6 ms·

"The Idaho Fish and Game Commission, which manages the state’s wildlife, opposed the measure. " Then why are they doing it? This sounds like a bad decision bei

"The Idaho Fish and Game Commission, which manages the state’s wildlife, opposed the measure. " Then why are they doing it? This sounds like a bad decision being made in haste. Why not explore options like relocating them to somewhere they're needed?

hindsightbias 6y ago
Legislators and people on the internet know better than scientists.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  Or they have different values. One of the things politicians say is "we are going to follow science" to avoid making a value decision. Science can tell you the risks/benefits/tradeoffs of a decision, but you have to ultimately make a value judgement about the best course of action. Science can tell us various things about what the wolf does and what its loss or population reduction is expected to do within a certain confidence interval. Politicians are the people, ultimately charged with taking that information and making a value decision about what to do.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    As you said, both sides can follow the science and make different value judgements. Unfortunately that rarely seems to be the case. For example, the pandemic, it seems most people agreed that shutdowns and masks were acceptable to save that many lives. However, politicians did not make the trade-off argument. They generally just challenged the science completely. First, that the pandemic was even real, then that it was deadly, then that shutdowns helped and that masks helped at all. So yes, arguments of values can be made, but it seems rare that these frank discussions actually happen in politics. At least not in public.
    - tjs8rj 6y ago
      I think you’re misrepresenting the other side. Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are blowing the situation way of of proportion for political gain”. The conservative argument on the danger of the virus is that it’s dangerous to old people and those with preexisting conditions, but not very dangerous to healthy people who are relatively younger. This is a valid subjective interpretation of the science. Whether something is safe or dangerous is a value judgement. The CDC originally said don’t mask, that you can get it from surfaces, that it spreads through the air instead of droplets. For the lockdowns, the conservative argument was that they were too extreme given the costs, something like “destroying the global economy disproportionately hurts the people least affected by the virus: labor, small business owners, children, students, and so on, while having little effect on the relatively richer but more affected old”. The point was that lockdowns didn’t justify the costs. I don’t agree with most of this, but you’re so far off the mark with the strawman of these arguments that I don’t think you’ve seriously understood them beyond immediate dismissal on partisan grounds. If we did this pandemic over again, but it was a dem President going into an election year, I think Dems being anti lockdown would’ve been the most obvious outcome, because lockdowns hurt the exact people the party calls its constituents: lower classes, people of color, labor, young people, etc, while most benefiting the wealthier and older population.
      - blaser-waffle 6y ago
        > Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are blowing the situation way of of proportion for political gain”. And that's factually wrong. COVID is a BIG DEAL and has not been blown out of proportion; the countries that didn't treat it as such, like Sweden and Brazil, are now feeling the pain. > but not very dangerous to healthy people who are relatively younger. This is a valid subjective interpretation of the science. All available science suggests that COVID can cause permanent issues with cardiovascular function, even in healthy adults. Just cuz polio didn't kill you doesn't mean it couldn't, say, leave you wheel-chair bound. Additionally, the hospitals are full. You may not have much to worry about COVID, but if you're in a car crash or fall off a roof or get stabbed you won't be able to get treatment -- they just don't have the space / time / bodies. > the conservative argument was that they were too extreme given the costs, something like “destroying the global economy disproportionately hurts the people least affected by the virus: labor, small business owners, children, students, and so on More bollocks. What in the past 30 years has the conservative wing of the GOP ever done for labor, small businesses, children, and students? This is the party that is openly and aggressively stomping on all those groups -- and now is arguing in their favor? What BS. They're not concerned with these people in any way, save for using them as a political cudgel to force re-openings -- re-oepnings that were unambiguously asked for by big business. > I don’t agree with most of this, but you’re so far off the mark with the strawman of these arguments that I don’t think you’ve seriously understood them beyond immediate dismissal on partisan grounds. It sure sounds like you do. If you're rehashing questionable talking points for the sake of discussion (the Alex Jones "I'm just asking a question") -- you're effectively just advocating for it.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Take a look at other countries. Brazil isn't the only country in the world and things were handled quite differently.
adamcstephens 6y ago
Ranchers don’t like it when wolves kill livestock.
- paulmd 6y ago
  that's the long and short of it, idaho is a super conservative state (which generally resent environmentalism) with a powerful farm lobby. https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/wolf-reintroduction-to-idaho-creates-conflict/article_e4c7b475-91cf-5b7f-8d76-a7140e331442.html https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/w...
  - tjs8rj 6y ago
    My gut reaction to “conservatives generally resent environmentalism” is that it’s wrong. I know you mean from a policy standpoint, but the people who live most in nature, who feel most at home outside concrete jungles and actually experience the environment are overwhelmingly conservatives. I wonder if it’s liberals and conservatives looking from different vantage points. Liberals see massive cities and sprawl and call it too much, conservatives surrounded by fields and trees and nature say some more industry couldn’t hurt.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I dont think that accurately describes the reality nor opinions of either group.
    - WalterGR 6y ago
      Right. What does that mean for the topic at hand?
    - krapp 6y ago
      tl;dr - Conservatives decided they were against it as soon as they saw the left was for it. The anti-environmental stance on the part of Conservatives is a result of Reagan-era policies meant establish a pro-business, anti-regulation base among corporate donors and undermine Jimmy Carter's legacy[0]. Also, after the 1960s, environmentalism became associated with "leftist" politics via feminist and antiwar activism (the hippie movement.) Trump's heavily mocked tweet about climate change being a Chinese hoax comes from this longstanding general mistrust among Conservatives that environmentalism has a secret Marxist/Communist agenda behind it, due to those associations. Finally, there's Al Gore. Much of the modern distrust of climate change (and by association, environmentalism) is fallout from effective Republican Party propaganda mocking his activism, and particularly An Inconvenient Truth. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...

hindsightbias 6y ago

Legislators and people on the internet know better than scientists.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Or they have different values. One of the things politicians say is "we are going to follow science" to avoid making a value decision. Science can tell you the risks/benefits/tradeoffs of a decision, but you have to ultimately make a value judgement about the best course of action. Science can tell us various things about what the wolf does and what its loss or population reduction is expected to do within a certain confidence interval. Politicians are the people, ultimately charged with taking that information and making a value decision about what to do.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  As you said, both sides can follow the science and make different value judgements. Unfortunately that rarely seems to be the case. For example, the pandemic, it seems most people agreed that shutdowns and masks were acceptable to save that many lives. However, politicians did not make the trade-off argument. They generally just challenged the science completely. First, that the pandemic was even real, then that it was deadly, then that shutdowns helped and that masks helped at all. So yes, arguments of values can be made, but it seems rare that these frank discussions actually happen in politics. At least not in public.
  - tjs8rj 6y ago
    I think you’re misrepresenting the other side. Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are blowing the situation way of of proportion for political gain”. The conservative argument on the danger of the virus is that it’s dangerous to old people and those with preexisting conditions, but not very dangerous to healthy people who are relatively younger. This is a valid subjective interpretation of the science. Whether something is safe or dangerous is a value judgement. The CDC originally said don’t mask, that you can get it from surfaces, that it spreads through the air instead of droplets. For the lockdowns, the conservative argument was that they were too extreme given the costs, something like “destroying the global economy disproportionately hurts the people least affected by the virus: labor, small business owners, children, students, and so on, while having little effect on the relatively richer but more affected old”. The point was that lockdowns didn’t justify the costs. I don’t agree with most of this, but you’re so far off the mark with the strawman of these arguments that I don’t think you’ve seriously understood them beyond immediate dismissal on partisan grounds. If we did this pandemic over again, but it was a dem President going into an election year, I think Dems being anti lockdown would’ve been the most obvious outcome, because lockdowns hurt the exact people the party calls its constituents: lower classes, people of color, labor, young people, etc, while most benefiting the wealthier and older population.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      > Trump JR never said covid wasn’t real, he said “it would disappear the day after joe Biden was elected” the suggestion from the context being “Democrats are blowing the situation way of of proportion for political gain”. And that's factually wrong. COVID is a BIG DEAL and has not been blown out of proportion; the countries that didn't treat it as such, like Sweden and Brazil, are now feeling the pain. > but not very dangerous to healthy people who are relatively younger. This is a valid subjective interpretation of the science. All available science suggests that COVID can cause permanent issues with cardiovascular function, even in healthy adults. Just cuz polio didn't kill you doesn't mean it couldn't, say, leave you wheel-chair bound. Additionally, the hospitals are full. You may not have much to worry about COVID, but if you're in a car crash or fall off a roof or get stabbed you won't be able to get treatment -- they just don't have the space / time / bodies. > the conservative argument was that they were too extreme given the costs, something like “destroying the global economy disproportionately hurts the people least affected by the virus: labor, small business owners, children, students, and so on More bollocks. What in the past 30 years has the conservative wing of the GOP ever done for labor, small businesses, children, and students? This is the party that is openly and aggressively stomping on all those groups -- and now is arguing in their favor? What BS. They're not concerned with these people in any way, save for using them as a political cudgel to force re-openings -- re-oepnings that were unambiguously asked for by big business. > I don’t agree with most of this, but you’re so far off the mark with the strawman of these arguments that I don’t think you’ve seriously understood them beyond immediate dismissal on partisan grounds. It sure sounds like you do. If you're rehashing questionable talking points for the sake of discussion (the Alex Jones "I'm just asking a question") -- you're effectively just advocating for it.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Take a look at other countries. Brazil isn't the only country in the world and things were handled quite differently.

adamcstephens 6y ago

Ranchers don’t like it when wolves kill livestock.

paulmd 6y ago
that's the long and short of it, idaho is a super conservative state (which generally resent environmentalism) with a powerful farm lobby. https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/wolf-reintroduction-to-idaho-creates-conflict/article_e4c7b475-91cf-5b7f-8d76-a7140e331442.html https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/w...
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  My gut reaction to “conservatives generally resent environmentalism” is that it’s wrong. I know you mean from a policy standpoint, but the people who live most in nature, who feel most at home outside concrete jungles and actually experience the environment are overwhelmingly conservatives. I wonder if it’s liberals and conservatives looking from different vantage points. Liberals see massive cities and sprawl and call it too much, conservatives surrounded by fields and trees and nature say some more industry couldn’t hurt.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I dont think that accurately describes the reality nor opinions of either group.
  - WalterGR 6y ago
    Right. What does that mean for the topic at hand?
  - krapp 6y ago
    tl;dr - Conservatives decided they were against it as soon as they saw the left was for it. The anti-environmental stance on the part of Conservatives is a result of Reagan-era policies meant establish a pro-business, anti-regulation base among corporate donors and undermine Jimmy Carter's legacy[0]. Also, after the 1960s, environmentalism became associated with "leftist" politics via feminist and antiwar activism (the hippie movement.) Trump's heavily mocked tweet about climate change being a Chinese hoax comes from this longstanding general mistrust among Conservatives that environmentalism has a secret Marxist/Communist agenda behind it, due to those associations. Finally, there's Al Gore. Much of the modern distrust of climate change (and by association, environmentalism) is fallout from effective Republican Party propaganda mocking his activism, and particularly An Inconvenient Truth. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...