3 ms·

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) a

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
    > Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists. Tell it to the cane toads (...grey squirrel, kudzu, rabbit, signal crayfish, zebra mussel, water thyme...) Incidentally, check out these nutters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Socie... The past is truly a foreign country.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      I'm sure that there have been changes on account of species being introduced to some environment by people. I'm not disputing that. I would love for those things not to have happened. But, I'm not sure that the purported "cure" is better. Environmentalists are, well, a bit mental. They would move people off the land, kill thousands of animals, allow animals to suffer for the sake of some cause that they say is important. Eg, I know of farmers that now graze their cattle indoors, despite having acres of ground - because they gain special income to protect a species of orchid on their fields. This is suffering for cows that do not see the light of day. And this is despite the orchids surviving on the same farm for decades with the cattle. All I see in that case, is very real suffering being created (the cows are living highly unnatural lives, on grain, without light), in the name of environmentalism. I think that environmentalism, like every single other domain in this reality, is in thrall to money and power. If there is an angle that can further empower 'money and power' it will be used. The environmental reasons are a fantastic lever for this - anyone who disputes the stories that are given are automatically wrong, a sinner. It seems impossible for most people to see that helping the environment is nothing to do with actually helping the environment for 'money and power' - it is just a reason given to justify making laws that mandate higher energy expenses, new cars, new housing, increased taxes, etc, etc. Don't forget that private jets are exempt from environmental restraints. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opportunity-eu-commissioner-rules-out-private-jet-ban https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opp...
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'?

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
  > Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists. Tell it to the cane toads (...grey squirrel, kudzu, rabbit, signal crayfish, zebra mussel, water thyme...) Incidentally, check out these nutters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Socie... The past is truly a foreign country.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I'm sure that there have been changes on account of species being introduced to some environment by people. I'm not disputing that. I would love for those things not to have happened. But, I'm not sure that the purported "cure" is better. Environmentalists are, well, a bit mental. They would move people off the land, kill thousands of animals, allow animals to suffer for the sake of some cause that they say is important. Eg, I know of farmers that now graze their cattle indoors, despite having acres of ground - because they gain special income to protect a species of orchid on their fields. This is suffering for cows that do not see the light of day. And this is despite the orchids surviving on the same farm for decades with the cattle. All I see in that case, is very real suffering being created (the cows are living highly unnatural lives, on grain, without light), in the name of environmentalism. I think that environmentalism, like every single other domain in this reality, is in thrall to money and power. If there is an angle that can further empower 'money and power' it will be used. The environmental reasons are a fantastic lever for this - anyone who disputes the stories that are given are automatically wrong, a sinner. It seems impossible for most people to see that helping the environment is nothing to do with actually helping the environment for 'money and power' - it is just a reason given to justify making laws that mandate higher energy expenses, new cars, new housing, increased taxes, etc, etc. Don't forget that private jets are exempt from environmental restraints. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opportunity-eu-commissioner-rules-out-private-jet-ban https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opp...

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'?