5 ms·

The Republic of Cows

42 points by Thevet 3y ago

hnben 3y ago
do they use cow tools there?
flir 3y ago
Two more feral cattle populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillingham_cattle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillingham_cattle (I don't believe for one minute that the Chillingham Castle cattle are actually wild).
verisimi 3y ago
I hate this kind of writing. Mournful, verbose, low facts. But anyway - the island is twice the size of Manhatten 23.7 (square miles, or about 15,131 acres) and there were 2000 cattle at the last count. How much damage can 2000 cattle do in 30,000 acres? PS: Ah. I have my answer. > This story was made possible in part by the Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists and was published in collaboration with Earth Island Journal.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Ah. I have my answer. Smug dismissal of the opinions of those who study environments because you dislike environments and don't understand ecosystems? (Don't) See Also: An overview of the impacts of feral cattle, water buffalo and pigs on the savannas, wetlands and biota of northern Australia Feral ungulate populations have considerable impacts on soil, water quality, waterhole hydrology, vegetation, fire regimes and the spread of exotic plants, and resulting changes to habitat have flow-on effects for native wildlife. Ungulate impacts on vegetation communities and associated changes in fire regimes are particularly concerning given that sustained grazing can lead to the permanent removal of key grass species and changes in fire intensity and frequency can result in the conversion of grassland to woodland. Native wildlife can be affected by ungulate disturbance in a multitude of ways, but overwhelmingly, habitat loss or degradation is the main driver for declines in biodiversity. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aec.13046 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aec.13046
  - verisimi 3y ago
    Do you understand ecosystems? And what kind of content should I expect the "Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists"? Do you think there isn't an environmental slant to this? This is not a general interest story - it is intended to make you think that cattle, even wild cattle, are damaging to the environment. The most irritating element to this I find, is the presumption that mere impact on soil, water quality, etc is a bad thing! Who says? Breaking up soil also creates a more diverse environment. Eg some trees require fires to reproduce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte "Change" is not a bad thing, per se. It is the hybris that gets me. Environmental researchers presume to know what the ideal environment is - that an ecosystem is somehow in stasis - never changing. This is to say that they would 'preserve' an environment, but they don't know what they are preserving it to! Because, environments aren't things one preserves! Environments aren't a precious book, or ancient treasure - that needs care. Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Hubris, not "hybris". As in the unconscionable hubris of someone presuming to know what environmental researchers think, imagining them to collectively believe in an 'ideal' environment, etc. The link I gave specifically looks at the changes made by an over abundance of introduced feral species to an environment that had been in a particular balance for some 50,000 years. The introduction of cattle reduced biodiversity, etc. Thus answering the question posed above for one locale at least.
      - verisimi 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris > Hybris may refer to: > Hybris or hubris, exaggerated self pride I don't think you know as much as you think. Whether that's spellings, ecosystems, or what happened 50,000 years ago. But you think you do. Thereby exemplifying hybris.
    - flir 3y ago
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
- burkaman 3y ago
  > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Please don't sneer > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I think I have commented critically on this issue. I hate emotionally manipulative stories like this - it seems plain that they are nothing but propaganda. We are meant to read this and feel that even this small number of cattle are causing irreparable damage to some area - but the place looks fine to me. And then I found out at the end of the article that indeed there is an agenda in play. If someone is trying to sell me on this or that idea, and are using emotional manipulation to do it, is it not fair to call this out? Even if it is well meaning and for what the "journalist" perceives to be the 'greater good'?
nicechianti 3y ago
[dead]
s_dev 3y ago
Sounds like a good nickname for the Republic of Ireland (It's actually just Ireland but the UK likes to call us that for some reason). We've seemingly dedicated the entire country to cows at the cost of our natural biodiversity so we can export high quality beef.

42 points by Thevet 3y ago

do they use cow tools there?

flir 3y ago

Two more feral cattle populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillingham_cattle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillingham_cattle (I don't believe for one minute that the Chillingham Castle cattle are actually wild).

verisimi 3y ago

I hate this kind of writing. Mournful, verbose, low facts. But anyway - the island is twice the size of Manhatten 23.7 (square miles, or about 15,131 acres) and there were 2000 cattle at the last count. How much damage can 2000 cattle do in 30,000 acres? PS: Ah. I have my answer. > This story was made possible in part by the Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists and was published in collaboration with Earth Island Journal.

defrost 3y ago
> Ah. I have my answer. Smug dismissal of the opinions of those who study environments because you dislike environments and don't understand ecosystems? (Don't) See Also: An overview of the impacts of feral cattle, water buffalo and pigs on the savannas, wetlands and biota of northern Australia Feral ungulate populations have considerable impacts on soil, water quality, waterhole hydrology, vegetation, fire regimes and the spread of exotic plants, and resulting changes to habitat have flow-on effects for native wildlife. Ungulate impacts on vegetation communities and associated changes in fire regimes are particularly concerning given that sustained grazing can lead to the permanent removal of key grass species and changes in fire intensity and frequency can result in the conversion of grassland to woodland. Native wildlife can be affected by ungulate disturbance in a multitude of ways, but overwhelmingly, habitat loss or degradation is the main driver for declines in biodiversity. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aec.13046 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aec.13046
- verisimi 3y ago
  Do you understand ecosystems? And what kind of content should I expect the "Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists"? Do you think there isn't an environmental slant to this? This is not a general interest story - it is intended to make you think that cattle, even wild cattle, are damaging to the environment. The most irritating element to this I find, is the presumption that mere impact on soil, water quality, etc is a bad thing! Who says? Breaking up soil also creates a more diverse environment. Eg some trees require fires to reproduce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte "Change" is not a bad thing, per se. It is the hybris that gets me. Environmental researchers presume to know what the ideal environment is - that an ecosystem is somehow in stasis - never changing. This is to say that they would 'preserve' an environment, but they don't know what they are preserving it to! Because, environments aren't things one preserves! Environments aren't a precious book, or ancient treasure - that needs care. Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Hubris, not "hybris". As in the unconscionable hubris of someone presuming to know what environmental researchers think, imagining them to collectively believe in an 'ideal' environment, etc. The link I gave specifically looks at the changes made by an over abundance of introduced feral species to an environment that had been in a particular balance for some 50,000 years. The introduction of cattle reduced biodiversity, etc. Thus answering the question posed above for one locale at least.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris > Hybris may refer to: > Hybris or hubris, exaggerated self pride I don't think you know as much as you think. Whether that's spellings, ecosystems, or what happened 50,000 years ago. But you think you do. Thereby exemplifying hybris.
  - flir 3y ago
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
burkaman 3y ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Please don't sneer > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- verisimi 3y ago
  I think I have commented critically on this issue. I hate emotionally manipulative stories like this - it seems plain that they are nothing but propaganda. We are meant to read this and feel that even this small number of cattle are causing irreparable damage to some area - but the place looks fine to me. And then I found out at the end of the article that indeed there is an agenda in play. If someone is trying to sell me on this or that idea, and are using emotional manipulation to do it, is it not fair to call this out? Even if it is well meaning and for what the "journalist" perceives to be the 'greater good'?

nicechianti 3y ago

[dead]

s_dev 3y ago

Sounds like a good nickname for the Republic of Ireland (It's actually just Ireland but the UK likes to call us that for some reason). We've seemingly dedicated the entire country to cows at the cost of our natural biodiversity so we can export high quality beef.