Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iw0kr0a wrote

[removed]

8

juiceboxzero t1_iw0lpkv wrote

3. People who think the desire for outdoor recreation doesn't mean we should sanitize the wild and domesticate it to our liking.

8

CnD123 t1_iw0m4ry wrote

Grizzlies were driven out of the Western US for a reason. Putting them too close major population centers is a horrible idea. They have tons of territory in the Rockies, Canada, and Alaska in more remote places

4

juiceboxzero t1_iw0mda9 wrote

The horrible idea would be putting major population centers too close to native grizzly habitat. We have tons of territory in other places too.

7

[deleted] t1_iw0mipf wrote

[removed]

8

juiceboxzero t1_iw0mqzr wrote

Or accept the risks of where you choose to live.

Otherwise, you are, in fact, espousing the belief that you are right to reshape nature as you see fit, to serve your own ends.

5

[deleted] t1_iw0n1ka wrote

[removed]

4

juiceboxzero t1_iw0n8fv wrote

The classic "we do this already, so we can and should do it MORE" argument.

6

CnD123 t1_iw0neox wrote

The classic "revert nature to what it was before modern society" pipe dream

6

juiceboxzero t1_iw0nq68 wrote

I'm not actually suggesting that. I'm suggesting you should accept the risks inherent to the choices you make. I have no problem with someone wanting to build a cabin in the woods, for instance. I also have no sympathy for them when it burns down in a forest fire.

I'm saying nature has a right to exist, and if you want to force/keep a species out of an area, you need a better reason than "I want my recreational activities to be less risky."

4

[deleted] t1_iw0nzg1 wrote

[removed]

3

juiceboxzero t1_iw0o8pc wrote

Yep, you getting to have recreation wherever you want, with a risk level you're willing to tolerate is more important than other species getting to simply live in their natural habitat.

You: "I love the Washington wilderness, but fuck nature - it should be less wild"

3

[deleted] t1_iw0okba wrote

[removed]

3

juiceboxzero t1_iw0ouss wrote

You're defending the choices of the past while pretending not to espouse the beliefs that justified them. LOL.

That's kind of like saying "I'm not racist, but the people of this area thought it was in our best interest to restrict the rights of black people. I'm just a fan of the status quo".

1

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_iw0w6yu wrote

I guarantee that I spend more time in the woods than you do, and I am absolutely in favor of grizzlies on the landscape. Just admit that you're a fuckin wussy who is scared of encountering a bear. 🤣

7

[deleted] t1_iw0wg87 wrote

[removed]

1

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_iw0wnyn wrote

Literally everything you've written is a dumb comment. You're a pathetic, scared, troll with a poor understanding of ecology and too much time on his hands. Chickenshit NIMBYism from a fake outdoorsman at its finest.

4

[deleted] t1_iw0ws2t wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_iw0x53k wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_iw0xa6t wrote

[removed]

0

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_iw0z7lh wrote

You don't even know the name of the government agency that you're claiming is one of the only groups with a reason for wanting grizzlies in Washington. You make the claim that it's because of the funding it will bring. Do you realize that biologists don't get cut a personal check for the work they perform? Your entire shtick is bad faith and straw man arguments and glossing over important details because you don't actually understand anything about what you're trying to say, and you think that you can use "common sense" to prove some kind of a point. Real working professionals laugh at nitwits like you because we can see the shit coming out of your nose and ears.

Here's a bread crumb. Spend some time reading about whitebark pines, Clark's nutcrackers, and grizzlies. Or just keep posting stupid crap, whatever.

3

queenweasley t1_iw1h4df wrote

Right, because if we don’t hike/camp/hunt then we have no right to an opinion about reintroducing native wildlife? Frig off

0