OYOA makes the NYT
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Very typical in that he did exactly in the article what he decries about the show, LOL!
From Karen, who read about our show in the NYTimes. Seems she does a good job of making my point that the west is so impacted by man's presence, that the belief that this is all one big happy world, where predator and prey will find harmonic balance in the way they did 400 years ago, is not a practical reality.
To me, that notion and the exclusion of humans from a cycle they have been part of for thousands of years, falls into the dreamland category, a concept often promoted by those groups I call wingnuts and screwballs, which I think is a term of endearment when I consider how I really feel about their motives (money) and tactics (litigate for profit).
I suspect if we left it all alone today, predator and prey would find some eventual balance, but probably at numbers way below wHere they currently are and well below acceptable levels for those on either side of the discussion. Certainly well below the numbers I would like to see for both prey and the predators they support.
I wonder what scientific training she has?
d-bone20917
Member
She read the NYTs article. Isn't that enough???
smarandr
Well-known member
Scientific training? Since when does scientific training/knowledge have anything to do with anything? Perception fed by your own prejudices is all that really matters in this country anymore. Confronting the facts is way too difficult for the short-attention-spanned & emotionally/intellectually challenged populous.
Last edited:
Horn Seeker
New member
Yeah...we could. But we wont.
Are you going to respond Randy? I have read soooo many things you've written that would probably put the rest of the content of that paper to shame... go for it.
Brandenbowhunter
Well-known member
Can't wait to see if I get hit with the e-mails too...just e-mailed the colunist at the NYT and the cook group...haha!
Brandenbowhunter
Well-known member
Here is the response I got form him, he is getting hate mail too...
Thanks for your email. I've gotten a lot of email about this piece, some really nasty stuff from anti-hunting people who used obscenities to describe what they thought of me for killing woodchucks, and mostly angry but civil email from people who, like you, think I don't know what I'm talking about.
I expect to hear from people telling me off and I try to listen. Let me clear up a couple of things. I'm not against killing or managing wolves. I didn't say that in the article, and I don't believe it. Wolves cause plenty of problems and whatever number people agree on some are going to be killed. Okay with me.
I didn't like the television show for a few reasons. It was promoted as a show that was going to take on the wolf issue and shed some light on it, and I thought it didn't do that. If the Sportsman Channel wants to reach anybody outside of already committed hunters it did a bad job. The show took an issue that polarizes people and jumped right into to the polarization.
And, I regret to say, I made the same mistake. I took a kind of snotty tone to slam the show, and should have emphasized the idea that there needs to be more discussion between people with different points of view. For that I apologize.
But I don't think I slammed Randy Newberg himself. It was one episode of his television show. The Sportsman Channel sent it to me in hopes that I would write about it because they were saying it really was a serious consideration of the wolf problem. And it wasn't. Once you go on television and promote your show in a certain way, it's fair game for reviewers.
I also said I couldn't get it that it was "fun" to kill a wolf. That's my opinion and if you think I'm nuts for saying it, or some kind of tree-hugging weirdo, fine. But I can't see that as bashing him.
Finally, I hope to write more about this issue. And I'm open to anything you or other hunters have to say. I'm on vacation now but when I get back I'll email you again if you're serious about the hunt talk forum. I would be willing to go on it, as long as it's okay with people who are on it to write about my experience. If you'd rather we could talk on the telephone first, off the record. I'd like to find a way to present the point of view of hunters, but the thing is, the people reading it are mostly nonhunters, so the approach of just saying they are wing nuts won't get any point across.
Sincerely,
Jim Gorman
Thanks for your email. I've gotten a lot of email about this piece, some really nasty stuff from anti-hunting people who used obscenities to describe what they thought of me for killing woodchucks, and mostly angry but civil email from people who, like you, think I don't know what I'm talking about.
I expect to hear from people telling me off and I try to listen. Let me clear up a couple of things. I'm not against killing or managing wolves. I didn't say that in the article, and I don't believe it. Wolves cause plenty of problems and whatever number people agree on some are going to be killed. Okay with me.
I didn't like the television show for a few reasons. It was promoted as a show that was going to take on the wolf issue and shed some light on it, and I thought it didn't do that. If the Sportsman Channel wants to reach anybody outside of already committed hunters it did a bad job. The show took an issue that polarizes people and jumped right into to the polarization.
And, I regret to say, I made the same mistake. I took a kind of snotty tone to slam the show, and should have emphasized the idea that there needs to be more discussion between people with different points of view. For that I apologize.
But I don't think I slammed Randy Newberg himself. It was one episode of his television show. The Sportsman Channel sent it to me in hopes that I would write about it because they were saying it really was a serious consideration of the wolf problem. And it wasn't. Once you go on television and promote your show in a certain way, it's fair game for reviewers.
I also said I couldn't get it that it was "fun" to kill a wolf. That's my opinion and if you think I'm nuts for saying it, or some kind of tree-hugging weirdo, fine. But I can't see that as bashing him.
Finally, I hope to write more about this issue. And I'm open to anything you or other hunters have to say. I'm on vacation now but when I get back I'll email you again if you're serious about the hunt talk forum. I would be willing to go on it, as long as it's okay with people who are on it to write about my experience. If you'd rather we could talk on the telephone first, off the record. I'd like to find a way to present the point of view of hunters, but the thing is, the people reading it are mostly nonhunters, so the approach of just saying they are wing nuts won't get any point across.
Sincerely,
Jim Gorman
Southwind
New member
Mr. Gorman states that Randy didn't present enough evidence for the need to manage wolves but turns around and makes his cases based on what he has read and the woodchucks in his yard.
Paul in Idaho
Well-known member
Have you seen Dr. Mech's new paper "Is Science in Danger of Sanctifying the Wolf?" yet? I just got a copy today. He highlights the beaver reintroduction as a potential issue in the trophic cascade concept. Hopefully, coming from him, that fact will carry some weight. I just finished reading the whole paper, and will re-read it.
L. David Mech, Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?, Biological Conservation, Volume 150, Issue 1, June 2012, Pages 143-149, ISSN 0006-3207, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.003.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712001462)
Blog entries discussing the paper:
http://sciencetrio.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/are-wolves-really-all-thatt/
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012...-cascades-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-wolves
Last edited:
Bigbuckkiller
New member
They dont understand our respect for the great animals we hunt......
Zach
Well-known member
Interesting reply from the article author. We'll see if future articles involve a little less tone and more research.
Hypocrite
Apparently it's totally unacceptable for Randy to hunt wolves without citing a bunch of empirical studies, having expert witnesses testify, and getting Bill Nye the Science Guy to comment. The wingnut writer, however, can simply spew his opinion all over the place without offering up any collateral support of any kind.
Further confirmation of a stereotype I have about wingnuts...
Apparently it's totally unacceptable for Randy to hunt wolves without citing a bunch of empirical studies, having expert witnesses testify, and getting Bill Nye the Science Guy to comment. The wingnut writer, however, can simply spew his opinion all over the place without offering up any collateral support of any kind.
Further confirmation of a stereotype I have about wingnuts...
wingman1
New member
No matter how you try to explain it to these wingnut types.....they will never get it. They are a different breed. Unfortunately we are out numbered 10,000 to 1.
drahthaar
Active member
I agree with wingman. The more you talk about it with the ignorant masses, the deeper you dig the hole you are already standing in. For every 1 you get to "see the light", you will get 10 more that are pissed that you "killed something", doesn't matter what it is, but the fact that it's this furry creature sitting at the right hand of the God of the bunny huggers, you will lose.
