[Bald Hornet]

DNR has it's own wildlife people. Check their website under the Small Forest Landowner Office. The property is permited (FPA) for a clear cut and it is inside a conservation area (gasp!) . Private property does not play under the same rules as FS or DNR land. Also, "old growth" is not all giant trees. At higher elevations, for example, it is tall and thin (think telephone poles). Until the State, Fed or enviromental groups buy up these small parcels this is going to happen. "Theft by Regulation" will not work for elimination of private property ownership of forest lands. Alot of people would like to accomplish that, but it is not politically feasible. A better approach would be to reach an agreement with the landowner(s) to buy the property at a price they (the landowners) are happy with. Just like almost every war, it is cheaper to buy off the "enemy" than fight 'em. Ho Chi Min probably would have sung "God Bless America" in Moscow if we had given him the money we spent on that stupid war (my opinion, speaking as a "strongly encouraged" participant). I discussed this harvesting with DNR last summer and fall. Harvest MAY take place this summer. I probably won't clear cut it because I don't want to live in a clear cut. I probably will thin it and create some meadows. The piece has the potential to become a "trophy" property, and eventually probably will be. Wolves don't "self-regulate" any better than people do. Wolves, or any other peak predator, will seek out the easiest and most plentiful prey. If cattle are available they will wipe out that herd and then move on to the next most difficult prey species. When all prey groups are depleted, THEN they will statrt to die out to balance available remaining prey. They do not consciencely "thin" herds to "appropriate levels". It is rather a pattern of destruction and recovery. That being said, wolves will become another managed species. States can't wipe them out, but they will keep the packs small and add the revenue stream to their budgets from the permit sales. For some people that will be a

[LizzyBob]

The arrogance of some on threads like this never ceases to amaze me. I guess it shouldn't but... absolutely assssstounding! Every single ecosystem benefits from man's influence?! Wow! Sad indeed that some are that self centered. I know I've produced my own share of ego, but man-o-man why is it that those who are hands down the most arrogant gripe about personal attacks When your posts positively drip with arrogance? I really do need to stear clear of these threads. The pomposity of some comments and the fragile egos are just too much The one thing I have alway genuinely sought from "the other side" is evidence of any kind. Surely it was not provided with the web site at the start of this discussion, and it is glaringly absent from any other comments. Why is that? Only opinion or bias, never hard science. You know, evidence. I really would like to see something...something besides, you know, arrogance. I give up trying to find that here.

[Bald Hornet]

Any specifics, LizzyBob, as to who you are addressing and what you find arrogant?

[peltoms]

An example of the positive impacts of wolves are just starting to be realized in terms of tourism, ignoring the helpful impact on fishing and other areas. report card

[MadCapLaughs]

Another interesting study about the benefits of a viable wolf population on the ecosystem, including herbivores and prey species --- in this case, the pronghorn.

[cartman]

[Bald Hornet]

So if we eliminate all people from the planet, then everything will be perfect, right? Oh, and if "some" people don't have to die, who gets to do the selecting? You?

[Tom]

Bald Hornet, earlier you claimed to be making a "rational explanation of a specific argument". Does that apply to your last post? Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying.

[Bald Hornet]

Tom, My last post was in response to cartman who argued that all environmental problems exist because man exists. The implication being that if man ceased to exist that all enviromental problems would cease to exist. Anticipating a modified argument of a "lesser degree" (i.e. not "all" people would have to cease to exist to result in the desired state of environmental perfection), then the question becomes who decides the acceptable level of human population and who decides "which" humans are allowed to live? This is a constant dilemma that arises in the discussion of human vs. non-human territoriality. Are wolves, or any other non-human creature, to be allowed unlimited territory, or are they to be restricted to certain limits imposed by humans? Attempting to address this question of "permitted" territory prior to establishing a "permitted" human population tends to be circular. Therefore, as the logic of cartman's statements leads to the conclusion that the optimum human population would be zero (no interference in non-human habitat) my question was: who determines who lives and who dies? Who is "allowed" to "breed" and who is not? Precedence of population (is human or non-human to be the primary consideration?) is a necessary precondition for establishing territory. Thus, one population must surrender territory to another. There must be either limits on humans or limits on non-humans. This is a discussion of limits. The arguments are always at, and about, the margins. Cartman's argument is that humans must always surrender territory to non-humans. Therefore, my questions about limiting humans, since they are secondary in his schema, and must surrender territory. I hope this explains the reasoning behind my previous post.

[Tom]

You're sure putting a whole lot of words in someone else's mouth. Maybe don't jump to so many conclusions about what someone else is saying and your arguments will sound more rational.

[Bald Hornet]

Tom, The issue and questions remain: Are wolves, or any other non-human creature, to be allowed unlimited territory, or are they to be restricted to certain limits imposed by humans? And: Precedence of population (is human or non-human to be the primary consideration?) is a necessary precondition for establishing territory. These questions need to be answered before you can address the place of wolves, or other predators in the "system".