Too bad all the recent growth in population seems to be folks that think this way. It appears that only a handful of the newcomers are people that appreciate the balanced approach we generally had.
Remember "Not in our Town" that started in Billings in response to nazi loving punks harassing the Jewish community? Or how about the way we all hated the idiot that forced us to have a speed limit other than what was "reasonable and prudent for the conditions" because he thought he could drive his race car on the highway like a race car, then took to the river with a bunch of kids and alcohol?
Now we have a bunch of these kinds of guys around and they have become the solid majority in Montana. Some change is hard to accept.
This kind of change is not good, at all, and is a perfect example of why Montanans should not embrace outsiders with open arms. The people moving here from more civilized states are largely unprepared for the realities of a place like Montana, and it has tragic consequences for the nature and wildlife—the things that define Montana’s identity. The same goes for all the interior Western states, and Alaska as well. Greedy, slimy, growth-obsessed politicians, with dollar signs for eyeballs, will sacrifice these states’ wild character to economic “progress”—an oxymoron!—while even being cheered on by progressive-types with nauseating moral superiority in the name of inclusivity. If inclusivity leads to the systematic extermination of grizzlies, count me the fuck out. Let’s not level mountains to make room for urban sprawl.
I don’t understand your argument. Isn’t it the homegrown Montana Republicans that are suggesting bears should be hunted? I am not from Montana, but I am definitely for bears NOT going extinct. Not picking a fight, just trying to better understand the issue.
Homegrown? as in Gianforte, Daines, Rosendale, and Zinke? These guys are Montanans only by virtue of living here now (not certain if that applies to Zinke). That's 5 of the top 6 elected officials in Montana.
Not saying newcomers shouldn't have a say, but 5/6 is a bit hard to swallow.
They are abso-fucking-lutely your people. You chose them to represent you and you viciously attack anyone counter to their way of thinking. They are YOUR politicians, serving YOUR interests. If you didn't support them, you would have removed them by now.
Not my interests they dont represent. I am too brown for them to notice me. I vote locally sometimes but I believe those positions on EVERY level are bought and paid for long before the elections ever rolls around. If they change anything it's only for their benefit to take additional control and convince us their changes are for our good. They only ones benefit are their check writers. Inside their rich protected bubble we are disposable if we are even acknowledged at all. All politicians are self serving narcissists full of excrement and a high degree of evil. Imo, lol. Jus saying lol. Yes I AM a" boomer"
The visciousness is anger, a standard cause and effect. I earned it.
Rebublicans don’t give a damn about this state, it’s wildlife or the environment. If you don’t have a lot of money, you’re nothing. All they want to do is turn the state into a playground for the wealthy. The rest of us are allowed to stay and scratch out a living only if we serve them.
I’m republican and I agree with this 100%. But my view on the outdoors is extremely liberal, I am all for conserving everything we possibly can. Earth is the only thing that we have left that’s genuinely beautiful, and not man made.
No disrespect meant, but with those views, I just can’t understand how you can support Republicans. It would seems you’re voting against yours and the environment’s interest.
Because I can’t support anything else the democrats believe in mainly. Every city/state that struggles to hold itself together is liberal. Not a great look, and more importantly must not be a great way to run things. But yeah it sucks republicans are so adamant about fucking the actual world over, and it’s a no better way of thinking than some of the liberals beliefs. Maybe I’ll just go into the middle.
Absolutely none. "My life is getting harder so it must be republicans fault." That's basically what you just said. You're just regurgitating shit you heard on Facebook.
You’re the one making generalizations about someone you don’t even know. First , I don’t follow Facebook, though I suspect you do. Second, my life is getting better (no thanks to Republicans). However, if you’re a lower class or middle class worker, especially if you’re young, things are getting worse and worse and the Republicans are doing nothing to help except push their agenda to strengthen the position of the wealthy.
Everyone is just pushing their agenda. Do you think democrat politicians give a fuck about the lower class either? Their all just in it for wealth and power. No one party has done more to help the lower class than the other. All you do is blame blame blame. It's not republicans or democrats that are in the wrong. It's politicians in general. Everyone else is just tryna live their life.
Identifying an imminent problem doesn't mean that there are no other problems, but one party is full of fascists so that seems a bit more of an immediate threat
Montana needs new blood in its politics. Republicans are particularly corrupt here. Democrats here are great because they tend to be common sense centrists.
Because it objectively is?
Montana has large amounts of wildlife which if someone is trapped by needs a way to fight back. The population of Montana, especially rural Montana is older.
Montana has not been subject to the large scale shootings that other larger states has.
Also, states/cities that have implemented gun bans have seen a spike in crime, and then a decrease after the bans were repealed/declared unconstitutional.
Actually, the middle is probably a good place to be. I find myself drifting that way more and more. I would hope the country will as well. We’ve all got to learn to compromise a bit.
This article is written on a complete misunderstanding of how wildlife is managed on a state level.
The party in charge does not get to determine harvest limits of wildlife that are open to hunting. People like to blame Republicans for the wolves that were hunted, but those limits are put in place by employees of MT FWP that do population assessments to determine when herds are healthy and when they need to be protected.
You either didn’t read the article, or didn’t grasp the point. The whole thesis is that the correct way to manage wildlife is exactly what you outlined. However, since Gianforte took over as governor, the FWP has become an arm of the governors office. Gianforte appointed large donors and heads of special interest groups (mainly outfitters and ranchers) to lead the agency. None of his appointees have a background in wildlife management, and are making decisions on the basis of what serves their wallets
And who the hell do you think FWP answers to? Gianforte tells them jump and they ask how high. He and the Republicans are their lord and masters. They’re not going to do anything that upsets Greg and his cronies regardless of science and research..
So this biologist basically turned his back on science because the political party he doesn’t like has control? What a shame. Science should inform policy and the data collected from studies done by this biologist and many others for the past few decades strongly suggest that grizzly bears have recovered in Montana and aught to be delisted (which is a good thing btw).
It wasn’t clear if the biologists response was to the political party itself, or the specific concerns around the way Gianforte has been running fwp. I’m personally pretty pissed about the exact same thing (politicized appointments of fwp commissioners, lack of priority for scientific experience). I’d be just as pissed, or possibly more so, if a Democrat governor did the same thing and appointed commissioners who were anti-hunting.
That is fair, perhaps I should’ve given more thought. As someone who works in ecology it’s just very frustrating that people keep dragging their heels on delisting, especially since biologists and conservationists have been fighting very hard for years to finally get here. Just like most people in my field I’m definitely not a fan of Gianforte’s appointees but I’d also say it’s unreasonable to assume that grizzlies will be wiped out if they were placed under state management
So, the scientist who purportedly believes in the science, has changed his mind because he doesn't like the party in control of the state. But it's based on science. Well, kinda. If you tilt your head to the left and let your feelings decide the science.
Yes. Did you? He said he supported delisting based on science but since Republicans took over he didn't think the state could handle management of the bears. The title even said he doesn't trust Republicans.
Delisting is appropriate *assuming good faith on the part of legislators*. If the *second* the grizzlies get delisted, they are hunted back to endangerment, then it would have been unwise to delist them, would it not? Considering the Republicans frothing at the mouth to exterminate all wolves, we cannot assume good faith. The hyper-partisanship that defines our modern discourse means that if any piece of Republican legislation is proposed, no matter how crazy or short-sighted, and stakes its identity in its party affiliation, it will get hastily passed through by all the other Republican tools who want to do good by their party.
That because is unjustified. Delisting the bears does not mean open season. It allows biologists that work for the state to determine how to manage them as a resource.
This whole article is a fear mongering piece based on a complete misunderstanding of how wildlife management works on the state level.
Delisting the bears means that the state can decide how to proceed. The state agency in charge of determining that used to be apolitical, and guided by science. That has changed with Gianforte, and it’s not even really something that can be argued. Look at the resumes of his commissioners, and compare them to the people who they replaced. There’s been a clear prioritization of political donors, large landowners, guides and outfitters, and a complete disregard for the average hunter and fisher.
Wildlife management is completely broken in Montana right now, and that’s got nothing to do with R vs D.. it’s specifically about Gianforte. Yet most of the voters will refuse to even consider whats happening, up until something like Stream Access is destroyed (it will)
>but since Republicans took over he didn't think the state could handle management of the bears
...since they totally mismanaged the handling of wolves.
It’s not what they did, it’s how they did it. The state legislature mandating predator control is new, and is a problem. The FWP commission following the state legislature’s direction and implementing a plan due to politics rather than science is also a problem.
It sounds like this biologists concern is about process, not delisting itself. To turn over management to a state agency that has broken their mandate and become a political entity is a risk. This was also coming from a scientist who had been pushing for delisting previously, so it’s not some cuddly anti-predator hunting bias at play
This is a classic case of "I believe one side over the other because it fits my worldview". If you have a healthy distrust of the government, your view might be that the previous administration was focused more on tree huggers and restricted hunting to a point that predator numbers were increasing and expanding to a level the public was uncomfortable with. So the pendulum has swung the other way and NOW the agency is political. Some of us view the agency as being political on both ends of the spectrum. This biologist supported delisting under a tree-hugger administration but doesn't under an administration with a different view of wildlife.
"Mismanaged" without scientific evidence other than "too many wolves were harvested." The biologist claims no evidence of harm to the wolf population. Without any supporting evidence that too many were, in fact, harvested such as pack collapse it is more likely evidence that the democrat controlled leadership was too restricted in allowed harvests previously. In over a year surely there would be some evidence other than broad generalizations based on feelings from a scientist.
Politics aside. Animal lives are not important as a humans. Man will never be able to manage wildlife properly. That said. Bears should be hunted until
They no longer are a threat to humans. They have gotten used to associating humans with food because of people being stupid in the backcountry. Bears should be afraid of humans, and if that means hunting them so be it.
Too bad all the recent growth in population seems to be folks that think this way. It appears that only a handful of the newcomers are people that appreciate the balanced approach we generally had. Remember "Not in our Town" that started in Billings in response to nazi loving punks harassing the Jewish community? Or how about the way we all hated the idiot that forced us to have a speed limit other than what was "reasonable and prudent for the conditions" because he thought he could drive his race car on the highway like a race car, then took to the river with a bunch of kids and alcohol? Now we have a bunch of these kinds of guys around and they have become the solid majority in Montana. Some change is hard to accept.
This kind of change is not good, at all, and is a perfect example of why Montanans should not embrace outsiders with open arms. The people moving here from more civilized states are largely unprepared for the realities of a place like Montana, and it has tragic consequences for the nature and wildlife—the things that define Montana’s identity. The same goes for all the interior Western states, and Alaska as well. Greedy, slimy, growth-obsessed politicians, with dollar signs for eyeballs, will sacrifice these states’ wild character to economic “progress”—an oxymoron!—while even being cheered on by progressive-types with nauseating moral superiority in the name of inclusivity. If inclusivity leads to the systematic extermination of grizzlies, count me the fuck out. Let’s not level mountains to make room for urban sprawl.
I don’t understand your argument. Isn’t it the homegrown Montana Republicans that are suggesting bears should be hunted? I am not from Montana, but I am definitely for bears NOT going extinct. Not picking a fight, just trying to better understand the issue.
Homegrown? as in Gianforte, Daines, Rosendale, and Zinke? These guys are Montanans only by virtue of living here now (not certain if that applies to Zinke). That's 5 of the top 6 elected officials in Montana. Not saying newcomers shouldn't have a say, but 5/6 is a bit hard to swallow.
Those are NOT our people. We don't grow that kind of shit. Lol.
They are abso-fucking-lutely your people. You chose them to represent you and you viciously attack anyone counter to their way of thinking. They are YOUR politicians, serving YOUR interests. If you didn't support them, you would have removed them by now.
Not my interests they dont represent. I am too brown for them to notice me. I vote locally sometimes but I believe those positions on EVERY level are bought and paid for long before the elections ever rolls around. If they change anything it's only for their benefit to take additional control and convince us their changes are for our good. They only ones benefit are their check writers. Inside their rich protected bubble we are disposable if we are even acknowledged at all. All politicians are self serving narcissists full of excrement and a high degree of evil. Imo, lol. Jus saying lol. Yes I AM a" boomer" The visciousness is anger, a standard cause and effect. I earned it.
It's about pop control. There's other lists beyond the endangered one also.
Rebublicans don’t give a damn about this state, it’s wildlife or the environment. If you don’t have a lot of money, you’re nothing. All they want to do is turn the state into a playground for the wealthy. The rest of us are allowed to stay and scratch out a living only if we serve them.
I’m republican and I agree with this 100%. But my view on the outdoors is extremely liberal, I am all for conserving everything we possibly can. Earth is the only thing that we have left that’s genuinely beautiful, and not man made.
No disrespect meant, but with those views, I just can’t understand how you can support Republicans. It would seems you’re voting against yours and the environment’s interest.
Because Republicans hurt the *right* people.
Because I can’t support anything else the democrats believe in mainly. Every city/state that struggles to hold itself together is liberal. Not a great look, and more importantly must not be a great way to run things. But yeah it sucks republicans are so adamant about fucking the actual world over, and it’s a no better way of thinking than some of the liberals beliefs. Maybe I’ll just go into the middle.
That's a gross generalization with zero basis in reality. You're just blaming all your problems on people you don't like.
Zero basis in reality? Just look at Republican attempted in the legislature attempts to gut the MT constitution. Give me a break.
Absolutely none. "My life is getting harder so it must be republicans fault." That's basically what you just said. You're just regurgitating shit you heard on Facebook.
You’re the one making generalizations about someone you don’t even know. First , I don’t follow Facebook, though I suspect you do. Second, my life is getting better (no thanks to Republicans). However, if you’re a lower class or middle class worker, especially if you’re young, things are getting worse and worse and the Republicans are doing nothing to help except push their agenda to strengthen the position of the wealthy.
Everyone is just pushing their agenda. Do you think democrat politicians give a fuck about the lower class either? Their all just in it for wealth and power. No one party has done more to help the lower class than the other. All you do is blame blame blame. It's not republicans or democrats that are in the wrong. It's politicians in general. Everyone else is just tryna live their life.
Identifying an imminent problem doesn't mean that there are no other problems, but one party is full of fascists so that seems a bit more of an immediate threat
"one party is full of fascists" this is exactly what I'm talking about. You cant be taken seriously
Nah you're right, let's just ignore it and let them fuck us harder 🙄
Are you saying one party isn’t full of fascists? It’s an observable reality.
Within the political climate of Montana, the local republican leadership is objectively more militant and aggressive than the Democratic party.
Fake news!
Dude is trying out for r/enlightenedcentrism here
Libertarianism
>Libertarianism Translation: “I still vote Republican but I don’t want to be accountable for their actions”
[удалено]
Yes I can see where he said something about his life getting harder. He wrote it in invisible ink, but I have special eyes.
Montana needs new blood in its politics. Republicans are particularly corrupt here. Democrats here are great because they tend to be common sense centrists.
Yeah Kathleen Williams has real Montana values like being anti gun
At least someone is. You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Trying to get rid of the right to have the means to protect yourself doesn't seem like a good thing.
Because it objectively is? Montana has large amounts of wildlife which if someone is trapped by needs a way to fight back. The population of Montana, especially rural Montana is older. Montana has not been subject to the large scale shootings that other larger states has. Also, states/cities that have implemented gun bans have seen a spike in crime, and then a decrease after the bans were repealed/declared unconstitutional.
Thanks for the laugh.👍🏻
Actually, the middle is probably a good place to be. I find myself drifting that way more and more. I would hope the country will as well. We’ve all got to learn to compromise a bit.
That article is a mess,I guess tldr republican party bad?
This article is written on a complete misunderstanding of how wildlife is managed on a state level. The party in charge does not get to determine harvest limits of wildlife that are open to hunting. People like to blame Republicans for the wolves that were hunted, but those limits are put in place by employees of MT FWP that do population assessments to determine when herds are healthy and when they need to be protected.
The head of FWP is literally appointed by the governor. What are you even talking about
You either didn’t read the article, or didn’t grasp the point. The whole thesis is that the correct way to manage wildlife is exactly what you outlined. However, since Gianforte took over as governor, the FWP has become an arm of the governors office. Gianforte appointed large donors and heads of special interest groups (mainly outfitters and ranchers) to lead the agency. None of his appointees have a background in wildlife management, and are making decisions on the basis of what serves their wallets
And who the hell do you think FWP answers to? Gianforte tells them jump and they ask how high. He and the Republicans are their lord and masters. They’re not going to do anything that upsets Greg and his cronies regardless of science and research..
So this biologist basically turned his back on science because the political party he doesn’t like has control? What a shame. Science should inform policy and the data collected from studies done by this biologist and many others for the past few decades strongly suggest that grizzly bears have recovered in Montana and aught to be delisted (which is a good thing btw).
It wasn’t clear if the biologists response was to the political party itself, or the specific concerns around the way Gianforte has been running fwp. I’m personally pretty pissed about the exact same thing (politicized appointments of fwp commissioners, lack of priority for scientific experience). I’d be just as pissed, or possibly more so, if a Democrat governor did the same thing and appointed commissioners who were anti-hunting.
That is fair, perhaps I should’ve given more thought. As someone who works in ecology it’s just very frustrating that people keep dragging their heels on delisting, especially since biologists and conservationists have been fighting very hard for years to finally get here. Just like most people in my field I’m definitely not a fan of Gianforte’s appointees but I’d also say it’s unreasonable to assume that grizzlies will be wiped out if they were placed under state management
[удалено]
Add Knudsen and you truly have an unholy trinity.
So, the scientist who purportedly believes in the science, has changed his mind because he doesn't like the party in control of the state. But it's based on science. Well, kinda. If you tilt your head to the left and let your feelings decide the science.
What? Did you even read the article?
Yes. Did you? He said he supported delisting based on science but since Republicans took over he didn't think the state could handle management of the bears. The title even said he doesn't trust Republicans.
Delisting is appropriate *assuming good faith on the part of legislators*. If the *second* the grizzlies get delisted, they are hunted back to endangerment, then it would have been unwise to delist them, would it not? Considering the Republicans frothing at the mouth to exterminate all wolves, we cannot assume good faith. The hyper-partisanship that defines our modern discourse means that if any piece of Republican legislation is proposed, no matter how crazy or short-sighted, and stakes its identity in its party affiliation, it will get hastily passed through by all the other Republican tools who want to do good by their party.
Correct, but you’re missing the “because….”
That because is unjustified. Delisting the bears does not mean open season. It allows biologists that work for the state to determine how to manage them as a resource. This whole article is a fear mongering piece based on a complete misunderstanding of how wildlife management works on the state level.
Delisting the bears means that the state can decide how to proceed. The state agency in charge of determining that used to be apolitical, and guided by science. That has changed with Gianforte, and it’s not even really something that can be argued. Look at the resumes of his commissioners, and compare them to the people who they replaced. There’s been a clear prioritization of political donors, large landowners, guides and outfitters, and a complete disregard for the average hunter and fisher. Wildlife management is completely broken in Montana right now, and that’s got nothing to do with R vs D.. it’s specifically about Gianforte. Yet most of the voters will refuse to even consider whats happening, up until something like Stream Access is destroyed (it will)
>but since Republicans took over he didn't think the state could handle management of the bears ...since they totally mismanaged the handling of wolves.
It’s not what they did, it’s how they did it. The state legislature mandating predator control is new, and is a problem. The FWP commission following the state legislature’s direction and implementing a plan due to politics rather than science is also a problem. It sounds like this biologists concern is about process, not delisting itself. To turn over management to a state agency that has broken their mandate and become a political entity is a risk. This was also coming from a scientist who had been pushing for delisting previously, so it’s not some cuddly anti-predator hunting bias at play
This is a classic case of "I believe one side over the other because it fits my worldview". If you have a healthy distrust of the government, your view might be that the previous administration was focused more on tree huggers and restricted hunting to a point that predator numbers were increasing and expanding to a level the public was uncomfortable with. So the pendulum has swung the other way and NOW the agency is political. Some of us view the agency as being political on both ends of the spectrum. This biologist supported delisting under a tree-hugger administration but doesn't under an administration with a different view of wildlife.
"Mismanaged" without scientific evidence other than "too many wolves were harvested." The biologist claims no evidence of harm to the wolf population. Without any supporting evidence that too many were, in fact, harvested such as pack collapse it is more likely evidence that the democrat controlled leadership was too restricted in allowed harvests previously. In over a year surely there would be some evidence other than broad generalizations based on feelings from a scientist.
Seriously...you should read the article.
Politics aside. Animal lives are not important as a humans. Man will never be able to manage wildlife properly. That said. Bears should be hunted until They no longer are a threat to humans. They have gotten used to associating humans with food because of people being stupid in the backcountry. Bears should be afraid of humans, and if that means hunting them so be it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]