Bigger Pie Brainstorm
- Thread starter bisblue
- Start date
Dunning Kruger
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2019
- Messages
- 567
I guess my point is, those cities are historic range too. But of course you cant have grizz there because there are too many people. So the question becomes, how many people is too many? Who gets to decide that? Grizz could do fine around me, and its historic range just like san fran, but i sure as hell dont want them here. A lot of people advocate to put critters like this in other peoples back yards. Dont volunteer my home for grizzlies, you want em you take em. I already have black bears tearing up my stuff, lions killing livestock in the neighborhood, f&w chasing wolves with a helicopter all around my house for 3 days, it is what it is. I dont need to add grizz around here causing trouble. Doubt anybody else in the neighborhood wants them either. We already have grizz on public land, and private, in washington. More wont do anything good for us.
If y'ins is so skeered of critters, you should move elsewhere.
Dunning Kruger
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2019
- Messages
- 567
Ah, i should move so they can release grizz into my neighborhood. Gotcha. Once again, who gets to decide how dense of a human population is too dense to release grizz?
If you are afraid of lions & woofs & coyotes & black bears, I'd hate to see you palpitate yerself into an early grave as ephriam comes calling.
Dunning Kruger
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2019
- Messages
- 567
Who said im afraid of them? I was out calling lions this morning. By myself with a hand call. Im discussing dumping grizz off around peoples homes where they havent existed in anybodys lifetime. Youre trying to belittle me by saying im afraid of lions wolves etc, which im not, because personal attacks are all you have to fall back on due to not having any constructive argument.
I too like to live dangerously. I questioned my wife's color palate for the kitchen cabinet repainting.
Dunning Kruger
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2019
- Messages
- 567
Thats not dangerous. A real dare devil would ask her if shes gained weight
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
This really is the crux to the entire thread.
Every single thing mentioned has not already occurred because these kinds of ideas impact people.
Dunning Kruger
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2019
- Messages
- 567
And the people who unfortunately do make the decisions dont live in the affected area. To be clear i dont have a real problem with grizz being in areas where they wont become a problem for people (but i dont see the need to transplant them where they dont already exist, and dont believe for a second it will increase any hunting opportunity). I spent this spring calling bears in north idaho in grizz country. Ive called in the grizz area in my own neighborhood. I make that choice. But pushing predators into human habitated areas is ridiculous and always done by somebody far away who says well no, of course we cant release them in MY neighborhood thats ridiculous! But YOU have to deal with them because i have a romanticized idea about them!
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Totally, I am not arguing that grizzlies don't have huge impacts on people...
but....
Fed land is the best deal going for grazing sheep and changing that would hurt ranchers.
Brucellosis - Bison
Big angry animal - Bison
Elk/Deer/Pronghorn - crop damage
Protecting habitat - Raising prices of land and housing, by reducing places were folks can build
etc... etc...
The point is none of this happens if people don't make concessions for wildlife, and there will always be portions of the populations that are dramatically more effected than others.
When moose were introduced to CO there was actually some blow back with folks saying it would cause the elk hunting to decline because they would compete for habitat.
The only thing on this thread that is low impact on people is probably the feral horse issue.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
1. Federal legislation enshrining the right to everyone to all federal public lands. Legislate perpetual funding to create and maintain ingress and egress easements to all public land parcels. Corner crossing is legal in every state, with every corner clearly marked. Make it illegal for landowners to block corner crossings. Every navigable waterway is publicly accessible up to the high water mark in all 50 states.
2. Create legal protections for wild equines to be processed into pet food. Sell wild equine tags at $100 per head, valid for hunting and live capture. Quotas set to preserve the wild horse and burro act of 1971. Use the money raised from the tags for habitat restoration caused by equine habitat destruction.
3. Overhaul the 1964 Wilderness Act to retain limits on motorized travel, but introduce habitat management for the benefit of all native species.
4. Repeal restrictive red tape barriers in order to restore public forest management. Take an aggressive approach to logging and fires in order to regenerate habitat. Eliminate barriers to allow commercial logging activity to remain economically sustainable.
2. Create legal protections for wild equines to be processed into pet food. Sell wild equine tags at $100 per head, valid for hunting and live capture. Quotas set to preserve the wild horse and burro act of 1971. Use the money raised from the tags for habitat restoration caused by equine habitat destruction.
3. Overhaul the 1964 Wilderness Act to retain limits on motorized travel, but introduce habitat management for the benefit of all native species.
4. Repeal restrictive red tape barriers in order to restore public forest management. Take an aggressive approach to logging and fires in order to regenerate habitat. Eliminate barriers to allow commercial logging activity to remain economically sustainable.
TrumpkinTheDwarf
Well-known member
I don't think that's entirely true... asking people to pay 10 bucks to hike and recreate on national land every year would raise a lot of money for conservation, trail maintenance, etc. Likewise, a 1% excise tax on fungible income via backpacks, skis, etc. would raise money for addressing land use conflicts. Corner crossing being legalized is not a population density issue, nor harming a land owner. It would open up a lot more public land for those who follow the rule of law.
