Looks like a griz eats another tourist in Yellowstone

crm3137 said:
If you're trying to be sarcastic it's hard to pick up. Since you claim to agree with them, I would love to see your facts if you can get them out of the wheelbarrow with the rest of the bravosierra you're carting around. I live in a rural area and I can guarantee you that my impact or footprint is less than anyone who lives in an apartment building in West Hollywood. The fact that the Dept. of Ecology and the Conservation District of my county pay us to keep our land as is tells me so. Save your liberal politics for some other forum. Your post has nothing to do with the OP unless you really think that it's reasonable and possible to kick everyone out of the Rocky Mountain states.

The short-sighted thinking displayed by you and your very liberal socialist types is so ironic .....
Click to expand...

Here is review of a book by a well known New York Columnist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/books/review/Royte-t.html
It say's people who live in an urban environment have a larger carbon footprint on average.
It's pretty cool that you benefit from socialist handouts to live on your land. It's rare we get welfare cases on our forum. Congratulations on that. :D
As for national parks, there are quite a few areas that had almost made it to that status, but were ultimately stymied by one or two ranchers with a few thousand acres. In many cases, these ranches are owned by very wealthy individuals who pay for fencing and keep out signs, but rarely vacation in their estates. So many of us have to go to crowded National Parks to be out in the wild. The Grizzlies and Wolves have nowhere else to go.
 
Socialist handout? That's a bit of a stretch and it's far more complicated than that. Quite honestly, they're planning ahead and offsetting your urban carbon footprint that you just confirmed is larger on average. You should be glad we planted 1400+ trees over the last four years and after paying the tax bill we have re-compensated our fellow citizens. And sorry, but a nytimes columnist is hardly a credible source.

So to be clear, you're against socialist government programs but you would like to see the government own and control more land for use by people like yourself because the Parks are too crowded. I just want to be clear because a lot of people consider the National Park system to be high on the list of socialist programs and your post was a little confusing.

Go a little further, not all Parks are crowded.
 
Last edited:
crm3137 said:
...Go a little further, not all Parks are crowded.
Click to expand...

There are only a little over 84 million acres in our National Parks system, 193 million acres of National Forest. A lot of those acres are away from the crowded parking lots and developed campgrounds. And then there are the State Parks. California alone has over 1.5 million acres in State Parks and 20 million in National Forests. On average, I would say that there are less people per square mile on those lands than in the typical big city. The land already set aside as "wild" exceeds the size of a lot of Nations.
 
crm3137 said:
I just want to be clear because a lot of people consider the National Park system to be high on the list of socialist programs and your post was a little confusing.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking in character and having fun with this thread.:D But, I do believe the National Park system to be the best contribution America has made to the world. Yes, the world. We didn't just save it for us. For our European and Asian brethren, it's there for them to enjoy as well. It was created by my favorite president, Teddy Roosevelt. I doubt even Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are against the National park system. I've read all the books published by Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, I haven't read anything that would suggest their against the national park system.
One exception: I know Glenn Beck believes we should be allowed to drill in the Alaskan national parks and wildlife refuges in that state. I've read it and heard it from his own mouth. But he's not for getting rid of the National Park system altogether. Regardless, I consider his opinion tainted. I'd be spouting off to millions of listeners whatever it is you want me to say if you paid me well enough.
For those fortunate enough to live in the West near these great national parks, visit them and enjoy it. But elsewhere, good luck. Oh and if you visit the smoky mountains NP, you may want to wear a respirator. It's the most crowded NP in America, and the smog is worse than Los Angeles in August. :p
 
I would agree, they are a great contribution to the world. I'm especially heartened by the efforts other countries are making to set aside land for National parks and refuges.

Do your liberal friends know you read Savage and Beck? :D Unfortunately many on their side DO want to extract resources from National reserves/refuges and it is a short-sighted vision they have.

Anyways, it's a shame to read about the smog in the Smokies. If you ever make it out to Washington, I would gladly show you around one of our National Parks and particularly emphasize the uncrowded areas. Olympic National Park is practically at my doorstep, a million acres with 95% declared backcountry wilderness; no roads, no structures, minimal permanent placements, a wonderland of mountains, forests, and streams.
 
DrivebyTrucker said:
I live in the city and count some very liberal socialist types amongst my friends.
Click to expand...

Liberal socialist Hollowdweller raises his hand.:thumbup:

But I'm a redneck socialist that lives in the country.
20070423image0046lk7.jpg
 
Politics aside, I just want an America where people are informed and vote.:thumbup: Even if your obese and poor and your voting for someone who wants to vote down healthcare and increase tax cuts for the wealthy, at least your voting. Even better if you contribute some money to a politicians campaign.

As for being eatin alive by predators in National parks, I guess it's just a risk I'd rather live with than to live without the animals. Millions of people visit Yellowstone NP each year. Two people have been eatin, maybe five by years end. Eh....so what? What are going to do? Allow everyone to carry guns in national parks and get jumpy each time they close in on a Grizzly or Wolf Pack for pictures and are surprised when they turn aggressive? If we did that we might have Wolves and Grizzlies being shot all the time. They're not many of them and they don't reproduce as fast as we do. I like our outdoors a little on the wild side. I might get eatin by a bear? Cool! Not a bad way to go:thumbup: I like to think I'd go out fighting with a large knife in my hand:cool:

Off topic: What about sharks? They scare the hell out of me! Should we just kill all the Great Whites and Tigersharks until they're extinct? Or just live with the fact that when surfing you just might get eatin? I know I stated earlier I'd be ok with being eatin by a grizzly, wolf, or mountain, but I'm not cool with the idea of being eatin by shark. I don't stand a chance! Maybe if I went swimming with a wakizashi sword strapped to my back?:rolleyes: Nah, I look ridiculous enough in a Speedo without having to add to it. :p
 
DrivebyTrucker said:
The Grizzlies and Wolves have nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

Why not transplant them back to their former stomping grounds (most of our major cities:))? They’d have plenty to eat and an eager audience full of people who would, presumably, be immeasurably relieved by the opportunity to abide by the conditions that they would happily force upon others.

Such a solution would solve a myriad of problems:

Most of those who suffer from the dreaded “Bambi-complex” are city dwellers that haven’t had the pleasure of losing valuable livestock, pets, or family members to the cuddly furry creatures so rudely displaced by the naked ape and his brethren. Undoubtedly a healthy urban population of grizzly bears and wolves would help test those theories so beloved in our population centers.

And since most of the population lives within a relatively short distance of a major urban center; having roaming packs of wolves running the nearby streets would certainly help to curtail our gluttonous use of petroleum (since there would be no need for a long distance drive to see the wonder of the wild). Just think of how exciting it would be to watch a roving pack of wolves tear Fluffy apart in your front yard.

Our cities are well equipped to deal with the logistical problems associated with an influx of tourists:thumbup: – another plus on the side of introducing dangerous animals back into their (entire) former habitat.

Who wouldn’t want the chance to inadvertently cross the invisible line that defines a sow grizzly’s “comfort zone” while bicycling to work? Think of the rush as you watch 400 pounds of fury rapidly closing the distance, teeth snapping and popping in anticipation of the carnage about to be unleashed. We certainly shouldn’t deprive the city dwellers of such an experience – that simply wouldn’t be fair.

Roaches predate dinosaurs by a goodly amount of time. Coincidently roaches also predate bears, wolves, mountain lions, deer, fuzzy little bunny rabbits, and most forms of life currently on this earth. But I have yet to hear of a person espousing the theory that humans are somehow “trespassing” on the poor roaches’ land - a point practically begging for further exploration.

Without doubt I am older than any grizzly bear (or wolf) currently living in, or near, Yellowstone National Park. In fact I first visited the park 40-some years ago; a reality that would imply presumptive ownership (of the park and surrounding land) if popular theory is to be believed.

Of course nobody actually believes the bears (and wolves, etc...) are trespassing on my land (by means of my being there ahead of the current, wild, occupants) – and that is the point.

This “They were here first” theory is deeply flawed and completely meaningless. We have only to look at the lowly roach to understand how silly such a theory really is; or more accurately, how self-serving that misguided theory is.

Being “first” is a human concoction. Life isn’t about “first” at all. Life is about “Now” – it’s about winning those daily battles until a “loss” ends it all.

Lest people misunderstand: I don’t hate animals at all, in fact I admire them deeply and respect them for their power, grace, beauty and perseverance. But I’d kill every last one of them if I thought I had to, and I wouldn’t feel the least bit guilty.

Animals understand that – it’s the code of life. It’s us people who don’t get it.
 
can you run with them

the night winds howling
like wolves calling to the pack
through the city streets

can you run with them
whispering their hidden names
scenting the fresh blood?

-- EB
 
those of us that do live in the west don't waste our time in the NPs. to many damn tourist...
we stay in the wilderness areas or remote NF and state lands. you couldn't pay me to go to a NP...
 
meismjg said:
That's for sure. When I visited yellow stone there was a huge moose with its calf about 100 feet from the road. People pulled to the side of the road and stood by their cars and started watching. Suddenly a woman started running toward the moose with her daughter as the husband followed behind with a camera. Everyone started screaming things like "OMG GET AWAY" "COME BACK" "WHAT ARE YOU DOING", but the family was Asian tourist and did not understand, and they ended up posing for a picture standing about 10 feet in front of the moose. They returned safely to their car and I doubt they had any idea how dangerous the situation they put themselves in.
Click to expand...

My wife is from Alaska and I saw something similar, I was in my truck and stopped half ready to get my rifle from behind the seat expecting the mother to go nuts on them but thankfully the moose and calf just moved into the thick brush making the tourists uninterested.

Tourists do some crazy things, and occasionally they aren't lucky enough to go home with a kodak moment to share with their friends.
 
I've just come off night-shift, and for some reason, when I saw the title of the thread, I thought that Bear Grylls had eaten a tourist in Yellowstone:D
Well, I suppose it'd be tastier than a lot of stuff he eats...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top