6 ms·
Wolves and America's urban-rural divide
- giantg2 2y agoLol the article talks about the reduction in big game animals only as a benefit, but doesn't talk at all about how that might impact the massive hunting tourism industry there. Talk about the irony of the urban vs rural divide...
- dgfitz 2y ago> In November 2020, a wolf reintroduction plan — which included a requirement that ranchers be compensated for livestock losses — passed with 50.9% of Colorado residents voting in favor. Just 12 counties out of 64 supported the measure, but nearly two-thirds of Denver voters approved I think it’s pretty obvious the people that voted for the measure don’t feel the effects of it, just from that quote alone.
- msandford 2y agoIt's very easy to be generous with other people's resources. We see it everywhere. That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House.
- madhadron 2y agoNo, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's still a senate because various groups added states without enough population to pass the bar of statehood in order to get extra votes without having to actually have democratic support.
- msandford 2y ago>> That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House. > No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's nothing really incompatible about these statements. The reason you needed a Senate to get the little states in on the whole deal was precisely the "populous states swamp out the less populous states" problem. I'm pretty sure the rural vs urban divide was already happening even then even if it was smaller in magnitude. I would love to know more about the statehood population minimum you've referred to. Did some googling and didn't find much so a link would be greatly appreciated.
- madhadron 2y agoLook up the admission of the Dakotas. There was a minimum number of people a state had to have to be admitted, but that was ignored in order to pack the Senate.
- HPsquared 2y agoSimply counting votes is such a poor way of making decisions, it doesn't account for the strength of feeling in each voter. 51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against.
- fsckboy 2y ago>51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against. so you're saying Karen should get more votes?
- darth_avocado 2y agoI’d like to hear solutions from you where 49 dedicated people don’t steamroll the lives of 51.
- HPsquared 2y agoBasically this is why pure democracy doesn't work. There is usually some kind of "moderation" element to temper the wild impulses of the crowd. And anyway, why shouldn't 49 deeply invested people get their way over 51 "meh" responses? That's maximizing utility. And this is usually what happens in practice - focused pressure groups, lobbyists etc press their case and get what they want, beating out average public opinion more often then not. Always has been this way.
- darth_avocado 2y agoWe already do have the setup at a national politics level where deeply motivated 49 are able to influence the lives of 51 in ways that do irreparable harm. In some cases it’s more like 25 are able to influence the 75 because of how the power structures are setup.
- vaidhy 2y agoVery funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right? Who pays the most in taxes - the people in the urban area.. So, a bunch of people voted to spend their money to ensure wolves are reintroduced and you are saying they do not feel the effects of it? Obviously, there is more far reaching consequences than just money, but that means you need to listen to the experts and take their opinion. If it is just majority opinion, it is clear what the opinion is.
- dgfitz 2y agoYou must not have read the article. They spend so little in taxes for any given individual it becomes a rounding error.
- fundad 2y agoThat's because there are urban areas that are highly populated with people who have more income to be taxed.
- dgfitz 2y agoMan this makes me laugh. The people with the money voted to approve a measure the hurts the people without money. People wonder why we have the administration we have.
- fundad 2y agoLol they voted for a wealth transfer to ranchers, to wolf-rangers and to the handlers who reintroduce the wolves. It’s not like they voted to return rural areas to native Americans.
- giantg2 2y ago"Very funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right?" Is it? In other states it comes from the department that oversees fish and game, which is primarily funded from hunting and fishing licenses.
- 2y ago
- abracadaniel 2y agoOn the other hand, eliminating wolves has a cost to it, which affects everyone and only benefits ranchers. Which is the more ethical outcome? Privatized gains and socialized losses, or socialized gains and privatized losses.
- dgfitz 2y ago[flagged]
- abracadaniel 2y agoI did. I’m talking about the original elimination and any proposed future removal. It had an ecological impact last time, and it would again if we did it again.
- renewiltord 2y agoIdeally, only people who are affected by things directly should be allowed to vote for them. So I shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, education, or roads for others. And they shouldn't have to do it for me. Then we can release the ranchers from the urban people. Everyone can pay their own risk level in insurance, we can remove social security and Medicare and allow for optional private insurance. Emergency care is tough, but I think it's probably better to let people die than to have someone decide to spend another's money on a third person. Power transmission for the rural is an issue, and for urban people whose power is generated rurally. But I'm sure the power companies can charge appropriately.
- dgfitz 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPersonal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait in general? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- latentcall 2y agoI lived in Colorado for 10 years until very recently and this was a very emotional debate. The ranchers submitted claims that exceeded the reimbursement fund but if I remember correctly some of the claims were questionable and reaching. My partner worked for Colorado Parks & Wildlife and that organization was largely in favor of this for obvious reasons. However I do feel for some of the ranchers. Some are barely scraping by and wolves in the area is an additional stressor they have to worry about. Though I do think they are over exaggerating the effects this has had to some extent. The richest ones with the most land won’t be affected nearly as much as the small guys.
- nickff 2y agoThanks for sharing! It seems that many well-intentioned government policies cause disproportionate harm to smaller businesses and other entities (like charity). Perhaps something should be done to compensate for this (such as making reimbursement inversely proportional to capital or revenue).
- CalRobert 2y agoI don't mean this to be insensitive but one thing I don't understand... If the ranchers are barely scraping by, maybe they shouldn't be ranchers? I mean, I spent a while trying to be a photographer but it was hard and paid really badly. So I stopped being a photographer. Obviously that sucks and it's good to have a safety net for people to fall back on but I don't see why someone being a rancher now means they have to be forever.
- Galatians4_16 2y agoIncentivizing large corporate ranching conglomerates is not the solution, as agricultural diversity is our strength, especially in products and sources. Maybe small time ranching could be encouraged through tax rescindment programs?
- Retric 2y agoWhat agricultural diversity? The 89% of farms are “small” and produce 18% of the value on 45% of the acres. They are generally more hobbies than business, and as such rarely efficient enough to be the sole source of income for people. Non commercial farms are plentiful, but not necessarily useful. “Family farms” are more impactful, but that’s including operations with 50,000+ acres and large workforces.
- Fomite 2y agoDenver taxpayers also end up supporting things like the CSU Extension system, which they won't ever see a direct benefit from.
- mtnops 2y agoDirect benefit? Maybe not, if you don't have kids that participate in 4H, have a home garden, raise bees, or work directly in rural employment. Indirectly, we're talking about supporting agriculture and farming which everyone benefits from.
- renewiltord 2y agoPick an arbitrary person and an arbitrary thing and I will find a tenuous chain where the person benefits from the thing. I could probably justify a 90% marginal tax over $100k for you using this if you can give me your zip code. Queries will cost $1 with quadratic increase.
- Fomite 2y agoAgreed - I'm rather fond of Extension programs. It's more a note that rural Colorado receives a great deal of benefit from Denver taxpayers, and that somehow never gets a hand wringing article about out of touch ranchers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- frankfrank13 2y agoMy folks have cattle in a small colorado mountain town, and for sure they hate the re-introduction. Basically they think this is being pushed for people who will in no way be directly affected (probably true), and that financial reimbursements will be too small and too difficult to actually obtain.
- silexia 2y ago[flagged]
- vaidhy 2y agoand the far right never cares about the environment, animal cruelty or anything beyond unsustainable resource extraction. What a stupid statement..
- caycep 2y agoIf your worldview is shaped by the P&L statements of the ranching industry, it seems you would be totally blind to the ecological benefits of wolves reintroduction. Denver residents probably weighed risks of higher costs of beef with the overall improvement of the Colorado ecosystem as a net positive.
- jacknews 2y agoThose nasty newflangled wolves disrupting the 'traditional' beef industry?
- metalman 2y agoAs a rural person, who had advovated for many enviromental causes,has lived with wolf hybrids as pets, and has a large pack of coyotes living in very close proximity, "coyotes" because they are way bigger than the now extinct pure coyote, I shall muse for your entertainment,the human factor is the most difficult, and has been argued every which was for decades, but through shear numbers and persistance, non rural people have got there way, and it(wolves) has been forced rough shod on an already embatled rural population. So the only thing that might help the whole situation, is to PAY good money for geo located photos, scat, fur, carcases(dead natural causes), etc, etc, of wolves, coyotes, eagles,wolverienes, rtc, etc, and make them worth a lot more, alive than dead.There must be plenty of researchers who would pay for samples(scat) ,that contain genetic info that can be used to understand our eveolving wilderness interface areas. Make it part of BLM, or forset services, whatever, and go national. The truth is ,that in private, many rural people will express a possitive attitude towards all the critters and natural phenominon, but know full well that outside interventions in the lives of rural people is directly responsible for people failing to thrive, so will express solidarity in whatever......emblamatic.... confrontation is the most publisised, as otherwise its just the slow grind of beuorcracy adding costs and wasting time, and the lack of modern services to ballance any of the taxes and fees, extracted, often by force.