I interpreted his remarks as being more along the lines of "Wolves are such dangerous predators that they will kill the entire homeless population if we don't annihilate them first." Still stupid, but not a suggestion to use wolves as a final solution to the problem of homelessness.
Nomadic societies have lived and flourished alongside wolves for centuries.
I tend to be pro animal rights and I support protecting grey wolves and other endangered species.
But I actually respect his statement as painting a vivid picture of the difficulty of living in an area with dangerous, predatory animals around. It doesn't change my stance on the wolves, but I would be open to attempts to compromise and understand that the wolves pose a danger to his constituents, one that they have to live with and I don't.
As to his comments on the homeless, I don't actually think this is indicative of anything about his stance toward them. I take it as scolding of other lawmakers for whom he thinks the homeless should be a more important issue, and his statement does emphasize their vulnerability to natural outdoor hazards.
I realize that in an age of the Internet, everyone likes to pick at everything. And maybe he's a horrible guy in other respects. But based on this article, he's just a guy who dramatically illustrated his point(s) about the dangers of wolves and the vulnerability of the homeless.
You can chuck Young in the 'Horrible Person' bin with no worry that he may have been wrongly categorized. This statement was insensitive, inaccurate, and melodramatic, yet better than a lot of what comes out of his mouth. His big concern is the small percentage of profit that may be lost due to wolf predation of livestock. He's just wrapped it in false concern about the lives of the homeless.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Reply
:)
Reply
Reply
Nomadic societies have lived and flourished alongside wolves for centuries.
Reply
Reply
I tend to be pro animal rights and I support protecting grey wolves and other endangered species.
But I actually respect his statement as painting a vivid picture of the difficulty of living in an area with dangerous, predatory animals around. It doesn't change my stance on the wolves, but I would be open to attempts to compromise and understand that the wolves pose a danger to his constituents, one that they have to live with and I don't.
As to his comments on the homeless, I don't actually think this is indicative of anything about his stance toward them. I take it as scolding of other lawmakers for whom he thinks the homeless should be a more important issue, and his statement does emphasize their vulnerability to natural outdoor hazards.
I realize that in an age of the Internet, everyone likes to pick at everything. And maybe he's a horrible guy in other respects. But based on this article, he's just a guy who dramatically illustrated his point(s) about the dangers of wolves and the vulnerability of the homeless.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment