LogFAQs > #954447171

MondoMan180 posted...

NPR and National Geographic are professional and reputable news organizations.

They are clearly biased on this subject (and many others), as you seem to be yourself. The NPR article you linked literally has the very first words as "Conservative Lawmakers" purely to stir up the base that they know uses their site. And before you try to get on me, I'm apolitical since I think both sides are full of morons.

MondoMan180 posted...

I take it the issue is that there's no actual "90%" figure presented, making the headlines seem sensationalist to you?

You're right, but that isthe PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCSE of the Bill, because once it dips BELOW 150 wolves Federal Management kicks in, the Bill is actually technically WORSE because it really actually allows hunters and ranchers to kill ALL the wolves; the only reason that wouldn't actually be allowed is because of course Federal law supersedes State law.

I hate these small-d---ed hunters and ranchers. I have no problem hunting for food or hunting invasive species or population control, but trophy hunters, and punishing wolves for less than a couple hundred cattle killed out of millions, man F' all those guys. I hope Biden can somehow intervene...

The 90% is extrapolated from the current wolf population compared to the minimum number considered acceptable, it's click baity for sure but technically not incorrect. What I'm taking issue with is the phasing that you and the article uses as if the hunting of these wolves is being mandated or is a goal the state wants the reach. The minimum number is just that, the minimum, and considering the restricting on hunting wolves were mostly eased for cases where there is a clear indication the wolf is harassing or trying to kill livestock and not the ones out minding their own business far away from people, the likelihood that 90% of the population will be culled is ridiculous. You also seemed to have missed the fact that any wolf killed in this way is the property of the state, no trophy hunters would waste their time stalking a wolf (which are relatively rare compared to the vast open spaces they inhabit as predators), waiting for it to attack another animal someone owns before killing it only to turn it over to the state. Sure a hunter might kill one illegally, but if that was the case they would have done so regardless of this legislation and clearly not many bothered with that either if the wolf population is so high currently. That's another thing you and the articles seem to be missing is the idea of perspective, killing up to 90% of an animal's population sounds bad on paper, but considering the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (yes the limit was put in place by Idaho itself, I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a federal limit stopping them from exterminating all of the wolves, as if any sane government would do that in the first place) did their home work years ago and crunched the numbers and successfully brought the wolf population back up so high, too high apparently, how do YOU know the population doesn't need culling? People itt are talking about ecological concerns from too few wolves, but you know there can be too many of them as well right? I won't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I highly doubt any of you getting upset over sensational headlines are either, maybe the people who wrote the laws aren't 100% right either, but considering they know much more about the situation in the area and can make amendments as needed to the law I see no reason to assume the absolute worst case scenario will happen (that worst case scenario STILL being within the bounds of what the wolf population could recover from).

So yeah, that's my issue.