5 ms·

>Framing it as "rural" vs "urban" sets up a dichotomy, which human minds frequently simplify as a 50/50 split. But only 13% of Colorado residents live in rural

• arwineap 3y ago
  If land matters, and as stated in another thread these ranchers are running the cattle on public lands, not their own, why do the ranchers even get a say?
• woodruffw 3y ago
  The Civil War was not a rural-urban war. Both sides were primarily agrarian; trying to glean modern urban-rural culture war talking points from a war principally about slavery is not going to be productive. (It’s also worth noting that we have the House of Representatives for the exact opposite reason than you’ve stated. I think you meant the Senate, which is meant to provide an aristocratic and/or rural “check” on the urban hoi polloi.)
• thsksbd 3y ago
  The pro-wolf side won by 50.4% of the vote. So a tie. But the folks who voted for it won't have to live with the consequences of their vote.
  • constantly 3y ago
    Given the consequences of the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem, I think literally everyone will be living with the consequences to some extent. Unless by “the consequences” you’re specifically referring to wolves attacking the livestock of billionaire (in many cases) “ranchers,” then maybe not because I’m assuming those billionaires ranching on public land aren’t voting against their pecuniary interests (as billionaires do not seem to do) and thus are not in the 50.4%.
    • pookha 3y ago
      If you want to fight climate change you want to not release packs of wolves into regenerative farms: https://www.uvm.edu/news/cals/using-regenerative-agriculture-combat-climate-change https://www.uvm.edu/news/cals/using-regenerative-agriculture... And many of these ranches are losing money for years (sometimes a decade) before they can get out of the red and see the benefits of regenerative farming systems...The more I look at this wolf situation the more depressed I get.
      • 8note 3y ago
        You would want wolves nearby though, so that the farm doesn't get picked clean by dear and elk
      • constantly 3y ago
        Your link is from Vermont, not Colorado. I don’t think anyone is advocating for the release of wolves into Vermont. I did a search of regenerative agriculture in Colorado and can only find a single farm that has tried it. Given that it seems tenuous to suggest that wolves will destroy regenerative agriculture in Colorado? Regenerative Ag seems to be focused on agriculture, as the name implies. The people upset about wolves are ranchers who stand to have their livestock attacked by wolves. I am not seeing the connection between wolves and the destruction of regenerative agriculture.
        • pookha 3y ago
          The style of farming is the same in Vermont as it is in Colorado...I found three in that state: https://indianridgefarm.org/ https://indianridgefarm.org/ https://www.flyingbbar.com/ https://www.flyingbbar.com/ https://thehighlonesomeranch.com/ https://thehighlonesomeranch.com/ And regenerative Ag is ranching. They are some of the innovators in grass-fed beef (I've been a vegitarian since 2005) and use the natural animal waste to improve soil conditions (integrating animals into crop farming).
          • constantly 3y ago
  • qwqetyr3 3y ago
    They'll have to cover the legal costs and have to keep listening to the people you keep opposing/protesting this. Seems about even (or maybe even worse) than the insignificant consequences for the ranchers (who are already being subsidized by being allowed to use public land for low fees).
• Wytwwww 3y ago
  > Land matters But they don't own it. The majority of it is owned by the urban population. Why are you claiming that rural ranchers are supposed to have a stronger claim to public land just because they can graze their cattle there while paying subsidized prices for it (at the cost of the people who don't own any cattle or graze them on their private land).
• unethical_ban 3y ago
  Land doesn't matter; political subdivisions do.