” Why do you think it’s better to have humans regulate ungulates when we seem to have done such a terrible job of it in the last ~100 years ”

Where did this terrible job occur ? Some pro wolf ” scientists ” claim 20,000 elk was devastating 2+Million acres know as Yellowstoneage National paved highways park..

“How come that after the reintroduction of wolves and drastic reduction in ungulate populations, the area under survey has promptly sprung to life in a remarkable way (in a manner that’s actually traceable back to the wolves,”

The above theory has never been proven, it is simply the opinion of the pro wolf pusher scientists.. As well this is either the Royal Isle Study, a confined environment, and also the YellowStoneage Study, which once again is and opinion with biased assumptions and ridiculous projections circling the park itself by 500 miles east west south and north… Idaho for example has never been to carrying capacity of ungulates in the last 100 years, has not been over browsed by those ungulates, and the many controlled hunt units set up to protect ungulates from over hunting which could occur during and open general season, certainly could not handle this additional predator chasing down those small herds 24-7-365…

The rest of YOUR opinion is a complete waste of any real intellectuals time… Evolution is a hoax , grow up.

1. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work The Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition) with the words:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin 1928, 463).
2. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).
3. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Darwin 1928, 462; The Origin of Species).
4. “With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).
5. In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
6. In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).

5 dead, 25 injured in 36 hours of violence in Chicago this weekend. More than just the animal predators out there.

Would pepper spray work on a wolf like it’s supposed to work on a human?

Somehow I don’t think the apes give a rats butt about any of that….

Sorry, random thoughts, it’s aweful early and I just couldn’t sleep.

A little girl asked her mother, “How did the human race appear?”

The mother answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had

children and so was all mankind made.

“Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.

The father answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys

from which the human race evolved.

“The confused girl returned to her mother and said, “Mom, how

is it possible that you told me the human race was created by

God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?”

The mother answered, “Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you

about my side of the family and your father told you about his.”

To my knowledge I am the only one commenting on this thread that accepts evolution as fact. Perhaps TLM and Mike D, but the others don’t.

I am not of the “man is the steward of the earth’” philosophy. We had no involvement in it for billions of years and life forms survived.

TLM
“From the standpoint of living in a forest that is now prone to catastrophic fire, having elk and deer eat the ladder fuels is a good thing.” Are there enough elk and deer in the forest to accomplish that which you suggest?

“Many parts of the west are not at carrying capacity for ungulates, some are.” Is not being at capacity a bad situation? If so explain.

Some areas badly need habitat restoration (where are these areas?) (are they only in wilderness areas?) that will not happen due to locking up the land as wilderness (with which locked up lands are you concerned) and prohibiting human activities (elaborate) that would be beneficial to the animals (in what way and to which animals?).

You want man in control.

Frank “the notion that people are smart enough to actually improve upon the inconceivably complex and only partially-known interplay of countless factors that is nature, seems to me like extreme optimism with a fair deal of arrogance”

From the standpoint of living in a forest that is now prone to catastrophic fire, having elk and deer eat the ladder fuels is a good thing. Many parts of the west are not at carrying capacity for ungulates, some are. Some areas badly need habitat restoration that will not happen due to locking up the land as wilderness and prohibiting human activities that would be beneficial to the animals.

There are many ways to look at an issue – and confining “science” down to studies of unique ecosystems is biased.

Why do you think it’s better to have humans regulate ungulates when we seem to have done such a terrible job of it in the last ~100 years? How come that after the reintroduction of wolves and drastic reduction in ungulate populations, the area under survey has promptly sprung to life in a remarkable way (in a manner that’s actually traceable back to the wolves, so hopefully no “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy)? What this study suggests is that humans just aren’t compelled to control ungulates enough. That we tend to keep big game grossly overpopulated – for a mountain habitat at least, may be different the lowlands – to maximize hunting opportunities, to the detriment of everything else. (Also, if you accept evolution, human hunting likely does nothing for it as the selection is essentially random.)

Personally, I fear the problem with our value judgements is that they usually turn out to be incorrect and destructive in the longer run. Our knowledge of ecosystems is imperfect, and always will be, though hopefully it improves over time. We either overpopulate or overhunt the species which have a perceived (not even necessarily real) momentary economic gain, and we extirpate those species which we deem to be pests, even though they may be benefitting us in indirect and hardly visible ways (see the Great Chinese Famine which was exacerbated by a sparrow extermination campaign). That is why the ideal – not always possible, sadly – course of action would be to interfere with nature only to mitigate previous undesirable human interference and otherwise let things run their course, as they have for thousands (or, in a broader sense, for billions) of years.

You speak of our responsibilities as the caretakers of nature. I agree, but I think our responsibility is to maintain as much as possible that which you somewhat incomprehensibly deem “the chaos of natural disaster”, because that is the process through which all natural wealth in the world has arisen, including our species. Without intending to offend, the notion that people are smart enough to actually improve upon the inconceivably complex and only partially-known interplay of countless factors that is nature, seems to me like extreme optimism with a fair deal of arrogance.

Explain your statement “that’s as typical an excuse for not being involved enough to care or do anything about it”

You indicated that you were involved in scientific research – could you explain or elaborate?