Colorado Wolves
- Thread starter Muley_Stalker
- Start date
My argument on the reintroduction of any species that is governed by the ESA and associated rules/laws that allow for the process to be hijacked by the litigators goes like this, spoken to them in this manner:
I don't want to be part of your social experiment. I refuse to be a part of your social experiment. If you change the process; if you change the rules that put all the cards in your favor; if you have some triggering mechanism that prevents promises from being broken; if you change it so you can't treat me and fellow citizens of mostly rural areas as lab rats in your social experiment, then, maybe then, we have a starting point for discussion. Until then, we have no basis for a discussion.
That is my perspective from having lived many social experiments designed by people with a far different value system than mine. Others have been the scientist in these experiments, so they cannot find a way to see it from the perspective of the humans viewed as the lab rats for these social trials conducted in clinics known as rural America.
What you call a wildlife experiment is hardly an experiment at all, from a wildlife perspective. An experiment implies you are testing a theory. We know the certain results of placing many of these animals on productive landscapes conserved by hunters. The wildlife outcome is a foregone conclusion, as it was when wolves were released in the Northern Rockies. This was not a wildlife experiment - we all knew they would prosper.
What we did not know, even though we had suspicions, was the degree to which one side would use the courts to abuse the locals most impacted by that decision. We did not know that even though agreements were struck and compromises made, that one side would employ their considerable legal resources to make sure the deals and compromises were made irrelevant.
That, to me, is a social experiment. A social experiment that has converted an advocate for all wild creatures and the landscapes that sustain them to a person who is unwilling to continue the history of hunters restoring all species. Nope, I am now a person who will participate to my greatest energy in restoration efforts outside the social laboratory known as the ESA. And under no circumstance will I support, or contribute to, mostly urban folks continuing their social experiment on the mostly rural community who they view as nothing more than lab rats in their bigger social experiment.
That narrative makes people squirm. It makes the abuse of this process tangible. It is based on a demonstrated fact pattern that I can show many times, in many different locations. And it forces the litigating parties to assess how long they can continue their social experiment of litigation abuse on their lab rats before the lab rats eventually have had enough and the entire basis of their social experiment, the ESA and associated regulations, is taken away because of people tiring of this abusive structure.
Try that argument next time. Don't go down the path of how many wolves is enough, whether or not elk should be a food source for humans in addition to predators, whether or not we should hunt bears and lions, etc. Those are the trails they want you to follow and they are a dead end in the mind of greater society.
Frame it as it actually occurs. One side pays no social costs for their desired outcome and abuse a well-intended system to force their desired outcome upon another group; a group who incurs all the social and financial costs of the outcome and has no legal recourse to stop the ever-changing demands of the imposing party.
I can assure you that none of those folks would volunteer to be a lab rat for a social experiment, especially a social experiment designed by someone with a completely different value system.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,322
Well said, Randy. That's exactly what happens.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Here's my thoughts on the issue. Since I'm disagreeing with the site owner, I'm not sure how this is going to work out but hey, it can't be as bad as a bar in Avery, Idaho, so here goes:
My response would be a stipulation to social experimentation and the fact we are all our own lab rats. Yes. Our lack of self-control and lack of self-action often leads to external control and external action. And often times "innocent" and well-intentioned bystanders get caught up in it.
Social experimentation is conducted on whites who failed to step up; on industries that failed to stop polluting, on drivers who failed to slow the hell down, on financiers who failed to check their greed, on . . . well, the point is made. And, believe it or not, some of them don't even believe mistakes were made. They believe racism is natural, pollution is a lie, they are special on the road, and regulation of money lenders is bad.
And there really are whites and blacks who had nothing to do with racism, and industries that never polluted, and drivers that never sped, and honest fair bankers, who all got regulated in a social experiment designed to control and correct the "mistakes" of inconsiderate, ignorant, disrespectful, greedy people who have gone before and who failed to correct those "mistakes."
Those who suffered racism, sucked up industrial pollution, lost a loved one to a speeder, lost their retirement to one who breached a fiduciary duty; they will use litigation, lies, and whatever to wreck vengeance on whoever stands in their way. Can't say that I blame them.
Innocent broad shoulders bear this burden and the mistakes of those who went before. The ESA is a reaction. The ESA didn't kill off wolves. Hunters did. The fact *we* have changed the definition of "hunter" is of no moment. The States and Federal government (we) participated, with bounties. And there are people who think extinction of wolves is a good thing.
What did hunters do to bring back wolves before the ESA came along? Nothing? Well then.
And bunny huggers and wolf lovers (who probably would not exist but-for) will abuse the system, sue, lie, cheat and steel to get what they want. Can't say that I blame them.
If anyone had an alternative to the ESA and/or "social experimentation" then why was it not done? If anyone doesn't want to be part of a social experiment they need to step up, exercise self control and work to correct the mistakes (even if not theirs) of the past *before* society, and their got damn scientists, step in and do it for them.
This is a forum about everything about hunting wolves. I would argue, that is hard to do unless we have some wolves to hunt. Not that I would (I stick to "prey" species), but it seems a logical question. How can wolves be considered wildlife conserved by hunters?
Honest questions here. If hunters had a plan that was put in place and working, I'd like to hear about it. And natural re-habitation from the north is not going to cut it. Not with hunters and ranchers shooting, with impunity, every “coyote” they saw coming down.
My response would be a stipulation to social experimentation and the fact we are all our own lab rats. Yes. Our lack of self-control and lack of self-action often leads to external control and external action. And often times "innocent" and well-intentioned bystanders get caught up in it.
Social experimentation is conducted on whites who failed to step up; on industries that failed to stop polluting, on drivers who failed to slow the hell down, on financiers who failed to check their greed, on . . . well, the point is made. And, believe it or not, some of them don't even believe mistakes were made. They believe racism is natural, pollution is a lie, they are special on the road, and regulation of money lenders is bad.
And there really are whites and blacks who had nothing to do with racism, and industries that never polluted, and drivers that never sped, and honest fair bankers, who all got regulated in a social experiment designed to control and correct the "mistakes" of inconsiderate, ignorant, disrespectful, greedy people who have gone before and who failed to correct those "mistakes."
Those who suffered racism, sucked up industrial pollution, lost a loved one to a speeder, lost their retirement to one who breached a fiduciary duty; they will use litigation, lies, and whatever to wreck vengeance on whoever stands in their way. Can't say that I blame them.
Innocent broad shoulders bear this burden and the mistakes of those who went before. The ESA is a reaction. The ESA didn't kill off wolves. Hunters did. The fact *we* have changed the definition of "hunter" is of no moment. The States and Federal government (we) participated, with bounties. And there are people who think extinction of wolves is a good thing.
What did hunters do to bring back wolves before the ESA came along? Nothing? Well then.
And bunny huggers and wolf lovers (who probably would not exist but-for) will abuse the system, sue, lie, cheat and steel to get what they want. Can't say that I blame them.
If anyone had an alternative to the ESA and/or "social experimentation" then why was it not done? If anyone doesn't want to be part of a social experiment they need to step up, exercise self control and work to correct the mistakes (even if not theirs) of the past *before* society, and their got damn scientists, step in and do it for them.
This is a forum about everything about hunting wolves. I would argue, that is hard to do unless we have some wolves to hunt. Not that I would (I stick to "prey" species), but it seems a logical question. How can wolves be considered wildlife conserved by hunters?
Honest questions here. If hunters had a plan that was put in place and working, I'd like to hear about it. And natural re-habitation from the north is not going to cut it. Not with hunters and ranchers shooting, with impunity, every “coyote” they saw coming down.
Interesting comments, James. Maybe I should have prefaced it with some of my much older comments of my support for having wolves on the landscape and how I would fight against anyone wanting to remove wolves from the landscape. My assumption that some new to the site would know of those past statements may leave a gap in background I could have provided. The far fringe of wolf haters call me the "Wolf Hippie" because of the respect I extended to wolves in a Bugle Magazine article.
I would disagree with some of what you state as fact, but that tangent would dilute the point of my comments. You assume I am only talking about wolves. I am not. I am talking about all species being subjected to the ESA. A long list.
I would argue your analogies are not very good choices for this discussion. The family of the person who got killed by the drunk did not spend three years negotiating a plan for an expected outcome, as was done with wolves. Those subject to racism did not sit down with those imposing racist policies on them and negotiate what was supposed to be the agreement, as was done with grizzly bears. Those subject to ..... well point is made.
Additionally, to equate litigation taken by a person who lost a loved one, was subjected to racism, lost their retirement, etc. to the litigation taken by the litigators of ESA issues seems to be a harder analogy to follow. One party is a plaintiff who actually suffered emotional, physical, or financial damages at the hands of someone else. The other who is seeking plaintiff status only loses sleep because when they crank up the AC in their Tucson penthouse they worry that the number of wolves in the Northern Rockies is only 1,500 beyond what was used for projections in the agreement discussion, rather than being 3,000 wolves above the projected number. I doubt you intended to raise the emotional damage of an ESA litigant to the level of emotional damages of your other examples, but that is how it comes across.
As to what hunters did on behalf of wolves, I would answer, "A lot more than any other group." We set the dinner table for their return; their return being something that was occurring naturally in MT and ID far before the reintroduction in 1995.
Did we do it so wolves could be reintroduced? Nope, we did it because we wanted to conserve elk for our own consumption. Some would argue that by-product of our efforts makes our motives subject to criticism in the discussion. Fine if they want to feel that way. Nobody can show me what other groups did to benefit wolves, directly or indirectly, that is equivalent to hunters buying all the important winter range around YNP, a collective effort that is the only reason elk were able to sustain in the GYE as development pressures altered the landscape over the last century.
I've had similar discussions with those who want to discount the efforts/ancillary benefit hunters and their conservation efforts have brought to the landscapes. Fine. They want to cherry pick some facts, and deny other facts, to support their case. I get that. I just happen to disagree and I am still waiting for them to provide evidence of what has been done on the landscape by the group they self-identify with.
Would wolves, grizzly bears, or any other species been able to sustain without the structure and funding implemented by hunters over the last 80 years? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be hard for one to argue against the fact that the state-based management systems established by hunters, and the funding they have provided, is helpful to many non-hunted species, both from a habitat and protection standpoint.
I could go on and on about manners I think hunters have helped these species, albeit in many cases indirectly, and in the case of funding wildlife management, that benefit is direct. Until legislative changes last year, WY G&F was paying $2 million per year for grizzly bear management. A similar situation in Montana. Those are hunter dollars funding that,as they funded wolf management, as they fund lynx management, when they fund.....
When I point out who is footing the bill to those asserting that hunters have done nothing for non-hunted species, the response has usually been similar to, "Oh well, that's part of having the seats at the table." Fine, it might be part of seats at the table, but that is not a valid discount of what hunters do that helps these species; a far greater benefit than others who want to litigate agreements struck with regard to those species.
I could list many other instances.
I also feel other groups on the landscape can make the same case that hunters make. Some of the best wildlife habitat is on private lands, whether ranched, logged selectively, or not employed in any profit endeavor. Those land decisions in many parts of the Northern Rockies were conscious decisions by landowners that have greatly benefited many of these species. Those land use decisions come with some financial sacrifice for the landowner who places his conservation ethic higher than his bottom line.
Those landowners groups engaged in these compromises with the folks who eventually became litigators against the agreements. The changing goal lines and continued litigation reaffirm the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished." These landowners, whose collective conservation ethic is a great wildlife and aesthetic benefit to all of us, feel like lab rats in a social experiment as do many who are attached to the landscapes where these experiments are conducted.
I get your points and think they are good for bending the mind. I will read them further and think about them more.
I still feel the ESA process and the ancillary Federal laws employed as part of ESA-sourced litigation has morphed into a social experiment. I do what I can to change that. I've been involved in many discussions with policy leaders in efforts to find some balance that can keep the intent of protecting species while balancing the table to a level playing field. I will not willingly subject myself to another social experiment under the current rules of the game. And I will advocate that others not do so either, until such time the rules change.
Thanks for the perspective.
I would disagree with some of what you state as fact, but that tangent would dilute the point of my comments. You assume I am only talking about wolves. I am not. I am talking about all species being subjected to the ESA. A long list.
I would argue your analogies are not very good choices for this discussion. The family of the person who got killed by the drunk did not spend three years negotiating a plan for an expected outcome, as was done with wolves. Those subject to racism did not sit down with those imposing racist policies on them and negotiate what was supposed to be the agreement, as was done with grizzly bears. Those subject to ..... well point is made.
Additionally, to equate litigation taken by a person who lost a loved one, was subjected to racism, lost their retirement, etc. to the litigation taken by the litigators of ESA issues seems to be a harder analogy to follow. One party is a plaintiff who actually suffered emotional, physical, or financial damages at the hands of someone else. The other who is seeking plaintiff status only loses sleep because when they crank up the AC in their Tucson penthouse they worry that the number of wolves in the Northern Rockies is only 1,500 beyond what was used for projections in the agreement discussion, rather than being 3,000 wolves above the projected number. I doubt you intended to raise the emotional damage of an ESA litigant to the level of emotional damages of your other examples, but that is how it comes across.
As to what hunters did on behalf of wolves, I would answer, "A lot more than any other group." We set the dinner table for their return; their return being something that was occurring naturally in MT and ID far before the reintroduction in 1995.
Did we do it so wolves could be reintroduced? Nope, we did it because we wanted to conserve elk for our own consumption. Some would argue that by-product of our efforts makes our motives subject to criticism in the discussion. Fine if they want to feel that way. Nobody can show me what other groups did to benefit wolves, directly or indirectly, that is equivalent to hunters buying all the important winter range around YNP, a collective effort that is the only reason elk were able to sustain in the GYE as development pressures altered the landscape over the last century.
I've had similar discussions with those who want to discount the efforts/ancillary benefit hunters and their conservation efforts have brought to the landscapes. Fine. They want to cherry pick some facts, and deny other facts, to support their case. I get that. I just happen to disagree and I am still waiting for them to provide evidence of what has been done on the landscape by the group they self-identify with.
Would wolves, grizzly bears, or any other species been able to sustain without the structure and funding implemented by hunters over the last 80 years? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be hard for one to argue against the fact that the state-based management systems established by hunters, and the funding they have provided, is helpful to many non-hunted species, both from a habitat and protection standpoint.
I could go on and on about manners I think hunters have helped these species, albeit in many cases indirectly, and in the case of funding wildlife management, that benefit is direct. Until legislative changes last year, WY G&F was paying $2 million per year for grizzly bear management. A similar situation in Montana. Those are hunter dollars funding that,as they funded wolf management, as they fund lynx management, when they fund.....
When I point out who is footing the bill to those asserting that hunters have done nothing for non-hunted species, the response has usually been similar to, "Oh well, that's part of having the seats at the table." Fine, it might be part of seats at the table, but that is not a valid discount of what hunters do that helps these species; a far greater benefit than others who want to litigate agreements struck with regard to those species.
I could list many other instances.
I also feel other groups on the landscape can make the same case that hunters make. Some of the best wildlife habitat is on private lands, whether ranched, logged selectively, or not employed in any profit endeavor. Those land decisions in many parts of the Northern Rockies were conscious decisions by landowners that have greatly benefited many of these species. Those land use decisions come with some financial sacrifice for the landowner who places his conservation ethic higher than his bottom line.
Those landowners groups engaged in these compromises with the folks who eventually became litigators against the agreements. The changing goal lines and continued litigation reaffirm the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished." These landowners, whose collective conservation ethic is a great wildlife and aesthetic benefit to all of us, feel like lab rats in a social experiment as do many who are attached to the landscapes where these experiments are conducted.
I get your points and think they are good for bending the mind. I will read them further and think about them more.
I still feel the ESA process and the ancillary Federal laws employed as part of ESA-sourced litigation has morphed into a social experiment. I do what I can to change that. I've been involved in many discussions with policy leaders in efforts to find some balance that can keep the intent of protecting species while balancing the table to a level playing field. I will not willingly subject myself to another social experiment under the current rules of the game. And I will advocate that others not do so either, until such time the rules change.
Thanks for the perspective.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I'm glad you are a wolf hippie (relatively speaking). 
I did assume you were talking only about wolves, given the title of the thread and the title of this discussion board, but I'd extend my argument to Spotted Owls and Snail Darters too.
Regarding my analogies, well, an analogy, by definition is not the thing itself. They were offered to highlight the nature of social experimentation and how it is ubiquitous in any society moving from the past to a future. While the family of a drunk driver may not have spent any time negotiating anything, MADD did, and I'm sure they aren't happy to see the results of a spoiled brat using an argument of influenza. Jim Crow and Separate But Equal and similar situations all involved parties who thought they might be walking away with something, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. Anyway, again, my point was not equality between the ESA and my examples but, rather, an example of how tough life can be, especially for those who played no part in the underlying wrong, and when society is then called upon to step up and address situations that have been left to fester. Sometimes *we* are all called upon to bear these burdens.
I think you and I can both agree that even if we never visit a place we might be glad it is there. And just because we don't personally suffer from a wrong does not mean we don't have an interest in correcting it. And if those closer to a correction bear more of the burden, that is no reason not to impose it. It sucked to live in 1866 Georgia. Vermont, not so much. (Compare the guy in Tuscon, AZ air conditioning).
I have to agree with you that hunters set the table. But to argue hunters are thus entitled to a greater portion of the fare is like saying that a Northern Troop, having freed the slave, is justified in arguing that freedom for blacks is okay, so long as they know their place. You may have read my rant on never expecting gratitude from a beggar and how that would apply to a beggar we've made to beg.
Have these newbee-enviro-animal-rights people done anything close to what hunters have done? NO. You and I agree on that. But to call it cherry picking facts is no different than calling science the God over here, and the Devil over there. Everyone seems to be cherry picking, depending upon who's ox is being gored.
You are preaching to the choir when it comes to who carries the lions share of funding. Hell, it's more than the lions share; It's damn near all the funding: Hunters. And these johnny come lately enviros have not put their money where their mouth is. But my guess is they expect government to do it. Some view licensing as the comodification of the resource, compounding the problem, and would rather their tax payers dollars be spent on it than on some of the unrelated activities of government which are often supported by those they see in the field. If there were a chain from Indians to Bundys to Hunters, there might be an analogy to a chain from wolves to hunters to enviros. The Bundys and the Hunters are in the middle, trying to hold on to the past. They could both save themselves a lot of heart ache, as well as the resource itself, if they stepped up and helped address the problem instead of double down on the way they wish things were. Extending the analogy would be the Taylor Grazing Act to the ESA: both imperfect and misused responses brought on by the failure of the users to check themselves or make room for others. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
As to litigation and misuse of legislation, again, it's like social experimentation. There are people who hate us. Really hate us. And don't give us any credit for the good we do. And they use any arrow in their quiver, including the ESA and lies. Let me make myself perfectly clear (I always hated that phrase; like saying “let me be perfectly honest” but I feel it's appropriate here): What is happening may not be just, but it is to be expected. Ask any Indian. It is life. You can wring your hands, take your ball and go home, complain, whatever, but the first step in dealing with the opposition is understanding them. And if you can't understand your opposition, at least understand the reality of the situation and how it was arrived at.
In conclusion, I am not even pretending to school you and I am confident you know WAY more about the specifics than I ever will. Nor am I really arguing with the merits of your case. I am merely pointing out some facts that seem to get lost in the mix by both sides to any argument and that is this:
1. Social experimentation is ubiquitous in life and goes WAY beyond the ESA, reaching into all facets of policy, rules, regulations, laws and even the Constitution itself. To call something out as such is really belaboring the obvious; and trying to exempt oneself from participation in it is impossible. Believe me, if anyone could, it would be me. Unfortunately, there are 7 billion out there I can't run from. I'm sure Bundy would agree.
2. You can never expect magnanimity from a loser. Or gratitude from a beggar. The only place to find those is on the broad shoulders of an innocent man. I think that is an honorable place to provide.
Thank you for you time and your gracious response. Time for me to hit the rack.
I did assume you were talking only about wolves, given the title of the thread and the title of this discussion board, but I'd extend my argument to Spotted Owls and Snail Darters too.
Regarding my analogies, well, an analogy, by definition is not the thing itself. They were offered to highlight the nature of social experimentation and how it is ubiquitous in any society moving from the past to a future. While the family of a drunk driver may not have spent any time negotiating anything, MADD did, and I'm sure they aren't happy to see the results of a spoiled brat using an argument of influenza. Jim Crow and Separate But Equal and similar situations all involved parties who thought they might be walking away with something, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. Anyway, again, my point was not equality between the ESA and my examples but, rather, an example of how tough life can be, especially for those who played no part in the underlying wrong, and when society is then called upon to step up and address situations that have been left to fester. Sometimes *we* are all called upon to bear these burdens.
I think you and I can both agree that even if we never visit a place we might be glad it is there. And just because we don't personally suffer from a wrong does not mean we don't have an interest in correcting it. And if those closer to a correction bear more of the burden, that is no reason not to impose it. It sucked to live in 1866 Georgia. Vermont, not so much. (Compare the guy in Tuscon, AZ air conditioning).
I have to agree with you that hunters set the table. But to argue hunters are thus entitled to a greater portion of the fare is like saying that a Northern Troop, having freed the slave, is justified in arguing that freedom for blacks is okay, so long as they know their place. You may have read my rant on never expecting gratitude from a beggar and how that would apply to a beggar we've made to beg.
Have these newbee-enviro-animal-rights people done anything close to what hunters have done? NO. You and I agree on that. But to call it cherry picking facts is no different than calling science the God over here, and the Devil over there. Everyone seems to be cherry picking, depending upon who's ox is being gored.
You are preaching to the choir when it comes to who carries the lions share of funding. Hell, it's more than the lions share; It's damn near all the funding: Hunters. And these johnny come lately enviros have not put their money where their mouth is. But my guess is they expect government to do it. Some view licensing as the comodification of the resource, compounding the problem, and would rather their tax payers dollars be spent on it than on some of the unrelated activities of government which are often supported by those they see in the field. If there were a chain from Indians to Bundys to Hunters, there might be an analogy to a chain from wolves to hunters to enviros. The Bundys and the Hunters are in the middle, trying to hold on to the past. They could both save themselves a lot of heart ache, as well as the resource itself, if they stepped up and helped address the problem instead of double down on the way they wish things were. Extending the analogy would be the Taylor Grazing Act to the ESA: both imperfect and misused responses brought on by the failure of the users to check themselves or make room for others. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
As to litigation and misuse of legislation, again, it's like social experimentation. There are people who hate us. Really hate us. And don't give us any credit for the good we do. And they use any arrow in their quiver, including the ESA and lies. Let me make myself perfectly clear (I always hated that phrase; like saying “let me be perfectly honest” but I feel it's appropriate here): What is happening may not be just, but it is to be expected. Ask any Indian. It is life. You can wring your hands, take your ball and go home, complain, whatever, but the first step in dealing with the opposition is understanding them. And if you can't understand your opposition, at least understand the reality of the situation and how it was arrived at.
In conclusion, I am not even pretending to school you and I am confident you know WAY more about the specifics than I ever will. Nor am I really arguing with the merits of your case. I am merely pointing out some facts that seem to get lost in the mix by both sides to any argument and that is this:
1. Social experimentation is ubiquitous in life and goes WAY beyond the ESA, reaching into all facets of policy, rules, regulations, laws and even the Constitution itself. To call something out as such is really belaboring the obvious; and trying to exempt oneself from participation in it is impossible. Believe me, if anyone could, it would be me. Unfortunately, there are 7 billion out there I can't run from. I'm sure Bundy would agree.
2. You can never expect magnanimity from a loser. Or gratitude from a beggar. The only place to find those is on the broad shoulders of an innocent man. I think that is an honorable place to provide.
Thank you for you time and your gracious response. Time for me to hit the rack.
To answer mtmuley, I don't know the answer to that as Idaho only gives 5 tags to any one hunter per year. 23 is just what he told me and I don’t find the number hard to believe given the amount of wolf sign in that area and the number of known packs.
For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to the reintroduction of wolves, albeit a social experiment for sure. I don’t think it should have happened, but now that they are here I will enjoy them like any other creature in the wild. Waking up to the howling of wolves in the mountains of Idaho and Montana is something that few people get to experience and it is something that makes the outdoors of these areas more “wild” than most. What I don’t hear much of anymore are elk bugling and therein lays the problem. What I am most opposed to, just as Randy said, is the mismanagement of the problem brought on by environmentalists “cranking up the AC in their Tucson penthouses”. To James’ point, we are having these arguments with environmentalists because the frontiersmen generations ago exterminated these animals, an action I do not agree with or condone in any way; I think you would be hard pressed to find a hunter who is a conservationist who does agree with these tactics. In fact, I think you would have to exclude him/her from the conservation group if he/she did. I mean no disrespect, but I believe this to be true. However, decimating deer and elk herds hardly seems to right the wrong of our grandparent’s grandparent’s generation. To use James’ analogy, in my mind, this would be like saying we know that slavery happened, we know it was wrong, we know the law was not on the side of the slaves, so to counter that wrong we should now allow every person who had a relative who was a slave prior to the ratification of the 13th amendment to live in our country without being under any laws or at least a more lenient set of laws than those who didn’t have a relative who was a slave; by its very nature this action would reintroduce segregation once again. The very notion of this would be preposterous and we wouldn’t do it because we already conducted that social experiment and didn’t like the outcome. This is similar to the problem we now have with wolves as they were allowed to exist too long under a different set of rules than the rest of large game. Hunters and conservationists don’t like the outcome of this experiment and the expected results from the environmentalist’s side were way off and have had ramifications that generations to come will deal with.
To James’ point, this infringement of rights because some can’t govern themselves happens all the time. For instance, some lunatic shoots up a school and now the government wants to infringe upon our gun rights because the lunatic can’t or didn’t govern himself. We are having this discussion because the frontiersmen didn’t govern themselves. I get your point James and I don’t argue that this is why we are where we are. However, allowing a environmentalist groups to walk over our rights and push their agendas through without any respect for the current ecosystem or the rights of hunters and conservationists who are here now and are yet to come is not acceptable either.
To Randy’s point, which I very much appreciate and have never heard it put quite like that, you want to bring back wolves, fine. However, don’t “experiment” on us, don’t experiment with our deer and elk herds, and don’t infringe upon the right we have to hunt which we as a group of hunters and conservations have fought to protect both for our current generation and future generations. The experimentation has been done, we know what happens. So bring back wolves with a realistic plan, a plan that is agreed to by environmentalist, hunters and conservationist alike. Don’t tread on our rights!!!
For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to the reintroduction of wolves, albeit a social experiment for sure. I don’t think it should have happened, but now that they are here I will enjoy them like any other creature in the wild. Waking up to the howling of wolves in the mountains of Idaho and Montana is something that few people get to experience and it is something that makes the outdoors of these areas more “wild” than most. What I don’t hear much of anymore are elk bugling and therein lays the problem. What I am most opposed to, just as Randy said, is the mismanagement of the problem brought on by environmentalists “cranking up the AC in their Tucson penthouses”. To James’ point, we are having these arguments with environmentalists because the frontiersmen generations ago exterminated these animals, an action I do not agree with or condone in any way; I think you would be hard pressed to find a hunter who is a conservationist who does agree with these tactics. In fact, I think you would have to exclude him/her from the conservation group if he/she did. I mean no disrespect, but I believe this to be true. However, decimating deer and elk herds hardly seems to right the wrong of our grandparent’s grandparent’s generation. To use James’ analogy, in my mind, this would be like saying we know that slavery happened, we know it was wrong, we know the law was not on the side of the slaves, so to counter that wrong we should now allow every person who had a relative who was a slave prior to the ratification of the 13th amendment to live in our country without being under any laws or at least a more lenient set of laws than those who didn’t have a relative who was a slave; by its very nature this action would reintroduce segregation once again. The very notion of this would be preposterous and we wouldn’t do it because we already conducted that social experiment and didn’t like the outcome. This is similar to the problem we now have with wolves as they were allowed to exist too long under a different set of rules than the rest of large game. Hunters and conservationists don’t like the outcome of this experiment and the expected results from the environmentalist’s side were way off and have had ramifications that generations to come will deal with.
To James’ point, this infringement of rights because some can’t govern themselves happens all the time. For instance, some lunatic shoots up a school and now the government wants to infringe upon our gun rights because the lunatic can’t or didn’t govern himself. We are having this discussion because the frontiersmen didn’t govern themselves. I get your point James and I don’t argue that this is why we are where we are. However, allowing a environmentalist groups to walk over our rights and push their agendas through without any respect for the current ecosystem or the rights of hunters and conservationists who are here now and are yet to come is not acceptable either.
To Randy’s point, which I very much appreciate and have never heard it put quite like that, you want to bring back wolves, fine. However, don’t “experiment” on us, don’t experiment with our deer and elk herds, and don’t infringe upon the right we have to hunt which we as a group of hunters and conservations have fought to protect both for our current generation and future generations. The experimentation has been done, we know what happens. So bring back wolves with a realistic plan, a plan that is agreed to by environmentalist, hunters and conservationist alike. Don’t tread on our rights!!!
Last edited:
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I appreciate the passionate yet articulate and well reasoned debate we are having.
I'm also a great lover of analogy. I guess my response is really more of a question, but first some ground work. Since the end of the Pleistocene we've had about 10,000 years of wolves and and elk regulating themselves. To paraphrase someone I can't remember, just as the leg of the elk has been chiseled by the tooth of the wolf, so too the tooth of the wolf has been chiseled by the leg of the elk. I don't quite see how the wolves are getting special treatment like the hypothetical of decedents of slaves getting an exception from the law.
It seems to me the wolves are just playing by the rules they have always played by. The elk, on the other hand, while they too are still playing by the same rules they have always played by, now have TWO apex predators pursuing them, one of which has a technology, motivation and number that far outstrips anything the elk have had to contend with, or evolved with, in the past, which inverts the apex pyramid. WE are the social experiment AND the biological experiment. And, as Leopold once said, the first sign of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. So too, one might want to keep all the rules the wolves and elk used to play by, or at least understand them.
So, to my question: *Who* is decimating the elk herds? And, to the extent we want to call the biological sciences in to support any given position on this issue, are we going to cherry pick that science and call it good over here and bad over there; and if so, is that name-calling itself based on science, or just agenda? It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, but after an initial blood bath, the elk in Yellowstone National Park got real smart, real quick, they still bugle and things are back to chiseling.
It seems to me (and I am no scientist) that Big Fin is dead on when he calls this a social experiment. It's not much of a biological experiment. Or a science experiment. The jury has been in on that for thousands of years. Rather, this is people fighting people about how best to pursue human interests. And human psychology plays into how each side decides to play the game with elk and wolves and other people. My original point, re-articulated is this:
The ESA, regardless of how it may have been misapplied or misconstrued or abused, had a fundamental, underlying *reason* for being passed. We all should ask ourselves: "Why do we even have an ESA? Has the problem the ESA was created to address been solved? If not, why not?" And, rather than point to its misapplication, misconstruction or abuse (social shenanigans), I suggest we ask what we can do to achieve it's ends outside of the ESA and, to the extent we have not done so, why not?
To me it seems likes the descendants of southern aristocracy complaining about modern day carpet baggers (dirt bags in Tuscon air conditioning) and the descendants of slaves (wolves) getting all uppity. My question to them is this: "What are *you* doing to heal the wounds and how is that working out for anyone?
Unless the biological sciences show me otherwise, I think the word "decimated" is subjective and might have more to do with how easy it is to fill a tag compared to the pre-wolf days.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
James it is evident you are far greater at putting words to paper than I will ever be but I will give you my opinion. You just can't compare 10000 years of elk and wolves regulating themselves to now. The entire earth has changed. Are you planning to lower the human population to get it back down to those levels? Humans/hunters are here (I see where you mention the 2 apex predators so I see you understand) they are not going away how is it you plan to fit wolves into the current situation then? Take away the human hunter factor/money then you are taking away the animals conservation funding. I appreciate your discussion being so open even if I have to Google some words but I don't see how you truly are giving ways for it to be right.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Things have changed. I agree with you. It's never going to be what it was like pre-Columbian. However, I want room made for wolves. If that mean fewer tags, so be it. I will forfeit my tag to a wolf and pay for the tag anyway. However, I think the slack should be taken up by non-consumptive users of the wolf (read "environmentalists" or "bunny huggers" if you like), through tax dollars or other impositions. I also understand that such a proposal presents a threat to some hunters who's dollars have given them a louder voice at the table in the past. They may not want others at the table and they may try to use science to keep them away. But when that very science starts wedging a seat in, it can't then be called BS. Let the scientists duke it out, fair and square. Policy should make room for wolves and if science supports it, then bring them on. In a nod to private property owners, let them not lure, but shoot any wolf on their property if they want. But not on my public lands. They don't like it they should get their cattle and sheep off. The science may say that too is doable (i.e. getting cows and sheep off).
So you are right: things have changed. But I think they can keep changing.
HighDesertSage
Well-known member
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/policy_procedures/PWC_Resolution_Wolves_in_Colorado.pdf
Got this in my email today.
Got this in my email today.
Similar threads
