Utah Wildlife Forum banner

101 - 107 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Human's are amazing, aren't we?

When we have a problem we can't solve we make up a cause we can't see or explain.

Some times you can dry up the puss in your nose by is just wasting the biology off your hands.

While your all sniffing dirt and filtering air, we'll keep wacking the known biology. When you lock down a cure for cancer, you'll have no problem finding buyers. More power to ya! I'm cheering for you, in the mean time, if you'll let us, we'll try ta shoo a few flies out a'the barn.
Not only can we see the causes, we can explain them. People fear the known, more than they fear the unknown. That's why they make up things, that don't exist. It is quite easy to hold dominion over that which does not exist, and that you yourself have created.

You should probably change "known biology" to currently accepted Bull ****. Because with regard to mule deer declines, over the last 30 years, there is no biological basis, to support predator control, as a means to increase deer numbers. It has been tried, and it is still being tried. And that trend line is still pointed down, regardless of any snap shot of the present.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
It's not my intent to offend you LT.

You said:

"Not only can we see the causes, we can explain them."

I believe you can LT. Are there any in the know that care to do that?

Knowing and correctly explaining the cause is a tremendous break through, but developing the solution has pretty far reaching consequence too, don't you agree?

Do you and others know the solution?

Knowing the solution would be worth a lot of heavy lifting satisfaction......or revenue recovery, which ever is more important to the group with the assets.

In as much as sharing the knowledge, the more that know can more quickly tip the decision makers in your favor, according to the mob mentality success theory.

After these many years, is holding back, for any reason, a wise choice? Couldn't wildlife benefit now? Why do those that have the cause/solution choose not to be more forthcoming? Do they dislike the system and sportsmen more than they want to benefit wildlife?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Your last sentence is telling, because that seems to be the perception from some folks. And no, that is not the case at all. When they offer up help, to "the system", they are received with disdain. We are not talking about people like me, that jump on desks. We are talking about people that have dedicated their lives and careers to wildlife. It is the current system that is hostile, not those working on behalf of wildlife. Simple fact, is that the current political structure, and wildlife market, has been shown to be incapable of implementing, or even looking at management that is scientifically sound. This goes back a very long ways. The great strides that were made in wildlife conservation, in the first part of the 20th century, were made hand in hand with hunters, wildlife managers, and those driving the sound scientific understanding, that gave us a foundation from which to manage from. If you start with guys like Roosevelt and Muir, and work your way through to guys like Leopold, and Muirie, there was a lot that was learned and accomplished. The works that were produced through the 50s and 60s, would be very hard to rival today. None of it was done for monetary gain, it was done, because it needed to be done. The last 30 years has not seen that kind of work, or gains, with regard to wildlife, even with all the technological advances of GPS collars, an VITs. And especially not with all the monetization of wildlife.

Lots of people know the problems, lots of people have solutions. But everyone has their own little corner of the world and specialty, which makes seeing the big picture difficult. Same with big solutions.

Solutions: The Big one, Quit toxifying the environment that we, and the wildlife live in. Very big undertaking, yes. Not doable in any quick sense. But ultimately, before it is us too, we have to do something. So, first we must acknowledge these bigger problems, and how they are driving wildlife declines, and destroying hunting. With that acknowledgement, and the acknowledgement, that there are no quick fixes, we have to get down to the details of things. Are there specific substances, or practices that are causing a greater affect than others? etc. As we dig into things and better understand the particular dynamics, and how they directly and/or indirectly affect wildlife, we can then formulate shorter term management, that takes the big picture into account, while we work on the larger, long term solutions. Is it big? Yeah, but big is kind of an American, specifically Western thing. We are fully capable of it.

It is only the West, its wildlife, and our hunting at stake......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
No argument from me about the need for improvement.

You must be encouraged, to some degree?

I've seen the air quality improve, not enough, but better than when we all burned coal, in the 20's through the 90's. Still do, but less. I see less toxic dumping in water sheds, cleaned streams, rivers and lakes. No enough but better. I see less emissions from factories and vehicles. Not enough but better. I see better agriculture practices, not perfect but better. Better timbering practices. Less mine tailing issues. And so forth. Not fast enough for you and I, but better. You learn more, you share more, you push more, you move more.

If I can use some short term, temporary measures, to preserve wildlife for the hunting and fishing lifestyle, while those that know how to correct more long term problems, we should. I don't see that as dangerous, misguided, or wrong. I figure it helps keep the fires burning and promotes a desire to work on more complex problems. If we can't grow them and hunt them, who's going to be interested in investing in them, over this long haul you've identified?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
No argument from me about the need for improvement.

You must be encouraged, to some degree?

I've seen the air quality improve, not enough, but better than when we all burned coal, in the 20's through the 90's. Still do, but less. I see less toxic dumping in water sheds, cleaned streams, rivers and lakes. No enough but better. I see less emissions from factories and vehicles. Not enough but better. I see better agriculture practices, not perfect but better. Better timbering practices. Less mine tailing issues. And so forth. Not fast enough for you and I, but better. You learn more, you share more, you push more, you move more.

If I can use some short term, temporary measures, to preserve wildlife for the hunting and fishing lifestyle, while those that know how to correct more long term problems, we should. I don't see that as dangerous, misguided, or wrong. I figure it helps keep the fires burning and promotes a desire to work on more complex problems. If we can't grow them and hunt them, who's going to be interested in investing in them, over this long haul you've identified?
I don't know where you got your numbers, but we have burned more coal in the 30 years, than all previous decades combined, we just don't burn it at home. Utah had the highest air pollution in the nation in 2012.

Again, on this front, we made a lot of strides through the 50s. 60s, and '70s, and then abandoned much of it, over the last 30 years. Think there is some correlation?

As for investment, it is long past the point where we could have invested in this. This has become a debt management problem, and the current solution seems to be to pay off one credit card with another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,002 Posts
I didn't take the time to read out this entire long drawn out thread/argument…so, I apologize up front if this question has been answered. BUT,….just out of curiosity, has any of the research/talk/discussion on the Monroe talked about the acreage of land where the habitat work has been done comparing the north end to the south end and looked at the correlations/implications this might have on increased/decreased predation as it relates to coyotes? My guess is that there has not been….but, shouldn't there be?
 
101 - 107 of 107 Posts
Top