If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   It's official: Hipsters proclaim beekeeping OVER, hunting and fishing IN   (jezebel.com) divider line 300
    More: Ironic, urban centres, hipsters, fish  
•       •       •

5907 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:26 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



300 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 11:13:44 AM  

Hogmeister: Except he FAILS MISERABLY to back it up with any real evidence or even logic.


That has already been demonstrated.  The link is there for areas with high wolf populations.  What we are seeing now is that the wolf hunt is keeping the wolves out of the big game wintering areas and really helps winter survival.  In this case, it appears that both wolf and big game populations are stabilizing.  With the wolf hunt enacted, it looks like wolves and big game can exist in numbers that can many on both sides pretty happy.
 
2014-01-25 11:48:29 AM  

Gunny Highway: Do not DARE show interest in things lest you become a.......HIPSTER!

/


The difference between hipster interest and genuine interest is that hipsters need others to know about it.

If you can really enjoy kale, fixies, PBR, or raw-only cuisine in complete and private solitude, then that's not being a hipster.
 
2014-01-25 02:20:08 PM  

raygundan: I had hoped I was being obviously facetious... it's not that everybody is really a hipster, it's that there are so many definitions in wide use right now that everyone is a hipster to somebody.


Well, the problem with the idea of being "obviously facetious" is that you have to actually be joking about it and not trying to reiterate your flawed argument that either "everyone is a hipster" or "everyone is a hipster to somebody". In general terms, someone can be part of a particular subculture and can be easily identified by the commonalities they hold.

I'll give you video help for this one. Evolution of the Hipster - Glove and Boots

For example of my own, I consider myself a Goth, I wear clothes similar but not exactly the same to other Goths, I listen to music the same or similar to other Goths, and I usually either DJ or just patronize the clubs and venues that other Goths do. I have my own tastes in other things that could be considered "not Goth", as in not generally considered part of the subculture, but that doesn't prevent me from being more than likely identified as a member of the subculture. Here is the difference between (most) members of the Goth subculture and Hipsters, Goths may look and act similar to each other but individually we do it because we enjoy it for ourselves, we don't do it for an audience or to "show how Goth we are" (in fact that's why we dance inside a Goth club, to be in a place that is isolated but the night is designated to music we enjoy), and we don't act snooty or be a pretentious asshole to someone who isn't a Goth. This is in stark contrast to a Hipster who would be sitting down at a coffee shop (usually outside, for the audience) while listening to a vinyl record player that he brought headphones to listen to (That Hipster could have brought that coffee home to drink, it would make more sense than lugging around a vinyl player and records to listen to something on headphones!), while giving the evil eye to a person who walks into the coffee shop listening to their music from an MP3 player (I have a cheap Sony one myself :-P ) or portable CD walkman (I have one of those too :-P ). A Hipster will do things for show, act as if you aren't doing that thing similar to how they're doing it makes you either a "conformist" or "misinformed" even if they're doing it the wrong way, steal old ideas or (quite rarely) invent ideas of their own (like the Cronut) and support it until it becomes mainstream and then they disown that idea (even if they invented it) as "I did that before it was cool" (same show off attitude), and basically just be pretentious douchebags.

With the video above from Glove and Boots, they'll explain (and it's true from my personal experience) that the point of Hipsters is that they "refuse to conform" to anything and that *should* make them hard to identify, but inexplicably they all dress and act the exact same way! This will be shown as well as other annoying Hipster qualities, since I have already explained enough to show my viewpoint.
 
2014-01-25 02:22:51 PM  
trackerbri:

My Dad was put off hunting (used to hunt a ton as a kid) after he wounded a rabbit.  He never shot anything again after that.  I know guys that will only hunt rabbit with a shotgun just to avoid hearing that sound.  They'd rather pick around shot than risk wounding it.

Rabbits in distress sound an awful lot like a baby crying.

/I hunt turkey and deer mostly, when I can find the time.
//Had to find other people to teach me, Dad would have none of it.


My dad had the same experience and the same reaction.  Never hunted again.
 
2014-01-25 02:33:56 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: I have my own tastes in other things that could be considered "not Goth", as in not generally considered part of the subculture, but that doesn't prevent me from being more than likely identified as a member of the subculture.


One thing I forgot to mention, because I have tastes and interests considered "not part of the Goth subculture" (for example, one of my favorite bands is Hall and Oates, my favorite sport is hockey [go New Jersey Devils!], and my favorite television series is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine [as well as other Star Trek tv series and movies], as well as other things "not Goth"), that doesn't disown me from being a Goth nor will anyone (anyone I won't stomp down upon anyway) try to tell me that I am "Not Goth enough" because of my interests outside of the subculture.

A Hipster on the otherhand will disown those people (they might even try to "save" friends they have from going "Mainstream" if the joke on Portlandia is true about that Steampunk convention!) for not being "alternative" enough because they don't do things the way the Hipster is doing them at the time. What's worse is the fact that Hipsters take (steal or create) something and then disown that same something in such a rapid cycle that it is near impossible for an outsider to understand their reasoning other than, "a large amount of people are doing it, so now it's popular, so I must act like it's untouchable, because it's not 'alternative' anymore." It's annoying and I am hoping soon that Hipsterism will one day be considered OVER just like urban beekeeping has been (a joke by the submitter, but I am sure some will be abandoning it for hunting as it is now the "new thing").
 
2014-01-25 02:38:45 PM  

HeadLever: whidbey: He doesn't believe in climate change, either. I wouldn't sweat it.

citation needed.

Going to call BS on this one, liar.  Not hard to see why most consider you to be a partisan tool as truth doesn't matter much to you.


Right. Because accepting the overwhelming consensus of science= partisan hackery.

Dude, just give it a rest. We know you find environmentalists irritating along with other liberals. You don't have to go balls out.
 
2014-01-25 03:44:24 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: I AM, however, aware of studies showing the return of the wolf changing ungulate behavior, specifically, by keeping them from spending all their time in the nutritious riparian habitats, as they had been doing during the decades in which humans had eliminated predation pressures from wolves by, well, eliminating wolves.  Said riparian habitat suffered in biodiversity, erosion and overall quality, and these conditions began to improve almost immediately upon the re-introduction of the wolf.

That is true for places like Yellowstone park where elk were not hunted or where other elk populations were to high.  However, that was not necessarily the case everywhere throughout the intermountain west where they were reintroduced.


Riiiiight...  We'll just take your word for it, huh?  The word of the guy with clearly no financial stake in the matter.

Curious thing, those wolf population "management goals" - as I recall, they were set based more on what wildlife biologists could eke past the political pressures from livestock interests (and well-paid trophy hunting guides - like you, perhaps?), not on what wildlife biologists interested in wolf recovery and range land restoration actually believed was best.

No.  Wildlife biologist know the impact that wolves have on both game animals and livestock.  They knew conflict in these areas would be best handled by maintaining a small  population in these ares.  What the wildlife biologist were concerned about are things about dispersion and interbreeding.  This is not an issue with the state management plan and was the reason that the environmentalist challenge to removal from the ESA was overruled.


Oh, I have no doubt wildlife biologists know what they know.  If you were able to understand my comment, it went to the fact that science is almost never the lone or even leading guiding principle in these matters, and certainly wasn't when it came to setting population goals in wolf recovery, or delisting the wolves once they got a foothold.  If you're arguing that these decisions were made primarily based on recommendations by wolf biologists or range ecologists, you're either being disingenuous (likely), an idiot (still possible) or both (ding ding ding!!)

 I wonder how many more wolves the remaining habitat, much of it national forest land, could support if it wasn't for the welfare ranching done on it.

None in the areas here because ranching does not diminish big game populations


Wait, you're jk, ...right?  Say again?  Ranching does not diminish big game populations.  Hmmm...  I guess all that stuff about carrying capacity, erosion, increasing non-native grasses like cheatgrass, reducing biodiversity, etc., etc... all that's just made up by a bunch of, wait, who was it?  Oh, right, SCIENTISTS doing peer-reviewed work.  Here's just one example.  http://www.augustana.edu/x57074.xml  I'll assume you too can use Google, help yourself to the magnitude of research that disputes what you're spewing.  I'll concede that it's not a given, i.e. it's possible,in theory, for grazing to be done without negatively impacting biodiversity or, as you like to refer to them, big game animals.  But that's rarely the case when it comes to how things are actually done.

and that is the driver behind the state's goal to reduce some wolf populations.  The state's interest here is to maintain sports hunting for big game, which is the primary driver of their revenue.

Yes, thank you for re-stating my point.  The driver is not science, ecosystem management, or wolf recovery.  The driver, as always, is profit.

It's a damn shame ...
 
2014-01-25 04:18:17 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: As for the actual ecosystem management you profess to value, how ever did the whole thing not come crashing down without the ever-helpful European arrivals to help "manage" predator numbers?  Oh, that's right, it managed just fine.

Once sports hunting was adopted as the model and we got away from market and subsistence hunting, things have gotten along just fine.  You really know little of what you speak sir.


Umm, is there anything you'd like to say to back that up?  Was it sport hunting the native Americans were doing for roughly 100,000 years that brought about the bounty that Europeans found when they arrived here?  Oh, no, wait a minute, it was subsistence hunting.  Try harder.

I find it hard to believe that a predator that, for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, was the predominant apex predator in North America (in terms of it's impact on ungulates - neither mountain lions nor grizzlies came close), was subsequently wiped out in all but a few pockets (Isle Royal, Glaciar National Park, perhaps a few other spots in Montana, Idaho) in the continental United States, and has just recently, and at great expense, been re-established in a few western states, is suddenly not only not at risk, but over-populated.  As the kids say, nubian, please.  Their numbers are an infinitesimal fraction of what they once were, and while I understand they'll never achieve those numbers again as long as we're as bloated as we are, they're a long, long way from infringing on anything more serious than ranchers' sweatheart deals, and hunting guides' numbers.

Sorry dude, nature no longer exists in a vacuum.  Wildlife management is way beyond that 'natural balance' since current wildlife management for big game revolves around maintaining a robust big game population for hunting opportunity and revenues.  If you allow a natural balance between wolves and prey species, you will eliminate the ability to also hold hunting seasons for these same big game.


Okay, "Dude," once again, you're proving my point.  But first, I'll concede, because there is so little undeveloped, decent range land left, and because there are so many competing interests, yes, some management is required.  I never said it wasn't.

But you're just making my point when you use, as your argument, "...If you allow a natural balance between wolves and prey species, you will eliminate the ability to also hold hunting seasons for these same big game."  While that's undoubtedly overstated, I have no doubt killing fewer wolves would reduce opportunities for big game hunters.  Cry me a river.  If it comes down to wolf populations approaching a somewhat larger fraction of 1% of their former numbers, or giving better odds to some bozo that wants to fly in from LA and "bag some trophy elk," I'll choose the former every time, and I believe most Americans would as well, were they to understand the choice.

Look, I can respect unfettered self-interest - I don't agree with it,

What you don't understand is that the self interest runs much deeper than just me.  These big game seasons, tags, licenses are the main source of wildlife conservation funding.  This is the foundation of sports hunting, si ...


I have no doubt that you're just a tip of the self-interest iceberg... Dude.  And I do recognize that sport hunting is an important source of revenue for things that tree-huggers like me (who, btw, is also a hunter) value.  So?  Did I make some statement calling for the end to sport hunting?
 
2014-01-25 04:20:50 PM  

whidbey: Right. Because accepting the overwhelming consensus of science= partisan hackery.


Nope, accusing someone of something that you have no proof just because they disagree with you on something else is.  Don't move the goalpost.
 
2014-01-25 04:28:21 PM  

Hogmeister: Umm, is there anything you'd like to say to back that up?  Was it sport hunting the native Americans were doing for roughly 100,000 years that brought about the bounty that Europeans found when they arrived here?  Oh, no, wait a minute, it was subsistence hunting.  Try harder.


Already did.   Read this book.  Also you seem ignorant on what the native Americans did to this land.  Ever heard of the
Quaternary extinction event?  Might want to look that up while you are at it.  Haven't seem many giant ground sloths, mastodons or Mammoths around lately.  You?
 
2014-01-25 04:29:53 PM  
Ecological speaking in the the context of big game and predators, we are in a much better place today than we were at the turn of the century.  This is not debatable and for you to suggest otherwise shows how ignorant on the topic.

Yes, well, speaking of cherry picking...  when did I suggest that the turn of the century was some ecosystem management panacea?  You selected a specific time in history when our understanding of and appreciation for ecology and wilderness was at its nadir relative to our ability to destroy it.  Please, take your straw man home with you.  I'm not ignorant on the topic, but you seem to be consistently disingenuous.  Sign of a weak foundation of your argument, imo.  And I believe you mean to be saying "Ecologically..."

Predator numbers are kept in check by reproduction that's directly related to habitat quantity and quality, and prey availability

Only if you allow them to exist in a vacuum.  Again, this is notcurrently the case.
It's always about the money.If it was about the money, we would still be operating a market hunting system.  Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, I know you believe that, or wish it to be so, but you've yet to post anything to support your belief, or to refute what I'm saying.  Please, try harder.

p.s. oh, and about your butthurt over wolves causing elk population declines?  Here's a shocker - that's a bunch of b.s.  http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/06/study-wolves-not-c a use-wyoming-elk-declineAnd that is one small herd.  One cherry picked example does not make your overall point.  In fact, your assertion is easy to refute.  Remember, Wyoming wolf population is pretty isolated.

So you say. If it's so easy to refute, why have you failed to do so?  I've provided specific and peer-reviewed evidence to support my argument.  Where's yours?
 
2014-01-25 04:36:10 PM  

Hogmeister: it went to the fact that science is almost never the lone or even leading guiding principle in these matters, and certainly wasn't when it came to setting population goals in wolf recovery, or delisting the wolves once they got a foothold.


[citation needed]

If you're arguing that these decisions were made primarily based on recommendations by wolf biologists or range ecologists, you're either being disingenuous (likely), an idiot (still possible) or both (ding ding ding!!)

The decision was made with many stakeholders as there are many folks that this impacts.  The recommendations of the wildlife biologist were mostly in support of this consensus.  feel free to provide a citation where this is not the case.  Just be careful not to cite a biased source.

Ranching does not diminish big game populations.  Hmmm...  I guess all that stuff about carrying capacity, erosion, increasing non-native grasses like cheatgrass, reducing biodiversity, etc., etc... all that's just made up by a bunch of, wait, who was it?

Yep, there are negative impact, but there are also positive ones.  Private ranch lands will provide additional feed for big game herds during winter and fall.  Water projects will increase water storage and availability.  Big game loves salt licks put out by the ranchers.  Overall, I would argue that ranches actually increase the big game populations.  Feel free to provide a source saying otherwise.

ronreil.abana.org
 
2014-01-25 04:41:08 PM  

Hogmeister: But first, I'll concede, because there is so little undeveloped, decent range land left,


Let me guess, you have never been to the western US?

www.apeconmyth.com

That red portion is undeveloped public land owned by the federal government.  Private development is not allowed on any of it.   Much of it is decent or excellent rangeland so long as it is managed correctly.  The county I grew up in was 95% owned by the federal government.  You insinuation of parking lots and strip malls as far as the eye can see is completely wrong.
 
2014-01-25 04:43:25 PM  

Hogmeister: Here's just one example.


Yep, no one that I know suggest that overgrazing doesn't have impacts.  That is not my point and there are many regulations in place to prevent that from happening (fencing of riparian areas, stubble height requirements, rotations, etc).
 
2014-01-25 04:45:19 PM  
Sorry, don't have time to read a BOOK today, but I'll keep the reference in mind.  My citations are write-ups of studies aimed specifically at the topic at hand.  But thanks for hiding behind a tome you know I won't be able to read before this thread is shut down.

I did, however, read the article from The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation you linked, thanks.  Wasn't very insightful though.  There's no methodology offered because it wasn't a study or even a write-up of a study.  It was simply a restatement of elk population estimates from airal surveys, and the histrionic spoutings of the president of the foundation blaming wolves, without supporting evidence.  Example of his reasoned, unbiased assessment:

"The manipulation of this entire wolf restoration program into a "fundraising" tool has to be seen for what it is.  The insanity of this has to stop..."

So I just have to ask, Lever, is this what passes for sound reasoning and impartial judgement in your world?  Figures.

Me, I'll stick with studies using spelled-out methodologies, with conclusions published in peer-reviewed science journals.  You just stick with the redneck rantings of partisans with skin in the game.
 
2014-01-25 04:49:23 PM  

Hogmeister: Where's yours?


You alluded to this yourself when you mentioned that reduced elk number help to restore riparian habitats.  Or are you going to refute yourself now.  If you want a specific study, here is one:
 
2014-01-25 04:51:32 PM  

raygundan: See. Everyone is a hipster.

I... think that's the angriest way anyone has ever arrived at total agreement with me.


That was "GunnyHighway" agreeing with you, by the way (facetiously, I bet, did it better than you [I don't think you though, are being facetious, just defending Hipster behavior] though it still wasn't funny), not me.
 
2014-01-25 04:53:18 PM  

Hogmeister: Sorry, don't have time to read a BOOK today, but I'll keep the reference in mind.  My citations are write-ups of studies aimed specifically at the topic at hand.  But thanks for hiding behind a tome you know I won't be able to read before this thread is shut down.


Here is a decent article on the topic
 
2014-01-25 04:56:08 PM  

Hogmeister: Me, I'll stick with studies using spelled-out methodologies, with conclusions published in peer-reviewed science journals.


What is interesting is that you move your early argument from lauding the fact that wolves control elk so that riparian areas can recover into one that resist any narrative that wolves cause impacts to big game populations.

It sounds like you want your cake and eat it as well.
 
2014-01-25 05:02:48 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Umm, is there anything you'd like to say to back that up?  Was it sport hunting the native Americans were doing for roughly 100,000 years that brought about the bounty that Europeans found when they arrived here?  Oh, no, wait a minute, it was subsistence hunting.  Try harder.

Already did.   Read this book.  Also you seem ignorant on what the native Americans did to this land.  Ever heard of the
Quaternary extinction event?  Might want to look that up while you are at it.  Haven't seem many giant ground sloths, mastodons or Mammoths around lately.  You?


Now, here's a point I find interesting.  I have heard of those extinction events (though they are dwarfed by the global extinction event we're currently in, and the first one we're aware of caused exclusively by one of the planet's inhabitants - but wait, we MANAGE stuff for the benefit of the planet, right?!?)

You seem to regard these extinctions as proven to have been caused by paleolithic hunting, while that is not at all the case.  Many believe this to be so, and I count myself among them (or at least I believe said hunting was a primary contributing factor), but it's far from a consensus.  Funny, you seem quite ready to accept as fact a mere theory proposed by many scientists - I'm assuming you feel the same about the overwhelming consensus of climatologists with regard to man's contribution to climate change?  But I digress...)

I actually believe it was these extinctions that led to such a strong ecosystem management ethos among early native Americans.  In a sense, I believe these populations learned, as their ability to decimate prey species improved, that they would need to curtail their hunting.  True, this conclusion was arrived at too late for many species, but the extinctions had also ended long before Europeans arrived.

We, assuming you're not Native, and I'm betting you're not, on the other hand, come from a long history of farking up our ecosystems, and then simply moving on, to the "new frontier".  But all this is simply my conjecture.

To our argument, I certainly don't believe native Americans had no impact on the land - I know they did.  But for you to suggest their impact on biodiversity or overall non-human biomass was anything close to approaching the genocide we're impacting on the biosphere today, ...well, to coin your phrase, "shows how ignorant you are on the topic (although you failed to add "you" - details)."
 
2014-01-25 05:13:14 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: it went to the fact that science is almost never the lone or even leading guiding principle in these matters, and certainly wasn't when it came to setting population goals in wolf recovery, or delisting the wolves once they got a foothold.

[citation needed]

If you're arguing that these decisions were made primarily based on recommendations by wolf biologists or range ecologists, you're either being disingenuous (likely), an idiot (still possible) or both (ding ding ding!!)

The decision was made with many stakeholders as there are many folks that this impacts.  The recommendations of the wildlife biologist were mostly in support of this consensus.  feel free to provide a citation where this is not the case.  Just be careful not to cite a biased source.


Omg Head, I owe you.  You're providing some much-needed entertainment on a dreary Saturday.  So, you're saying I should just stick to unbiased sources like, say, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?!?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Ranching does not diminish big game populations.  Hmmm...  I guess all that stuff about carrying capacity, erosion, increasing non-native grasses like cheatgrass, reducing biodiversity, etc., etc... all that's just made up by a bunch of, wait, who was it?

Yep, there are negative impact, but there are also positive ones.  Private ranch lands will provide additional feed for big game herds during winter and fall.


You mean when they're not indiscriminately KILLING them over fear they'll spread diseases like Brucellosis, originally spread to wild bison by cattle?  Like that you mean?  http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/factsheets/brucellosisfacts.html

Water projects will increase water storage and availability.  Big game loves salt licks put out by the ranchers.  Overall, I would argue that ranches actually increase the big game populations.  Feel free to provide a source saying otherwise.

Just did.  But no doubt, ranching practices have improved, in large part due to the efforts of those whacko tree-huggers that use things like, oh, idk, SCIENCE to help advise ranchers.
 
2014-01-25 05:15:56 PM  
Here are a few more references to studies linking the two

1
2
3


Of course, now that management of wolves is part of overall state wildlife methodology, it will be interesting to see where this goes.  I really think that we will see a stabilization of both populations that bodes well for everyone, except those that have a hidden agenda.
 
2014-01-25 05:17:12 PM  

Hogmeister: but wait, we MANAGE stuff for the benefit of the planet, right


We only manage what is located here.  The folks in Africa and Asia don't really pay much attention to us.
 
2014-01-25 05:20:30 PM  

Hogmeister: So, you're saying I should just stick to unbiased sources like, say, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?!?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!


There are no unbiased sources in this discussion.  Hence the term 'stakeholder'.
 
2014-01-25 05:23:35 PM  

Hogmeister: You mean when they're not indiscriminately KILLING them over fear they'll spread diseases like Brucellosis, originally spread to wild bison by cattle?


Bison is outside the context of big game with respect to management.  They are a wee bit different than the deer/elk/moose I have been talking about.
 
2014-01-25 05:25:58 PM  

Hogmeister: Just did.


Again, no.  Try coming up with something other than Bison.
 
2014-01-25 05:31:45 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Here's just one example.

Yep, no one that I know suggest that overgrazing doesn't have impacts.  That is not my point and there are many regulations in place to prevent that from happening (fencing of riparian areas, stubble height requirements, rotations, etc).


Hmmm, and which side of the argument over those regulations that are now helping to limit grazing's environmental impacts do you suppose the ranchers were on?  And which side to you suppose proposed them?

btw, I lived for 17 years in western states, not that that has anything to do with it.
 
2014-01-25 05:36:29 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Where's yours?

You alluded to this yourself when you mentioned that reduced elk number help to restore riparian habitats.  Or are you going to refute yourself now.  If you want a specific study, here is one:


Wow, dude, please read harder.  I never said reduced elk numbers helped restore riparian habitat, although I suppose that would happen if the elk were in numbers beyond the habitat's carrying capacity.  What I said was that the wolves pressure changed elk behavior, specifically by keeping them from spending all their time in riparian areas.

Please, if you're going to try to use my arguments against me, at least get my arguments right.
 
2014-01-25 05:38:02 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Where's yours?

You alluded to this yourself when you mentioned that reduced elk number help to restore riparian habitats.  Or are you going to refute yourself now.  If you want a specific study, here is one:


The study to which you link is from 2009.  The study I linked, which refuted that argument, was published last year.  Please keep up.
 
2014-01-25 05:39:00 PM  

Hogmeister: Hmmm, and which side of the argument over those regulations that are now helping to limit grazing's environmental impacts do you suppose the ranchers were on?  And which side to you suppose proposed them?


It depends upon the specific regulation.  Many ranchers can see the benefit of keeping the rangeland healthy.  It is oftentimes within their best interest to pay attention to the scientific studies as it also help them to maximize utilization while maintain rangeland health.


Tying to break this into a us vs them argument is laughable.

btw, I lived for 17 years in western states, not that that has anything to do with it.

Then you should know better, assuming that you have been paying attention.
 
2014-01-25 05:44:10 PM  

Hogmeister: he study to which you link is from 2009.  The study I linked, which refuted that argument, was published last year.  Please keep up.


Date does not matter as your more recent study does not address the dynamics of the 2009 study (it is a different population).  They both are not mutually exclusive.  Also, recognize that the 2009 study was complete prior to delisting, while the 2013 study was 2 or so years into state management.
 
2014-01-25 05:44:57 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Sorry, don't have time to read a BOOK today, but I'll keep the reference in mind.  My citations are write-ups of studies aimed specifically at the topic at hand.  But thanks for hiding behind a tome you know I won't be able to read before this thread is shut down.

Here is a decent article on the topic


Uh... okaaay.  What, exactly, does an article titled, "The Importance of the Hunter Education Program to the Development of Ethical Literacy Among the Hunting Community" add to this discussion, and how does it bolster your point?

Please keep in mind that I am not anti-hunting.  Nor do I suggest that some environmental barometers haven't improved since the turn of the century.  Honestly, I don't see the relevance of this link, though it was interesting reading about hunters unable to distinguish between an elk and a lamma...or a person, so thank for that.
 
2014-01-25 05:56:49 PM  

HeadLever: whidbey: Right. Because accepting the overwhelming consensus of science= partisan hackery.

Nope, accusing someone of something that you have no proof just because they disagree with you on something else is.  Don't move the goalpost.


Because climate change is such a partisan-driven topic.

Dude, your overall worldview of environmentalism consists of nearly every anti-environmentalist talking point. You've had your ass handed here by actual science several times, so I would bet my left nut that you think climate change awareness= government takeover and redistribution of wealth.
 
2014-01-25 05:59:08 PM  

Hogmeister: h... okaaay.  What, exactly, does an article titled


Dude, If you can't make it past the title, I really can't help much.
 
2014-01-25 05:59:29 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Me, I'll stick with studies using spelled-out methodologies, with conclusions published in peer-reviewed science journals.

What is interesting is that you move your early argument from lauding the fact that wolves control elk so that riparian areas can recover into one that resist any narrative that wolves cause impacts to big game populations.

It sounds like you want your cake and eat it as well.


Noooo, again, you mischaracterize my point.  I have no doubt that wolves impact big game in general, and elk specifically, although I believe that impact is greater on behavior than overall numbers, but that's really unimportant to my point.  And yes, I do laud their impact, because it's an example of the restorative power of nature if humans give it half a chance.

But please to show me where I "resist any narrative that wolves cause impacts to big game populations".  I celebrate their impact, and don't lose a wink of sleep because some trophy hunter misses out on removing a healthy, prime-of-life bull to mount on his/her wall.

From the Outdoor Life article I referenced earlier (you know, the one from 2013 based on a study that refutes the findings in the study you referenced from four years earlier?):

Ron Lineberger owns Butte Creek Outfitters with his wife Theresa and guides elk hunters in the Wyoming backcountry. Over the years he's seen elk behavior change, and in many ways his observations match Middleton's research.

"Elk behavior has totally changed, but the elk are not gone. Everyone loves to blame the wolf because it's easy ... [Wolves] did change the dynamic for the environment and they've changed the way a lot of animals have evolved. It has led to a bit of catastrophic natural adaptation...

"There has been a succession of fires, which destroyed natural elk habitat. Grizzly bear numbers have gone up and the elk have moved to survive. They have moved to more agricultural and human habitat areas. It's not just the wolf that's caused the change. People just look to put the blame on one thing. Yes, elk have moved to areas that haven't seen elk for 200 years. But there are large portions of healthy elk populations that have moved to private land, which makes them unhuntable ... Think of it this way: the elk are picking their poison. Either deal with hunters in the low country for 6 weeks, or stay in the high country and deal with wolves and bears year round."

The takeaway? Adapting to environmental changes is key to the success of a species, and an elk hunter.
"The hunter has to adapt as well," Lineberger says. "Hunting elk also relies on a lot of factors that we have no control over. The fact that they have become more alert thanks to the wolves, certainly makes it tougher, but hunters must adapt to that. We are no different than any other animal. We must adapt to survive."

That's how I feel.
 
2014-01-25 06:01:46 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: but wait, we MANAGE stuff for the benefit of the planet, right

We only manage what is located here.  The folks in Africa and Asia don't really pay much attention to us.


I see.  So we in the industrialized western world are living in a sustainable, eco-friendly manner.  Good to know.
 
2014-01-25 06:03:44 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: So, you're saying I should just stick to unbiased sources like, say, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?!?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

There are no unbiased sources in this discussion.  Hence the term 'stakeholder'.


Wait, NOW who's moving the goal posts?  You just warned me not to use biased sources (which I hadn't - only peer-reviewed studies, unlike your citation from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation).  Now there "are no unbiased sources"?

Please make up your mind, you're hurting my head!
 
2014-01-25 06:05:39 PM  

Hogmeister: Now there "are no unbiased sources"?


Of course not. Scientists are being paid off by Big Wolf. That's his whole point.
 
2014-01-25 06:06:02 PM  

whidbey: Because climate change is such a partisan-driven topic.


It can be, but that does not preclude individual variations.

Dude, your overall worldview of environmentalism consists of nearly every anti-environmentalist talking point.

Then I'll add 'paying attention' to the list of things you don't do very well.I am very much against the wackos that subvert the movement for their own political gain, but I'll continue to adhere to science where it leads.

You've had your ass handed here by actual science several times,

Again, [citation needed].  Since you have yet to provide any backup on your earlier assertion, I won't be holding my breath.
 
2014-01-25 06:10:00 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: You mean when they're not indiscriminately KILLING them over fear they'll spread diseases like Brucellosis, originally spread to wild bison by cattle?

Bison is outside the context of big game with respect to management.  They are a wee bit different than the deer/elk/moose I have been talking about.


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that, in this discussion of wolf killing to the benefit of everyone, we had to stick to your definition of "big game," a term you introduced to this discussion in the first place.  And you accuse ME of cherry-picking?

For those of us living in the real world, these things are all inter-connected.  Wolf hunts, elk hunting, bison, which, last time I checked, ARE a big game species in terms of being hunted, and do have range land resource needs and impacts, are all part of range land management.

Now you want to disregard them from the discussion because it doesn't conveniently support your argument that ranching helps big game numbers?  Please, you're smarter than that... right?

In any case, I'm pretty sure that ranchers' cattle introducing Brucellosis to wild bison, then killing any bison that wander off national park land for fear of them returning the favor to the cattle, does not improve bison (which are big game) numbers.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:10 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: h... okaaay.  What, exactly, does an article titled

Dude, If you can't make it past the title, I really can't help much.


If you're so confident the article on hunters' ethics so clearly supports your argument, don't hide behind a link to a lengthy tomb, spell it out.  I looked for anything relevant, found nada.  Keep trying.
 
2014-01-25 06:12:34 PM  

HeadLever: Again, [citation needed].


Dude, just stop it. Three words into your "evidence" about the "real truth about wolves" and anyone can recognize it as debunked bullshiat.

At the very least, the honorable thing to do would be to concede that you're wrong about some of what you're stubbornly adhering to.

Then I'll add 'paying attention' to the list of things you don't do very well.I am very much against the wackos that subvert the movement for their own political gain, but I'll continue to adhere to science where it leads.

The only "whackos" subverting the movement are Republicans and other entrenched social conservatives like you.

So just to clarify: you really DO believe that mankind is adversely affecting global climate change?

Yes or no? If you answer with one of those two words, I swear I will leave you alone

For now.
 
2014-01-25 06:13:35 PM  

Hogmeister: That's how I feel.


That is fine, but that is not the case everywhere.  In some areas, the elk populations are so low as there has been significant reductions in opportunity to hunt in the way of slashed tags and in some circumstances, entire hunts cancelled.  In essence, there are still elk, but they are in trouble enough as to limit human hunting.

That not only hurts those that want to hunt, but the revenue of the states.  Idaho did a study that showed that wolves cost the state upwards of 24 million per year.  here is your source
 
2014-01-25 06:37:13 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: That's how I feel.

That is fine, but that is not the case everywhere.  In some areas, the elk populations are so low as there has been significant reductions in opportunity to hunt in the way of slashed tags and in some circumstances, entire hunts cancelled.  In essence, there are still elk, but they are in trouble enough as to limit human hunting.

That not only hurts those that want to hunt, but the revenue of the states.  Idaho did a study that showed that wolves cost the state upwards of 24 million per year.  here is your source


Ya know, I'm not gonna bother to check out that link from the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, because I have no doubt it says basically what you say it says.  And since Idaho lawmakers have always been such a pantheon of reasoned, rational policy where wolf restoration and management is concerned (oh, shoot, just shot milk outta my nose @ that one!), I'll also just assume that they didn't just blame elk declines on wolves because it's easy and fits perfectly into the anti-wolf narrative they've been espousing since before reintroduction was even proposed.

I'll also assume that that study completely covered things like current and future revenue stream increases from ecotourism, how to make up for supposedly lost revenue supposedly from wolf predation, or things like that.

Orrrr, I could site this, http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm , which concludes a $35 million net, and a $70 million increase to the tri-state area when the "multiplier" effect of the money turning over to secondary businesses is factored in.  Now, to be fair, your study concerns Idaho, while mine looks at the Yellowstone region (tri-state), so it is apples to oranges.  But my point is, these economic impact studies can say almost whatever one wants, based on what constitutes the inputs, costs, etc...

But again, even if I were to concede that wolves = reduced trophy hunting opportunities, and even reduced revenues from hunting, hey, if that's the price for restoring wolves, I'm okay with that.  Yes, I realize that this could result in reduced funding for conservation efforts, but as you pointed out, these things do not exist in a vacuum, and lost revenue streams in one place (like hunting tags) means other opportunities elsewhere (folks are more willing to pay to see predator/prey interactions than they are elk standing around).

Your argument reminds me of so many anti-regulation, anti-environmentalists that argue costs prohibiatchange.  It's such an unimaginative argument that gives us, as humans, so little credit in our ability to adapt and be creative.
 
2014-01-25 06:46:13 PM  
Now, I've really gotta run.  This, I really hope, will be my last post on this thread.

Just wanted to say that I never imagined I'd change your mind.  I just imagined that there are folks reading this thread that maybe aren't so sure where they come down on this issue, and hoped to show why I believe what I believe, and why your beliefs are what they are.  And of course I'm hoping they'll side with me.  Because I'm right.

But please declare victory and assume my lack of further replies is evidence of such, and enjoy killing apex predators because "management".

Now go home and get your shine box.
 
2014-01-25 07:05:34 PM  

Hogmeister: Ya know, I'm not gonna bother to check out that link from the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, because I have no doubt it says basically what you say it says.  And since Idaho lawmakers have always been such a pantheon of reasoned, rational policy where wolf restoration and management is concerned (oh, shoot, just shot milk outta my nose @ that one!), I'll also just assume that they didn't just blame elk declines on wolves because it's easy and fits perfectly into the anti-wolf narrative they've been espousing since before reintroduction was even proposed.


Dude, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalala on my sources and yet espouse the virtue of your cherry picked studies, then I guess we are done here.

Orrrr, I could site this,  http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm , which concludes a $35 million net, and a $70 million increase to the tri-state area when the "multiplier" effect of the money turning over to secondary businesses is factored in.

So you don't listen to one 'biased' source and then post a biased source of your own.  Ok dude, you are off your rocker, especially since that study is not mutually exclusive with mine.

But again, even if I were to concede that wolves = reduced trophy hunting opportunities, and even reduced revenues from hunting, hey, if that's the price for restoring wolves, I'm okay with that.

You are not even understanding my point.  There is no indication that we cannot have just that so long as wolves continue to be managed.  The issue here is the treating them separate from standard wildlife management practices.

It's such an unimaginative argument that gives us, as humans, so little credit in our ability to adapt and be creative.

On the contrary, my argument recognize the success that sports hunting has produced.  The ability to accept change in wildlife management techniques seems to be resisted by your argument more than mine.
 
2014-01-25 07:47:12 PM  

HeadLever: Hogmeister: Ya know, I'm not gonna bother to check out that link from the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, because I have no doubt it says basically what you say it says.  And since Idaho lawmakers have always been such a pantheon of reasoned, rational policy where wolf restoration and management is concerned (oh, shoot, just shot milk outta my nose @ that one!), I'll also just assume that they didn't just blame elk declines on wolves because it's easy and fits perfectly into the anti-wolf narrative they've been espousing since before reintroduction was even proposed.

Dude, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalala on my sources and yet espouse the virtue of your cherry picked studies, then I guess we are done here.


Nope, see below.  I didn't ignore, just considered the source.  And later, once I did look at it, the date and basis (a 1994 study - dude, that TWENTY YEARS OLD!) and extrapolated from there.  That's some fine investigatory work ya did there!

Orrrr, I could site this,  http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm , which concludes a $35 million net, and a $70 million increase to the tri-state area when the "multiplier" effect of the money turning over to secondary businesses is factored in.

So you don't listen to one 'biased' source and then post a biased source of your own.  Ok dude, you are off your rocker, especially since that study is not mutually exclusive with mine.


Wait, according to you, they're ALL biased, so... could you kindly stick to the rules you set up yourself?

But again, even if I were to concede that wolves = reduced trophy hunting opportunities, and even reduced revenues from hunting, hey, if that's the price for restoring wolves, I'm okay with that.

You are not even understanding my point.


Perhaps that's because it's unintelligible and/or keeps changing.

There is no indication that we cannot have just that so long as wolves continue to be managed.  The issue here is the treating them separate from standard wildlife management practices.

So you're conceding that the reason to kill wolves is to preserve opportunities for trophy hunting, right?  Just want to be clear.  Wonder how that would fair if put up to a national referendum, or better yet, left up to conservation biologists, since trophy hunters (you keep on calling them "big game hunters" if it makes you feel better though) use a targeting criteria diametrically opposed to natural predation.

It's such an unimaginative argument that gives us, as humans, so little credit in our ability to adapt and be creative.

On the contrary, my argument recognize the success that sports hunting has produced.  The ability to accept change in wildlife management techniques seems to be resisted by your argument more than mine.


What change in wildlife management techniques am I resisting exactly?  Sports hunting is improving the lot of sport hunters, I accept that.  I just don't believe sport hunting should trump efforts to restore wolves to more of their historic range, or limit their numbers.  I'll admit, I put a higher priority on restoration efforts and letting predator/prey numbers find their own balance than I do on preserving trophy hunting opportunities or income for folks (like yourself I suspect) that cater to them.

Okay, I lied - I couldn't resist looking at your cited study on economic impact of wolves.  Once I did, I couldn't resist posting again.  Com'on dude, is this the best you can do?

"The report relies heavily on a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and then extrapolates those numbers."  Wow, that sounds accurate... and current.

"The report released earlier this week was requested by Sen. Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow, who earlier this month sponsored a bill - approved 31-1 in the Senate - to give the state's wolves to the rest of the country."  Perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable.
 
2014-01-25 11:58:49 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: someone can be part of a particular subculture and can be easily identified by the commonalities they hold.


Agreed... but nobody agrees on what a hipster is.  Your definition-- namely that they're a bunch of sods who do stuff just to be seen doing it-- is a common one, and is closest to the way I use it.  But the one I hear almost as frequently as that is that they're people obsessed with a particular weird hobby or subculture beyond caring what anyone thinks of them.  Almost the complete opposite, and those are the two common ones.  In third place is "those kids in skinny jeans with thick glasses," which is about as tangent as it is possible to be to the axis the first two are on.

I would never argue that we can't use your definition as a way to reliably group people-- but people are using the word like six different ways in this thread alone.  That's the problem that drives me nuts with it.  Not that you can't use the word "hipster" to group people.  Just that unless you take the time to explain your definition like you just did, the term is utterly, totally worthless as a descriptive or grouping term because it means so many things to so many different people, and will end up including everybody if we take everybody's spin on it into account.
 
2014-01-26 12:47:54 AM  

raygundan: DarkSoulNoHope: someone can be part of a particular subculture and can be easily identified by the commonalities they hold.

Agreed... but nobody agrees on what a hipster is.  Your definition-- namely that they're a bunch of sods who do stuff just to be seen doing it-- is a common one, and is closest to the way I use it.  But the one I hear almost as frequently as that is that they're people obsessed with a particular weird hobby or subculture beyond caring what anyone thinks of them.  Almost the complete opposite, and those are the two common ones.  In third place is "those kids in skinny jeans with thick glasses," which is about as tangent as it is possible to be to the axis the first two are on.

I would never argue that we can't use your definition as a way to reliably group people-- but people are using the word like six different ways in this thread alone.  That's the problem that drives me nuts with it.  Not that you can't use the word "hipster" to group people.  Just that unless you take the time to explain your definition like you just did, the term is utterly, totally worthless as a descriptive or grouping term because it means so many things to so many different people, and will end up including everybody if we take everybody's spin on it into account.


The problem is is that you are attempting to diverse the term from it's actual meaning, almost to the point of defense of Hipsters themselves. Such as, those three qualities you claim are separate are all actually mixed together and I have not heard anyone myself who have misconstrued it, except for people who seem to defend Hipsters or just people who claim that "Hipster is not a real term." in one way or another. To your second point, "they are people obsessed with a particular weird hobby or subculture beyond what anyone caring what they think of them" is incorrect assumption. It is people who are obsessed with doing an obscure activity, either something old and outdated (such as writing on a typewriter, next to the guy with the vinyl record player, outside of the coffee shop!), stealing from another subculture (there are supposed "Hipster Goths" now, who have never listened to Goth music! ick), or (rarely) inventing some idea or activity themselves that they will pretend they don't care what anyone thinks of them doing it, but really they do it to for show and will care what others think of them doing it, especially when others see the Hipsters do it (if they find the thing is fun and easy to do) and then that same Hipster disowns the now popular activity.

I will not stop using the term "Hipster" to describe: *an annoying group of pretentious assholes who do obscure activities (from other subcultures, old and forgotten activities or ideas, and/or invented ideas) for the purpose of gaining an audience of others, until that activity has become popularized, which it's then disowned by those people who strangely enough dress and act in very similar ways (making it easy to point out who these asshole Hipster people are)* : simply because it has become a "popular term" and (to you, as you claim, I myself haven't heard it been misconstrued yet) supposedly misdirected towards people who don't fit the definition of "Hipster" as I understand it (and many others do).
 
2014-01-26 12:58:19 AM  

whidbey: HeadLever: Again, [citation needed].

Dude, just stop it. Three words into your "evidence" about the "real truth about wolves" and anyone can recognize it as debunked bullshiat.

At the very least, the honorable thing to do would be to concede that you're wrong about some of what you're stubbornly adhering to.

Then I'll add 'paying attention' to the list of things you don't do very well.I am very much against the wackos that subvert the movement for their own political gain, but I'll continue to adhere to science where it leads.

The only "whackos" subverting the movement are Republicans and other entrenched social conservatives like you.

So just to clarify: you really DO believe that mankind is adversely affecting global climate change?

Yes or no? If you answer with one of those two words, I swear I will leave you alone

For now.


*Crickets*

just like I expected. Funny how the one honest question being asked goes unanswered. It's just too big of a coincidence.
 
Displayed 50 of 300 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report