You Can't Fix Stupid - $87,000,000 California Lion "Crossing"

[longbow51]

Thanks for the post Ben I agree with both links-I must not have articulated my view very well. I think sometimes I come off as a "smoke a pack a day" guy. I am not. I have been blessed to live my life in Montana and then Idaho so I have had the opportunity to hunt most everything. I was thinking about it and if they made me choose to hunt only predators or ungulates I would probably pick the predator category. I don't want predators managed out of existence just to benefit deer and elk. In fact I think Idaho is over harvesting both lions and bears right now with current seasons and tags. I have been vocal about this and would be hopefull we would actually reduce the lion season length and quit offering 2 lion and 2 bear tags in certain areas. From the RMEF link it states that 62 billion has come from sportsman through license, gun etc sales. This is 60 percent of wildlife managers annual operating budget. Idaho fish and game receives no tax money and is entirely funded through license sales but they get some federal grants and private grants-and they sell license plates ha ha. This is why I feel managing for consumptive use is most closely aligned with the nam. As stated in the rmef link you cant monetize wildlife viewing but a by product of managing for optimum population levels has the side effect of great wildlife viewing. Managing for optimum population levels means managing predators at a level that allows for a surplus of deer and elk to sell tags for. If you dont manage predators at the optimum level(which means you have to manage them) you wont have anywhere close to the optimum level of deer or elk. If you don't have an annual surplus of deer and elk you cant ethically sell tags for a dwindling resource and no one would probably want them. Like Rmef link stated hunting is conservation and funds a great deal of all states conservation budgets. I always state on threads like this that if you dont manage predators the NAM will be broken. That is just the truth. There is an optimal level of predators that allows for an optimal level of ungulates -the optimal level for ungulates is a SURPLUS. The whole thing is built on revenue created by managing for hunting opportunities both predators and ungulates. When states quit managing one part of the equation the whole thing falls apart including the main funding engine. My objection to this lion bridge really has nothing to do with California not managing lions. That's water under the bridge and they will most likely never pull their heads out on that one. I am 100 percent for wildlife crossings and 110 percent for private funding of conservation. There is a limited amount of capital both private and public that will be directed towards conservation. This is directing a huge some of money to, in my opinion, the last thing that needs conservation in that state. I googled Tule elk population and compared it to the lion estimate-California could possibly have more lions than Elk! Wouldn't 87 million be better spent on tule elk habitat? I always check that funds I donate do go to the intended purpose. A bunch of people contributed to a lion bridge for a city dwelling sub-population. Do you think these donors even realize the plight of deer in that state? Did the fundraisers even let the donors know that there are a multitude of other (bigger) problems california wildlife is facing? I think it was dishonestly presented as a major conservation need when I am guessing there are thousands more important things. I dont really care what California does and all states make ridiculous decisions. This is an Absurd and wasteful use of funds in my opinion. That is my only point-this is ridiculous

Paragraphs are your friend

 

[longbow51]

Under? A homeless camp will pop up on the top of that structure faster than you say “Hepzibah”. I hope the 87MM includes human hazing measures, or else they’ll be hitting up the donors for more funds.

You know, that's a really smart thought, and I bet no one considered it.

 

[Sytes]

When I lived there, Woodland Hills / Calabasas and uncle in Bell Canyon with my x-wife's family in Agoura Hills, it's was a high $$$ area. I rarely saw a bum around though times may have changed over the past 30 years.

 

[Trap]

Paragraphs are your friend

What’s a paragraph? Do they sell tags for them?

 

[R*and*Y]

Oh yes, tax money spent.
That's just crazy.

 

[longbow51]

What’s a paragraph? Do they sell tags for them?

OTC and no closed season. To be fair with you, no wonder they're in short supply.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Who? WTF? Huh? @Ben Lamb , give a PG (if it exists) run down. I'm too skeered my wife may use my phone only to see some query for some mini Han Solo nic named gay porn something or other...

You don't know about Hanzo the Razor? What the heck, man?!

HBO Max has the movies. They're fun, if somewhat ridiculous, entertainment.

 

[BrentD]

What’s a paragraph? Do they sell tags for them?

You don't have enough preference points yet. Maybe in another decade or three.

 

[Cheesehead]

You don't have enough preference points yet. Maybe in another decade or three.

I think @Trap is going for the zero point 25% allocation strategy

 

[BUncommon]

Lions cross highways just fine. They don't need a crossing. Some will get hit, but some will still try to cross on the road despite the "crossing." I can personally attest to this, even with a 10-foot mule deer fence. Second, California is overrun with lions since shutting down hunting for them.

$87,000,000 specifically for a lion crossing in a state with a massive overpopulation.

Whenever I think California can't do anything dumber, they do.

I am not against wildlife crossings...but $87,000,000 specifically for lions is just ridiculous....and I really like lions.

California aims to save mountain lion population with new animal crossing

A construction project in Southern California could help build a critical lifeline for mountain lions. The $87 million project adds a new crossing over a California highway, giving animals access to food and possible mates on the other side of the busy road. NBC’s Emilie Ikeda reports for...

www.today.com

CA real estate is about to get real cheap when they tax their wealthiest citizens out of the state

 

[buffybr]

Paragraphs are your friend

Paragraphs are really your readers friend. Many times when I see something writted on a full page without any paragraph breaks I'll just skip reading that page.

 

[noharleyyet]

Would a wealth tax actually drive the rich out of California?

Wealth tax research has shown that some top earners do leave the state, but studies vary in their estimation of how many people leave.

calmatters.org