WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[DaveC]

Thank you for that clarification. I don't agree with much of it, but thank you. That adds something to the conversation.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone in this thread bring up your #1. There's been anecdotal information regarding that but there sure wasn't in 1994 and can't be any now, can there? And that's really too bad. The effort wasn't put out in the first place to study well enough what we already had and now they're gone forever, so we'll never know what we had, will we?

Could you elaborate on #2 more?:

"Second, the view that predator reintroduction across the west is part of an intentional conspiracy to alter the makeup of western economies, rather than a natural consequence of population growth, demographic changes, and land use policies grounded in 19th century fallacies."

Regarding number 3, why shouldn't humans have a large part in managing the ecosystem in the role of predator if need be? Aren't we part of the ecosystem and clearly have a responsibility do manage it? Do you feel guilty for being a human and using resources? Clearly, I'm trying to get at your motivators and you seem reluctant to 'put it on the table', so to speak.

My pleasure. No reason this sort of thing can't be a learning experience. It's given me cause to reexamine some things I probably hadn't thought through well enough.

I recall several mentions of "Canadian Wolves" in the first few pages, though perhaps that was in the article linked to on thread page one. There certainly is no way to examine it now with any sort of scientific rigor. The point that the reintroduced wolves were used to moose as a major food source would be worth studying if possible, but the Yellowstone wolves got used to eating elk and bison calves fairly quickly, and it just seems improbable that they'd focus on moose to the exclusion of more abundant species. That said, it's not impossible.

I think it's quite accurate to see wolf reintroduction and a greater active tolerance for predators write large as a factor in the diminution of ranching as a way of life in the west. I just don't think it's an intentional conspiracy, rather a minor part of a larger demographic and cultural shift. Lack of interest on the part of younger generations, globalization, and western states changing to predominately serviced-based economies are I think far more pervasive and relevant factors. To say nothing of the extent to which many ranching operations in the west have only existed thanks to very low grazing fees which many would say are not nearly high enough to give the taxpayer their fair due.

Humans are going to be a part of predator management, and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the notion that humans have or ever will have definitive enough knowledge to take that task on entirely, rather than allowing at least a substantial part of it to occur "naturally". Hunter give themselves far too much credit in this area. There's a wisdom to barstool biology, but it tends to be pretty myopic and parochial. Coyote hunting is a good example. Coyote breeding cycles are amazingly adaptable, and if a lot of successful coyote hunting happens to coincide with an abundance of prey coyotes will just have more pups, and have them more often. Coyote hunting is thus not likely to sway the population much one or the other, in comparison to factors like food and weather. This is why the zenith of predator control (in the 1930s) happened to not only coincide with the coyote not being extirpated, but it being seen east of the Mississippi for the first time.

 

[DaveC]

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

I would ponder to say that I'm quite sure the same group would also think that God is simply nuts as well.

Lifelong atheist here, so guilty as charged.

Putting that aside, as others have alluded to if all you've got is Old Testament strict constructionalism the absolute best you can hope for is a chain of reasoning that makes any steps beyond "A, therefore B" very muddy indeed. Anselm's proof didn't get anyone who came after him very far, and this is pretty much exactly the same thing.

 

[5MilesBack]

Lifelong atheist here, so guilty as charged. I already knew that one, just reading your stuff.

Putting that aside, as others have alluded to if all you've got is Old Testament strict constructionalism the absolute best you can hope for is a chain of reasoning that makes any steps beyond "A, therefore B" very muddy indeed. Anselm's proof didn't get anyone who came after him very far, and this is pretty much exactly the same thing.

So.....given A (your first statement)......B really has no bearing on anything. God just doesn't fit into man's reasonings.

Funny thing is.......people really seem to struggle with everything in life. Yet once you understand just the first four words....."In the beginning God".......everything else eventually falls right into place. And then you get to sit back and watch the world struggle with even the simple stuff.

 

[jmden]

My pleasure. No reason this sort of thing can't be a learning experience. It's given me cause to reexamine some things I probably hadn't thought through well enough.

I recall several mentions of "Canadian Wolves" in the first few pages, though perhaps that was in the article linked to on thread page one. There certainly is no way to examine it now with any sort of scientific rigor. The point that the reintroduced wolves were used to moose as a major food source would be worth studying if possible, but the Yellowstone wolves got used to eating elk and bison calves fairly quickly, and it just seems improbable that they'd focus on moose to the exclusion of more abundant species. That said, it's not impossible.

I think it's quite accurate to see wolf reintroduction and a greater active tolerance for predators write large as a factor in the diminution of ranching as a way of life in the west. I just don't think it's an intentional conspiracy, rather a minor part of a larger demographic and cultural shift. Lack of interest on the part of younger generations, globalization, and western states changing to predominately serviced-based economies are I think far more pervasive and relevant factors. To say nothing of the extent to which many ranching operations in the west have only existed thanks to very low grazing fees which many would say are not nearly high enough to give the taxpayer their fair due.

Humans are going to be a part of predator management, and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the notion that humans have or ever will have definitive enough knowledge to take that task on entirely, rather than allowing at least a substantial part of it to occur "naturally". Hunter give themselves far too much credit in this area. There's a wisdom to barstool biology, but it tends to be pretty myopic and parochial. Coyote hunting is a good example. Coyote breeding cycles are amazingly adaptable, and if a lot of successful coyote hunting happens to coincide with an abundance of prey coyotes will just have more pups, and have them more often. Coyote hunting is thus not likely to sway the population much one or the other, in comparison to factors like food and weather. This is why the zenith of predator control (in the 1930s) happened to not only coincide with the coyote not being extirpated, but it being seen east of the Mississippi for the first time.

OK, Dave. I understand better where u are coming from. I may not agree with it but that's life. I think I can see more clearly why that is from one of your other recent posts. Foundationally, we are coming at this from very different beliefs systems which is, I think, one reason I feel like we are/may be talking past each other. So, be that as it may, I trust we can find common ground elsewhere.

Just one thing to think about--how can anyone truly be an atheist? To say with certainty there is no God, you would have to know all there is to know, right? In effect, making yourself God. It's an untenable position. I hope you are actually an agnostic and searching.

 

[jmden]

This is the last post on this, you comment on my ignorance, I assumed you didn't need me to spell everything out like airlock did, apparently I was incorrect.

At this point I don't know where to go, I assumed you called me ignorant because of what I said based on not eating shellfish, bear and pigs, because people have the belief that in the New Testament unclean animals are made clean. There are numerous passages people site. Including a passage in Acts that Peter has a vision that God tells him to kill and eat, yet there are unclean animals presented.

So at this point explain how I am ignorant about the bible when I'm the one explaining it?

Either way I'm done, this conversation is about as useful as tits on a boar....

I'm not commenting on you 'general' ignorance, I'm sure you're a smart person. But to bring up that concept that you can't eat bears, etc. (had some this morning!) is a complete misuse of the Bible and is 'typical these days'--trying to make the Bible fit your agenda rather than submitting to the very Words of the Master of the Universe. Something I do a poor job at even as a Christian--thank God for His mercy and grace. God was trying to tell Peter there that it was time to give up the old ways, in this regard, and fully accept the New Covenant, as the Old Testament looked forward to from the beginning. In other words, what 5Miles said and you said in response about bears, pigs and the like are concepts that have little or nothing to do with each other taking into account the totality of Scripture. And because of that, it's a misuse of the Bible.

 

[Whisky]

Politics AND religion in the same thread. ...this ought to go good.

 

[peddler]

Just read in an email from Sporting Classics Daily that Colorado voted NO on any Wolf introduction!!!!!

 

[airlocksniffer]

politics and religion in the same thread. ...this ought to go good.

danger, danger, abort thread!!

 

[5MilesBack]

danger, danger, abort thread!!

Neither are mutually exclusive to any discussion. It would be like trying to discuss automobiles and leaving out any thoughts to the design and engineering of the vehicle.

 

[DaveC]

Just one thing to think about--how can anyone truly be an atheist? To say with certainty there is no God, you would have to know all there is to know, right? In effect, making yourself God. It's an untenable position. I hope you are actually an agnostic and searching.

I don't like fence-sitting.

I have an immense amount of personal faith in the mystery of the world at large and that I am not and will never be privy to all of it. In that sense I'm very open to future learning. I call myself an atheist because after an upbringing which was as religiously neutral as possible, and a couple decades to ponder, take classes, read, and talk to folks I've never had the slightest personal inclination that any sort of theistic being or thing is out there. That combined with my own opinion that monotheism has historically and ethically had a net negative effect on the world in the last two millennia inclines me to take a stronger public stance with the word I use to describe my own spirituality.