SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Start the chopper, it's time to become the top predator again:
By a largely party-line vote Tuesday, the Senate approved a bill that repeals Obama-era hunting restrictions on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. The House already voted last month to abolish those restrictions — which were instituted by the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] in 2016 to protect predator species from hunters — and so the bill now heads to the desk of President Trump, who is widely expected to sign it.
The FWS rule facing repeal explicitly prohibited many kinds of "predator control" on the 16 federally owned refuges in Alaska. That prohibition included a ban on the aerial hunting, live trapping or baiting of predators such as bears and wolves — as well as on killing those predators while near their dens or their cubs.
Alaska Rep. Don Young, the Republican sponsor of the bill passed Tuesday, says these restrictions represented federal overreach. "Not only does this action undermine Alaska's ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands," Young said, "it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 25 2017, @01:57PM (3 children)
It's possible that I overstated my position. Wildlife does wander into cities, and predatory wildlife most certainly considers young humans to be prey. For that matter, dogs seem to consider young and/or small humans to be prey from time to time.
But the post I responded to seemed to suggest that the wildlife poses a threat to man, collectively.
Not even polar bears or grizzlies pose a threat to competent, adult humans who understand nature, and arm themselves. They certainly don't pose a threat to a group of people who are prepared for the unexpected. Cattle manage to kill a few people every year, accidentally, or because the human goaded them, or even because soem individual was unaware that a bull could be dangerous. But, we don't consider cattle to be a threat to man. No one is calling for the eradicaiton of cattle, because a few people die in "cow attacks".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @06:42PM (2 children)
What is the point of the wilderness if I can't relax and enjoy it? We might as well clear it out for condos them.
I want to be able to walk along a trail without bear spray, without a gun, without a whistle, without banging pots, and without nervously peering down the trail to try to spot things like bear cubs.
I want to be able to sleep in a flimsy cloth tent, knowing that I won't wake to a bear eating off my face. I want to keep my food in the tent with me where it belongs, not in a heavy and expensive bear canister.
If I live in a rural area, I'd like to be able to walk out to my mailbox without fear that a pack of wolves might catch me before I get back inside. Note that most of us end up frail and slow; don't assume everybody is a large athlete.
I want to leave my kid playing out in the yard while I do things in the kitchen. My quality of life is lower if I can't turn my back for a moment.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 25 2017, @07:12PM (1 child)
God, there's so much to make fun off in your post.
First, the universe doesn't give the smallest damn what you would like. If you walk naked into bear territory, chances are, you'll meet a bear. And, if you do something to irritate that bear, you can expect to be mauled, maybe killed, and maybe even eaten. And, reality doesn't care how much of that you may like.
If you're so afraid of the wildlife, don't live where wildlife lives. Move into the city. Rural areas aren't for you - they are for people with a little more fortitude. And, don't EVEN consider the wilderness. You don't belong.
And, you privileged attitude. We hear all kinds of nonsense about "white privilege". Your sense of privilege is the mountain beside whitey's mole hill. You seem to think that you are entitled to the whole damned world, and no other creature on earth deserves the slightest consideration.
Quality of life? FFS - you don't really have a life, as far as I can tell. You live in fear, and you whine for better men and women than yourself to make the world safe for you.
I realize that you're not the knight in shining armor, but this seems appropriate. https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0518d15909ca8c598668a865217fbe10baa563-retina-thumbnail-large.jpg?v=3 [wimages.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @12:36AM
The bear doesn't give a damn. This is why the bear needs to go.
The city is differently awful. There I may be mauled or killed by the typical humans that inhabit cities. No thanks. I do happen to take the same attitude toward them: on at least the second offense, just kill them. There is something to be said for harsher measures, such as how North Korea and ancient China would punish the family, but I realize that the inaccuracy is troubling. If one family member is awful, the others probably are too, or at least pretty bad.
Animals don't deserve the slightest consideration, except to the extent that humans need them.
I do and I don't live in fear. I have nervously ventured into cities, even Miami and Atlanta, and I once lived in Boston. I have hiked in the redwood and sequoia forests. I even let my kids unicycle miles from home, though obviously in a peaceful small city. I'll take risks if the benefit is there... but I'd much prefer to get that benefit without the risks. I want to have my cake and eat it too, wandering everywhere without needing to even pay attention.
I'd say most people are actually more fearful in some ways. It is typical to NEVER venture out into the wilderness. It is typical to keep kids indoors, driving them if they need to go anywhere. I reject that. I take some risks... but life would be even better if we could fully enjoy it without the risks.