Who really reintroduced the wolves???

[Bambistew]

I keep seeing posts about how all us wolfhuggers "back east" pushed the big bad wolf on the west. I was under the assumption that they were reintroduced due to the enforcement of the endangered speicies act. Am I correct in thinking that??? I just can't see why the people back east get all the rap for something that was enacted by congress (whom the good people "back east" and the entire country elected).

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for the wolves to be in MT, ID, WY and now possibly CO

but to put all the blame on the people "back east" seems a little harsh don't you think?

Its not like they could foresee the future and go, Oh I think in 25 years (or what ever since the ESA was passed) they are going to want to reintroduce the wolves into the greater yellowstone area. Lets make sure we vote in that politition in.

Since I moved "back east", I havent seen anymore wierdos than there are out west, excluding CA. What do you guys think?

Ivan

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-29-2003 13:42: Message edited by: Bambistew ]</font>

 

[RockyDog]

Good post, and observation. I myself am all for conservation and more roadless, but Im against wolves.

I think what we are seeing is a tactic used by the folks who are agains certain issues (i.e., conservation, wolves, roadless, salmon, blah, blah, blah). Their tactic is to make the oppenents look like a bunch of "idiot whacko environmentalists" (wow heard those words?) from the east coast or big city that "sit at home on the couch" (how about these?)while the big rugged and tough mountain men that want more roads, more development, less regulation are dealing with the results.

From what ive seen on this site i think the folks agains conservation in general are actually the ones that spend more time at the couch. There also the ones who more roads and more ATV access. You know, the easier road.

Either that or its just all the AM talk radio hate-speak or corporate brainwashing.

I do think your getting easternize though Bambistew if you dont think those MD people are strange. My in-laws used to live there and i thought everyone was so sedentary.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-29-2003 14:06: Message edited by: RockyDog ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bambistew,

As someone who has been called a "idiot whacko environmentalists" I have to laugh at the AM-Radio listening Anti-Habitat, Anti-Hunting, Anti-Salmon, ATV loving person who calls me that. I just happen to be someone who loves Hunting in Idaho, catching Salmon and Steelhead in Idaho, and Rafting Rivers in Idaho. Those are not environmental "causes", that is just my lifestyle, and my passions.

I have no passion for saving rain forests in Brazil, nor restoring the Everglades in Florida. But I do see an incredible opportunity to provide self-sustaining, perpetual opportunities for myself, my kids, all my heirs, and anybody else that wants to enjoy these resources, if we can enable the Salmon to get back to Idaho keep the Wilderness areas and Roadless areas that way.

My guess is that the people against conservation in this site have never caught a Salmon in Idaho, and likely have never seen a Wild Salmon in Idaho. They have never ventured from the relative security of their car, beyond a trail head sign into the Frank Church Wilderness, nor spent a night along the edge of a free-flowing river.

As for the back Easters getting the blame, that is unfair, as the most credit you could give the Eastern establishment would be credit for controlling the Congress. Our Western populations will, hopefully, never have enough population to control Congress. But, as these are Federal Lands, they are rightly controlled by Federal Agencies. (There is some fuel for the AM-Radio crowd).