Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

juiceboxzero t1_iw0n8fv wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Federal government restarts effort to restore grizzly bears to Washington’s rugged North Cascades by Elijah_nicholas

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

6

CnD123 t1_iw0neox wrote

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

6

juiceboxzero 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

[deleted] t1_iw0nzg1 wrote

[removed]

3

juiceboxzero 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

[deleted] t1_iw0okba wrote

[removed]

3

juiceboxzero 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