4 ms·

Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poor

Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poorer northern half of the state that they must put up with the re-introduction of wolves. It would be much less of an issue if the wolves were also introduced into the county forests and state parks in the southern half of the state where the wealthy urbanites and suburbanites live. However, the southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population but do not want to actually have to deal with the risks and hardships that come with them.

undersuit 6y ago
The wolves are naturally moving into open territory as their numbers grow in Wisconsin at least. Why do you think this is a class issue?
- yupyup54133 6y ago
  False, they are being introduced into forests in the northern half of the state but are not being introduced into the forests in the southern half of the state. Also, when wolves are found close to the suburbs they are relocated to the north. This is a class issue because most of the state's wealth is located in the southern half of the state and it is mostly the southern half of the state that is forcing an unwanted wolf population on the northern half of the state.
  - question000 6y ago
    It's just weird how Republicans find the dumbest shit to feel oppressed over, this and motorcycle helmets... Oops I said Republicans I mean conservative marginalized people!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ip26 6y ago
    Are they actually being human-introduced, or are they migrating south from Canada? It's not exactly shocking that migrating wolves would appear in the northern half first. Google seems to indicate they are simply migrating.
  - undersuit 6y ago
    They are not being "introduced". The natural wolf populations in areas surrounding the northern wilderness of WI spread into open territory. The packs in WI are only in forested areas in the north naturally. For the wolves to reach southern wilderness they need to pass through the heavily civilized river basins into new mountainous territory, then that isolated population needs to expand on it's own, because they are not being introduced. You're right about relocations though, it's a class issue. The wolves that predate on livestock are often relocated. Normal wolf sightings though can be reported to the state to increase their coverage: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/MammalObsForm.asp https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/MammalObsForm.asp
hashtagmarkup 6y ago
The median household income of milwaukee county is less than the median household income of nearly every single county in the northern half of the state, and as you go further north, the median household income goes higher. What are you talking about?
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  Certain groups paint themselves as poor victims no matter what the reality of the situation is.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
You are dramatically overstating the north-south divide in Wisconsin and the idea that “Southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population” is the primary concern here is just insulting. In particular, while rural people are (quite understandably) more anti-wolf than urban people, the difference is not nearly as large as you suggest. And a huge part of the existing difference is about deer hunting competition rather than personal safety or protecting livestock. Further, it’s difficult to disentangle that rural whites are more right-wing than urban whites and likely to oppose federal endangered species protections in principle. Via https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/WolfAttitudeSurveyReportDRAFT.pdf https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/Wolf... “We found that state residents held attitudes toward wolves that were more favorable than unfavorable— by a small margin within wolf range; and by a larger margin outside wolf range. - Survey respondents across the state endorsed six separate statements as reasons for sustaining wolf populations in the state (p. 25-26) - For example, 84% of respondents outside wolf range agreed that wolves are “important members of the ecological community;” 67% of range residents agreed (p. 26). - Also, 83% in non-range agreed that “wolves have a right to exist;” 69% of wolf range residents agreed (p. 26) - On an overall wolf attitude index score that ranged from -12 (very negative) to +12 (very positive), wolf range residents averaged a score of 2.5 indicating a slightly positive attitude (p. 29). - Outside wolf range, average wolf attitude index scores (mean=4.8) were significantly higher statistically than scores of residents within wolf range (p. 28) - A relatively high percentage of respondents throughout the state (31% non-range, 24% wolf range) had neither favorable nor unfavorable feelings toward wolves (p. 24). - Among the survey respondents within wolf range, “maintaining the same number of wolves” was the most frequently selected response (26%) for a statewide wolf population goal (p. 31). - 17% checked “Don’t know” as their statewide wolf population preference; - 15 % indicated that they wanted “more” wolves in the state; - 15% wanted “fewer” wolves in the state; - 12% wanted “many fewer” wolves; - 11% wanted “zero” - 4% wanted “many more.” - Among the survey respondents within wolf range, most people (40%) wanted wolf numbers to be “maintained” at current levels in their county of residence (p. 32). - 18% wanted wolf numbers “decreased” in their home county in wolf range; - 15% wanted wolves “eliminated” from their county; - 13% wanted to see an “increase” in their county wolf population: - 14% were “not sure - People outside of wolf range—who reported less experience with wolves than rural residents of wolf range— were generally more positive toward wolves, perceived fewer risks from wolves, and were statistically more likely to favor maintaining (29%) or increasing (27%) wolves in the state than were people were people residing within wolf range. - This finding is consistent with other research that finds people with less exposure to wolves tend to view them more favorably. - Less than half of residents (43%) living outside wolf range counties have ever seen a wolf in Wisconsin, even while vacationing or recreating in parts of the state where wolves live; by contrast 62% of wolf range residents have seen a wolf at least once (p. 37). - 28% of non-range respondents indicated “Don’t know” when asked for their statewide wolf population preference (p. 31). - In addition to the living in a county that has wolves, two other factors emerged from the study which account for many of the differences among respondent attitudes toward wolves and their preferences for wolf management goals. These factors are: - living and/or growing up in a rural area (p. 42-43) - being a deer hunter (p. 48-52). - Consistent with prior research conducted both nationally and internationally, rural residents in wolf range expressed less support for wolves than did people living in non- rural areas of wolf range, including those respondents residing in small and large towns. - Forty-seven percent of current rural, wolf range residents wanted to have fewer (33%) or no wolves (14%) in the state; 24% the same number of wolves; and 16% wanted more wolves in the state (p. 43). - Among wolf range respondents who were raised in a rural area and continue to live in a rural area, 57% want fewer wolves in the state (p. 43). - Current rural wolf range residents were split on their willingness to have wolves living near them; 49% were not willing and 45% were willing (p. 45-46). - Among those wolf range residents who grew up in a rural area, willingness to have wolves living nearby drops to 40% and the frequency of those who would prefer to not live by wolves increases to 55% (p. 40). - Two out of three people living on farms within wolf range were unwilling to live near wolves (p. 121). - About half (49%) of all residents in wolf range said they are willing to have wolves live near them compared to 43% who are not willing (p. 40).

undersuit 6y ago

The wolves are naturally moving into open territory as their numbers grow in Wisconsin at least. Why do you think this is a class issue?

yupyup54133 6y ago
False, they are being introduced into forests in the northern half of the state but are not being introduced into the forests in the southern half of the state. Also, when wolves are found close to the suburbs they are relocated to the north. This is a class issue because most of the state's wealth is located in the southern half of the state and it is mostly the southern half of the state that is forcing an unwanted wolf population on the northern half of the state.
- question000 6y ago
  It's just weird how Republicans find the dumbest shit to feel oppressed over, this and motorcycle helmets... Oops I said Republicans I mean conservative marginalized people!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ip26 6y ago
  Are they actually being human-introduced, or are they migrating south from Canada? It's not exactly shocking that migrating wolves would appear in the northern half first. Google seems to indicate they are simply migrating.
- undersuit 6y ago
  They are not being "introduced". The natural wolf populations in areas surrounding the northern wilderness of WI spread into open territory. The packs in WI are only in forested areas in the north naturally. For the wolves to reach southern wilderness they need to pass through the heavily civilized river basins into new mountainous territory, then that isolated population needs to expand on it's own, because they are not being introduced. You're right about relocations though, it's a class issue. The wolves that predate on livestock are often relocated. Normal wolf sightings though can be reported to the state to increase their coverage: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/MammalObsForm.asp https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/MammalObsForm.asp

hashtagmarkup 6y ago

The median household income of milwaukee county is less than the median household income of nearly every single county in the northern half of the state, and as you go further north, the median household income goes higher. What are you talking about?

throwaway2048 6y ago
Certain groups paint themselves as poor victims no matter what the reality of the situation is.

ojnabieoot 6y ago

You are dramatically overstating the north-south divide in Wisconsin and the idea that “Southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population” is the primary concern here is just insulting. In particular, while rural people are (quite understandably) more anti-wolf than urban people, the difference is not nearly as large as you suggest. And a huge part of the existing difference is about deer hunting competition rather than personal safety or protecting livestock. Further, it’s difficult to disentangle that rural whites are more right-wing than urban whites and likely to oppose federal endangered species protections in principle. Via https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/WolfAttitudeSurveyReportDRAFT.pdf https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/Wolf... “We found that state residents held attitudes toward wolves that were more favorable than unfavorable— by a small margin within wolf range; and by a larger margin outside wolf range. - Survey respondents across the state endorsed six separate statements as reasons for sustaining wolf populations in the state (p. 25-26) - For example, 84% of respondents outside wolf range agreed that wolves are “important members of the ecological community;” 67% of range residents agreed (p. 26). - Also, 83% in non-range agreed that “wolves have a right to exist;” 69% of wolf range residents agreed (p. 26) - On an overall wolf attitude index score that ranged from -12 (very negative) to +12 (very positive), wolf range residents averaged a score of 2.5 indicating a slightly positive attitude (p. 29). - Outside wolf range, average wolf attitude index scores (mean=4.8) were significantly higher statistically than scores of residents within wolf range (p. 28) - A relatively high percentage of respondents throughout the state (31% non-range, 24% wolf range) had neither favorable nor unfavorable feelings toward wolves (p. 24). - Among the survey respondents within wolf range, “maintaining the same number of wolves” was the most frequently selected response (26%) for a statewide wolf population goal (p. 31). - 17% checked “Don’t know” as their statewide wolf population preference; - 15 % indicated that they wanted “more” wolves in the state; - 15% wanted “fewer” wolves in the state; - 12% wanted “many fewer” wolves; - 11% wanted “zero” - 4% wanted “many more.” - Among the survey respondents within wolf range, most people (40%) wanted wolf numbers to be “maintained” at current levels in their county of residence (p. 32). - 18% wanted wolf numbers “decreased” in their home county in wolf range; - 15% wanted wolves “eliminated” from their county; - 13% wanted to see an “increase” in their county wolf population: - 14% were “not sure - People outside of wolf range—who reported less experience with wolves than rural residents of wolf range— were generally more positive toward wolves, perceived fewer risks from wolves, and were statistically more likely to favor maintaining (29%) or increasing (27%) wolves in the state than were people were people residing within wolf range. - This finding is consistent with other research that finds people with less exposure to wolves tend to view them more favorably. - Less than half of residents (43%) living outside wolf range counties have ever seen a wolf in Wisconsin, even while vacationing or recreating in parts of the state where wolves live; by contrast 62% of wolf range residents have seen a wolf at least once (p. 37). - 28% of non-range respondents indicated “Don’t know” when asked for their statewide wolf population preference (p. 31). - In addition to the living in a county that has wolves, two other factors emerged from the study which account for many of the differences among respondent attitudes toward wolves and their preferences for wolf management goals. These factors are: - living and/or growing up in a rural area (p. 42-43) - being a deer hunter (p. 48-52). - Consistent with prior research conducted both nationally and internationally, rural residents in wolf range expressed less support for wolves than did people living in non- rural areas of wolf range, including those respondents residing in small and large towns. - Forty-seven percent of current rural, wolf range residents wanted to have fewer (33%) or no wolves (14%) in the state; 24% the same number of wolves; and 16% wanted more wolves in the state (p. 43). - Among wolf range respondents who were raised in a rural area and continue to live in a rural area, 57% want fewer wolves in the state (p. 43). - Current rural wolf range residents were split on their willingness to have wolves living near them; 49% were not willing and 45% were willing (p. 45-46). - Among those wolf range residents who grew up in a rural area, willingness to have wolves living nearby drops to 40% and the frequency of those who would prefer to not live by wolves increases to 55% (p. 40). - Two out of three people living on farms within wolf range were unwilling to live near wolves (p. 121). - About half (49%) of all residents in wolf range said they are willing to have wolves live near them compared to 43% who are not willing (p. 40).