You Can't Fix Stupid - $87,000,000 California Lion "Crossing"

Hunting Wife said:
Most ignorant statement on this thread. You obviously know zero about what goes into a peer review. It is literally about people who are experts on the subject tearing apart your work to find flaws.

Honestly, a peer review is kind of similar to this thread. Some of us are asking pointed questions of the folks passionately against the crossing asking them for some simple citations supporting their claims that it is not necessary. So far, this opinion isn’t really standing up to this “peer review” since not one citation refuting the science behind the proposed structure has been produced.

This is peer review, in a nutshell. Fun, huh?
Click to expand...
I thought you were finished at lunch yesterday? 😉😁 I definitely value your views, opinions and knowledge shared on here.

I think this is a very interesting thread. I myself immediately jump to the "this is absolutely asinine" side of things. I still feel that way for the most part. There is some in the weeds content though that really shakes it up though. It is pretty incredible the amount of dollars invested for projects like these both government and privately funded.

I still think another option or two are out there but, I'm just Jonas a guy on the sideline to.
 
Rendered vision of the "overpass".

1649249427905.png
Hunting Wife said:
But I do this to make a point…people really like to sit on the sidelines and second-guess what the folks working on these issues are doing.
Click to expand...
Always respect the information you share. I may disagree as a person who sits on the sideline and second-guess though that's the nature of this forum. I can pull most any thread on Hunt Talk, and it is a conglomeration of second guessing State decisions... right? Conservation holds many opinions and of that we, "second guessing" people stand in a line waiting to speak our opinion to State legislators and share our second guessing opinion when USFS / State Fish and Wildlife Agencies open for public opinions to be shared. While I respect your content that leans as close to objective as objective gets in this forum, second guessing is the pure nature of our country that turns to Voting 101, in a sense.

Your input here is well regarded, as is most any post of yours. Seasoned Hunt Talk members understand your background. I'll not second guess your experienced background comments that this is a means to connect the cougar species though my second guessing goes towards a State that holds a very large population of influence... both electorally and private naive funding for "Save the grizzly from extinction" in Montana or Repopulate wolves in Colorado, etc that many extreme environmental organizations target.

*** general comment below not directly responding to Hunting Wife. ***

I always become leery when the "Center for Biological Diversity" is a leading component and they are here. Someone above posted that this is private donation funded... This is false. over 20% of the funding is directly from California State. I find it disappointing for a State that has the largest Veteran homeless population in America, spends 20 million for a focused cougar overpass. (VA Statistics - 2019).

If private funding was the creation of this project and the State backed the development of this, I would be indifferent to an overpass.

Back to the regular programming.
 
Hunting Wife said:
Most ignorant statement on this thread. You obviously know zero about what goes into a peer review. It is literally about people who are experts on the subject tearing apart your work to find flaws.

Honestly, a peer review is kind of similar to this thread. Some of us are asking pointed questions of the folks passionately against the crossing asking them for some simple citations supporting their claims that it is not necessary. So far, this opinion isn’t really standing up to this “peer review” since not one citation refuting the science behind the proposed structure has been produced.

This is peer review, in a nutshell. Fun, huh?
Click to expand...
If you don't know that the prevailing thought on mountain lions is that they are in need of lethal management in California then you live under a rock.

Why don't you take some of your own demands and find your own citations here that support that this bridge will help keep lions from becoming extinct. After all, according to those building this thing, this is the only wildlife crossing ever made to prevent a species from extinction.

Find those numbers and get back with us.

If you are are going against the common perception that lions are not only overabundant in CA, and are not actually on the brink of extinction, then you can back it up yourself.
 
IdahoNick said:
Why don't you take some of your own demands and find your own citations here that support that this bridge will help keep lions from becoming extinct.
Click to expand...
She already did
Hunting Wife said:
These threads always crack me up. Any experts who have the data to suggest the crossing isn’t needed, please post it up. “Because I think so” doesn’t count.

This population has been tracked via collar for almost two decades. They are exhibiting signs of inbreeding and population decline, and the data suggest connectivity is a problem. The alternative looks like a listing for the sub population, which would be far more expensive than $87 million.

www.scientificamerican.com

World's Largest Wildlife Bridge Could Save Mountain Lions

An ambitious and popular project to connect the dangerously inbred Santa Monica mountain lions to a larger population is about to break ground
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/references/S0960-9822(14)00855-0


Yes, you could spend money on habitat. But unless you address the gene flow issue, it’s a waste of money.

But migration corridors for elk/antelope/deer/bears are good. Migration corridors for mountain lions are bad. Got it.
Click to expand...
 
EYJONAS! said:
I think this is a very interesting thread. I myself immediately jump to the "this is absolutely asinine" side of things. I still feel that way for the most part. There is some in the weeds content though that really shakes it up though. It is pretty incredible the amount of dollars invested for projects like these both government and privately funded.
Click to expand...

It is a significant amount of money but I think what gets lost here is that a bridge like this is about deer, etc too:

The bridge will give big cats, coyotes, deer, lizards, snakes and other creatures a safe route to open space in the Santa Monica Mountains and better access to food and potential mates, said the wildlife federation’s Beth Pratt.

“Crossings like this are nothing new,” Pratt said, noting there is one outside Yosemite for toads. “This one’s historic because we’re putting it over one of the busiest freeways in the world.”
Click to expand...

apnews.com

California groundbreaking set for largest wildlife crossing

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Groundbreaking is set for next month on what's billed as the world's largest wildlife crossing — a bridge over a major Southern California highway that will provide more room to roam for mountain lions and other animals hemmed in by urban sprawl.
apnews.com apnews.com

Focusing on habitat connectivity is good for all species of wildlife, similarly to how focusing on sagebrush steppe habitat health is good for sage grouse, but for all other species. As humans, we have a tendency to bucket everything so that it's easily digestible for our brains, but the reality is that when we focus on single species, we end up screwing a lot of others, so projects like this in areas that are heavily populated and have complex issues associated with them like the 101 (one of the busiest highways in the nation).
 
Hunting Wife said:
Most ignorant statement on this thread. You obviously know zero about what goes into a peer review. It is literally about people who are experts on the subject tearing apart your work to find flaws.

Honestly, a peer review is kind of similar to this thread. Some of us are asking pointed questions of the folks passionately against the crossing asking them for some simple citations supporting their claims that it is not necessary. So far, this opinion isn’t really standing up to this “peer review” since not one citation refuting the science behind the proposed structure has been produced.

This is peer review, in a nutshell. Fun, huh?
Click to expand...
I see no citations or science produced in your “ peer” review of my statement ? I understand what a peer reviewed study is supposed to look like. I also understand what it has actually looked like in recent times, I stand by my statement. When your peers share your AGENDA the review by them means nothing. What science? That some mountain lions living in the city should be classified as a subspecies 😂 And although the mountain lion population in California has grown by ten times over the last 100 years that if just the 1 or 2 don’t successfully cross that interstate they will be endangered and at risk of extinction! Science- right what a joke. They admitted there poster child lion won’t even use the crossing. This is a terrible allocation and misuse of capital. I don’t want to argue with you specifically and I am sure you probably do know a lot more about the intricacies of conservation than I do. I am not opposed to it they can spend their or other’s money any way they wish. I will point out the foolishness of it because I don’t ever want that logic applied to where I live and hunt. I volunteer and donate a lot to conservation. I am for wildlife crossings this project is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I think the detail some folks are missing or don’t want to actually read is that sure, lions may be doing great in a lot of California. However, the habit for lions and all other animals, in this specific stretch of California around the Santa Monica Mountains is highly fractured and it keeps animals penned up. The lions in this specific area are becoming inbred because they can’t reach other lions outside their little gene pool to breed. Freeways are one of the main culprits for fracturing this habitat, but also the easiest to rectify by building a bridge.
 
California bashing aside I think what we have here are people who mostly all claim to be conservationist but reside in two different camps with two different Ideas of what wildlife conservation means. One camp feels that wildlife should be managed for maximum exploitation, i.e., hunting. With biodiversity being a secondary goal. The other feels that wildlife should be managed to maintain as natural an environment as possible given the irreparable damage done by a horribly destructive invasive species, i.e., us. With hunting opportunities as a secondary goal. I fall into the latter group.

IdahoNick, you keep insisting that the cougars in California must be managed by hunting. I don't hunt cougars, but I always have a cougar tag in my wallet just in case I get a chance to shoot one while hunting something else. I would love to get a cougar. But hunting by people is not necessary for managing the cougar population, nature can handle it. Management of cougars could be very successful in California if it included hunting and it would be a great benefit to California hunters but not at all necessary. Yes, the deer population has gone down with the rise of the cougar population but still it is humans that are responsible for far more of the deer mortality than cougars, so why is the cougars that must be managed rather than the humans? Building wildlife crossings have been proven to be a very effective way of managing human impact on wildlife populations.

Several years ago, I was spent two months working along the upper reaches of the South Umpqua River here in Southern Oregon. At the same time the wildlife department was doing a cougar study in the Jackson Creek drainage in that same area. They were using hounds to capture and tag the cats. Five years later I was back working in the area when on a miserable rainy day we got a flat tire. Of course since it was the worst weather to change a tire in, one of the lug nuts was so tight it might have just as well been welded on. When who should show up but the hounds man from that study. He didn't stop to help, just stopped to watch the government workers struggle. We got to talking and he said they were back in there to recapture as many cats as possible for the study. He said they had tagged 130 cats. I thought that was a horribly high amount given the size of the area being studied but that is what it was. He said that on this go around they had been trying for six weeks and had not treed one cougar. The dogs hadn't even picked up a scent. A virus had gone through and wiped them out. I had already noticed that everywhere I had been in the last couple of years that there was far less sign of cougars but hadn't really given it much thought. Now it seems I see cougar sign every time I leave town so they seem to have had a comeback. Even 1/4 mile from my house is see tracks. So it looks like maybe nature knows what it is doing.

Sorry for being so long winded but the doc insists that I rest my knee, so I am bored as hell.
 
Greenhorn said:
I'm worried that HUNTTALK MAN is one of those good NE MT Christians that has went missing, maybe ended up on one of those APR bison trucks headed to who knows where.
Click to expand...
This needs to be an investigative podcast or something.

Really wanted that “DEAD LOIN” recipe though.
 
I think some are missing my position...and the original post was more lighthearted than some are making it. I think some see conservation and money in the same sentence and automatically think it is the best use of money. There is a difference in "is it good," vs "is this the best use for the money, or even close to the best use."

I don't think anyone is arguing that game crossings are bad. Or that spending money on conservation is bad. But that is the argument of those attacking me. "Look, this may help lion genetics so it is good."

My position is that I believe there are better ways to spend the money. It isn't my money, and it isn't my state, but people are pretty blind if they don't see that California is the crystal ball in which sportsmen see what route, methods, strategies and techniques will be used in other states later.

They are playing the long game. Most hunters are just worried about their next deer tag. Sinking huge amounts of conservation money into things a very limited upside is a great strategy for the other side, but that really isn't why I opened the thread at all. Also, do you notice that the greenies always start with the big predators?

Here is a better way to communicate my thoughts: Is this the best use of conservation money? Is this the type of project that is so needed it is worth $87,000,000? This is a another way to frame it: Is there anyone on this forum that was given $87,000,000 to spend on any conservation project(s) that would say, "yep, I choose to put it all to the lion bridge."

If so, we can agree to disagree and that's fine.

I hate the argument that $87,000,000 isn't that much money. It is. As someone pointed out, the entire Wyoming Fish and Game annual budget is about $81,000,000. I know there are various means these projects are paid for (privately in this case, DOT, etc) but for the sake of argument, would any western hunting state resident be ok with their F&G dept completely shutting down everything else they do for an entire year to fund a lion bridge like this in their post populous city?

Again, if so, good for you, but to say, "crossings are good so therefore this is a GOOD USE or THE BEST USE of conservation money," seems like a stretch to me personally, but that's why it is considered an opinion.

This is why arguing it will help is a poor argument. Of course it will help something (even though I personally don't believe it will save them from extinction.) Money is finite. Conservation projects are finite.

Raise your hand if this is what you would do with $87,000,000 if you were given it for any conservation project(s).
 
mtmiller said:
I know Hunting Wifes education and background, dying to know Nick's.:unsure:
Click to expand...
Bachelor's in Ed.
Master's of Theological Studies
Master's of Ed. Admin.

Not a scientists, but not a complete idiot either. I have a grasp on statistics. I also happen to have a little experiential knowledge about lions, lion movements, lion behavior and whether or not they cross highways without special bridges built in their name as well...although I love hearing from lion "experts" who have seen zero, one, two or even only twenty lions in their entire lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Oregon and Washington to expand sea lion control efforts in the Columbia River
Replies
2
Views
1K
Washington Hunter
W
W
Two Sea Lion Grates Might Be Pulled To See If Blocking Fish
Replies
0
Views
815
Washington Hunter
W
E
Mountain Lions Living Stealthily
Replies
2
Views
952
ELKCHSR
E
M
GREEN LAND GRABBERS
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
11K
Nut
Nut

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,849
Messages
2,240,640
Members
39,029
Latest member
G5flinger

Share this page

Back
Top