Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

Post by spiderfarmer » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

ojnabieoot wrote: post #112

yupyup54133 wrote: post #50

Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poorer northern half of the state that they must put up with the re-introduction of wolves. It would be much less of an issue if the wolves were also introduced into the county forests and state parks in the southern half of the state where the wealthy urbanites a…

You are dramatically overstating the north-south divide in Wisconsin and the idea that “Southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population” is the primary concern here is just insulting. In particular, while rural people are (quite understandably) more anti-wolf than urban people, the difference is not nearly as large as you suggest. And a huge part of the existing difference is about deer hunting compe…

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

perbu wrote: post #44

dboreham wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed Ah ha. A HN thread close to home (I live within earshot of wolves in Montana). So...we do [1], [2]. Ranchers (generalizing, of course) just don't like wolves. It's a really deep cultural thing. So if you as president want to take some step that will cause a bunch of folks in ranching areas to high five, you'd delist wolves. That they may not in fact be impacte…

In Norway we pay ranchers for sheep which are taken by wolves. They still really hate wolves. More sheep are taken by wolverines, lynx and bears yet the ranches are still keen on full extermination of the wolf population.

Post by arminiusreturns » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #191

arminiusreturns wrote: post #128

Copying from an old comment of mine: "As someone who grew up in a wolf reintro zone I have a few comments and opinions to help others have more productive conversations. First, not all wolf reintro's are the same. Each ecosystem is different and the scientific justifications need to be done for each, and the papers for one do not necessarily apply to the other. The Yellowstone program may have been a success, but oth…

I lived in NE WA and still have property there (working our way back out there). The hubris and ignorance displayed by many wolf management critics often knows no bounds. They are often completely unaware of how range land is priced and managed nor how the wolf management program works. However, with all the concern expressed for the gray wolf, I have yet to see wolves re-introduced into the many acres of protected g…

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

gbrown wrote: post #122

yupyup54133 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are for the reintroduction of wolves where you live your opinion on this is selfish. Too many wealthy urbanites and subutbanites have a not-in-my-backyard mentality about wolves.

I live in a rural area with lots of coyotes, and I'd welcome a return of wolves to deal with the over-abundance of deer.

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #83

monkeybutton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's such a rare occurrence, is there an opportunity for insurance companies to provide solutions instead of the government?

I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.