4 ms·
I don't know the particulars of the Wyoming project, but I can speak about this issue in depth from a firsthand perspective regarding the gray wolf reintroducti
by arca_vorago 9y ago
I don't know the particulars of the Wyoming project, but I can speak about this issue in depth from a firsthand perspective regarding the gray wolf reintroduction program that started in my tiny mountain town in Arizona in 98.
First, I have to say I generally understand people wanting to preserve a species and help an ecosystem. I really do. I have seen very little good science to back up the purported reasons for the reintroduction program though. Supposed benefits, ignoring the "tourist economy", such as elk and deer grazing habit changes for waterways, have not held up, and even if they did, were miniscule benefits that could be handled in other ways. (For example, instead of hoping wolves will hunt beaver which cause damage (but also help in ways), they could increase beaver tags. Right now the White Mountain Apache reservation is having a wild horse problem. The wolves aren't nearly numerous enough to even put a dent in it.
I have witnessed firsthand the kind of destruction that results in freshly minted PHD's showing up in a forest they've never been to and insisting they know better than the families that have lived on that land for 100+ years. The primary example of this for me was the large forest fires in the area. The old timer loggers were saying they should be allowed to thin the forests out, and that they should be allowing natural burns to go longer and be doing more control burns. The PHD's at the forest service insisted against this, and then the pine beetle infestation hit, and then a flame and poof... twice, more than 400k acres up in flames. This has created distrust in the locals.
I also question some of the shock value statistics being thrown around to villify or negate ranchers concerns. I've heard from people that they are increasingly restricting and disallowing public grazing... so how can decreases of livestock attacks really be trusted when there aren't nearly the same amount of livestock in the first place?
I haven't even mentioned how badly the actual reintroduction program was handled. They started by cage feeding pairs and releasing them as a pair. The wolves were way to reliant on being fed and way too unafraid of humans. Now they are trying to put cage born/fed pups into already wild packs...
My family jokes I'm half-Apache because I spent so much time in the forest when I was younger, but now we don't let friends or family go out to half our little secret spots without being armed. It's easy to say "wolves are more afraid of you" and spout all the things that PHD told you because he read them in a book, but when you are in the forest and hear a pack across the ridge at night... it has vastly changed the atmosphere of the mountains. Before the reintro program we really only had to worry about mountain lions and the occasional bear... both of which were much more scared of humans than any gray wolf is, especially in a pack. That being said though, I knew ranchers who have had more losses from the mountain lions than from the wolves, which is one of the reasons a mountain lion hunt is tradition in the area.
In the local population, this has created massive blowback, to the point that I openly hear people spreading the three S's when it comes to wolves. Shoot, shovel, and shhhhhhh. I never heard of anyone actually doing it, because the forest service put out a 50k reward for reporting such an action!
The bottom line is that at every turn I have seen phd environmentalists assume they know best and end up causing blowback that bites locals in the ass, while the forest service/blm will just move that person somewhere else and they never have to deal with the consequences of their actions. The locals are tired of this kind of federal over-reach.
New Mexico as I understand it currently has an injunction against the reintro program for just this reasons. I say good for them.
In all my years in the forest though, I only saw one up close and personal in the wild once. It was huge, beautiful, and majestic, and I'm glad I was in a vehicle. I simply don't see the real value of their reintroduction other than to make what my grandpa would call the "hippy tree huggers" feel good. In 20 years, they barely have the pop above 100.
edit: seeing lots of hate for ranchers. I honestly don't think people understand how important rachers are to the ecosystems, a thousand times more important than wolves. As for hunters, I generally have a lot of disdain for them. Locals bag one elk and share it. City-boy hunters who think they are country put on camo, sit in a stand all day and bag something mostly for the picture and the trophy, and that bothers me greatly. They also tend to have a lack of respect for the forest. Just saying, don't equate hunters or illegal hunters with the ranchers.
- diebir 9y ago"I honestly don't think people understand how important rachers are to the ecosystems, a thousand times more important than wolves." All right I'll bite. Where in Arizona? Mogollon Rim? Arizona Strip? The Kaibab? Aside from these above Arizona is desert. The desert is fragile. The cows destroy the desert. The American West (deserts) are mountains of cow shit. Every stream, every spring, every alcove is fouled if the cows can get in. The cows are the biggest destructive force in the desert I have ever seen. The saddest part is that the open range ranching in desert Southwest is not even profitable without large subsidies and support by the taxpayer. These ranches are "pretend cowboys" making a living by other means. A handful of cows they own does not really help anyone and the costs of us all are huge. Now, to the forested parts of Arizona. The Kaibab and the Arizona Strip are essentially a park land. If not for cows, it would be a pristine wilderness. This is all federal land. We do not need cows there either. 6 months ago I went on foot from Bryce to Nankoweap. The cows on Kaibab wreck havoc just like everywhere else. The Kaibab is dotted by swaths of open areas made by ranchers years ago for grazing, still nothing grows. What is really important for any ecosystem I am aware of, is to NOT have cows and ranching. We have enough developed and rich land in other places. Please leave the West alone! Please go to Texas where all land is private and raise your livestock there. This said, fewer cows and higher beef prices would help in general as well.
- arca_vorago 9y agoMogollon Rim is awfully big, but yeah. More specifically Apache-Sitgreaves/Gila national forest. I'm not talking about and don't know about the desert so those points are moot as are the ones about the strip and kaibab. That's not to say you are wrong about them in particular, but our particular ecosystem it's different. However, the grazing on public land isn't all good. In chokepoints sometimes land destruction happens, for example. That being said, the idea of leaving pristine wilderness that way for the sake of it fails the understand the bigger picture I am talking about here. For example, if we were to leave the pristine wilderness to do it's thing, we should let natural burns just do their thing. That's part of my original statement. The forest service was interfering with the natural process of burns in the forest and in the end caused more damage than benefit. The livestock have helped keep underbrush down, and since the fires have helped to spread plant life and reinvograte the forest. The ranchers in tending the stock have also performed many of the duties that the forest service otherwise would do, and often don't have the time, manpower, or funding to get done. Honestly though I just happen to be a geek from the area, I don't know that much about the grazing system and I would have to ask the people who do know about it. So to summarize, my list of good things are: reduced wildfire risk, increased plant diversity, invasive plant control, and reduction of public funds needed for land management (I've seen estimates at over $750m saved per year by public grazing programs nationally). I have to say a response like yours is exactly what I'm talking about. The kind of knee-jerk "save the land" response without considering the pragmatic reality of the situation. Ranchers alone, if done properly, could keep the pristine wilderness more pristine than if it was all just walled off and no-one ever went there.