Idaho Culling 90% of Wolves

KillerDave

Have camera, will travel...
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference...

This PSA is Roper approved.

We're arguing on the internet...about wolves. Personally, I thank God that God is probably not paying attention ;)

If it somehow isn't fun and entertaining I'd advise doing something a little more productive with your time, like cutting your lawn with a pair of scissors, although on the "actually getting something done" scale cutting the grass with scissors is way more productive than this.
 

adamcu280

Active Member
This podcast isn't about wolves exactly, but orcas are known as "wolves of the sea". ;)

A few of the topics are totally relevant to this discussion. Specifically episode 6, where Dr. Peter Ross talks all about toxins, and episode 7, where Lynda Mapes talks about the complexity of the Elwha dam removal process and the subsequent benefits to the ecosystem, including human benefits.

 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
Will the wolf culling apply to Greater Idaho as well after the merger?
SF
 

CreekScrambler

Active Member
just think about all the west side tax dollars that would be saved if those 5 counties in far Eastern OR are annexed to ID. bet they don't even think about who funds them.
Moneypit counties getting annexed away is the sweetest kind of pipe dream. They can’t afford to associate with their preferred state. An ID fishing license would be a lot more valuable if that happened!
 

Gfisher2003

Active Member
And each one of those was a simple solution
One line item restoration

Whales we stopped the harvest
Eagles we got rid if DDT
Elwha. We removed dams
This was already brought up but, how is any of this simple?

The Elwha dam removal was a 40-year struggle between the dam owners, the town of Port Angeles, the indigenous tribe, the federal government, and environmentalists.

Banning DDT was another long fight that lasted 20 years and ended after a long public opinion battle after the EPA intervened.

The ending of whaling although I know less about it, I'm sure was as complicated as the other two.

If you regard every environmental decision without any shades of nuance or historical perspective, it makes sense that you've ended up with some weak takes and won't address the problems that others have with them.
 

KillerDave

Have camera, will travel...
With respect, you're confusing "simple" with "easy."

Another one we could list would be Sea Lion removal at fish ladders. It was/is a simple solution, but convincing the powers that be that it was necessary took about 30 years and wasn't easy.
 
Last edited:

Gfisher2003

Active Member
With respect, you're confusing "simple" with "easy."

Another one we could list would be Sea Lion removal at fish ladders. It was/is a simple solution, but convincing the powers that be that it was necessary took about 30 years and wasn't easy.
Idk I feel like it's valid to group the two words in this context. I see what you are saying, but I think especially when looking at changes that can have ecosystem-wide effects, they only feel like a simple, as in one-step solution, if you divorce them from all the surrounding context of how the decision is made. Using the word simple to describe them could be true in a material sense like a couple of seals are euthanized but in terms of what actually had to be done to kill them, by like going through the EPA and stuff it's not.
 

KillerDave

Have camera, will travel...
This is an interesting paper that describes how Idaho has probably viewed all the science that's been thrown at them the last couple decades:

It's a short paper but here's a quote from the first paragraph:

Fraudulent papers were written with significantly higher levels of linguistic obfuscation, including lower readability and higher rates of jargon...We also observed a positive association between obfuscation and the number of references per paper, suggesting that fraudulent authors obfuscate their reports to mask their deception by making them more costly to analyze and evaluate.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it will be interesting to see how this works out. Idaho will go their direction and the states surrounding them will maintain the status quo. Then we can see how it plays out. It will be a Comparative Experiment; very scientific.
 

adamcu280

Active Member
This is an interesting paper that describes how Idaho has probably viewed all the science that's been thrown at them the last couple decades:

It's a short paper but here's a quote from the first paragraph:

Fraudulent papers were written with significantly higher levels of linguistic obfuscation, including lower readability and higher rates of jargon...We also observed a positive association between obfuscation and the number of references per paper, suggesting that fraudulent authors obfuscate their reports to mask their deception by making them more costly to analyze and evaluate.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it will be interesting to see how this works out. Idaho will go their direction and the states surrounding them will maintain the status quo. Then we can see how it plays out. It will be a Comparative Experiment; very scientific.
Are you suggesting that "Idaho has probably viewed all the science that's been thrown at them the last couple decades" as fraudulent due to higher levels of linguistic obfuscation?

The other side of that would be that, instead of everything being fraudulent, Idaho doesn't understand what they're reading.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top