Reply #25: Right [View All]

[nam78_two]

However, in this instance y=no. of humans+ no. of wolves (loosely speaking); And it is really y=y1+y2, where one of the ys does not really
depend on x for survival, whereas the other does. Humans prey on the same prey, but do not rely on them for their survival. The wolves are not the only predators here and I think the stance many people take on this (and is reflected in many of the protections of Endangered Species) is based on the fact the humans do not necessarily need to hunt to survive. I realise that there are populations of people that need to hunt for subsistence, but I am not sure the Alaska Outdoor Group for instance fits that bill. And also if I am recollecting this bit of legislation right (passed by Murkowski if I am correct) you are not talking about your local, average Joe hunter who needs to hunt to eat. If I remember right this was implemented more as a form of entertainment for relatively wealthy people (don't most of them use their private planes to hunt here?) as a form of entertainment. To me from the get-go, this seemed like another Republican ploy to use fuzzy math to pretend that there was an actual explosion in predator population that needed checking. Kinda like Bush saying that farmed salmon are an indication of the health of an eco-system.