..there is no social licence to deal with Wolves. It is a politicians nightmare. The finger pointing needs to be at the sentimental general public.
..there is no social licence to deal with Wolves. It is a politicians nightmare. The finger pointing needs to be at the sentimental general public.
It is well to try and journey ones road and to fight with the air.Man must die! At worst he can die a little sooner." (H Ryder Haggard)
There was a helicopter wolf removal in the SE, NE as well. Around 175 wolves in total I think? The bios most certainly do understand that to recover caribou the wolves need to be managed, and to the govt credit they put up some $ and some social capital to remove a number of packs that were eating caribou.
I prefer to see this method applied instead of reducing moose populations.
The researchers/managers/biologists and stakeholder committees all recommended wolf management.
The politicians didn't support it.
That was pushed down through the various levels of government, all the way down to the line managers.
You seem to blame your issues on biologists, or management as you call it, when in this case they are the ones who know the issues and solutions, but do not have the tools to implement them. The politicians have been holding this process up since the 1990s; the only reason wolf management is moving forward is because of SARA and some extremely heated meetings.
Hard to understand you blame this on biologists, when there isn't a shred of evidence that would support your claim. Not one.
Feel your posts are often misleading, untruthful, uninformed, or just blatant lies. You seem to make things up without evidence, and often what you say contradicts all of the evidence/data/paper trail/meeting minutes/briefings/inventory that is available, yet you state your 'opinion' as fact.
What kind of response do you expect from people when what you say cannot be substantiated or corroborated by a single piece of evidence? How do you expect people to react to what you say when everything they read, hear, see, from biologists, managers, researchers, committee members, stakeholders, experts, and everyone "involved" is not supported by what you say?
The world of alternate facts isn't one where a person gets a lot of mileage. If you're going to make things up, expect to get called on it.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela
Who has been using the Alternative prey studies and Line of Site defence Modes as a tool to counter the wolves, the Ministry or Biologist?
Its all about the science for sure and the politicians don't support the cull so do we continue watching things decline and add to it with shooting the moose and the white tails?
Is that all we have to go on?
Last edited by bownut; 03-04-2017 at 10:50 PM.
Lotsa pieces to the wildlife puzzle, but any plan that doesn't directly deal with preds, especially wolves(Aerial shooting, serious trapping and hopefully poison) is going to come up way short, if we're hoping to see results in our lifetime.
Suitable habitat, which plays a vital role in growing herds via fawn/calf recruitment, is obviously another critical piece. The "Line of Sight" that you're obviously hung up on is to further enhance survival chances in a reduced predator environment.
We went through this two weeks ago.
You seem to want to rehash your issues when the science/fact/evidence doesn't support your views. Instead of adding to the conversation you come up with a rhetorical question.
If you are going to make a decision without any of the evidence, then defend your position when none of the evidence supports your decision, having a conversation is pointless.
Decision-based evidence making and alternate facts make having a discussion nearly impossible. Despite the best science you will still come up with rhetoric every time because you are entrenched in your beliefs. You will say things like "it's all about the science", but when the science is 100% opposite of your pre-conceived opinion you will fire out a rhetorical question, blame "management nowadays", or blame some other nebulous agent. It's always someone else's fault, and despite having none of the evidence, your opinion in absence of any evidence is all that counts.
Going to have to add you to the special list.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela
Last edited by bownut; 03-05-2017 at 07:31 PM.
Horses can only be led to water....
If politicians nix any meaningful wolf reduction or fail to fund any recommendations, does the fall out from that "wisdom" get dumped on the bios who recommended it???
Wolf reduction has been recommended since the 90s. Politicians didn't support it. It's happening now because COSEWIC has recommended an endangered listing to SARA. If the critical habitat net drops it will mean huge changes for BC.
You're correct, seems sometimes the coffee shop dumps the fall-out on researchers. People have a habit of beating up on managers/researchers when the problem is political. Works well for politicians.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela