59 replies [Last post]
Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)
bitmasher wrote:
I support wolf reintroduction as long as locals eventually get to manage the populations like any other game species and ranchers get paid a good premium for the damage wolves inflict.

Another Ditto.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)
expatriate wrote:
If the answer to that is "yes," then how about Wooly Mammoths? Should we clone Mammoths and set them free in Alaska and Canada? After all, we're just restoring things to the way they once were.

If technology allows and we can go back farther, what about turning T-Rex loose in Montana?

The wooly and T-rex are extinct due to natural means. I hardly think what happened to the wolf could be considered natural.

Think of it this way. Elk and buffalo are being reintroduced all over. Both species were just about extinct at one time. (Neither of them were brought to the brink of extinction by natural means either) Turkey were in danger in a lot of places also. Only conservation brought them all back. So if you hunt any of those species then you need to realize you are giving an "atta boy" with hand and "crying foul" with the other.

It kinda makes you look silly.

Politics are important and should be considered in wolf re-intro. But they should only effect the way they are managed and how the re-intro is done. They should not determine whether or not wolves have the right to breath earthly air.

Bottomline is wolves would still be here had we not killed everyone in sight. So they should be here now. Remember the same thing happened to the elk and they were brought back.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

I admit I can be sarcastic and the ideas may be at the extreme end of an argument/analogy. But the point I'm making is that the difference between something at the extreme end of an argument and something in the middle is subjective and open to interpretation -- and we need to be careful of logical precedents.

If the issue is man-made extinction vs non-man made, I submit that humanity has caused species extinctions by conscious choice -- but I don't hear anyone clamoring to put smallpox back in its natural environmental state.

Yes, smallpox and wolves are light years apart -- or are they? Both are a species deemed harmful to human interests. Yet both also provide some level of enviornmental "benefits" to ecosystems by culling the weak and controlling populations.

Yet while the thought of reintroducing smallpox is repugnant, the thought of reintroducing wolves is less so. Why? Because such a decision hinges on humanity's assessment of costs and benefits expressed in effects on human interests. It has nothing to do with restoring natural species or undoing man's damage to Mother Earth. It took us eons of fighting our way to planetary dominance as a species to earn the right to make that decision, and we ought to be honest with ourselves about why we're making it. That's why I think the decision on wolf introduction should be decided by the interests of people in areas where wolves are to be introduced, and not environmentalists in New York or LA who don't bear the costs.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

Hummmmm........."Dances with smallpoxes".... Werepoxes.....Smallwerepoxes........Weresmallpoxes.........."Smallpoxen".......
Smallpoxgang Armadas.....Small pox Blitzer......"Three little Pigs and the Big Bad Small pox".........Lil red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Small Pox" .......

Nahhh, get rid of the small pox and keep the wolves.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

"That's why I think the decision on wolf introduction should be decided by the interests of people in areas where wolves are to be introduced, and not environmentalists in New York or LA who don't bear the costs."

Well I'll agree with that absolutely. I see no reason for a bunch of big-city bureaucrats in Washington, DC to be deciding how and when wolves will be re-introduced to Colorado or Wyoming.

Makes me think of one of the most moronically arrogant ideas ever to come out of the environmentalist whackos: the "Buffalo Commons." This was an idea that a couple of dopes from San Francisco came up with 10-15 years ago. They thought that all of the "white people" should be forcibly removed from North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Texas, Colorado, and Wyoming (only Indians would be allowed to stay). This area would then be returned completely to its native state where the buffalo could roam and the deer and the antelope could play, not to mention the elk (who were very unjustly overlooked in that song!).

My immediate reaction to this insanely stupid idea was, "Well, sure, it's easy to suggest that OTHER people should give up their homes! How about if we return all of California to its native state? How would they like that? Of course, they wouldn't, even though it would do a whole lot more for the nation in the long run!

So, people who sit a thousand miles away and smugly decide what sacrifices OTHER folks should make get no respect at all from me.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

Werepox lol

That is the virus active in werewolf salvia.

Ex's point is well made. There is an inordinate interest in saving warm blooded furry things (double bonus if they can make audible noises: whales, dolphins, wolves). Cold blooded and scaly (double negative if they ooze stuff) doesn't seem to get the love of the save-the-plane-types. Collectively we are very fickle about what should and should not be "saved" and in the end the collective decisions border on the irrational.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)
bitmasher wrote:
Ex's point is well made. There is an inordinate interest in saving warm blooded furry things (double bonus if they can make audible noises: whales, dolphins, wolves). Cold blooded and scaly (double negative if they ooze stuff) doesn't seem to get the love of the save-the-plane-types. Collectively we are very fickle about what should and should not be "saved" and in the end the collective decisions border on the irrational.

That is somewhat true but I don't think you can compare animals to diseases. Thats the old "apples to oranges" analogy.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

"...in the end the collective decisions border on the irrational."

Which is why, in the end, these decisions are entirely political.

"That is somewhat true but I don't think you can compare animals to diseases."

But he's not comparing animals to diseases. He's comparing animals to animals. The fact that some of the animals in the comparison CAUSE diseases in humans is an entirely different matter. I think his analogy is very apt and not at all "apples to oranges."

In the end, it comes down to bitmasher's comment about how we humans are extremely fickle and completely irrational when it comes to which animals we wish to save and which we don't care about.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)
donmillion wrote:
"That is somewhat true but I don't think you can compare animals to diseases."

But he's not comparing animals to diseases. He's comparing animals to animals.

No I think smallpox would in fact be in the disease category. That was the analogy Ex used and what I was responding to. Yes we can be fickle and stupid and political. BUT the issue we are discussing is the wolf and I feel we are doing the right thing. Not neccesarily the right way, but we are doing the right thing.

As long as locals have the right manage thier animals, I think bringing the wolf back is one of the few postiive things we've done. But we should hunt and manage them just like any other predator.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Do you support wolf reintroduction? (June 2004 Poll)

We're really picking nits at this point, because I agree with you about the re-introduction of the wolf. Still...

He used the term "smallpox" but he was obviously talking about the variola virus, which CAUSES smallpox and not about the disease itself.

Now that the threat of smallpox has been effectively eliminated, there is some debate within the medical community about what to do with the world's remaining variola specimens. Some think they should be destroyed, so as to reduce the possibility of them getting into the wrong hands. Others think they should be preserved.

Two separate reasons have been offered for preserving them. One is that, just in case smallpox ever reappears, we might need them again. The other is that they are living organisms and we shouldn't deliberately destroy the last known examples. Yes, I'm serious, and so are the people who have put forth the latter argument.

So, expatriate was most definitely NOT offerring a ridiculous and specious comparison when he likened smallpox to wolves. Nor was he comparing apples to oranges. He only made the minor error of referring to "smallpox" instead of to the variola virus that causes smallpox.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like