Yup. Measure outputs not inputs.

The operative word here is "can", as opposed to "does". If their job performance actually does suffer, then fire them for substandard performance. The reason their performance is substandard isn't relevant. Measure performance and manage people accordingly.

Agreed. If you expect me to put any of your work shit on my phone, you should expect to subsidize my phone, or provide one to me.

You can always tell them you don't HAVE a phone capable of setting and receiving text messages.

> Blizzards are part of nature, too, but you don't want to encounter those, either. We don't have control over blizzards, though.

What do you do if you don't want to hike in a blizzard? You don't got hiking when blizzards are likely. Likewise, if you don't want to be attacked by a grizzly, either feel free to not hike in grizzly county, or come prepared to defend yourself.

If you're unwilling to accept the consequences of the natural environment you live in, you should consider living elsewhere.

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".

>My argument is that we decided years ago that is in our region's best interest to not have grizzlies.

That's the same argument.

Humans are thriving in tons of other places in North America. This isn't about human lives - it's about human convenience. I don't dispute that your life is more "valuable" than a bear's. I dispute that the fulfillment of your recreational goals is.

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"

I'm literally just parroting your argument back to you, in the hopes that you realize how stupid it is.

Your argument is really "humans are the superior species and therefore we have the right to do whatever we want to all other species, so fuck 'em" and I just wish you'd own that.

There what is? The illustration of how stupid your argument is?

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."

If you want to do stuff outside, move to Texas and have a field day.

They didn't leave. They were forced out.

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

Or accept the risks of where you choose to live.

Otherwise, you are, in fact, espousing the belief that you are right to reshape nature as you see fit, to serve your own ends.

I know you think that's clever and all, but velociraptors don't actually exist.

So your argument is basically "I am more important than nature"?

Go to somewhere that isn't part of Grizzly bears' natural habitat if you want to recreate without the fear of getting eaten alive.

The horrible idea would be putting major population centers too close to native grizzly habitat. We have tons of territory in other places too.

And yet here you are suggesting that we shouldn't repatriate a species that we (basically) removed from the area because it would make it more dangerous for us, as if WE are the purpose of nature.

The point is if you're not okay with the risks of being out in the wild, stay home.

3. People who think the desire for outdoor recreation doesn't mean we should sanitize the wild and domesticate it to our liking.

Isn't part of the point of being outdoors that you're out in nature? Aren't grizzly bears part of that nature?

If we try to domesticate the wild, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?

Wild animals tend not to attack people who aren't in the wild.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't go out into the wild - just that your desire to be in the wild doesn't give you the right to domesticate it.