4 ms·

I'm confused. You say they've "vastly changed the atmosphere of the mountains" and complain about the forest service making mistakes managing in the past, but

I'm confused. You say they've "vastly changed the atmosphere of the mountains" and complain about the forest service making mistakes managing in the past, but you also say the wolve "barely have the pop above 100" and cite ranchers that have more losses from the mountain lions than the wolves. Are you arguing that the program is bad, or more of a no-op? I care far more about "demonstrated and sustained negative impact on ranchers' livelihoods" than I do about feeling a bit more abstractly apprehensive outdoors—I grew up in a different part of the boonies, but there mountain lions were the big threat, and I'd always carry a gun just because of the risk of them. Mountain lions seem far more scary/dangerous to me, personally.

arca_vorago 9y ago
> Are you arguing that the program is bad, or more of a no-op? Really both. The thing is that out of 100 pop wolves, a few packs together can cover very large areas, so even in a wilderness it may sound like 100 isn't much, it's not as small as it seems. They did have major issues with the program in general, but the issues I am mostly talking about are independent of the population issues, and are more relevant to the humans living in the area. Essentially, it would be like having a reintroduction program for mountain lions in your area, and putting say, 50 more mountain lions there. It sounds like you understand what that means.