3 ms·
Reminds me of the wolves vote in Colorado. Rural locations (which will actually come into contact with wolves) voted against but were outvoted by the more popul
by gadders 3y ago
Reminds me of the wolves vote in Colorado. Rural locations (which will actually come into contact with wolves) voted against but were outvoted by the more populous urban locations (who probably won't encounter a wolf).
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2023/1211/Denver-voted-for-wolves.-But-rural-ranchers-will-have-to-face-them https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2023/1211/Denver-voted...
- anemoiac 3y agoMajor difference is that musk oxen are essentially an invasive species, whereas wolves play a critical role in the surrounding ecosystem. Look into the impact of Wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park if you're curious about that role.
- istjohn 3y agoNo, as the article describes, musk oxen are native to Alaska, only disappearing in the 1800s.
- anemoiac 3y agoTIL (I initially only read the first half of the article). I still think opposition to their presence differs from the anti-wolf movement in the continental US, which is primarily driven by commercial interests.
- gadders 3y ago>>wolves play a critical role in the surrounding ecosystem So do hunters.
- tokai 3y agoLower educated rural folks think about the issue emotionally instead of realistic. Its the same everywhere.
- gadders 3y agoHaha. I think it's the other way round. City Dwellers who will never set foot in the countryside vote based on emotional attachment to animals. The rural folks will have far more understanding of wolves than the city folks.
- Sabinus 3y agoThe rural folks will have more understanding of for wolves effect their farming. It's the fancy city learning that appreciates the role apex predators play in wild animal populations and the role the wild takes in keeping the land healthy.
- sevagh 3y ago"I don't want to be attacked by wolves" is a valid desire, neither unrealistic nor emotional.
- adrian_b 3y agoAttacks against humans from non-rabid wolves are extraordinarily rare if they have ever existed. I have lived in a part of Eastern Europe where wolves had been abundant, but no attacks against humans from non-rabid wolves have ever been recorded, for centuries. Even supposing that attacks from wolves might exist, they must be many orders of magnitude less frequent than attacks from the existing dogs. Attacks from rabid wolves exist, but they are still much less frequent than the attacks from rabid dogs or rabid foxes. Because rabid animals usually just bite and then run away, such attacks are really dangerous only when it is not possible to reach quickly a hospital, for treatment against rabies. The wolves are a serious danger for sheep and goats and other domestic animals, which must be properly guarded where wolves exist, not for humans. Therefore "I don't want to be attacked by wolves" is a completely unrealistic fear, unlike the fear of dogs, including stray dogs, for which there may be valid grounds in certain places.