7 ms·
It sounds like the gist of this article is that it is beneficial to add the wolves backs, people support adding the wolves back [1], but people who maintain liv
by mooman219 7y ago
It sounds like the gist of this article is that it is beneficial to add the wolves backs, people support adding the wolves back [1], but people who maintain livestock do not want this for obvious reasons.
[1] "A recent online survey from Colorado State University showed 84 percent of Coloradans support the reintroduction effort."
- dmitryminkovsky 7y agoYeah it’s a shame because 84 percent of people don’t raise livestock and have no idea how it works, but some similar percentage of people do eat meat.
- duxup 7y agoI'm not convinced someone raising livestock "knows how it works" beyond their personal interests either.
- dmitryminkovsky 7y agoNot sure what you mean. I’m talking about raising cattle. They know how to raise cattle. It’s in the stores, they produced it. You know how to produce whatever you produce. They don’t know how to produce what they produce?
- duxup 7y agoIs raising cattle the only topic here? Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?
- cwbrandsma 7y agoWe are in Idaho. Our last two governors have been ranchers as well and have been "not friendly" to wolves. Idaho motto around wolves is "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up". https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-number-of-wolf-attacks-on-livestock-reported-in-idaho/article_efe15c0e-c51d-11e9-ada0-3768ab589935.html https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-num...
- e40 7y agoTheir self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in CO, though. Hence the conflict of interest, on the part of the cattle owners.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoThis does not fall within the normal range of meanings of "conflict of interest". Cattle owners are not in a position where their personal interests conflict with their official duties. Those are perfectly synched up. By your standards, voting is a conflict of interest.
- kevinmgranger 7y ago> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I don't think they meant the business-context "conflict of interest" rather the more general "conflicting interests".
- thaumasiotes 7y agoYour interpretation is not a strong or plausible one. It would make the parent comment completely content-free ("cattle ranchers have multiple priorities, and just like everybody else, sometimes they pick one over another one") rather than just wrong.
- e40 7y agoIf cattle ranchers know there there is a public good for having wolves, yet they argue against them, I'm saying that position is a conflict of interest between them and the public good. They will almost always choose their own self interest. Voting? Well, people often vote against their own self interest, but it is hoped (by me, at least) that people will vote for their self interest, within reason. That reason is that you aren't voting for something that benefits your group more than another group. That would be a bad use of self-interested voting. A good use would be voting for "medicare for all" because you think it will benefit you and others.
- aqme28 7y agoThey may see the costs of wolves without seeing the benefit, whereas other Coloradans would see the inverse. It's hard to say who has the correct full picture.
- jayd16 7y agoThe market will figure out how to continue to raise livestock and adjust.
- beerandt 7y agoAnd then the environmental crowd will freak out upon the invention of cows genetically modified to be poisonous to wolves.
- pvaldes 7y agoWhereas the non environmental crowd would be perfectly fine with the fact that their barbecue is now made of yummy poisoned meat?
- beerandt 7y agoIf the previous justification for hindering a market (that it will figure it out) holds, then yes. You could sabotage the market/product however you see fit, with the justification that it will get it figured out. It's just not always figured out in the way regulators assume it will be. Assuming that ranchers will want to continue to raise cattle amongst protected wolves is just as irrational.
- pvaldes 7y ago>Assuming that ranchers will want to continue to raise cattle amongst protected wolves is just as irrational. I wonder how humans living amongst wolves could raise and even create all races of cattle in the last 4000 years. This a problem that we had solved yet with shepherds and shepherddogs. You can find people raising three thousands of sheep all alone and just with the help of a few dogs. They never lost a sheep and they live in one of the european areas with more wolves.
- beerandt 7y agoWe solved it by killing the wolves and making them fear coming near civilization. Reintroducing them undoes that, and if they're going to be a protected species, the same solution that's worked forever no longer will. Different rules, different behavior. And most dogs are primarily to alert people. One on one, a wolf is usually going to win. Packs of dogs evens things out some, but it's not a sure thing. Although if dogs end up being the main protection loophole, I'll be interesting to see if people move towards more aggressive dogs.
- psychometry 7y agohttps://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hedberg-can-you-farm/view https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hed...
- AWildC182 7y agoI'm an actual Coloradan. Very little livestock grazing is in the mountains where the wolves would presumably be. It's almost entirely out on the plains surrounded my a thousands of miles of barbed wire fences and desolate nothingness. Even if the wolves do venture out into the plains, it would be much appreciated because my office currently smells like cow shit given that there's a north-easterly wind and Greeley is in that direction with it's horrendous feed lots.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- TopHand 7y agoI've actually worked on ranches in Colorado. Ranchers do graze their stock in the mountains. The other side of the coin is that the habitat for wolves is from sea level to approximately 9800' (3000m). They hunt wherever they can find herbivores. One part of ranching people don't seem to understand is that the rancher (by rancher I mean whoever is working on the ranch) is caring for living animals. That means he is looking out for these animals on a daily basis. I know their are ranchers who don't get attached to their stock, but they are definitely the minority. It's hard to care for anything daily and not get attached. I've seen ranchers in tears over the loss of a single cow, because they've cared for that cow since it was born. From time to time I would take a steer to slaughter so that we had meat in the freezer. The last thing I would do after unloading the steer would be to thank him for giving his life to feed my family. When a pack of coyotes take a calf, it is heart breaking to see the reaction of the mama cow. My neighbor last spring came upon a cow that was struggling to give birth and she was down. The coyotes had killed the calf and were eating it even though it was only part of the way out of the cow. Do you think that might have upset him a little? Now they want to release a much larger predator onto the land he is trying to care for. How do you think that makes him feel? There is more to caring for livestock than money. You could work in Commerce City and be smelling the hydrocarbons all day, and maybe even getting cancer.
- AWildC182 7y agoThey do graze in the mountains, just not much compared to the rest of the state. Not really a fan of that either as the cows leave excrement all over trails and roads. If this prevented the practice and nothing else I'd still be for it. Cows aren't supposed to be part of nature, they're an environmental disaster themselves. This seems to be mostly just an emotional appeal rather than a practical one. Also, we should totally get rid of the refinery too, I'm all for equal opportunity environmentalism.
- andymoe 7y agoSounds like a startup opportunity to sell wolf insurance. More seriously, is livestock insurance a thing?
- blackearl 7y agoIf there's money to be made insuring something, it undoubtedly exists. https://www.nationwide.com/business/agribusiness/farm-insurance/optional-coverages/type/livestock https://www.nationwide.com/business/agribusiness/farm-insura...
- mech1234 7y agoI'd rather have a wolf surtax added to the bear patrol tax.
- mc32 7y agoId wait till they start encroaching on human habitat and start attacking their pets, before accepting those results.
- stickfigure 7y agoIs that really a thing? Coyotes are prolific in places where wolves have been eradicated. If your chihuahuadoodle goes for a walkabout, seems like he's more likely to become coyote food than wolf food.
- borkt 7y agoDefinitely a thing in Alaska, wolves being pack animals makes it more of a danger as they can attack humans too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_...
- winkywooster 7y agoAnd compared to mountain lions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_i... Sure it happens, but it is extremely uncommon.
- grecy 7y agoThe list you liked to has attacks in 2010, 2005, 1996, 1989... then 1943. Surely an event that only happen 4 times in more than 50 years is not worth mentioning. Also, I lived in the Yukon for 4 years, roamed all over YK and AK in the summers and winters, saw tons of wolves. Never heard of a single person ever having problems with them, it's simply not a thing.
- wahern 7y agoSurely that's because the gray wolf was all but extinct in the contiguous United States by the mid 1900s. As the "Wolf attack" Wikipedia article says, "wolf attacks are rare because wolves are often subsequently killed, or even extirpated in reaction by human beings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attack AFAIU, fear of humans is both a learned and instinctual behavior of large predators. The latter can take thousands of years to develop, but the former requires active management, such as hunting and killing. To the extent that learned element isn't there and wolf populations continue to encroach on settlements, I would expect increased incidents.[1] And that seems to be reflected in the data. Though, that's a pretty abstract argument. The risk still seems miniscule and inconsequential. OTOH, from a political perspective consequential is defined by public sentiment, not empirical data and calculated risk assessment. [1] A quick Google search suggests that wolf hunting has been legal and practiced in Alaska since 1994. Though, maybe it's always been legal, even after wolves became protected in the lower United States. EDIT: It seems wolf hunting never ceased in Alaska (https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=intensivemanagement.historicwolf https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=intensivemanageme...), though by the 1980s even land hunting (as oppose to aerial) required permitting, which suggests people could freely shoot wolves before then, and presumably did when people felt insecure--see conclusion #5 at the very end of the page.
- LinuxBender 7y agoPerhaps this is not practical, but could a company produce a set of medium range drones that use ML to identify cow vs. wolf vs. human vs. vehicle and thus report which section of their range has a wolf or human poacher? A pair of drones patrols the perimeter while a pair charge up, then they swap places automatically and run 24/7. Perhaps these could even report if a rancher or hiker is laying on the ground (injury, medical issue) and send footage to the ranch owners phone with coordinates? Is this feasible?
- bananabreakfast 7y agoWhy on earth would a farmer pay for an insanely complicated system like that? Besides, what exactly would the farmer do when the drones detects a wolf? It's illegal to shoot or bother them in any way.
- LinuxBender 7y agoThey might not, that is why I am asking. Maybe prevention of poaching would pay for the system? Maybe they get a discount on insurance? A sheriff or other agency could tranquilize and tag the wolf, then relocate it. It would be great if some ranchers could chime in.
- paulie_a 7y ago> it's illegal to shoot them What would they do if they detected one. They'd shoot it. Just like they do now. It may be illegal but it's not stopping anyone. There is a reason why the bumper sticker "earn a buck, shoot a wolf" exists.
- michaelbuckbee 7y agoI think it's more likely that they'd just get a guard llama (not a joke). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama
- duhi88 7y ago1. The study of wildlife migration patterns has been a thing for a long time. Methods exist, and are always being improved upon with better technology. A well-placed hunting camera could do the same thing without all the trendy Bay-Area BS. 2. I'm pretty sure that if (when?) a company develops drone-powered mass-surveillance technology, they will be doing it for someone other than ranchers. 3. This whole thing is really a non-issue. Individual wolf packs kill few cattle per year, and there are a lot of published papers with similar numbers. In fact, the removal costs of the wolves can exceed the potential lost profits.