Post by: WapitiTalk1 on May 23, 2018, 03:05:49 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on May 23, 2018, 03:08:52 PM
Post by: Stein on May 23, 2018, 03:58:23 PM
Anytime an animal is removed from the list, it is like a bad thing anymore. Everyone should be happy that they are no longer endangered and have a stable population that can support state management.
Post by: yakimanoob on May 24, 2018, 03:08:53 PM
Anytime an animal is removed from the list, it is like a bad thing anymore. Everyone should be happy that they are no longer endangered and have a stable population that can support state management.:yeah:
It's ludicrous to me that people assume removal from the list is a bad thing. It's not bad. It's literally the entire point of conservation to recover the population to the point they no longer need ESA protection.
Post by: optic2 on May 25, 2018, 03:01:58 AM
Yet another balanced AP article that only quotes the anti-hunting crowd and doesn't list any facts. Would it have been that hard to pick up the phone, call the bio and get a one-paragraph summary of the facts leading to this decision to pass along to readers? The way the article reads, they grizzlies are still in big trouble and the state just decided to repeat the activities that put them on the list in the first place.
Anytime an animal is removed from the list, it is like a bad thing anymore. Everyone should be happy that they are no longer endangered and have a stable population that can support state management.
We could have as many grizzlies as we do black bears and the Sierra Club would still be against hunting them. They don't look at the ESA as a way to help endangered animals, they look at it as a way to stop hunters and then do everything they can to argue that the animal should still stay on it, regardless of whether it has already reached carrying capacity.
Post by: buglebrush on May 25, 2018, 03:57:25 AM