If I was given $87M for any project likely no, but a key point should be made that the $87M raised, was raised and earmarked for this sole project.
I get your angle. And recognize that even if it’s small spuds in infrastructure spending, it’s a whole lot of money.
I appreciate your input in topics of this nature. There seems to be the two camps on here, one that immediately jumps to attack agency/government decisions and the defenders. I think this topic is fine for debate, but I disagree with the above generalization. I think we should question decisions and actions of this nature. Right or wrong we are citizens, not subjects that should shut up and accept what the "officials" tell us.
Bumfights. Those were some fine films. Rufus was my favorite, a true legend.
Saw a couple of them in Chicago on one of our jobs they stole a 6' home bar and a 3/8" chain and went at it. It was like gladiator without armor and presumably less teeth.
Maybe we should head to California and start a re-boot. Bums vs Cougars.
I agree with you on the 2 different viewpoints. That is a very accurate observation I think. I view it mostly but not entirely from the idea of maximizing consumptive use. Not because I really want to kill a lot more animals in my life but that model most closely aligns with the North American wildlife model. It’s been wildly successful and look at the increase in deer and elk since we implemented it. Predators numbers have done fine under this model as well. I have hunted lions for decades with hounds in Idaho. We tree a lot of lions but don’t shoot very many. I actually feel like Idaho needs to be more restrictive on lion harvest and should reduce the harvest and shorten our seasons. The op, Idaho Nick also agrees with this according to his post. I only mention this because when someone opposes a pro predator proposal I think we immediately get dismissed as being of the mindset “the only good predator is a dead predator”.For me nothing could be further from the truth. Back to California. They still kill lions and according to their website it’s an average of 150 cats per year. I’m assuming these are well paid(tax payer funded) fish and wildlife employees. They destroy every part of that cat including crushing the skull. Instead they could just allow hunting where the lion would actually be used and raise money for the state to fund conservation and management of lions. The insanity starts there and it has spread to Oregon and Washington with bans on the use of dogs. The nawm works because hunters pay for conservation of a species by purchasing hunting licenses. Nature will find a balance through disease etc but to what benefit? With all the habitat problems California has I feel like it’s extremely deceptive to raise this amount of money for an animal that is thriving all over the state. It’s private funded so we should feel good about this ? The California lion population has increased 10 times last 100 years and the deer have declined from over 2 million to less than 500,000. There high end lion population estimate is more than the estimated population of Tule elk. I don’t see how anyone could argue this is the best use of these funds. Anyways your observation on the two camps is very accurate. I wanted to share the other side. The nawm has worked wonders for almost 100 years. should we fix it till it’s broke?
My views have changed over the years, I used to be more in favor of a disproportionate amount of deer and elk because that is what I liked to hunt and the more there were the easier it was to hunt. I hope I don't appear intolerant of opposing opinions. I try to avoid tunnel vision on any topic. I remember reacting in total disbelief when I so an interview with an elephant protection activist. The interviewer mentioned the North American Model and suggested that regulated hunting might benefit the elephants. He actually said " I would rather see elephants go extinct than see one killed by a hunter" I guess something happens to one's brain when they get to passionate about a cause.
