4 ms·

Yes. The farmer chose to live way out there far from people, and would appreciate the dang tourists going away.

pvaldes 4y ago
In a society everybody must sacrifice something if is for mutual benefit. Wolves had proven again and again that produce more money that they remove. Had proven also that can save human lives reducing car collisions and that they positively protect agriculture and fixate water sources in the area. Why should a few farmers (I agree that I should be more precise and use ranchers instead) force their will over the whole population and block the development of a local area?. Isn't this a democracy?. Who are this people to decide that their village can't receive tourism and that everybody in the area must be a rancher or migrate? Environmental services aren't free. Some resources will need to be sacrificed to keep the machine working, and in any case cattle owners can reduce their losses to an acceptable level by several traditional and well tested ways.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  And about the "dang" tourists, we need to remember that US citizens have full rights to visit and enjoy public spaces and protected areas open to public in the whole country. Granted by constitution. Why? Because is their country also. Is --their-- land also. They have exactly the same right to enjoy a well adjusted National park as any local
- sweettea 4y ago
  Your initial argument was that farmers should want the development, "do you really like that stupid cow?" -- and my attempted point was that yes, the farmers do in fact like that stupid cow. All the benefits you propose of the increased tourism and 5 million dollars pale in many farmers' minds to the downside of having more tourists, who clog up the roads, complain about their farming practices, drive up land prices, and want to build developments. Farming is a lifestyle well suited to loners and cow farming in particular is well suited to very remote areas; thus added tourism, making it a less remote area, decreases the local farmer's reason for existing there. To reply to your new point, an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination, and people get very upset when faraway majorities impose their wills despite the local majority disagreeing. Consider Catalonia, or other independence movements throughout history, or any number of instances of imperialism throughout history: should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre? That's how local residents who've been there for 20, 30, 60 years feel about outsiders coming in to diversify the economy or introduce wolves to eat their lambs -- why are the outsiders coming in and imposing their negatives on their apparently perfectly good way of life?
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    > an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination You need to check again the definition of democracy. This self-determination fairy tale has been repeated a thousand times but is still false. > should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre? Hum, yeeees? This is exactly the point of having a central government making the laws for the entire nation

In a society everybody must sacrifice something if is for mutual benefit. Wolves had proven again and again that produce more money that they remove. Had proven also that can save human lives reducing car collisions and that they positively protect agriculture and fixate water sources in the area. Why should a few farmers (I agree that I should be more precise and use ranchers instead) force their will over the whole population and block the development of a local area?. Isn't this a democracy?. Who are this people to decide that their village can't receive tourism and that everybody in the area must be a rancher or migrate? Environmental services aren't free. Some resources will need to be sacrificed to keep the machine working, and in any case cattle owners can reduce their losses to an acceptable level by several traditional and well tested ways.

pvaldes 4y ago
And about the "dang" tourists, we need to remember that US citizens have full rights to visit and enjoy public spaces and protected areas open to public in the whole country. Granted by constitution. Why? Because is their country also. Is --their-- land also. They have exactly the same right to enjoy a well adjusted National park as any local
sweettea 4y ago
Your initial argument was that farmers should want the development, "do you really like that stupid cow?" -- and my attempted point was that yes, the farmers do in fact like that stupid cow. All the benefits you propose of the increased tourism and 5 million dollars pale in many farmers' minds to the downside of having more tourists, who clog up the roads, complain about their farming practices, drive up land prices, and want to build developments. Farming is a lifestyle well suited to loners and cow farming in particular is well suited to very remote areas; thus added tourism, making it a less remote area, decreases the local farmer's reason for existing there. To reply to your new point, an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination, and people get very upset when faraway majorities impose their wills despite the local majority disagreeing. Consider Catalonia, or other independence movements throughout history, or any number of instances of imperialism throughout history: should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre? That's how local residents who've been there for 20, 30, 60 years feel about outsiders coming in to diversify the economy or introduce wolves to eat their lambs -- why are the outsiders coming in and imposing their negatives on their apparently perfectly good way of life?
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination You need to check again the definition of democracy. This self-determination fairy tale has been repeated a thousand times but is still false. > should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre? Hum, yeeees? This is exactly the point of having a central government making the laws for the entire nation