34 ms·

Yeah 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 ago
I'm not convinced someone raising livestock "knows how it works" beyond their personal interests either.
- dmitryminkovsky 7y ago
  Not 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 ago
    Is raising cattle the only topic here? Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?
    - cwbrandsma 7y ago
      We 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 ago
    Their 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 ago
      This 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 ago
        Your 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 ago
        If 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 ago
    They 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 ago
The market will figure out how to continue to raise livestock and adjust.
- beerandt 7y ago
  And then the environmental crowd will freak out upon the invention of cows genetically modified to be poisonous to wolves.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    Whereas the non environmental crowd would be perfectly fine with the fact that their barbecue is now made of yummy poisoned meat?
    - beerandt 7y ago
      If 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 ago
        We 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 ago
https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hedberg-can-you-farm/view https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hed...
AWildC182 7y ago
I'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 ago
  I'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 ago
    They 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.

duxup 7y ago

I'm not convinced someone raising livestock "knows how it works" beyond their personal interests either.

dmitryminkovsky 7y ago
Not 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 ago
  Is raising cattle the only topic here? Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?
  - cwbrandsma 7y ago
    We 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 ago
  Their 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 ago
    This 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 ago
        Your 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 ago
      If 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 ago
  They 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 ago

The market will figure out how to continue to raise livestock and adjust.

beerandt 7y ago
And then the environmental crowd will freak out upon the invention of cows genetically modified to be poisonous to wolves.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Whereas the non environmental crowd would be perfectly fine with the fact that their barbecue is now made of yummy poisoned meat?
  - beerandt 7y ago
    If 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 ago
        We 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 ago

https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hedberg-can-you-farm/view https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hed...

AWildC182 7y ago

I'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 ago
I'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 ago
  They 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.