Post Reply
Page 31 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:55PM #301
rabello
Posts: 22,031

From "Howling for Justice"


Ed Bangs Retires...Northern Rocky Wolves not recovered, no matter what Ed Bangs says



Well I guess Ed Bangs is stepping down, after years of trying to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies.


Makes absolutely no sense to me to spend all the time and money the feds did to reintroduce wolves only to work twice as hard to turn them over to the states to be hunted.


Ed Bangs says wolves are recovered in the Northern Rockies with just 1700 animals in three states, inhabiting just 5% of their historic range? I don’t think so.





Wolves are not recovered. They will never be recovered in the Northern Rockies because as soon as they are delisted the states will hunt them hard and their numbers will drop and we’ll be right back where we were before.





Wolves are not game animals and should not be killed for sport. They are extremely social animals with a love for family and extreme loyalty to their pack mates. Is this what we brought wolves back for, to turn them into rugs on someone’s floor?


The USFWS knows the toxic atmosphere existing in the Northern Rockies concerning wolves, yet they think it’s such a great triumph to throw wolves under the bus, watch them delisted in the most underhanded way, in a budget rider for votes, than declare victory?


I guess USFWS doesn’t mind the ESA was gutted just to get to wolves. Now any protected animal that’s “politically incorrect” can be delisted in an appropriations bill?




Howling for Justice is a fabulously informative website, as it has many links to referenced and annotated material that readers can use to become more familiar with a lot of the issues that don't make it into the mainstream press -- like the torture of wolves.  


There includes a link that interested parties can use to lodge their protest against Josh Bransford and what he did.


Howling For Jusice Link

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 7:15PM #302
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:49PM, christzen wrote:


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?



I would want the expert knowledge of credentialed PhD research scientists to be considered, rather than rely soley on the word of a Master's level bureaucrat with training in wildlife "management".


The point is to counter the claim that the Master's level bureaucrat with degrees in "wildlife management" could "spank" the bottoms of 3,000+ PhD research mammologists who make up the ASM that is openly critical of the current policy as being political (what do we expect from government "officials"??) and not scientific.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 7:42PM #303
christzen
Posts: 6,570

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:15PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:49PM, christzen wrote:


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?



I would want the expert knowledge of credentialed PhD research scientists to be considered, rather than rely soley on the word of a Master's level bureaucrat with training in wildlife "management".


The point is to counter the claim that the Master's level bureaucrat with degrees in "wildlife management" could "spank" the bottoms of 3,000+ PhD research mammologists who make up the ASM that is openly critical of the current policy as being political (what do we expect from government "officials"??) and not scientific.




 


There is something to be said for field experience over textbook education.You can put all the faith you want in some guy from NY with a doctorate in biology.I would not gve 2 cents for the opnion of someone who learned all he knows in a "non western" state that has no direct experience with the issues of the states the problem is occurring in.


 


Next time your A/C breaks down,call a college professor with a doctorate in mechanical engineering to repair it and see how far you get.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 10:56PM #304
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:42PM, christzen wrote:


There is something to be said for field experience over textbook education.You can put all the faith you want in some guy from NY with a doctorate in biology.I would not gve 2 cents for the opnion of someone who learned all he knows in a "non western" state that has no direct experience with the issues of the states the problem is occurring in.


Next time your A/C breaks down,call a college professor with a doctorate in mechanical engineering to repair it and see how far you get.




We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.   It'd be one thing if we were talking about getting my air conditioner fixed, it's quite another when we are talking about creating policy that we all have to live by and even pay for as taxpayers.  There is more than one perspective than that of hunters, trappers, and ranchers.  


If a PhD from Harvard can prove that there are better ways to "manage" wolves and keep them from "eating into" human beings' profits and/or pleasures, than I would say that PhD's input is as significant.   Besides, hunting occurs in all 50 states, and I've no doubt that a PhD from Harvard can and does understand the prespective of ranchers and hunters, even is he/she doesn't hail from Marlboro Man Country.


Bangs is held up to me as the only expert in the entire world who could be right, so I am supposed to accept that he IS the only expert in the world who IS right.  My point is that he is biased to one side, and admitted it "I'm a hook and bullet guy".   


Besides all that, PhD mammalogists DO HAVE "field experience".  They couldn't get their PhD if they didn't.  And they have to continue field research even after they've achieved their rank, although by then they probably have students to do the actual work.   A PhD in biological science with an emphasis in ecology and mammalogy isn't the same thing as an MS in game management or wildlife management. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 11:11PM #305
solfeggio
Posts: 9,470

arielg -


Well said.  As you so succinctly put it, the humans who want to manage wildlife are really talking about control.


And here is a link saying precisely that:


www.wild.org/blog/can-we-stop-trying-to-...


The author cites the Cartesian concept of the 'godlike detachment on the part of the observer (humans) from the observed (nature.)  This separation made nature an object of posssession, control, and exploitation.'


He goes on to say that the 'control of nature...is a doctrine that has so permeated Western culture as to define it.'


Finally, there is a quote by the founder of Taoism, Lao Tzu:


The world is ruled by letting


things take their course


It cannot be ruled by interferring


Taoism teaches living in harmony with the way of nature.


Trying to control nature is yet another example of human hubris.  In the long run, the balance of nature will always triumph over human control. 


John McPhee, in is book, 'The Control of Nature,' states that trying to control nature involves 'any struggle against natural forces...when human beings conscript themselves to fight against the earth, to take what is not given, to rout the destroying enemy...expecting the surrender of the gods.'


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 11:16PM #306
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:30PM, Fodaoson wrote:


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  .   




Well, there's always the question as to whether hunting and torture of captured animals should be part of any "management" operation......but......I would say, in this case, where the situtation is such that hunting and killing nearly wiped out a species to the point where it had to be added to the federal list of endangered species in order to protected, only to have that reversed by just a few Congressmen adding a rider to a non-related budget appropriations bill delisting it (the species), it is more that just emotionalism that is causing people to see the lack of environmental "balance".  


(sorry for the clumsy wording)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 11:19PM #307
solfeggio
Posts: 9,470

Rabello -


I think people need a reality check.  Ed Bangs thought that the way to manage nature is to control it.  That means controlling the number of wolves in any given space.  And the easiest way to do that was to kill them.


I found a gruesome website that shows some of the ways in which this was done by the redneck arseholes with guns (and knives and sticks and stones and fire):


Be warned that the photos shown here are highly disturbing, and they show a side of human nature that is ugly and perverted:


www.heartofthewolf.org/TheOppressed.htm

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:30AM #308
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Here's an excellent interview with Ed Bangs, upon his retirement a few years ago.


Note: High Country News is a very "green" publication.



www.hcn.org/articles/rocky-mountain-wolf...



This quote sums it up best, I think (emphasis mine):



HCN: What's ahead for wolves in the Northern Rockies?


"Wolves will be fine. The only reason we got rid of them (in the early 1900s) was massive poisoning by the federal government and private individuals, plus there was no wild prey for them to eat at the time, just livestock. ... The controversy and human drama, with people running through the streets with torches and pitchforks, all the hysteria on both sides, all that stuff will continue, but there'll be less and less of it, people will get tired of it, and things will settle down. It'll take time -- it's a generational change. In the long run, I think the numbers we have now are probably not sustainable because of the level of damage that they cause. I think about 1,200 is what we'll end up with."

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 1:31PM #309
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

This statement from Howling For Justice is especially a knee-slapper.


"Wolves are not recovered." Says who -- you? The agreed-upon minimum benchmark for recovery at the outset of reintroduction was about 300 wolves. We passed that number years and years ago, and there's no indication it will ever be anywhere near that low again. Nobody's been talking about wolf numbers that low in well over a decade.


Where the heck have you been? 


"They will never be recovered in the Northern Rockies because as soon as they are delisted the states will hunt them hard..."


Wow, once again, I have to ask -- where have you folks been the last 17 years? When the first 14 or so wolves were brought in for reintroduction in 1995-1996, it was understood then, the population would ultimately be delisted, and hunting seasons would open. If you're trying to "save" the wolves, you're a little late to the party.


Did you not get the memo in 1995, or were you simply not paying attention? Why are you just now starting to pitch a fit?


Also, what part of -- the recovery minimum benchmark was 300 wolves -- did you miss or fail to understand?


"...and their numbers will drop and we’ll be right back where we were before."


What do you mean by "before?" Like, way back in the 1970s and 80s, when wolf reintroduction was first being talked about and concieved? When there really were no wolves here? Because that isn't going to happen. 


Or, do you mean the minimum agreed-upon revovery benchmark -- 300 or so wolves? Because that won't happen either.


 We now have well over 2,000, and that's a conservative estimation. Chances are, there are far more than have been offically counted.


Even mean old Ed "bloodthirsty wolf slayer" Bangs said about 1,200 will end up being the ultimate permanent number of wolves. Last time I checked, both 2,000 and 1,200 are significantly more than 300. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 2:06PM #310
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Howling for Justice, like the American Society of Mammalogists, opposes the killing of wolves on behalf of ranchers and hunters, especially seeing how the federal government spent our money on repopulating them, only to be killed either cruelly or torturously, especially seeing how the only reason it's being allowed is the cynical work of a few Congressmen answering the call of the special interests in return for votes.  So all the facts and figures in the world is missing the point, since the very basis of the operation is wrong.


Why should wolves be hunted?  According to Josh Bransford and his fans, it's for a wall hanging.  Nice, eh?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 31 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook