181–190 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They might equally be wondering why city dwellers have so much say over how ranchers should tend to livestock.
You can't graze your livestock on public land and then act confused when the public has a say.
I've never understood why ranchers get so much clout in the US.
Mostly because we have 325 million people to feed on a daily basis. Not arguing right/wrong.
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 would be fine with wolves living my area, but the wolves would not, so it's a moot question. We do have a growing population of coyotes nearby, and it's fine. I have a hard time understanding why anyone but ranchers would object to having wolves around at all. They don't prey on people.
Wolves fear humans because humans kill them. If we weren't doing so, they would lose their fear within a few decades at most and hunt humans. Coyotes have never hunted humans, they're too small.
Real nature is not happy fluffy bunnies and cuddly wolf pups. It is heartless and uncaring. And majestic, awe inspiring and wonderous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they make food. They are the first part of the supply chain; a chain that is a massive industry.
Sure, and teachers nourish the foundations of our next generation. And construction workers, aren't they literally the backbone of infrastructure? The farmhands in the fields, the masses of immigrants, aren't they also part of the foundations of food? Do these groups have lots of clout? What explains the variation in clout?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not unreasonable. Wolves are among the few predators that can and will attack humans . That the wolves, themselves, now have a deep-set fear of humanity and would only dare to do so if they're desperate and starving... is a distant second to that same deep-set cultural fear of wolves. Unpopular Opinion Time: The ecosystem damage from not having apex predators is large enough that it might be worth a few human li…
> Wolves are among the few predators that can and will attack humans Well...I live in a place where we have (in my back yard, except for Bison) all the megafauna present since the ice age. In order of practical danger (most to least), they rank like this: Moose, Bear, Cougar, Snakes, ... Wolves. People are regularly attacked by Moose and fatalities have occurred in the past few decades. People are eaten by bears ever…
Virtually every adult killed by snakes in America was asking for it. Rattlesnakes sure as shit know they can't eat humans and would never attempt it. They are named for the mechanism they use to scare us away and bite when that fails. A huge number of rattlesnake bites are to the face or hands because it happens when some moron ignores the rattle and picks up the snake.
Wolves, unlike rattlesnakes do sometimes deliberately attack humans with 'malicious' intent. Rattlesnakes never do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They might equally be wondering why city dwellers have so much say over how ranchers should tend to livestock.
You can't graze your livestock on public land and then act confused when the public has a say.
Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.
Simply paying for cattle that wolves have eaten isn't enough. Wolves induce panic in herds, causing them to go over cliffs or trample down fences and cross busy roads, causing accidents. In Germany this isn't currently paid for by the state, because the law doesn't say so, the causality is hard to prove (basically you need a piece of flesh with a wolve's dental pattern) and the farmer is often first in line and goes…
Other people are telling farmers to get rid of all sorts of fences and just use ditches and hetches, because they like to see that on their Sunday stroll.
The amount of criticism and conflicting opinions that farmers face is unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be fine with wolves living my area, but the wolves would not, so it's a moot question. We do have a growing population of coyotes nearby, and it's fine. I have a hard time understanding why anyone but ranchers would object to having wolves around at all. They don't prey on people.
No you wouldn't be fine. Wolves are very dangerous animals. And, assuming your area has a lack of game for them to hunt and eat, they most certainly would prey on people if they were in your area. Wolves fear humans because humans kill them. If we weren't doing so, they would lose their fear within a few decades at most and hunt humans. Coyotes have never hunted humans, they're too small. Real nature is not happy flu…
Right, which is why I like it.
I don't live on the east coast because I'm afraid of wolves or nature. I've done a lot of things in my life that were far more dangerous than living near wolves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument presupposes the right of the farmer to do whatever they want to protect their cattle, which was what I was objecting too.
This ends with "Let's not have ranchers", which is an outcome I'd agree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what fences are for
Large fences big enough to keep wolves out have a lot of other knock on effects and are very expensive. Barbed wire is extremely cheap and is enough to generally contain grazing livestock contained but a lot of wildlife can freely move around them meaning their habitat doesn't get cut up and cut off from itself. A tall fence buried deep enough to keep wolves from digging under would be very expensive.
Empty slogans like "Build the fence" only work for politicians and activists.