aMurderOfCrows
FNG
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 56
Well, that’s really nice if you but, since this was enacted on ballot initiate of the idiocracy and has no foundation in biological or ecological need, it’s kind of stupid.Ive got to say I am surprised by how much people on here really hate wolves. I get that they can be problematic, at best. I live in Wyoming. But good grief, we are supposed to be conservationists! To me that means if we removed an animal from the landscape than we ought to put it back wherever possible.
I am willing to pay a few extra bucks in taxes to pay for depredation and to otherwise support ranchers needing to deal with the extra challenge of wolves. I also am willing to have elk herds decrease a bit... they are over target density in big chunks of the Rockies now. hell, here in Wyoming people are talking about crazy measures to reduce the herd size (google around some). I care first and foremost about the animals and the land, if having wolves on the land means I have to hunt a bit harder, so be it.
Just think about anti-hunting people reading a thread like this... we lose all credibility as 'conservationists'.
I know yall are gonna really dislike this post. I dont want to intentionally irritate folks, but I felt the need to say this... because I think we need to think a lot about our stance on these issues, and give some ground, if we want to keep our hunting traditions alive.
Consider the counterfactual of hunters leading the charge of predator recovery, it would give us a ton of ammunition for keeping hunting rights and improving our status in the court of public opinion.