As Pandora just alluded to, have we figured out yet why it's logical to have to sanitize every square foot of earth in order to live without fear of teeth and claws?
Every animal has a need to propagate and spread, so I won't dwell too much on the "they were here first" argument, though there is an element of truth to that as well. My primary point is simply to ask why we must live so far outside of rational need.
We don't HAVE to eliminate all predators from state parks, though you want to just in case. There simply isn't that much of a threat. I can't count the number of state parks I've been to in my life, and I've never been threatened once. Bear encounters, a badger or two, even a wolverine. The moose that got all huffy was Norwegian and probably drunk, so it doesn't count.
I'm not discounting your opinions or your life accounts, nor am I discounting those of people you know. I'm simply saying that per capita there isn't a "problem" with predators, but merely a nuisance. And I don't think that extinction is a logical response to nuisance.
I absolutely choose to live in a land where there is a broad range of natural wonder to experience and enjoy, even if it means that some of it could kill me. And that's really the only point that need be considered. People WANT predators around, whether other people lose pets or livestock to them or not. I understand the financial stress predators cause. I think everyone does. I am able to empathize with the ranchers and farmers and their way of life, I truly am. I simply choose to ignore it. Why? Because I place more value on a species of creature that everyone should be able to observe and enjoy than I do on money.
And in all fairness to Wonko you HAVE changed your stance. Initially it was wipe out all predators everywhere, and lately it seems to be wipe out all predators in state parks. Which to me is also illogical, due to the ranges of the animals in question. Animals don't observe park boundaries. I'm not saying that to patronize you, I'm saying it for the sake of elaborating on a point. How do you keep predators out of the parks in question? You would have to eliminate vast numbers of them in surrounding territories too, which takes me back to my original point.
Why bother if they simply aren't that much of a threat? It is a well known fact that North American predators do not routinely stalk people. Will they on occasion? Yes, but as I've said before so will herbivores, which kill people daily across the globe. It's a matter of simple animal behavior.
But we, as logical cognitive creatures, are capable of realizing that the benefits of the species we share the world with far outweigh the hindrances. You are clearly biased towards the animals in question, and bias doesn't effectively play into objective, logical considerations.
Here's what I propose. Instead of telling us why they should be eliminated, tell us instead why they should be preserved. Examine the other side and do the research. If your response is that it isn't necessary because you know that they contribute nothing but unnecessary peril to everything around them, then you clearly haven't done the research. They are highly beneficial, I assure you. But don't take my word for it.
Thank you for a well reasoned response. I enjoy replying to something well put and pleasantly delivered.
First of all, I haven't changed my stance (just because I emphasize one over the other). Predators were pretty well knocked back in this country when we were more agrarian. In my state the bear population sank to a couple dozen and, according to the DNR, remained stable into the 1950's. They proceeded to ban hunting. Now the bear population (I think) is over 500, all located in the western part of the state. There was a brief hunt last year but that netted less than 50. There are real issues there and the rural folk are all but up in arms.
The point here is that the ecology suffered nothing with virtually no bears.
So, why do we need bears? Other than some people figuring that the bears will kill off the deer and thus eliminate hunting, what possible reason are there for bears? I give you the same question for mountain lions and wolves. Just flat out, plainly tell me what the necessity is for either. I am a mountain person and have done a lot of reading and, for the life of me, I just don't see it. Appreciation and some nebulous concept of 'share the world' does not and never will translate to a necessity.
Remember, I posted about the elderly man being attacked by a mountain lion. The consensus from others in this forum was that the lion had every right and that the old fellow should have protected himself. If elderly people can't walk safely in state parks what good are the state parks. To me, taking the side of a mountain lion over a elderly man is a huge misplaced priority.
Anyhow, I have a ton of company work. Again I thank you for thoughtful post. I can pick this up later. I also realize that perhaps this wasn't my most reasoned response, but I wanted to return your post in like kind.
Last edited: