SummitPost.org

The point I was trying to make, mrchad9, is that your apparent sense of killing something seems a bit, uh, cavalier. Reminds me of Jimbo and Ned on South Park. I'm not saying this goat shouldn't have been destroyed. I'm just saying that all life has at least some value. And you saying "they should be shot with bullets at the first sign of aggressive behavior" and "It's just a game animal" make you look like you blow away anything out there that looks cross-eyed at you. I'm no tree-hugging hippie type, trust me, but, man, that's a scary attitude. Hope that is not the case.

Brian- I'm not ready to just blow anything away- as Bombchaser could attest to. He and I have been in lengthy discussion on guns in NP, with me pretty much against them.

But as I said on the previous page, if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.

I'm not a hunter, but I have hunted. Yes, all life has some value, but this species is killed regularly all the time for much more benign reasons than aggressive behavior. Obviously this animal was an issue for the NPS to be harassing it with bean bags. I just think going to such lengths is unnecessary when it would be shot dead the second it steps outside the park boundary anyway.

I wouldn't shoot an animal with bean bags that looked cross-eyed at me. But I don't think the NPS would either. So it fairly safe to assume the animal did something worse than that. Not trying to be cavalier, but the NPS takes an overly conservative approach. As a result a good man is dead and his wife is now a widow.

More info:

Another friend of the victim, Tom Bihn, of Port Angeles, said he personally had several unsettling encounters with the goat he believes injured Boardman, 63. "He aggressively charged toward me," said Bihn. "He charges up to you, stops six to 12 feet away, snorts and scratches the ground to indicate he's in charge."

Park officials acknowledge that the goat that gored Boardman in the thigh and then stood over him to prevent others from coming to his aid was among several goats which, over the past four years, have become increasingly aggressive.

From here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ts19m.html

Bombchaser wrote: Oh and then there's the wolves that have moved down into the Oregon Cascades now too.

Umm..... Not in the Oregon Cascades. Ranchers are saying they have spotted them in the Blues and Wallowas... But the USDA is not confirming this. many people confuse Coyotes for Wolves.

OK, points taken, mrchad9, thanks.

mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]

Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]

Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

Sounds like you've never been to Yosemite.

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]

Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

The well-known species are intensively managed in most national parks in the Lower 48. Alston Chase's Playing God in Yellowstone is probably the most famous book on this but there are many more.

On Olympic's goats, see Lyman's White Goats, White Lies. But read it with a grain of salt.

mrchad9 wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]

Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

Sounds like you've never been to Yosemite.

Your assumption is correct.

This is probably why I am completely amazed how people can talk over 4 pages on government liability regarding an accident happening in a NP and involving a human and a wild animal. Sounds like the definition of a National Park ranges from “no human intervention” to “Disneyland-style animal/natural park”... For what it is worth, Wikipedia is enlightening regarding this cultural gap. Here the first words of the “National Park” article for Wikipedia in different languages (roughly translated):

French: A national park is a territory defined by decree, in which fauna flora and the natural environment are generally protected from the human activities.

Italian: A national park is a protected territory, declared as such by a national government, which is preserved through specific norms from the human development and pollution.

Spanish: a national park is a category of protected area with a specific legal status which allows to protect and preserve the richness of its flora and fauna.

English: A national park is a reserve of natural or semi-natural land, declared or owned by a government, set aside for human recreation and enjoyment [...]

I guess the NP park you mentioned is an example where human recreation and enjoyment is given number one priority... Worldwide, the concept of National Park however gives more emphasis on the protection of fauna/flora/environment from the humans rather than the enjoyment for the human. Anyway, two can be partially combined as long as the humans are carefully managed...

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

Sounds like you've never been to Yosemite.

Your assumption is correct.

This is probably why I am completely amazed how people can talk over 4 pages on government liability regarding an accident happening in a NP and involving a human and a wild animal. Sounds like the definition of a National Park ranges from “no human intervention” to “Disneyland-style animal/natural park”... For what it is worth, Wikipedia is enlightening regarding this cultural gap. Here the first words of the “National Park” article for Wikipedia in different languages (roughly translated):

French: A national park is a territory defined by decree, in which fauna flora and the natural environment are generally protected from the human activities.

Italian: A national park is a protected territory, declared as such by a national government, which is preserved through specific norms from the human development and pollution.

Spanish: a national park is a category of protected area with a specific legal status which allows to protect and preserve the richness of its flora and fauna.

English: A national park is a reserve of natural or semi-natural land, declared or owned by a government, set aside for human recreation and enjoyment [...]

I guess the NP park you mentioned is an example where human recreation and enjoyment is given number one priority... Worldwide, the concept of National Park however gives more emphasis on the protection of fauna/flora/environment from the humans rather than the enjoyment for the human. Anyway, two can be partially combined as long as the humans are carefully managed...

Well said Bruno. I like this post- like so many you have put up in the past. Interesting comparison you have done between the countries, and I have to agree with it as well. This is why I am against national parks in the US. Much more in favor of national forests and wilderness areas.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]

Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.

The well-known species are intensively managed in most national parks in the Lower 48. Alston Chase's Playing God in Yellowstone is probably the most famous book on this but there are many more.

On Olympic's goats, see Lyman's White Goats, White Lies. But read it with a grain of salt.

As I said in my first post, my statement was intentionally oversimplifying the issue in order to strengthen the absurdity of discussing government liability in the (failed) management of a single goat in a national park...

I haven’t read the two books you mentioned, but the title on the first one “Playing God” perfectly illustrates what I was trying to highlight. In principle, humans don’t need to “play god” in a natural reserve, they rather leave it as a space where nature manages itself by itself, without or with only minimal human intervention. This is at least the concept of natural reserves in most of the world.

In specific case, an intensive human intervention might be needed to foster certain objectives (the reintroduction of a previously eradicated species being an obvious example), but this usually results from a necessity to repair a misbalance created by the humans.

That said, I have no particular sympathy for that goat, especially if it was not a native species of that particular NP.

Cheers,
Bruno

mrchad9 wrote:Well said Bruno. I like this post- like so many you have put up in the past. Interesting comparison you have done between the countries, and I have to agree with it as well. This is why I am against national parks in the US. Much more in favor of national forests and wilderness areas.

Thanks. Actually I might have been confused by the meaning of National Parks and wilderness areas in the US. In my understanding a National Park and a Natural Reserve do obey to similar priciples and are not much differ. In that sense I was rather speaking of a natural reserve or wilderness area.

Vitaliy M wrote: Was it this goat?

Nope, think it was this one..

Bruno_Tibet wrote:This is probably why I am completely amazed how people can talk over 4 pages on government liability regarding an accident happening in a NP and involving a human and a wild animal. Sounds like the definition of a National Park ranges from “no human intervention” to “Disneyland-style animal/natural park”...

"I agree with Bruno !! Now, could somebody please serve me a burger ???"

OJ Loenneker wrote:

Bombchaser wrote: Oh and then there's the wolves that have moved down into the Oregon Cascades now too.

Umm..... Not in the Oregon Cascades. Ranchers are saying they have spotted them in the Blues and Wallowas... But the USDA is not confirming this. many people confuse Coyotes for Wolves.

Having snowshoed all over the Cascades in deep winter I have never come across large dog tracks high up in deep snow until this past winter season. Also came across a large number of cougar tracks.

Here is one of many recent news links:
http://www.oregonwild.org/about/press-r ... n-cascades

Some follow-ups and discussion by people who don't put pictures of bears on a mountain goat thread:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... -parks7117

"How Might Fatal Attack By Mountain Goat Change Backcountry Dynamics in National Parks?"

If they were REALLY worried about fatalities in National Parks they would ban automobiles.