check to behave in an egregious manner.

Maybe I am off but it sounds as though you arguing from the standpoint that the human population is static. Human expansion has drastically changed the landscape and in turn the viability of some species. Elk were not naturally mountain critters but they adapted. However continued human expansion has greatly reduced their ability to survive hard winters because wintering grounds have continued to shrink. Even knowing that a non-native wolf was reintroduced to CO because a bunch of do-gooders thought it was a good idea with no regard to the impact to the elk herd or the cattle industry or the cost to the state game and fish to try to protect and keep an eye on them. How was anything positive gained from that?

God gave man dominion and stewardship over all living creatures. You will get no argument from me that we have not always been good stewards. However part of stewardship is doing whats best for all the species that are part of our food chain. Apex predators for the most part do not fall in that list even though some are pretty tasty. They are competition for that food that we cant compete with. As humans have and continue to expand, removing space for those food critters, we need less and less predators on the landscape to control populations. Because humans are more or less just giant locust on the landscape, our turn will come too, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Slabzilla73]

Our time will come, is correct, but will it be our own undoing is the mystery?!?

 

[Nutterbuster]

Maybe I am off but it sounds as though you arguing from the standpoint that the human population is static. Human expansion has drastically changed the landscape and in turn the viability of some species. Elk were not naturally mountain critters but they adapted. However continued human expansion has greatly reduced their ability to survive hard winters because wintering grounds have continued to shrink. Even knowing that a non-native wolf was reintroduced to CO because a bunch of do-gooders thought it was a good idea with no regard to the impact to the elk herd or the cattle industry or the cost to the state game and fish to try to protect and keep an eye on them. How was anything positive gained from that?

God gave man dominion and stewardship over all living creatures. You will get no argument from me that we have not always been good stewards. However part of stewardship is doing whats best for all the species that are part of our food chain. Apex predators for the most part do not fall in that list even though some are pretty tasty. They are competition for that food that we cant compete with. As humans have and continue to expand, removing space for those food critters, we need less and less predators on the landscape to control populations. Because humans are more or less just giant locust on the landscape, our turn will come too, it's just a matter of time.

I'm not sure where I argued that the human population was static. I completely agree that we've changed the landscape. I completely disagree with the idea that our desire for wild game (or beef steers) should override another species need for them. I cannot imagine anything more blatantly selfish than saying that "we need less and less" predators, and that they basically don't fit the plan. Less than 5% of the population hunts, and I'd say it's being generous to estimate that on average 5% of a hunter's family's diet is wild protein. I say this as somebody who fills a deep freezer up (sometimes twice) every year with fish/game...we could stop eating wild game tomorrow and it wouldn't kill us. Can't say the same for the rest of the predator population.

There's an obscene amount of money from extractive industries that's been pumped into polytechnics to support the idea that the world we live in is the permanent, "new normal" and we should all just get with the program. People go into forestry or biology to save forests and animals, and come out as facilitators and justifiers of their commoditization. We are increasingly being persuaded into giving up on the idea of wild places, and it's extremely ironic to me that a group of people who were once champions of wilderness are now perfectly happy with pretty much any harm done to an ecosystem just so long as there are enough game animals around to pursue. And we can't even stop the declines of most game species. By and large, we'll gripe and groan about a new shopping center or logging operation or lithium mine, but we won't do anything other than go to a NWTF banquet or take a kid hunting "that one time" and pat ourself on the back over it.

I honestly get more and more discouraged with sportsmen's passive acceptance of environmental issues. We've really failed to live up to our grandfathers' expectations and are massively letting down our kids.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I don't agree with all the details of predator management. I'm neutral on the "dire wolf" topic. I cede that red wolf reintroduction is extremely problematic (perhaps impossible) given the prevalence of coyotes. But I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around "conservationists" implying if not outright claiming that we should just let a species go extinct because they're getting in the way of resource extraction.

Also, your statement about humans being giant locusts whose turn will come is the type pessimism I used to subscribe to when I still thought cynicism was cool. I try to remind myself now that pessimism is a cheap drug that asks nothing of us, and that while hope may sometimes feel like the loneliest position to hold, it's the only way to keep your soul.

We do not have to keep being "a plague." We can change if we want to. The whole "Oh, well, so much damage has already been done, there's really no saving it, it's all doomed" message seems custom-made to demotivate people and persuade them into accepting something that they'd otherwise fight. Sure, our time as a species will come. My own time will come, but it'll probably come a heck of a lot faster if I pound double bacon cheeseburgers on the daily and wash them down with coca cola than if I eat a salad and go for a jog a few times a week.

 

[BTaylor]

If we keep destroying all the habitat of prey animals, we absolutely will need less and less predators on the landscape. That's not selfish, it's reality. And I am mostly just talking about what we have now, never mind reintroducing species back into areas or this non-sense with the direwolves. There is a massive percentage of the human population in this country that is so far removed from nature, they have no-concept of the things discussed here. The best we can hope for is to not start losing our currently protected public ground and hope that private landowners will be better stewards of their land. The pushes to reintroduce predators and to use lawfare to ban management of their numbers by and large comes from people that have spent their entire lives in large metro areas and have little to no actual experience with the critters or the environments they live in. I have exactly zero issues with having apex predators on the landscape but believe it is irresponsible to not manage all populations. We already have areas where G-bears are well above capacity threshold. The same for wolves. But lets keep adding predators to other areas and also make sure the population is allowed to live unchecked. The overwhelming majority of the folks championing these efforts are the same folks you still see walking alone on the side walk wearing a freakin mask that will scream at the top of their lungs for you to follow the science. They are the personification of not knowin sh!t from shinola but refuse to face reality because it hurts their feelings.

Two groups need to be leading the charge, hunters and game and fish agencies. Hunters are too busy or too concerned about fighting each other to see the forest for the trees and game agency personnel are hamstrung by budgets and political optics. And for the record I have been involved with state and local level advocacy for land and hunting issues off and on for about 35 years including public land clean ups, river clean ups, speaking at public events or at public comment meetings with game and fish, never mind the thousands of hours and dollars I have put into habitat management on the private ground I have had the opportunity to use.

 

[LAKY]

Hunters are too busy or too concerned about fighting each other to see the forest for the trees

Definitely, and also, I'd say most don't even know one tree from another in the forest. People look and see trees or weeds or plants and stop there and call it good. No matter that half those trees and plants don't even belong there because of mismanagement. We've stopped or hindered so many natural processes from happening that we've managed to be poor stewards.

 

[Nutterbuster]

If we keep destroying all the habitat of prey animals, we absolutely will need less and less predators on the landscape.

This statement I am forced to agree with. However, it's slightly different from your original statements:

Even knowing that a non-native wolf was reintroduced to CO because a bunch of do-gooders thought it was a good idea with no regard to the impact to the elk herd or the cattle industry or the cost to the state game and fish to try to protect and keep an eye on them...Apex predators for the most part do not fall in that list even though some are pretty tasty. They are competition for that food that we cant compete with. As humans have and continue to expand, removing space for those food critters, we need less and less predators on the landscape to control populations.

I am 100% down to discuss ideal predator/prey ratios and carrying capacity. But I don't have much patience for ranchers and hunters bemoaning their losses.

The overwhelming majority of the folks championing these efforts are the same folks you still see walking alone on the side walk wearing a freakin mask that will scream at the top of their lungs for you to follow the science. They are the personification of not knowin sh!t from shinola but refuse to face reality because it hurts their feelings.

I've said before that I award 0 points to shots taken at a target not present to defend itself. If you want to be taken in good faith and don't want to be treated as a caricature, that courtesy has to go both ways.

Also, I want to quickly point out that I'm arguing with my friends because my enemies don't talk to me. I respect your contributions to conservation, and apologize for letting shots taken at hunting culture in general drift towards your direct person. If I am being difficult, it's because I feel that these topics are generally little more than circle jerks, where everybody gangs up on a perceived boogey man, feels good about it, and then goes back to what they were doing while the real bad guy keeps screwing everybody over. I get it, because that's way easier and frankly safer than going after big industry, especially if you live in an area where timber, farming, energy production, mining, and manufacturing is responsible for most of the GDP.

 

[BTaylor]

I am 100% down to discuss ideal predator/prey ratios and carrying capacity. But I don't have much patience for ranchers and hunters bemoaning their losses.

I'm maybe mostly there with you. I am not in favor of public lands being used for private grazing. So I am inclined to be less empathetic for losses there. However for private land ranchers that have predatory losses from reintroduced wolves, I have a little different outlook. It's kinda like a farmer losing a crop to a flood or hail storm. There should be a means for the rancher to re-coop the loss. It's no different than if ABC company selling widgets has fire in their warehouse and losses a portion of their inventory.

 

[BTaylor]

I've said before that I award 0 points to shots taken at a target not present to defend itself. If you want to be taken in good faith and don't want to be treated as a caricature, that courtesy has to go both ways.

I dont believe I have made an inaccurate description of the majority of folks that have used to the courts to keep excessive populations of grizzlies from being managed, that managed to get a non-native wolf released in multiple states, or that are continually fighting for ways to further ban hunting and trapping. I am looking to score exactly 0 points with any group of people that would love nothing more than to ban my existence. I have never been one to call a spade a spatula and not going to start today. I am willing to and have plenty of times had to admit I was wrong, but I dont think that is the case here. At least not in my experience.

 

[Nutterbuster]

There should be a means for the rancher to re-coop the loss.

There is.

Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Awards: Fiscal Year 2023 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

I think there are state-level programs in at least Colorado and California, but don't quote me on that. $10-30 billion in total federal ag subsidies a year depending who calculates it and how. I think they'll be ok for as long as any of us will be.

I dont believe I have made an inaccurate description of the majority of folks that have used to the courts to keep excessive populations of grizzlies from being managed, that managed to get a non-native wolf released in multiple states, or that are continually fighting for ways to further ban hunting and trapping. I am looking to score exactly 0 points with any group of people that would love nothing more than to ban my existence. I have never been one to call a spade a spatula and not going to start today. I am willing to and have plenty of times had to admit I was wrong, but I dont think that is the case here. At least not in my experience.

I won't belabor the point. I'll just ask if you want to be judged based on the political antics of those on the far end of your political spectrum. I can assure you that I have nuanced but enthusiastic conversations like this one with plenty of Sierra Club and Audubon types, and I'm quite happy to have help from the SELC and CBD to protect sportsmen's interests in my state.

 

[BTaylor]

I won't belabor the point. I'll just ask if you want to be judged based on the political antics of those on the far end of your political spectrum. I can assure you that I have nuanced but enthusiastic conversations like this one with plenty of Sierra Club and Audubon types, and I'm quite happy to have help from the SELC and CBD to protect sportsmen's interests in my state.

LOL my political spectrum is largely unrepresented. I will leave it at this, I am going to stand on the truth and facts as I know them to be. That lets me sleep just fine.

 

[Horn]

 

[Jammintree]

When talking about the reintroduction of endangered animals or extinct species, or the introduction of foreign species I think it’s important that we distinguish between the assortment of potential participants. There are government agencies such as state and federal fish and game departments, there are private organizations in many forms that may or may not have government support and may or may not have government oversight, and then there are private individuals who in many cases are extremely wealthy and are not likely to be accountable to anyone or anything prior to their actions.

The current populations of native and non native species of plants and animals in the US already demonstrates a wide array of origins stories and outcomes.

We all have the ability to influence some of the potential players like government organizations, and some private organization that engage in wildlife and habitat management. But what can we do about independent actors who feel entitled to do whatever they want?