Post Reply
Page 30 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 1:10AM #291
rabello
Posts: 21,698

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


those debates were had, and settled, years ago.




The statement by the American Society of Mammologists was just made a month ago, in March, and it  has been less than a year since the Congress gave the states the ability to pull their bait and switch tactic against the protection of the gray wolf.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'd be interested to know how many members of ASM actually did boots-on-the ground work during the lenghty wolf reintroduction program, with the biologists and other experts who were actually involved, getting their hands dirty, doing the real work.




How "dirty" can the "real" work be, advocating the killing of a predator species?


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


After all, Ed Bangs, the USFWS biologist who headed the program (and caught continual crap from anti-wolf extremists the entire time), was on record numerous times, saying he had no problem with the principle of wolves being hunted once the population was resorted.




And that's supposed to surprise us, why??   Ed Bangs (BS? MS? PhD?) represents special interests.


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'd give more weight to five of Ed Bang's words than 5,000 from the ASM.





I figured you would reject and deny the credentials of 3,000+ mammalogists.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 11:36AM #292
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 28, 2012 -- 1:10AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


those debates were had, and settled, years ago.




The statement by the American Society of Mammologists was just made a month ago, in March, and it  has been less than a year since the Congress gave the states the ability to pull their bait and switch tactic against the protection of the gray wolf.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'd be interested to know how many members of ASM actually did boots-on-the ground work during the lenghty wolf reintroduction program, with the biologists and other experts who were actually involved, getting their hands dirty, doing the real work.




How "dirty" can the "real" work be, advocating the killing of a predator species?


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


After all, Ed Bangs, the USFWS biologist who headed the program (and caught continual crap from anti-wolf extremists the entire time), was on record numerous times, saying he had no problem with the principle of wolves being hunted once the population was resorted.




And that's supposed to surprise us, why??   Ed Bangs (BS? MS? PhD?) represents special interests.


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'd give more weight to five of Ed Bang's words than 5,000 from the ASM.





I figured you would reject and deny the credentials of 3,000+ mammalogists.





Do you even know who Ed Bangs is? Look him up, and then get back to me.


I don't care how "new" the ASM statement is. My point was, anybody trying to argue general principles of extremes (either, wolves should not be here, or, no lethal control is in order) is late for the party, and SOL. Those two big questions of general principle are settled.


The ASM might very well have some good points, regarding specifics. Some lethal control measures might be too heavy handed in some areas. APHIS might be getting away with too much. I get that.


But if they're trying to argue no lethal control is ever needed, anywhere -- then they're talking out their ass.


I was merely pointing out, I'm also incredulous as to how much "armchair quarterbacking" is going on with them. How many of those 3,000 plus mammalogists were actually involved with the program, at any point? In any of the ground-level studies since the wolves have been reintroduced?


How many of them are even all that familiar with the program at all. You can cite "3,000" all you like. But the fact is, there are probably only a handful who actually know much at all about the specifics of this program, and they were picked to be the spokespeople, so to speak.


Again, my point was, the veiw of scientists -- like Ed Bangs -- who are actually involved, carries more weight than some who are armchair quarterbacking from afar. How many of them could stand up to Bangs and other experts -- who actually worked on this program -- in a debate? I'll wager, not many, if any.


And during the entire duration of his duties, Bangs and other USFWS agents caught crap from both ends of the spectrum. Anti-wolfer fanatics were calling for their heads. He more than proved himself to not be serving any particular interests.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 1:26PM #293
rabello
Posts: 21,698

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:36AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do you even know who Ed Bangs is? Look him up, and then get back to me.


I don't care how "new" the ASM statement is. My point was, anybody trying to argue general principles of extremes (either, wolves should not be here, or, no lethal control is in order) is late for the party, and SOL. Those two big questions of general principle are settled.


The ASM might very well have some good points, regarding specifics. Some lethal control measures might be too heavy handed in some areas. APHIS might be getting away with too much. I get that.


But if they're trying to argue no lethal control is ever needed, anywhere -- then they're talking out their ass.


I was merely pointing out, I'm also incredulous as to how much "armchair quarterbacking" is going on with them. How many of those 3,000 plus mammalogists were actually involved with the program, at any point? In any of the ground-level studies since the wolves have been reintroduced?


How many of them are even all that familiar with the program at all. You can cite "3,000" all you like. But the fact is, there are probably only a handful who actually know much at all about the specifics of this program, and they were picked to be the spokespeople, so to speak.


Again, my point was, the veiw of scientists -- like Ed Bangs -- who are actually involved, carries more weight than some who are armchair quarterbacking from afar. How many of them could stand up to Bangs and other experts -- who actually worked on this program -- in a debate? I'll wager, not many, if any.


And during the entire duration of his duties, Bangs and other USFWS agents caught crap from both ends of the spectrum. Anti-wolfer fanatics were calling for their heads. He more than proved himself to not be serving any particular interests.




I can understand being miffed at finding out the American Society of Mammalogists disagrees with you and the wildlife "authorities" in the claim that there is a scientific basis in killing off most of the recently repopulated, endangered, gray wolves.  I  have said several times on this thread that not all scientists agree with the operations of the wildlife "authorities" and you keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.  Perhaps, now, in consideration with what those scientists you don't care about have to say, the conversation could, possibly, move to a more mature level.


I don't care who this Ed Bangs is, not enough to "look him up" just as you don't care what the 3000+ scientists in the Society have to say.   Ed Bangs is first and foremost a technocrat-bureaucrat (probably appointed) who answers to the interests of ranchers and hunters, not wolves and other wildlife -- just as the Society statement says.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 11:07AM #294
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 28, 2012 -- 1:26PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:36AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do you even know who Ed Bangs is? Look him up, and then get back to me.


I don't care how "new" the ASM statement is. My point was, anybody trying to argue general principles of extremes (either, wolves should not be here, or, no lethal control is in order) is late for the party, and SOL. Those two big questions of general principle are settled.


The ASM might very well have some good points, regarding specifics. Some lethal control measures might be too heavy handed in some areas. APHIS might be getting away with too much. I get that.


But if they're trying to argue no lethal control is ever needed, anywhere -- then they're talking out their ass.


I was merely pointing out, I'm also incredulous as to how much "armchair quarterbacking" is going on with them. How many of those 3,000 plus mammalogists were actually involved with the program, at any point? In any of the ground-level studies since the wolves have been reintroduced?


How many of them are even all that familiar with the program at all. You can cite "3,000" all you like. But the fact is, there are probably only a handful who actually know much at all about the specifics of this program, and they were picked to be the spokespeople, so to speak.


Again, my point was, the veiw of scientists -- like Ed Bangs -- who are actually involved, carries more weight than some who are armchair quarterbacking from afar. How many of them could stand up to Bangs and other experts -- who actually worked on this program -- in a debate? I'll wager, not many, if any.


And during the entire duration of his duties, Bangs and other USFWS agents caught crap from both ends of the spectrum. Anti-wolfer fanatics were calling for their heads. He more than proved himself to not be serving any particular interests.




I can understand being miffed at finding out the American Society of Mammalogists disagrees with you and the wildlife "authorities" in the claim that there is a scientific basis in killing off most of the recently repopulated, endangered, gray wolves.  I  have said several times on this thread that not all scientists agree with the operations of the wildlife "authorities" and you keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.  Perhaps, now, in consideration with what those scientists you don't care about have to say, the conversation could, possibly, move to a more mature level.


I don't care who this Ed Bangs is, not enough to "look him up" just as you don't care what the 3000+ scientists in the Society have to say.   Ed Bangs is first and foremost a technocrat-bureaucrat (probably appointed) who answers to the interests of ranchers and hunters, not wolves and other wildlife -- just as the Society statement says.





First, you haven't said anything about Bangs that has not been said before. As I said, he got tons of flack from both sides of the wolf debate, the entire time. Which bodes well for him not being swayed by any particular interest.


I see you wish to remain willfully ignorant of him, which speaks volumes about your approach to this issue. But once again, trust me, he could probably easily spank any member of the ASM on the issue of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem -- as he's the one who actually did the work, where as their statement smacks of armchair quarterbacking.


You can brerate wildlife officals and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation all you want. But the fact remains, were it not for those agencies and groups, we would not even be having this conversation, because the habitat allowing for the elk, and wolves, would not even exist.


I've said over and over, I have no problem with debates over the specifics of wolf managment/control. Desptite the afore-mentioned armchair quarterbacking, ASM might very well have some good points, about specific things being done in specific places.


APHIS is nothing new to me. I've known about them for decdes, and have never particularly been a fan. If ASM is shedding a little sunshine on APHIS, then good for them.


Heck, Bangs himself might say APHIS is getting too heavy-handed in that particular area of Idaho. I don't know. But, as a matter of fact, I could always ask him myself. In fact, I probably will.


BTW, just so you know, the agreed-upon number of wolves for consideration of lifting federal protection, for all three states, at the out the outset of the reintroduction program was about 300.


Any talk of "too many" wolves being killed needs to be cognizant of that fact.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 2:49PM #295
rabello
Posts: 21,698

Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


he could probably easily spank (?) any member of the ASM on the issue of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem




Doubtful.  It's research scientists you are denigrating, here, and a large number of them, at that.


Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


-- as he's the one who actually did the work, where as their statement smacks of armchair quarterbacking.




So you are saying his "work" cannot be analyzed or criticized by scientists?  Okee dokee.   Should we call him Your Highness Bangs?


Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


You can brerate wildlife officals and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation all you want.




Jus as you can berate actual research scientists (who actually do the REAL work) because they are critical of something based on your lifestyle, your longstanding ideology, and your interests (along with the interests of other hunters and of ranchers and trappers -- not wolves).


Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


But the fact remains, were it not for those agencies and groups, we would not even be having this conversation, because the habitat allowing for the elk, and wolves, would not even exist.




Actually, we are having this conversation because of the bait and switch the state agencies pulled because of the shaningans of a few Congressmen, and because of the kind of brutal crap that is being done to wolves because of that bait and switch as was reported in the OP and other links within this thread. What the conversation is about was clearly specified in the opening post.


Predictably, of course, ranchers and hunters and the state "authorities" have nothing to say about stuff like that, and no solutions to offer, either, except the usual "hey it's not me!!"


As the ASM said, the philosophy behind WS hasn't changed much in 100 years, in spite of the leaps and bounds made in the science of ecology, done by research ecologist who are the one who do the REAL work, without bowing to the ranching and hunting masters.


Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:07AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


BTW, just so you know, the agreed-upon number of wolves for consideration of lifting federal protection, for all three states, at the out the outset of the reintroduction program was about 300.


Any talk of "too many" wolves being killed needs to be cognizant of that fact.




So? Read the statement by the ASM. The concern is not in numbers, per se, it is in philosophy.   Not sure anyone here has said "too many" wolves are being killed....one would have to be a pro-hunter or a rancher, or a technocrat who cherrypicks science to say something like that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 4:32PM #296
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,158

ED Bangs conceived and ran the Northern Rockies/Yellowstone wolf restoration program. His knowledge of wolves earning him the name in Montana,  Wyoming and Colorado of “wolf man’.


He is a wolf “research Scientist” .   Many research scientist do no more than statistical and literary  compilation of others field work.  Bangs did that and the field work.


The reintroduction of Wolves into the Yellowstone/northern Rockies aea actually improved wildlife and cut down on winter wildlife starving and freezing kills Weak, old and sick injured wildlife are target of wolves.  Wolves do not attack cattle usually. Sheep are prey for every carnivorous predator .The are small easy prey and not larger than the predators   Coyotes  kill more sheep and coyotes are actually hunted controlled and by wolves’. Wolves and coyote  natural enemies.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 5:30PM #297
rabello
Posts: 21,698

Apr 29, 2012 -- 4:32PM, Fodaoson wrote:


He is a wolf “research Scientist” .   Many research scientist do no more than statistical and literary  compilation of others field work.  Bangs did that and the field work.




So do a lot of other research scientists who do field work and then publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who then opine on other scientists' and other politico's work.   This includes mammalogists who belong to the AMS which is critical of the current WS operations.   They are all wrong and only The Wolf Man is right?   


I studied ecology years ago and even then there were scientists who could give a scientific basis for not having to kill wildlife in order to save wildlife


The ASM is not against using lethal means of "managing" the ecology, nor is it against hunting, per se.


Apr 29, 2012 -- 4:32PM, Fodaoson wrote:


The reintroduction of Wolves into the Yellowstone/northern Rockies aea actually improved wildlife and cut down on winter wildlife starving and freezing kills Weak, old and sick injured wildlife are target of wolves.  Wolves do not attack cattle usually. Sheep are prey for every carnivorous predator .The are small easy prey and not larger than the predators   Coyotes  kill more sheep and coyotes are actually hunted controlled and by wolves’. Wolves and coyote  natural enemies.




Well, there are statistics that show many juveniles are "taken out" (love the language..../NOT!).   I wonder if the wolf that was tortured by gun-loving humans was in his/her senior years. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:30PM #298
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,158

For the 10,000 years before the 15th century (ce) the North American eco-system was nature balanced. The Stone age civilization here did not impact the flora and fauna or physical landscape greatly. With arrival of the Europeans came new wildlife species, technology and landscape altering communities  and a ballooning population.  With the new wildlife species   , just as with the human element ,nee diseases infected the native population which did not have any immunities. Some species were killed off by disease .  Other species  were overwhelmed  , and now  took over other  niches.  The native American peoples  hunted  game but with  primitive hunting  tools and not impact masses of   animals and  birds. The Europeans arrived  with guns   and  demands  for land , native species  were eliminated; and  others were decimated to almost extinction  The species  that were fed  by  those  species  were impacted. So were the species that consumed those species . The balance of nature was gone.   Because human upset that balance , in order to retain some species  humans must manage the species.   Certain groups  see only the position they are  emotionally  tied to and not the reality of environmental  balance.  The issue are influenced by politics  .   

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:36PM #299
rabello
Posts: 21,698

"I'm a hook-and-bullet guy at heart"


--Mr. Ed Bangs, in a July 2011 interview with "The High Country News"


Mr Bangs graduated from Utah State University with a degree in "game management" and then earned a master's degree in "wildlife management" from the University of Nevada in Reno


LINK


(not exactly a PhD in biological sciences from an unbiased, non-Western state)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:49PM #300
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:36PM, rabello wrote:


"I'm a hook-and-bullet guy at heart"


--Mr. Ed Bangs, in a July 2011 interview with "The High Country News"


Mr Bangs graduated from Utah State University with a degree in "game management" and then earned a master's degree in "wildlife management" from the University of Nevada in Reno


LINK


(not exactly a PhD in biological sciences from an unbiased, non-Western state)




 


I'm not supporting the idea of killing wolves,but why would you want an expert  from a non western state giving advice on wolf control in a western state?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 30 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook