wolf management debate

[Customweld]

I love how people use the argument that the other side won't compromise which is why they won't compromise. When if they sat in a room and listened like a fly on the wall they'd be hearing the exact same thing out of the other side's mouths.

My definition of insanity isn't doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It's sticking your head in the sand and not being willing to come together and listen to eachother.

Show me any management decision that involved lethal control of wolves that wasn’t met with litigation. There may be folks that are on the fence about wolf management but they don’t matter. They are not the folks making decisions and never will be.All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit and we start all over. No amount of education, compromise or parsing our words is going to stop Center for Biological Diversity, SierraClub or any of the other groups.
Make no mistake, we are not dealing with folks that will never see our side of things and they do not want to.

 

[5MilesBack]

The point is not to change the mind of the people who have made up their mind. Who are entrenchedin their opinion. It's to influence the opinion of the people in the middle who aren't hostile to the wolf management side of the debate or ego haven't made up their mind.

And the best way to do that is "telling them like it is"........without sugar-coating it.

 

[Fordguy]

Ascribing the term “criminal” to a wolf, or any other animal is ridiculous. Elk damage more seed alfalfa than they can eat. They are animals being animals, just like wolves when they kill a prey animal.

Animals being animals, yes. However, the animals in question have a detrimental effect on ungulate herds which are a public resource. Seed alfalfa is not a public resource. When humans take more than their share of a public resource it's criminal, and the anti-left traditionally loves to anthropomorphize.

While it would be foolish to try and allot a specific number of ungulates to each wolf each year and make aure they take only that number, its equally foolish to deny that wolves need to be regulated/managed for the continued health of the ecosystem.

 

[5MilesBack]

I love how people use the argument that the other side won't compromise which is why they won't compromise. When if they sat in a room and listened like a fly on the wall they'd be hearing the exact same thing out of the other side's mouths.

My definition of insanity isn't doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It's sticking your head in the sand and not being willing to come together and listen to eachother.

Here's the thing: there shouldn't be compromise on either side.......you either believe what you're doing is for the best, or it isn't. However, there absolutely should be absolute logic and reason in everything that is done. Some things make absolute logical sense......and some absolutely don't. Dumping wolves into a state and then mandating that you can't stop them or manage them, makes no logical sense. When the so-called "other side" dismisses logic over emotions, you can absolutely dismiss compromise. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Animals being animals, yes. However, the animals in question have a detrimental effect on ungulate herds which are a public resource. Seed alfalfa is not a public resource. When humans take more than their share of a public resource it's criminal, and the anti-left traditionally loves to anthropomorphize.

While it would be foolish to try and allot a specific number of ungulates to each wolf each year and make aure they take only that number, its equally foolish to deny that wolves need to be regulated/managed for the continued health of the ecosystem.

I never spoke once to the need for management. The “need” is based on your worldview.

Hunters are anthropomorphizing wolves when they try to label them as criminals.

 

[Divide93]

IMO, Gov. Polis and husband just have always had a fantasy of hosting a wolf depredation mitigation hide cuddling party!

 

[realunlucky]

IMO, Gov. Polis and husband just have always had a fantasy of hosting a wolf depredation mitigation hide cuddling party!

Did you read anything in this entire thread?

How does your comment apply to this national meditation discussion?

Did you bother to submit an official comment on any of provided links?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Flyjunky]

When the so-called "other side" dismisses logic over emotions, you can absolutely dismiss compromise.

You can say this about most topics going in today.

 

[Fordguy]

I never spoke once to the need for management. The “need” is based on your worldview.

Hunters are anthropomorphizing wolves when they try to label them as criminals.

The Hunters (you're painting with a broad brush here, because hunters aren't the only ones with this viewpoint) you reference, (specifically the one who made the comment you're referring to) didn't label wolves as anything. He made a comparison between criminals who obviously don't respect societal rules and wolves who don't recognize them. " I likened wolves to criminals". An unlikely comparison, but still apt because if left unchecked both will take more of something than theyre entitled to, to everyone else's detriment.

As for hunters anthropomorphizing wolves (or animals of any species), maybe its time to use the anti's own methods against them.

Hunters are not the group with a history of anthropomorphizing animals for the purpose of swaying public opinion. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

 

[HighUintas]

Here's the thing: there shouldn't be compromise on either side.......you either believe what you're doing is for the best, or it isn't. However, there absolutely should be absolute logic and reason in everything that is done. Some things make absolute logical sense......and some absolutely don't. Dumping wolves into a state and then mandating that you can't stop them or manage them, makes no logical sense. When the so-called "other side" dismisses logic over emotions, you can absolutely dismiss compromise. This isn't rocket science.

0 compromise is what leads to wars. Why not just have a war over wolves

 

[Jason Snyder]

The Hunters (you're painting with a broad brush here, because hunters aren't the only ones with this viewpoint) you reference,

I used “hunters” as a nebulous term. If you’d like, I can rephrase it to “when a hunter” if that would be more palatable?

" I likened wolves to criminals". An unlikely comparison, but still apt because if left unchecked both will take more of something than theyre entitled to, to everyone else's detriment.

liken to​

phrasal verb​

likened to; likening to; likens to
: to describe (someone or something) as similar to (someone or something else)
Some critics have likened his writing toFaulkner's.

She likened her trip to a pilgrimage.

Not materially different than the verb “label” but again, we can use liken instead.

How much are wolves “entitled to”. Isn’t this anthropomorphism? Do animals in general care about sharing? Maybe inside of a specific pack structure, but certainly not across populations.

As for hunters anthropomorphizing wolves (or animals of any species), maybe its time to use the anti's own methods against them.

So use stupidity as a weapon? At that point you’re agreeing with them animals have human traits, emotions, feelings, etc.

Hunters are not the group with a history of anthropomorphizing animals for the purpose of swaying public opinion. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

I never suggested this at all. Anthropomorphism of any sort is laughable.

 

[Fordguy]

"likened to; likening to; likens to
: to describe (someone or something) as similar to"
-As in a comparison between two things that may share certain characteristics but are not the same thing.
No one is saying (or thinks) that wolves are running around in the woods in black and white striped (or orange) jumpsuits based on the comparison that was made.

People determining how much of a public resource that wolves are entitled to is not anthropomorphic. If someone said the wolves were feeling entitled, that would be anthropomorphism.

Federal designation and state statutes prevent lethal control in many places, essentially saying that wolves are entitled to kill as many ungulates as they will. In those places, they are typically also entitled to kill your dogs and livestock. You have no legal right to use lethal force to stop them unless in defense of human life, similar in many states to a situation in which you were defending yourself against another person. While I disagree vehemently with this, I don't think there's much I can do about this. An animal, even if it's on the endangered species list is not as valuable as my dog or livestock.

While I disagree with the anti-hunting left, I'm not about to make a generalization about their intelligence. I firmly oppose their agenda(s), but there are probably as many highly intelligent people in their camp as there are in mine. Both sides also have their share of not so bright individuals.

It really is unfortunate that so many today people are raised with a disconnect to the natural world. Some people rely on emotion or sentiment when it comes to wild animals. Those folks have probably never seen coyotes eating a fawn while it was still alive. Personally I'd be more inclined to make the assumption that they were ignorant and had no idea what really happens in the wild/nature.

As to using their own methods against them, I was merely putting forth the idea that wildlife managers (including hunters) appeal to the emotion of the nonhunting public.
Pretty much everyone from my generation watched Bambi. Even as a kid I realized that Bambi was horribly inaccurate and not representative of ... well, anything. What if Bambi had had to deal with wolf predation in the film?

Animals and people do have common attributes. That doesn't change the fact that animals aren't people. Wolves share many characteristics with humans (some admirable, some not). It doesn't change the fact that they're animals.

 

[2ski]

"likened to; likening to; likens to
: to describe (someone or something) as similar to"
-As in a comparison between two things that may share certain characteristics but are not the same thing.
No one is saying (or thinks) that wolves are running around in the woods in black and white striped (or orange) jumpsuits based on the comparison that was made.

Hello strawman. Nice to see you here.

Noone said anything about orange jumpsuits. But that was a nice try.

 

[Fordguy]

Hello strawman. Nice to see you here.

Noone said anything about orange jumpsuits. But that was a nice try.

Strawman? Had to look that up. Doesn't really apply since incarcerated and escaped incarcerated criminals were portrayed in black and white striped jumpsuits for a long time. Today they wear orange.

The difference between comparing wolves to criminals and saying that they are actually criminals is the difference between labeling something as something else and comparing it to that thing. As mentioned earlier.

The first image that popped into my head when I thought of criminal wolves was an old black and white cartoon that had a wolf convict in a prison jumpsuit. Since they don't dress prisoners/convicts/criminals in black and white chain gang uniforms anymore (really dating myself here) I thought orange would be more familiar to the younger crowd.

 

[2ski]

Strawman? Had to look that up. Doesn't really apply since incarcerated and escaped incarcerated criminals were portrayed in black and white striped jumpsuits for a long time. Today they wear orange.

The difference between comparing wolves to criminals and saying that they are actually criminals is the difference between labeling something as something else and comparing it to that thing. As mentioned earlier.

The first image that popped into my head when I thought of criminal wolves was an old black and white cartoon that had a wolf convict in a prison jumpsuit. Since they don't dress prisoners/convicts/criminals in black and white chain gang uniforms anymore (really dating myself here) I thought orange would be more familiar to the younger crowd.

This may be the dumbest thing I've read on Rokslide. Noone thinks wolves wear orange jumpsuits. Noone is trying to insuate that. Noone thinks that anyone is trying to insuate that. Or any other color jumpsuit. That's your strawman.

Unless you're not clear with what you're trying to get across.

 

[mtntppr]

Here's the thing: there shouldn't be compromise on either side.......you either believe what you're doing is for the best, or it isn't. However, there absolutely should be absolute logic and reason in everything that is done. Some things make absolute logical sense......and some absolutely don't. Dumping wolves into a state and then mandating that you can't stop them or manage them, makes no logical sense. When the so-called "other side" dismisses logic over emotions, you can absolutely dismiss compromise. This isn't rocket science.

This is the gist of it. We have a model for mountain lions that's worked for years. This is proven science.

There's ~6 million people in Colorado. This idea that you're going to release wolves into some sort of natural ecosystem is just silly. And they can't even define chronically depredating?

Some people in the middle you can reach with some basic logic -- unbiased wildlife biologists/science based management -- but the vast majority of people are just flat out lazy.

 

[mt terry d]

Fact #1) It’s not the ignorant middle grounders making laws allowing mob rule of wildlife

Fact #2) It’s not the ignorant middle grounders making wildlife management decisions in states that don’t manage wildlife via mob rule.

Fact #3) The middle grounders basically don’t GAS either way. If you sway them to “your side” it makes absolutely no difference regarding the management of wildlife because #1.

Fact #4) Public perception of two or four legged predators is not the root of the problem of the un/mismanagement of wildlife. See #1&2

Fact#5) I don’t GAS what those who don’t GAS think because I don’t need their approval or validation.

 

[mtntppr]

Fact #1) It’s not the ignorant middle grounders making laws allowing mob rule of wildlife

Fact #2) It’s not the ignorant middle grounders making wildlife management decisions in states that don’t manage wildlife via mob rule.

Fact #3) The middle grounders basically don’t GAS either way. If you sway them to “your side” it makes absolutely no difference regarding the management of wildlife because #1.

Fact #4) Public perception of two or four legged predators is not the root of the problem of the un/mismanagement of wildlife. See #1&2

Fact#5) I don’t GAS what those who don’t GAS think because I don’t need their approval or validation.

Was this in response to my post above?

Colorado (which it clearly states in the post) IS a state that's essentially managing wildlife through mob rule (ballot initiatives).

Kind of a bizarre take.

 

[mtwarden]

If you have a ballot initiative (like a lot of states have) in regards to wildlife, I'd want as many as those folks in the middle that I could muster on my (our) side

 

[Fordguy]

This may be the dumbest thing I've read on Rokslide. Noone thinks wolves wear orange jumpsuits. Noone is trying to insuate that. Noone thinks that anyone is trying to insuate that. Or any other color jumpsuit. That's your strawman.

Unless you're not clear with what you're trying to get across.

Listen up and I'll spell it out for you. Wolves were compared to criminals, not called criminals as someone else said.
In this country we operate under the principal of innocent until proven guilty. No one is a criminal until convicted. How do we dress our convicts?
I'm not suggesting that wolves are actually running around in prison attire.
If you bother to read you'd see that the disagreement was around the word "likened" which is comparative. Wolves need management just as criminals need management. This does not mean the poster of the comment called wolves criminals as the offended party said.
You're free to voice your opinion however you like. Keep.it up.