7 ms·
I'd be a touch less sympathetic, the 800 animals lost to wolves a year out of a population of over 1.6 million is infinitesimally small, if anything it shows wo
by posguy 9y ago
I'd be a touch less sympathetic, the 800 animals lost to wolves a year out of a population of over 1.6 million is infinitesimally small, if anything it shows wolves are not a notable threat to herds grazing on public lands.
Another article about a similar situation that trhway posted below: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-denali-wolf-20120521 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-dena...
TLDR: Hunter kills a horse in a creek, fouling it for the local residents who rely on it & making them boil their water so its drinkable (very expensive to do).
Said hunter used dead horse to kill the majority of one of the most well known wolf packs out there, this hunter successfully fucked over the locals water supply, and gave the National Parks Service hard data that getting rid of the buffer zone was bad (as these wolves were part of their study.
Seems ridiculous to allow people to shit all over state & federal lands, creating serious health hazards and killing tourism.
- protomyth 9y agoEvery head of cattle is still a lot of money for those ranchers. If its only 800, then the government should have no problem getting the money for a cheap solution. Using one idiot to brand all ranchers is pretty reprehensible especially because waving that bloody shirt has no part in the argument I put forward.
- posguy 9y agoWhy should the government subsidize ranchers? Seriously, the fact that ranchers got away with unrestricted grazing and nary a threat from other wildlife for decades was a gift, and if ranchers thought the government would allow them to continue to trample their local ecosystems unimpeded indefinitely, then they were really off their rocker. Also, I'm not branding ranchers here, just idiots with guns calling themselves "hunters", which the asshat in the aforementioned article is far from being. Idiots like him have caused public sentiment about hunting to turn negative, which is bad for the rest of us as that means more restrictions & rules.
- protomyth 9y agoThe government isn't subsidizing ranchers, its paying for the damage caused by something it basically owns. If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation. I can tell you from experience that talking to your insurance company will be non-fun. What association should I draw from your response with that story to my proposal? He was an idiot, but there are idiots everywhere.
- diebir 9y agoThe US government IS subsidizing ranchers! http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West"
- protomyth 9y agoI am talking in this specific case.
- bqe 9y agoIn Washington state, ranchers are subsidized. They are allowed to graze their cattle on public land for free, and when wolves kill their cattle, Washington state Fish and Wildlife uses helicopters to kill the wolves at over $1,000/hour cost to taxpayers. They are killing the Profanity Peak pack as we speak because a rancher refused to not let his cattle graze unmonitored right next to their den. Why should I have to pay because some rancher refuses to move his cattle to some other land he also doesn't have to pay to use? http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/profanity-peak-wolf-pack-in-states-gun-sights-after-rancher-turns-out-cattle-on-den/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/profani...
- protomyth 9y agoI am once again telling you my statement was about my proposal. I am not talking about any other aspect of ranching.