And this is who planned the wolf reintro??

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For one, I am not so short sighted that I would sink my life savings into one thing. That's just asking for trouble and not a smart decision. I agree that the US is the best place on earth and if my biggest hardship in life is losing a house or some property I'd consider it a pretty good life. Losing my wife would be orders of magnitude worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This country is full of people that want to take a chance and make a better life for themselves...They don't have the where with all, for what ever reasons, to be able to just have enough $$$ to throw at some thing and just move on when things go a little sour. That is a very elitist view. This is one of the only countries in the world where one can take a little $$$, invest it, with a lot of work and make it big. This is what has actually made this country what it is today, and makes it attractive to the rest of the world, not the ones that sit back and wait and wait for the right opportunity to do some thing where they don't really have to take a chance. This would be a very sluggish country if every one thought that way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Again, the property was not taken. Just as zoning laws prohibit certain uses on certain lands, so does the ESA. Personally, I don't think that is all that bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you finally, if you ever do, take the chance, get all your paper work in order, put your life’s energies, blood, sweat, and tears, into a project. Doing every thing according to the book, then some little jerk comes by and doesn't agree with what you are doing, and manages to get you shut down. Then, and only then, will you have a full understanding of what is being said here? It is very easy to sit back with "Nothing" invested, and no time spent, dictating theory from a classroom, or an easy chair to save the world.
Here’s a very honest question for you Tyler...
When have you actually taken a risk or chance for yourself or any one for that matter???
This includes time served in the armed forces, or actually putting "yourself" in harms way for any reason. If you haven't, then you will "never understand what this is really all about. Nothing against you, nor is this meant to put you on the spot. Just some thing to make you think of a bigger picture than that which you perceive is guaranteed to you!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Wow, that's a pretty good post, Dan! I think that describes the situation pretty well. Of course, I'm sure some won't agree. Elkchsr, for instance,doesn't see any reason to reintroduce an animal to an ecosystem it has been extirpated from, regardless of how or why it was extirpated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While I agree with Dan on what he said, I didn't see any of the animals he listed that we in the U.S. put their, matter of fact, it is our dollars, time and effort that have kept a lot of animals from hitting the forever lists. Now, of all the species that have been re-introduced into this country, how many of them were actually on the forever lists, or the endangered lists for that matter. I don't mean the lists that some one had for a certain region, how many would have been gone forever if not brought to the lower 48 to be saved?
So before you start judging what I am thinking, look at the whole picture, and go accordingly, or all you are doing is giving lip service.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't know about MT, but in CO and WY they can't sell all their cow tags. So what's the solution there? I do see your point, but... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here’s the solution...
It is a very easy one, but the people that are sitting in a government mentality never see it.
Lower the price of the tags, there will be a big influx of out of state hunters that would be more than happy to help fill the tags, also, offer the residents more tags to be able to fill. There are those like me for instance that would go after whatever the limit is if given the chance. This is how business and private enterprise is run. Not a hard concept and very easy to follow.

 

[Oak]

Elkchsr,
I was referring to your comment in the Wolf Alert for SE Idaho topic. Here it is: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Does it really matter how the animals were exterminated out of an environment, gone is gone, bring back one, bring back all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You said environment, not the lower 48 states. I asked you some simple questions in that topic which you've chosen to ignore. Just because there are no species in Dan's post that are from this area doesn't mean that it hasn't happened here. How about the bald eagle, the black-footed ferret, the peregrine falcon.... As 1_pointer brought up, deer and elk were extirpated from vast regions of the lower 48. Now they might not have been in danger of extinction, but we brought them back to those areas anyway. Bad idea according to you. If we're going to bring those back, we might as well bring camels and elephants back too. Bring one back, bring them all back, right?

As far as lowering the price of elk tags and allowing residents to buy more in order to sell them, CO allowed anyone to buy three elk tags last year. Three cow tags only cost a non-resident a grand total of $450. Residents could buy three tags for a total of $90. Yet I know nobody, resident or non-resident, that killed three CO elk last year.

Oak

 

[Ithaca 37]

Oak, Three elk for $90!! That's amazing! I woulda jumped on that deal when I was a CO resident and been giving elk away to friends. I'd offer to go shoot and gut them and then they could have them, all they'd have to do was drag them out! When I lived in Steamboat I coulda got lots of them close to town with a downhill drag all the way! Then I would have said to give me some of the meat and passed that on to some other older people who needed it.

Thirty bucks to shoot an elk is better than spending $50 to go skiing or $8 for a two hour movie!

 

[Michaelr]

Good post dan

My only issue with it is, The wolf was nowhere near extinction. If it were, it would be a whole different ballgame.
So your post doesn't hold much water concerning wolves!!

 

[1_pointer]

Paul-
I do own a home and my wife is in the process of starting a business. I don't believe I'm wise as that would imply a whole lot more experience at it than I've got (I'm 24). However, my view of life is that I am apart of a large dynamic system of which I have no total control over. I can influence (some greatly) many of the things in this system, but can't control the whole thing. One thing my life has taught me (mostly through my parents bitter divorce when I was in high school) is that things will get better. You can either sit around and do nothing or work to make the situation better. That in a nut shell is how I view life.

Elkchsr-
Yes, chance made this country the best place on Earth, but chance is not without risk. If someone risks all they have and makes it great, I applaud them. If it doesn't work out and they are on hard times because of no back up plan that is their fault. Some people lost millions for their retirement in the recent stock market. To me that is a great example of why not to put all your eggs in one basket. Many made millions when it was good, but a person must evaluate the risks and determine if they can handle it if it doesn't work out.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When have you actually taken a risk or chance for yourself or any one for that matter??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The largest risk I've taken to date is moving half way across the country to pursue and education that I have no garantee that will pay off the dividends that I expect it to. When have I ever said anything is garanteed to me????

That is my point, nothing is garanteed to me, but I try to take steps that will allow me to achieve my goals. No I've never served in the military or been in a real threatening situation. I have had a gun pulled on me once if that counts, I've intervened in fights and the like. What is that keeping me from undterstanding?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>how many would have been gone forever if not brought to the lower 48 to be saved?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Black footed feret, California Condor, Florida Panther, Red Wolf, Bison and many others that only occur in America. How many have been kept from going extinct in other places because they were preserved in the US?

Dan- I agree, good post.

Mike- Elk wouldn't be extinct if we eliminated them from WY, ID, MT, CO either. That logic pertains to many species.

 

[ELKCHSR]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how many would have been gone forever if not brought to the lower 48 to be saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Black footed feret, California Condor, Florida Panther, Red Wolf, Bison and many others that only occur in America. How many have been kept from going extinct in other places because they were preserved in the US? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now again, how many of these have been "Brought" back down to the lower 48 that really aren’t in any danger of going extinct.
Last time I checked, and I could be very wrong on this, none of those species came from the great north? These animals you named are local species from their perspective regions and are or were on the brink. When has the Wolf and Grizzly actually ever been truly endangered from extinction…

 

[1_pointer]

Wolves weren't totally brought back to the US Rockies. There were wolves in MN, WI, and ID (check the ID wolf posts)before the re-introduction to the Yellowstone area. So, depending on how you want to define region... I guess then since they were already here and the population 'supplemented' you must think it's okay?

 

[Oak]

Elkchsr, I'm gonna start calling you Artful Dodger. You are excellent at dodging direct questions.

Or would that be considered namecalling?

Oak

 

[ELKCHSR]

Tyler!!!
I don't think you are fully getting my point, I am not saying that the numbers in the lowere 48 were low, I was saying over all as a spieces, they were in no way threatend. And CO, I wasn't ignoring you, there is just to many things comming in at once, if my posts get much longer, there won't be any one reading them. I will go back and see what it was that you were saying...

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr, for instance,doesn't see any reason to reintroduce an animal to an ecosystem it has been extirpated from, regardless of how or why it was extirpated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then why in all honesty, can't there be elephants and camels roaming the lower 48?
Is it because it sounds silly, well that is what I look at when they wanted to bring back the great predators?
There is nothing wrong with bringing back certain things, or adding to the gene pool of an area. People introduce snakes, plants, and what not, of course this isn't a good way to do it either, but it is done, and does add to the over all ecosystem in the long run, nature will eventually take all of the things that are added to it and come to grips with the new invaders, as it comes to grips and deals with those species lost. This has been going on since the dawn of time, how the plants/animals come or go is the only question. There seems to me that most "people" want every thing to stay exactly the same, unless they actually have a say in it that is a very shallow perception of the overall picture. It is hard for me to explain to some one that doesn't really see this, because there is every thing, and there is also at the same time, the little subject at hand. This is why some times I think, some of my answers seem to paint a broad brush, and at the same time or not always, try to deal with the immediate topic. What I see, just for example, when you started history, you were given a big book of every thing, the teacher takes little areas at small increments and try to teach it, but if you browse thru the whole book, the info seems to be very broad and overwhelming. It in no way say's you are ignorant, or stupid, you just haven't been thru the whole book in the proper sequence to see the whole picture yet. Is there things I can learn, well sure there is, not all the info in the book will be printed, so we fill in the gaps. It does though take a deeper understanding than some on the board will or want to see. Sooner or later the whole picture will come into focus and these individuals will understand, it just takes time....
You asked a very big question, I think you knew it, that is one reason why I wasn’t answering it, I could sit and write volumes more, but do not want to bore any one. I don’t want any one to get the idea though that this post is in any way demeaning to any one, it is just the way it is, and if you don’t get it, some day you will…

 

[Oak]

Well, that was a little better.

We are so far apart on this I don't see any point in continuing to explain it to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> it is just the way it is, and if you don’t get it, some day you will…
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

Elephants and camels can't be brought back because the species that were in North America are extinct. The ones from Asia and Africa are not the same species. However, the wolves were. So, is your stance that if something is doing good anywhere in the world that it shouldn't be re-introduced into some parts of its historic range? If that is your point I'm on the same side as Oak.

What if CWD gets worse than anyone ever imagined and every elk with 200miles of Anaconda was wiped out. Even years afterward there seems to be not dispersal of new elk into the are. Would it be okay to reintoduce elk to the Big Hole? I'm betting your answer is yes. This whole debate centers on the value system we place on animals. Some are seen as more valuable/desireable and that status changes for each person.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-14-2003 10:11: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, is your stance that if something is doing good anywhere in the world that it shouldn't be re-introduced into some parts of its historic range? If that is your point I'm on the same side as Oak.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It all depends on how it is introduced!!!
That is the big point, nothing more; it's just my opinion that the reasons for the re-introduction of these two species in particularly were brought back for all the wrong reasons. If there were better reasons than the fact that "Oh it is such a wonderful thing to do" attitude, which in reality it was, that is the totally wrong approach. There were no "real" sound reasons to bring them back except for the warm and fuzzy aspect of it all, it was just to see if they could make some people have that warm and fuzzy "I feel beautiful now about myself" concept.

 

[BuzzH]

I disagree Elkchsr, wolves and griz are great to have around, for all kinds of reasons. I would really like nothing more than to have a population of both wolves and griz large enough to support a limited season, I think we're close to that now.

In my opinion, a grizzly from MT, ID, or WY would be the ultimate hunting challenge in those states.

I'm just pissed I didnt take advantage of the opportunity to kill a griz in MT when the season was still open.

1-pointer, you're spot on with that last post.

 

[1_pointer]

Elkchsr- What are any of your 'good' reasons? I'd like to hear them. How many WY residents wrote in on this last round of public opinion wolf management thing? Did you? Those wolves won't stay just in WY.