Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_iw0m4ry wrote

Grizzlies were driven out of the Western US for a reason. Putting them too close major population centers is a horrible idea. They have tons of territory in the Rockies, Canada, and Alaska in more remote places

4

t1_iw0mda9 wrote

The horrible idea would be putting major population centers too close to native grizzly habitat. We have tons of territory in other places too.

7

t1_iw0mipf wrote

[removed]

8

t1_iw0mqzr wrote

Or accept the risks of where you choose to live.

Otherwise, you are, in fact, espousing the belief that you are right to reshape nature as you see fit, to serve your own ends.

5

t1_iw0n1ka wrote

[removed]

4

t1_iw0n8fv wrote

The classic "we do this already, so we can and should do it MORE" argument.

6

t1_iw0neox wrote

The classic "revert nature to what it was before modern society" pipe dream

6

t1_iw0nq68 wrote

I'm not actually suggesting that. I'm suggesting you should accept the risks inherent to the choices you make. I have no problem with someone wanting to build a cabin in the woods, for instance. I also have no sympathy for them when it burns down in a forest fire.

I'm saying nature has a right to exist, and if you want to force/keep a species out of an area, you need a better reason than "I want my recreational activities to be less risky."

4

t1_iw0nzg1 wrote

[removed]

3

t1_iw0o8pc wrote

Yep, you getting to have recreation wherever you want, with a risk level you're willing to tolerate is more important than other species getting to simply live in their natural habitat.

You: "I love the Washington wilderness, but fuck nature - it should be less wild"

3

t1_iw0okba wrote

[removed]

3

t1_iw0ouss wrote

You're defending the choices of the past while pretending not to espouse the beliefs that justified them. LOL.

That's kind of like saying "I'm not racist, but the people of this area thought it was in our best interest to restrict the rights of black people. I'm just a fan of the status quo".

1