Wow, I meant nothing personal and quite honestly I like one of the other replies that basically explained why my argument didn't work. Whatever man, get pissed if you must.Originally Posted by hap
One of the reasons I quit coming to this site was the amount of ego displayed here. Guess I am done again for awhile
See you all later.
Last edited by Kerry Stratton; 03-26-2014 at 06:26 PM.
"The reason you have a good vision is you're standing on the shoulders of giants." ~ Andy Batcho
2013 two separate Grizzly bear attacks on the same day in Yellowstone park.
Both happened the week before I got there. Signs were up warning people when bears are seen in the area.
I am a long way from angry about anything and did not take your comment personally. I detest the style and content of the original video and should have known better than make my first comment. Taking a huge and hugely complex system and claiming causality and applying good and bad labels to so many arguable points is the problem I have.
The comment you take exception to was simply a case of me calling argumentum ad absurdum on your statement.
Hap, To be perfectly honest....that stings of, "I'm significantly smarter than ya'all, and since this discussion is not going the way I want it to, I'm out."
As a long-time technical writer I admit completely to a tendency to write as clearly as possible which is often taken the way you suggest. All I can do is assure you it was not meant that way and I relish good solid argument and debate... I can even handle name calling, coming and going...The comment about a specious argument was directed at the comment that KS made about predators would have wiped out the prey.
But FAOL has made it clear enough to me that they do not want such argument here, so I am playing by their rules.
If anyone wants to argue via PM or phone I am more than happy to do so!
art
Until the last few posts, we had a good discussion going. There were different points of view and different information. Since this subject works as a microcosm of greater issues which touch each of us, I would like to see more information and intelligent analysis. When I made my first post, people made good statements. Yes, this issue is one which is often charged with emotion and has become very political. But as the human species we have to be able to converse and discuss issues, even contentious issues, clearly and rationally. If we cannot do that on this forum, how can we expect other people to do so? How can we expect our leaders to do so if we cannot over an issue of natural science.
I ask those who have something worth communicating to do so. Let us be quick to clear up misunderstandings and offenses within the debate. By the end, people may learn. Remember that FAR more people read these post than are members of FAOL. I was surprised at how many people from my local TU chapter read FAOL and have no login here. We don't know who will read this thread anonymously. We don't know which Internet spiders and web crawlers will latch onto this for analysis of both the issue and the metadata.
Please continue thinking and posting.
Friendly regards,
Ed
Yes Ed, they did. Hunters by nature take the biggest, healthest and best of the species they hunt for, which in turn leaves the weaker and smaller, to contribute to the gene pool. Wolves by nature, take the weakest and smallest...improving the gene pool. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
As far as :
"Heard a lady call into a radio talk show the other day ...she is a bow hunter and said where she has been hunting deer and elk for years....since the wolves have moved in ...no more deer and elk....That bothered me thinking the wolves had devoured them...but I do wonder maybe they[deer/elk] just moved out."
I've been there and that lady is full of dung. There are plenty of ungulates...MUCH HEALTHER than they were then before the wolf was reintoduced. Smarter now, too, because early in the wolf reintroduction, the prey animals were rather stupid as they hadn't developed a natural fear ...but that's changed. The prey animals move more now and are much more weary. The numbers of ungulates are fewer, yes, because they are suppose to be. It's healthier for the whole ecosystem.
This is a debate that gets a lot of hackle up. I'm on the side of the wolf, because I'm not grazing cattle and sheep for a living in places they were never meant to be. Ideally, I'd rather tear down the fences turn the whole plains area back to the bison, elk and deer and eat them instead...and let the wolf cull out the weak ones.
"There's more B.S. in fly fishing than there is in a Kansas feedlot." Lefty Kreh
"Catch and Release,...like Corrections Canada" ~ Rick Mercer
Mato, thanks for posting. I find that your comments are strongly tend to being intelligent and well thought-out. (You're a darned good angler, too.)
Regards,
Ed
HAP, I appreciate your response and sorry for the misunderstanding.
Ralph
Where were cattle and sheep meant to be?
Posting Permissions
