4 ms·

Ranchers don’t like it when wolves kill livestock.

paulmd 5y ago
that's the long and short of it, idaho is a super conservative state (which generally resent environmentalism) with a powerful farm lobby. https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/wolf-reintroduction-to-idaho-creates-conflict/article_e4c7b475-91cf-5b7f-8d76-a7140e331442.html https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/w...
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  My gut reaction to “conservatives generally resent environmentalism” is that it’s wrong. I know you mean from a policy standpoint, but the people who live most in nature, who feel most at home outside concrete jungles and actually experience the environment are overwhelmingly conservatives. I wonder if it’s liberals and conservatives looking from different vantage points. Liberals see massive cities and sprawl and call it too much, conservatives surrounded by fields and trees and nature say some more industry couldn’t hurt.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I dont think that accurately describes the reality nor opinions of either group.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Right. What does that mean for the topic at hand?
  - krapp 5y ago
    tl;dr - Conservatives decided they were against it as soon as they saw the left was for it. The anti-environmental stance on the part of Conservatives is a result of Reagan-era policies meant establish a pro-business, anti-regulation base among corporate donors and undermine Jimmy Carter's legacy[0]. Also, after the 1960s, environmentalism became associated with "leftist" politics via feminist and antiwar activism (the hippie movement.) Trump's heavily mocked tweet about climate change being a Chinese hoax comes from this longstanding general mistrust among Conservatives that environmentalism has a secret Marxist/Communist agenda behind it, due to those associations. Finally, there's Al Gore. Much of the modern distrust of climate change (and by association, environmentalism) is fallout from effective Republican Party propaganda mocking his activism, and particularly An Inconvenient Truth. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  Its environmentalism that is usually produced in big citys far away from nature. Those laws usually land like alien ships in rural areas, completely oblivious to the damage they deal to someones existence. Example: Promote beavers everywhere- beavers are terraforming animals, flooding fields and carving out caverns beneath the soil, into which tractors sinks and breaks. If you report that "damage" you get compensated (here in europe) - aka you get 50 $ for 5000 $ damage. And you then get to read that you, the evil farmer, were compensated by the nature lovers in the local newspaper. Real dangerous animals are promoted as "friendly co-existing species" and evidence to the contrary buried. Coyotes and wulfes will attack humans, when easy food runs out and times are desperate - winter & numbers high, or opportunity knocks, aka they spot irregular movements (children, elderly). Again, this is all legislation parked on people who experience the beauty of nature every day. And that beauty is rather grim and dark. Seems that here is a ecosystem of environmentalists and environment dwellers, where one overpopulates and expands laws, only then to run into the other, and be fought back in a fury. Nature returns, the world is healing, our absolutes are the virus.
  - PicassoCTs 5y ago
    Post Scriptum: In my observation, its usually people with a bad consciousness from their work for a cooperation, who join a compensation cult. Which is a immature reaction. Cause these cults do not really act, they merely display action, which then promptly falls apart longterm. Displayed action is NOT real longterm action and change. Its smoke and mirrors, hollywood, not real. A Potemkin village and a bad framework to create real change. If you want to change the world, the state,politics and the law is the only way to act properly and persistent. For within the framework of law, people can acquire proper compensation for law caused property devaluation and then live and let life.
- greenearth1 5y ago
  I find the opposite to be true, democrat managed states produce more emissions and despite being branded as environmentally-friendly, prove otherwise by supporting anti-growth initiatives that ultimately reduce our ability to tackle environmental issues.

that's the long and short of it, idaho is a super conservative state (which generally resent environmentalism) with a powerful farm lobby. https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/wolf-reintroduction-to-idaho-creates-conflict/article_e4c7b475-91cf-5b7f-8d76-a7140e331442.html https://www.idahopress.com/postregister/farmandranch/idaho/w...

tjs8rj 5y ago
My gut reaction to “conservatives generally resent environmentalism” is that it’s wrong. I know you mean from a policy standpoint, but the people who live most in nature, who feel most at home outside concrete jungles and actually experience the environment are overwhelmingly conservatives. I wonder if it’s liberals and conservatives looking from different vantage points. Liberals see massive cities and sprawl and call it too much, conservatives surrounded by fields and trees and nature say some more industry couldn’t hurt.
- watwut 5y ago
  I dont think that accurately describes the reality nor opinions of either group.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Right. What does that mean for the topic at hand?
- krapp 5y ago
  tl;dr - Conservatives decided they were against it as soon as they saw the left was for it. The anti-environmental stance on the part of Conservatives is a result of Reagan-era policies meant establish a pro-business, anti-regulation base among corporate donors and undermine Jimmy Carter's legacy[0]. Also, after the 1960s, environmentalism became associated with "leftist" politics via feminist and antiwar activism (the hippie movement.) Trump's heavily mocked tweet about climate change being a Chinese hoax comes from this longstanding general mistrust among Conservatives that environmentalism has a secret Marxist/Communist agenda behind it, due to those associations. Finally, there's Al Gore. Much of the modern distrust of climate change (and by association, environmentalism) is fallout from effective Republican Party propaganda mocking his activism, and particularly An Inconvenient Truth. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
PicassoCTs 5y ago
Its environmentalism that is usually produced in big citys far away from nature. Those laws usually land like alien ships in rural areas, completely oblivious to the damage they deal to someones existence. Example: Promote beavers everywhere- beavers are terraforming animals, flooding fields and carving out caverns beneath the soil, into which tractors sinks and breaks. If you report that "damage" you get compensated (here in europe) - aka you get 50 $ for 5000 $ damage. And you then get to read that you, the evil farmer, were compensated by the nature lovers in the local newspaper. Real dangerous animals are promoted as "friendly co-existing species" and evidence to the contrary buried. Coyotes and wulfes will attack humans, when easy food runs out and times are desperate - winter & numbers high, or opportunity knocks, aka they spot irregular movements (children, elderly). Again, this is all legislation parked on people who experience the beauty of nature every day. And that beauty is rather grim and dark. Seems that here is a ecosystem of environmentalists and environment dwellers, where one overpopulates and expands laws, only then to run into the other, and be fought back in a fury. Nature returns, the world is healing, our absolutes are the virus.
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  Post Scriptum: In my observation, its usually people with a bad consciousness from their work for a cooperation, who join a compensation cult. Which is a immature reaction. Cause these cults do not really act, they merely display action, which then promptly falls apart longterm. Displayed action is NOT real longterm action and change. Its smoke and mirrors, hollywood, not real. A Potemkin village and a bad framework to create real change. If you want to change the world, the state,politics and the law is the only way to act properly and persistent. For within the framework of law, people can acquire proper compensation for law caused property devaluation and then live and let life.
greenearth1 5y ago
I find the opposite to be true, democrat managed states produce more emissions and despite being branded as environmentally-friendly, prove otherwise by supporting anti-growth initiatives that ultimately reduce our ability to tackle environmental issues.