4 ms·

It's almost the year 2024... if there's really no better solutions to keep wolves out of ranchers' properties, maybe this is a business opportunity? And if thos

It's almost the year 2024... if there's really no better solutions to keep wolves out of ranchers' properties, maybe this is a business opportunity? And if those solutions existed, maybe ranchers could get a tax break for using them? All I know is solutions have got to be possible.

cactacea 3y ago
Most ranchers in western Colorado run their cattle on public land, not private property. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rangeland-management/grazing/permits.shtml https://www.fs.usda.gov/rangeland-management/grazing/permits...
- tomrod 3y ago
  Sounds like a great opportunity to revisit cattle grazing privileges being freely given versus bringing back bison herds.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Isn’t this a net good though? Most people benefit from cattle being as affordable as possible. If we charged ranchers to graze their livestock we’d see the cost passed onto consumers. This is a large reason we subsidize so much farming. It makes food affordable for all. This is a great social benefit for all.
  - jtdev 3y ago
    [dead]
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Bison are better adapted and require only that we don't kill hunt them to extinction. Seems reasonable to favor them over beef cattle.
  - cactacea 3y ago
    IMO, no, not remotely. The externalized impacts from cattle on public land are extensive and severe compared to the supposed benefit. Beef is also by far the highest impact food source humans use at scale. We should be minimizing it in favor of other, lower impact protein sources. Nobody has to eat grasshoppers either, chicken and pork can be largely fine from an impact perspective (though aren't always today).
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
  Then it sounds like it's their own fault if their cattle get taken by wolves... if they want to avoid the wolves (that are of ecological interest to the public), they can go get some private land to graze on. Oh but wait, that would make livestock not profitable, right? So we should definitely kill the wolves to prop up this unprofitable industry
qwytw 3y ago
There is a solution, guards dogs. Pyrenean Mastiffs, Caucasian Shepherds etc. work pretty well in deterring any wolf attacks. Wolves are very risk averse and will go for easier prey as long as it's available.
- jebarker 3y ago
  There are herds of sheep roaming on public land in southwest Colorado protected by Great Pyrenees. I assume that it's protection against mountain lions mostly. Those dogs are probably the most threatening thing to humans out hiking in those areas though!
  - williamdclt 3y ago
    > Those dogs are probably the most threatening thing to humans out hiking in those areas though! Those dogs are quite famous for being not only threatening, but dangerous. People get killed too often by Patous in France, I’ve known at least 2 people who got attacked (one of which _maced_ the dog, I find that hilarious in retrospect)
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  Dogs need food of the expensive kind: meat. They need shelter, and overall they are expensive and high maintenance. On the other hand, a llama just grazes along with the other animals, produces good quality fertilizer, has tax benefits, can be sheared for wool, and the offspring can be sold for thousands of dollars. And on top of all that, can be used as a pack animal. Plus, llamas won't cause you dramas with your kids or other pets or neighbors, won't dig tunnels and escape, etc.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>All I know is solutions have got to be possible. This isn't intended as a personal attack, but I don't find technological advancement to be a compelling justification for blind optimism. There are a lot of problems with solutions that are simply not possible or economical, independent of time. Trans muting lead to gold has been a business opportunity for 2000 years, yet is still not possible in 2024.
- happytiger 3y ago
  That’s a deeply flawed argument called a false equivalent. Guarantee you there are still unexplored areas in predator behavior modification and livestock management using technology that’s worth exploring.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I agree that there's a lot of things worth exploring, but that doesn't mean that success is guaranteed. I've been on the other side of this for a long time with agricultural animal management, and watched dozens of technological solutions fail, including drones, lasers, sound emitters, and habitat modification. Those working in the field to have an incentive to come up with a solution and I appreciate attempts to do so. But I don't appreciate is when people flippantly dismiss the problems of others saying with certainty that there is a solution available. If you're so confident, please make it and people will happily give you millions of dollars. On the other hand, I've seen lots of people lose their livelihood because someone imposed a problem on them and hand a way of the way of the consequences
    - happytiger 3y ago
      Fair enough. I have been exploring making it or investing in it on this very thread. It’s a novel problem and it often helps to study the problem with first principles as animal agriculture is 40 percent of global output and a key environmental problem is predator mitigation, however it’s done. I was doing a review of insurance products too. Interesting stuff. I’m deeply empathetic to the problems and understand some of the complexity involved. I have a fair amount of experience in ag, but not in this area. I feel like we should continue to innovate until we find solutions that work: that’s what humans do best. It’s important to keep applying new technologies to existing problems rather than entrenching ourselves in previous failures: that’s the root activity of substantive innovation.
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Put yourself in the shoes of a poor rancher. The state wants to re-introduce wolves to your land, you're not legally allowed to defend against them with lethal force, and big tech promises a great business idea that will only cost a few hundred dollars a month for you to implement! Suck it up sunny, farmers are rich - you can afford it! Sounds like a big L for ranchers who are just able to make ends meet.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Nah. If you lose one or two animals every one or two years while grazing them on public lands for free, you apply to the state, get compensated for the loss, and that's that. You are imagining a storm when the skies are mostly sunny.
ikiris 3y ago
The harder part is keeping ranchers on their own property.
hcfman 3y ago
And I have a project that can help with that as well. An early warning system that recently I have integrated a wolf detection model into it. The intention is not to make it easy to shoot wolves but to provide options to protect their livestock. In Europe if you shot one you would receive a hefty fine if caught. There’s a discussion about it here: https://wildlabs.net/discussion/ai-monitoring-wolves-netherlands https://wildlabs.net/discussion/ai-monitoring-wolves-netherl...
appointment 3y ago
The solution is for the government to pay compensation to ranchers who lose livestock to predators. In practice the number of lost animals will be very low and the cost insignificant. For example, Montana ranchers filed claims for 287 animals and received a total of $241 000 in compensation in 2022. https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board/Livestock-Loss-Statistics-2022 https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Boa... This for a population of approximately 1100 wolves and 2000 grizzly bears versus 2.2 million cattle and 190 000 sheep.

cactacea 3y ago

Most ranchers in western Colorado run their cattle on public land, not private property. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rangeland-management/grazing/permits.shtml https://www.fs.usda.gov/rangeland-management/grazing/permits...

tomrod 3y ago
Sounds like a great opportunity to revisit cattle grazing privileges being freely given versus bringing back bison herds.
nemo44x 3y ago
Isn’t this a net good though? Most people benefit from cattle being as affordable as possible. If we charged ranchers to graze their livestock we’d see the cost passed onto consumers. This is a large reason we subsidize so much farming. It makes food affordable for all. This is a great social benefit for all.
- jtdev 3y ago
  [dead]
- tomrod 3y ago
  Bison are better adapted and require only that we don't kill hunt them to extinction. Seems reasonable to favor them over beef cattle.
- cactacea 3y ago
  IMO, no, not remotely. The externalized impacts from cattle on public land are extensive and severe compared to the supposed benefit. Beef is also by far the highest impact food source humans use at scale. We should be minimizing it in favor of other, lower impact protein sources. Nobody has to eat grasshoppers either, chicken and pork can be largely fine from an impact perspective (though aren't always today).
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
Then it sounds like it's their own fault if their cattle get taken by wolves... if they want to avoid the wolves (that are of ecological interest to the public), they can go get some private land to graze on. Oh but wait, that would make livestock not profitable, right? So we should definitely kill the wolves to prop up this unprofitable industry

qwytw 3y ago

There is a solution, guards dogs. Pyrenean Mastiffs, Caucasian Shepherds etc. work pretty well in deterring any wolf attacks. Wolves are very risk averse and will go for easier prey as long as it's available.

jebarker 3y ago
There are herds of sheep roaming on public land in southwest Colorado protected by Great Pyrenees. I assume that it's protection against mountain lions mostly. Those dogs are probably the most threatening thing to humans out hiking in those areas though!
- williamdclt 3y ago
  > Those dogs are probably the most threatening thing to humans out hiking in those areas though! Those dogs are quite famous for being not only threatening, but dangerous. People get killed too often by Patous in France, I’ve known at least 2 people who got attacked (one of which _maced_ the dog, I find that hilarious in retrospect)
29athrowaway 3y ago
Dogs need food of the expensive kind: meat. They need shelter, and overall they are expensive and high maintenance. On the other hand, a llama just grazes along with the other animals, produces good quality fertilizer, has tax benefits, can be sheared for wool, and the offspring can be sold for thousands of dollars. And on top of all that, can be used as a pack animal. Plus, llamas won't cause you dramas with your kids or other pets or neighbors, won't dig tunnels and escape, etc.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>All I know is solutions have got to be possible. This isn't intended as a personal attack, but I don't find technological advancement to be a compelling justification for blind optimism. There are a lot of problems with solutions that are simply not possible or economical, independent of time. Trans muting lead to gold has been a business opportunity for 2000 years, yet is still not possible in 2024.

happytiger 3y ago
That’s a deeply flawed argument called a false equivalent. Guarantee you there are still unexplored areas in predator behavior modification and livestock management using technology that’s worth exploring.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I agree that there's a lot of things worth exploring, but that doesn't mean that success is guaranteed. I've been on the other side of this for a long time with agricultural animal management, and watched dozens of technological solutions fail, including drones, lasers, sound emitters, and habitat modification. Those working in the field to have an incentive to come up with a solution and I appreciate attempts to do so. But I don't appreciate is when people flippantly dismiss the problems of others saying with certainty that there is a solution available. If you're so confident, please make it and people will happily give you millions of dollars. On the other hand, I've seen lots of people lose their livelihood because someone imposed a problem on them and hand a way of the way of the consequences
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Fair enough. I have been exploring making it or investing in it on this very thread. It’s a novel problem and it often helps to study the problem with first principles as animal agriculture is 40 percent of global output and a key environmental problem is predator mitigation, however it’s done. I was doing a review of insurance products too. Interesting stuff. I’m deeply empathetic to the problems and understand some of the complexity involved. I have a fair amount of experience in ag, but not in this area. I feel like we should continue to innovate until we find solutions that work: that’s what humans do best. It’s important to keep applying new technologies to existing problems rather than entrenching ourselves in previous failures: that’s the root activity of substantive innovation.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor rancher. The state wants to re-introduce wolves to your land, you're not legally allowed to defend against them with lethal force, and big tech promises a great business idea that will only cost a few hundred dollars a month for you to implement! Suck it up sunny, farmers are rich - you can afford it! Sounds like a big L for ranchers who are just able to make ends meet.

asadotzler 3y ago
Nah. If you lose one or two animals every one or two years while grazing them on public lands for free, you apply to the state, get compensated for the loss, and that's that. You are imagining a storm when the skies are mostly sunny.

ikiris 3y ago

The harder part is keeping ranchers on their own property.

hcfman 3y ago

And I have a project that can help with that as well. An early warning system that recently I have integrated a wolf detection model into it. The intention is not to make it easy to shoot wolves but to provide options to protect their livestock. In Europe if you shot one you would receive a hefty fine if caught. There’s a discussion about it here: https://wildlabs.net/discussion/ai-monitoring-wolves-netherlands https://wildlabs.net/discussion/ai-monitoring-wolves-netherl...

appointment 3y ago

The solution is for the government to pay compensation to ranchers who lose livestock to predators. In practice the number of lost animals will be very low and the cost insignificant. For example, Montana ranchers filed claims for 287 animals and received a total of $241 000 in compensation in 2022. https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board/Livestock-Loss-Statistics-2022 https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Boa... This for a population of approximately 1100 wolves and 2000 grizzly bears versus 2.2 million cattle and 190 000 sheep.