🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec17.092550.24754@doug.cae.wisc.edu> cavallar@cyber.net (Mark A Cavallaro) writes:
>The latest issue of Western Outdoors has a lengthy article on the pros
>and not many cons of reintroducing wolves in the west.
>Any of you folks read it, or care to open a thread on this subject?
>
>Mark Cavallaro
>cavallar@cyber.net

What a can of worms youv'e opened. There are basically two opinions in
this area (which ain't far, 90 miles, from Yellowstone Nat'l Park) about 
the reintroduction of wolves into the park. So it depends on who you
talk to. The folks with the strongest opinions are the ranchers and the 
far left animal rightsists/ whatever you want to call the others. I am
in between. So follows n #3 is my opinion too, wheter you want it or not.

1) Ranchers point of view:
	basically, the wolf is a predator and doesn't mind eating sheep,
	bovine calves, elk calves, etc. That is money out of the ranchers
	shallow pockets.
2) extremists point of view as best I can tell:
	basically, the wolf is a wild critter that should be reintroduced 
	into the area 'cuz that it was indemic to that area and the habitat
	is there and very extensive. However it could also be a plot with this
	in mind. "Reintroduce the wolf as a predator of the YNP elk herds and 
	then the hunters can't say that they need to hunt the herd outside the
	park, as they/I do, to control the herd as a predator since there are
	not many natural predators of them left".
3) my view: the right one :-)
	Its too bad that there is not enough wild areas that can support things
	like grizzlies, wolves, native americans, wolverines, etc. Development
	happens and will continue to happen, and most of the time the emphasis
	is on financial returns and not on the environment. There is constant
	development going on in the YNPk and in W. Yellowstone. That adversly 
	affects the natural environment's ability to support the diversity of
	wildlife that the area is/was capable of supporting. Of course this is
	taking place most every where. 

	People are moving into this area in droves (mostly from CA) 'cuz they
	"like it here. It's so much more pleasant here." And I'm sure that it
	is. But everytime someone else moves here it becomes more like where
	they came from. (I am a hypocrite. I moved here 10 years ago from 
	Texas/Okla.) But there is now stoping them. And prime areas for 
	development are prime winter habitat for the elk and mule deer.
	And Incidently winter range is the limiting factor in the size of
	our mule deer and elk herds.

Okay I'm off of my soap box. Bring on the flames. But first one more thing.
I don't think that the U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife will ever reintroduce
the wolves back into the Yellowstone Ecosystem. For two reasons; one- there
is too much opposition from the locals who would have to live with them and
two- someone else has already done it. Who? No one
seems to know but several canids have been spotted and one shot that are 
probably very much wolf if not 100% It's not that easy to say this critter
is a dog and this is a wolf, since the wolf is a distant ancester to ALL
breeds of domestic dogs. Yes, even those obnoxious, little punt dogs.
							   _________________
__________________________________________________________/		    \
  Steve White								     |
  INTERNET : ketchum@cs.montana.edu					/___/   
  Trying to stay warm....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   >>>----------------------->

In article <1992Dec21.102613.3466@doug.cae.wisc.edu> ketchum@cs.montana.edu (Steve White) writes:
= 
= 	People are moving into this area in droves (mostly from CA) 'cuz they
= 	"like it here. It's so much more pleasant here."

And the next step will be, unless I miss my guess, that they will
try to change the place to be just like the place they moved there
to get away from.

Me?  A Cynic?  Naahhhhh...........


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov

ketchum@cs.montana.edu (Steve White) writes:

>Okay I'm off of my soap box. Bring on the flames. But first one more thing.
>I don't think that the U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife will ever reintroduce
>the wolves back into the Yellowstone Ecosystem. For two reasons; one- there
>is too much opposition from the locals who would have to live with them and
>two- someone else has already done it. Who? No one
>seems to know but several canids have been spotted and one shot that are 
>probably very much wolf if not 100% It's not that easy to say this critter
>is a dog and this is a wolf, since the wolf is a distant ancester to ALL
>breeds of domestic dogs. Yes, even those obnoxious, little punt dogs.

We had a speaker here at NASA Langley just last week: Chris Madson,
the editor of Wyoming Wildlife Magazine.  He reported much the same...
it is not clear if the U.S. Fish & Wildlife folks will ever reach a
decision.  And he said that they are *definitely* holding off even
thinking about it until they can verify those canids (he said there
were 3) that were shot.  Chris said that if wolves have "reintroduced
themselves" somehow, then the Feds won't (can't) interfere.  He did
not address the issue of someone "helping" the wolves to reintroduce
themselves.

Mr. Madson's talk was very interesting, since he spent a great deal of
it outlining the history of the idea of preserving large ecosystems in
the U.S. which led up to the National Park System (and other
organizations and land designations).  He is also the author of the
book: When Nature Heals: The Greening of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
And he is a hunter who seems to have a pretty good grasp of the
biological (and political) issues w.r.t.  wildlife management.

Hopefully, the kind of thoughful reflection on what might happen if we
take various courses of action that I saw Mr. Madson had engaged in
made me somewhat more upbeat about the whole problem out there.  He
also proposed that the westerners who instinctively resist "East Coast
Conservationists" telling them what to do with their land should
travel to the east to see what a mess we made of things here.  Maybe
then they would see beyond the immediate dollar signs to try to leave
to their children the same chances to experience the land and
participate in hunting & fishing that they had.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
RIPEM Public Key available soon --- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

In article: <1992Dec21.102613.3466@doug.cae.wisc.edu>

Steve White notes


	People are moving into this area in droves (mostly from CA) 'cuz they
	"like it here. It's so much more pleasant here." And I'm sure that it
	is. But everytime someone else moves here it becomes more like where
	they came from. (I am a hypocrite. I moved here 10 years ago from 

You are absolutely right.  Of course if you were lived in this cesspool of
a state you would want to move, too.  Trust me on this.
The _only_ thing saving the rest of the nation at this point is that there
are still a lot of native Californians (I'm a Georgia boy, so don't tar
me with *that* brush) have never been anywhere and honestly don't
know they are living in a slime pit.  In a smooth move of enlightened
self-interest, I don't tell them anything different...

bws, waiting to make a break for it


--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************

In article <1992Dec22.090444.5273@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>
>You are absolutely right.  Of course if you were lived in this cesspool of
>a state you would want to move, too.  Trust me on this.

It's pretty tempting...

>The _only_ thing saving the rest of the nation at this point is that there
>are still a lot of native Californians (I'm a Georgia boy, so don't tar
>me with *that* brush) have never been anywhere and honestly don't
>know they are living in a slime pit.  In a smooth move of enlightened
>self-interest, I don't tell them anything different...

Well, I'm a native Califonian, and I am quite aware of the problems of the
state.  Unfortunately, I'm also one of those who figure it's just barely
possible that it can be salvaged (start by thinning out the local herd of
policritters).

Maybe we'll be able to split the state and let the pathogens slump down
to the south. (I'm not a bigot...I grew up in SoCal, but I left of my
own volition.)  I figure the northern part of the state is worth saving.

I also recall a lot of disparaging remarks about Californians from Oregon
and Washington residents...and also remember seeing a *lot* of license
plates from both states when their economies were stalled, and ours
wasn't.

Ex-Californians are probably salvageable when they move into your state...
but it may take some serious chemotherapy to save them.  :}

I often thank God that Sacramento/San Francisco/L.A. is only a small
percentage of the total land area of the state.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Well, this nascent thread about folks moving from bad places--like,
IMHO, California--to good places, like Montana, etc. is sort of kind
of related to hunting, so with the moderator's indulgence I will add
one more remark.

Out here in the West, everyone bitches about the Californians moving in
and ruining everything.  Back home we always bitched about the Yankees
coming down and screwing everything up and whining about how it "wasn't
like this in New York City"  blah blah blah.

The thing is, California used to be pretty nice, too, and as Steve Hix
pointed out, there is still a lot left here that is nice.  Wherever you
are, you are wasting your breath complaining about the folks moving in,
cause you are the ones selling them the property and begging them to move
their jobs there.  And if it's not you personally, then it is the
politicians you elect, or the bureaucrats you suffer to be appointed.

As the original poster (sorry, I can only remember he was a Montanan)
indicated, what is critical for the wildlife (here is the rec.hunting
stuff) is the habitat.  In the Rocky Mountain states the most important
habitat is winter range, which is the best place in the world to build
condos, and office parks, and for that matter, for ranchers to have
their hay meadows, etc. etc.

As a local citizen, you _can_ have an impact on what happens.  You may
not keep the Californians out (you sure as heck won't keep _this_
transplant out!), but you can manage growth if you are willing to.
This will require personal involvement; you cannot leave it to someone
else, because that someone else is probably the Chamber of Commerce for
whom ALL growth is GOOD growth.  You can go to town and county meetings,
and lobby for slow, managed growth.  You can help determine what kinds
of businesses move in, and what impacts they will have on the local
landscape.  You can see to it that commercial and residential developers
are required to provide mitigation for their development, for example
if they rape 100 acres over here, they have to set aside and protect x
acres over yonder.

I know this is not easy, and I know it demands a lot out of you in terms
of time and effort and probably money.  But it is up to you and your neigh
bors to determine your future, and the future of wildlife and wild lands
in your area.  If you don't care enough to help manage the changes, well
you have no right to complain.

With the new administration, I think we may luck out environmentally.  I
think the appointee for Sec of Interior actually values the environment
rather than thinking merely of how it can be exploited.  Send him a letter
and let him know what you think and what you hope for the future of our
nation.  Call or better write your congresspersons.  If you are reading
this, you are obviously computer literate; writing a few letters shouldn't
be a big deal, should it?

Get active.

bws, who disclaims that the use of "you" in this note is used only in a
     generic sense, and is not directed at any particular person.
--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************

In article <1992Dec21.102613.3466@doug.cae.wisc.edu> ketchum@cs.montana.edu (Steve White) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.092550.24754@doug.cae.wisc.edu> cavallar@cyber.net (Mark A Cavallaro) writes:
>>The latest issue of Western Outdoors has a lengthy article on the pros
>>and not many cons of reintroducing wolves in the west.
  Steve White writes....
>3) my view: the right one :-)
>	Its too bad that there is not enough wild areas that can support things
>	like grizzlies, wolves, native americans, wolverines, etc. Development
>	happens and will continue to happen, and most of the time the emphasis
>	is on financial returns and not on the environment. There is constant
>	development going on in the YNPk and in W. Yellowstone. That adversly 
>	affects the natural environment's ability to support the diversity of
>	wildlife that the area is/was capable of supporting. Of course this is
>	taking place most every where. 
>
>	People are moving into this area in droves (mostly from CA) 'cuz they
>	"like it here. It's so much more pleasant here." And I'm sure that it
>	is. But everytime someone else moves here it becomes more like where
>	they came from. (I am a hypocrite. I moved here 10 years ago from 
>	Texas/Okla.) But there is now stoping them. And prime areas for 
>	development are prime winter habitat for the elk and mule deer.
>	And Incidently winter range is the limiting factor in the size of
>	our mule deer and elk herds.
>
>Okay I'm off of my soap box. Bring on the flames. But first one more thing.
>I don't think that the U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife will ever reintroduce
>the wolves back into the Yellowstone Ecosystem. For two reasons; one- there
>is too much opposition from the locals who would have to live with them and
>two- someone else has already done it. Who? No one
>seems to know but several canids have been spotted and one shot that are 
>probably very much wolf if not 100% It's not that easy to say this critter
>is a dog and this is a wolf, since the wolf is a distant ancester to ALL
>breeds of domestic dogs. Yes, even those obnoxious, little punt dogs.
>							   _________________

	i wholly agree with opinion #3, over developement has totally
raped this country and others, and unfortuantely there seems no end in
sight.  you mentioned people moving from california?....damn right, i
used to live there.  talk about over developement...when i moved to
the san diego area 10 years ago there was a large quantity of coastal
area undeveloped, but in the last decade everything had been built
upon.  first to go were the coyotes, then the rabbits, and finally the
rattle snakes.  it's a damn shame but it can't really be changed now,
we've f*cked it too much.  too bad the American Indians didn't kill
off the early settlers, at least the Indians had a clue as how to live
WITH the earth.  maybe someday we'll have national parks and
reservations to keep us humans in and let nature keep the rest....  
oh well.
				-jh
-- 
hjel@ellis.uchicago.edu        aka  Death Cmeptb jefe jefito
"...just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you...."
Disclaimer: the devil made me do it.               -Nirvana

In article <1992Dec22.090444.5273@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>
>In article: <1992Dec21.102613.3466@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>
>Steve White notes
>
>
>	People are moving into this area in droves (mostly from CA) 'cuz they
>	"like it here. It's so much more pleasant here." And I'm sure that it
>	is. But everytime someone else moves here it becomes more like where
>	they came from. (I am a hypocrite. I moved here 10 years ago from 
>
>You are absolutely right.  Of course if you were lived in this cesspool of
>a state you would want to move, too.  Trust me on this.
>The _only_ thing saving the rest of the nation at this point is that there
>are still a lot of native Californians (I'm a Georgia boy, so don't tar
>me with *that* brush) have never been anywhere and honestly don't
>know they are living in a slime pit.  In a smooth move of enlightened
>self-interest, I don't tell them anything different...
>
>bws, waiting to make a break for it
>
>
>--
>**************************************************************************
>bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
>brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
>**************************************************************************
>
>
	hey calif ain't THAT bad...move to northern california. at least they
have weather up there.  maybe in 10 more years after everyone moves OUT
of california it will get better.  but i still don't plan on going back.
						-jh


-- 
hjel@ellis.uchicago.edu        aka  Death Cmeptb jefe jefito
"...just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you...."
Disclaimer: the devil made me do it.               -Nirvana

In article <1993Jan4.084058.26527@doug.cae.wisc.edu> hjel@midway.uchicago.edu (Death-PartyCentral) writes:
>
>sight.  you mentioned people moving from california?....damn right, i
>used to live there.  talk about over developement...when i moved to
>the san diego area 10 years ago there was a large quantity of coastal
>area undeveloped, but in the last decade everything had been built
>upon.  first to go were the coyotes, then the rabbits, and finally the
>rattle snakes.  

They must have moved up to L.A.  (I often saw coyotes around the edges
of urban L.A. and in surrouding suburbs.  A small child was killed
some years back in Glendale by one.  A fellow studying urban-resident
coyotes in L.A. found two families resident in a single city block...)

You have to know where to look.  Coyote, jackrabbit, cottontail,
various reptiles all manage to adapt to quite a bit of urban
development...and if you were to fly low over the L.A. basin, you'd
find out why.  It *looks* like wall-to-wall concrete, but it's made up
of densely-built-up area separated by open/hilly land.  People don't
hang out down there where they can't drive, for the most part, so they
don't see *any* wildlife.

It's too built up for wolves, grizzlys (and me), but there's more around
than you might think.

Don't mean that I have to like it.

>too bad the American Indians didn't kill
>off the early settlers, at least the Indians had a clue as how to live
>WITH the earth.  

Right.

Like the mass buffalo hunts, driving them (and anything else on the
praries) by setting grass fires and collecting (some) of the meat at
the bottom of a local gully.

This is the sort of living with the land that explains why the
Mountain Bison, native horse and camel, and other critters weren't
around other than as fossils when the nasty europeans showed up.  (The
presence of (stone) knife marks on their bones gives a clue as to
their "natural" demise.)

The native americans weren't all *that* much more perfect than we are,
given equal opportunity.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|