Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lurker-1969 t1_irwevsm wrote

As a lifetime rancher I can understand the anger these guys have when they see their cattle torn up. It is truly upsetting. I do not believe that poisoning wolves will solve the problem. I do not understand how the groups that are relocating wolves thought this would be a good idea. The wolves are the ones that pay the price ultimately with their lives. It is sad.

39

Oftheunknownman t1_irwyit2 wrote

I would like to add that Washington State compensates ranchers for any cattle killed by wolves. Also, there are several ranchers who have bragged about herding their cattle near known wolf dens just to increase conflict and raise issues. With a cooperative mindset a lot of these conflicts are avoidable.

106

mstylesequence t1_iscnyt9 wrote

Shoot shovel and shut up is what they say. Entitled a-holes thinking only of themselves. Kill any animal that even so much as mildly inconveniences them.

1

Nilfux t1_iry17sk wrote

Stupid ugly cow, nice cute wolfie. Which one do you think would eat you?

−25

Petunias_are_food t1_iry74gd wrote

Just how many wolves attacking mankind in WA state are there? No? Cause there have been very few wolf eating man incidents since you've been alive. Edit oops talking to a troll is like talking to a brick wall except I like the bricks a lot better

15

Jaynier t1_iryt8zp wrote

Wolves don’t attack people. Come join us in the 21st century

11

bwc_28 t1_irwqbkm wrote

It's far more upsetting seeing wolves poisoned and shot by ranchers. You're reimbursed for lost cattle, the entire world loses out when wolves die.

79

lurker-1969 t1_is160mr wrote

As I said, the wolves pay the price and it is sad.

1

bwc_28 t1_is1h9b3 wrote

>I can understand the anger these guys have when they see their cattle torn up. It is truly upsetting.

Uh huh. So upsetting seeing an animal you were planning on killing anyway being hunted for food by a natural predator.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is5xl79 wrote

You could never understand a rancher's point of view regarding compassion toward their animals if you have not lived the life. You speak of something which you know nothing about.

0

bwc_28 t1_is5ybix wrote

Yeah, you're so compassionate to the animals you're going to kill to make money, while also speeding up climate change. Thanks for everything you do!

1

lurker-1969 t1_is63glt wrote

As you put on your leather belt and slip on your leather shoes and drive your car with leather seats.

0

bwc_28 t1_is640wn wrote

Whole lot of assumptions, I don't wear or use leather. Keep trying to justify your killing off animals for profit.

1

Nilfux t1_iry1b9c wrote

Yeah eff cows, they're ugly anyways. I want a wolf-burger.

−11

erleichda29 t1_irxby3e wrote

Maybe ranchers should stop using public land if they are so offended by wild animals existing in their natural habitat.

75

lurker-1969 t1_is15lfj wrote

That's fine BUT I doubt the Wolves know the boundaries between private and public land

−1

hanafraud t1_iryomk6 wrote

Would you prefer that they purchased that land and you no longer got to use it? Or would you prefer for cattle to not be able graze and just be locked up in a barn?

Or do you have a better way for BLM to make money that they use to often times just to improve habitat (because your taxes do NOT pay for stuff like that)

−13

erleichda29 t1_irypuvi wrote

I don't think "the habitat" requires human assistance. We just need to stay out of it. I wish we had huge protected areas that no one was allowed to use for any reason.

7

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_irzcmcw wrote

You're espousing what is often referred to as "the pristine myth". Humans have been here, actively managing the land, for thousands of years before European settlement. There is no chance of ever returning to the environmental state that existed before humans stepped foot in the Americas. That world is gone forever, and it doesn't make any ecological sense for humans to just "stay out of it". We're way beyond that point. Any landscape that is affected by human actions requires management. It's silly and unrealistic to think that any good would be done by just locking up vast swaths of land and not allowing any form of use.

−1

erleichda29 t1_is0tpz1 wrote

Wow. And you are espousing the "everything belongs to humans" theory created by religion. We are not the owners or the rulers of the planet. It's sad that you don't understand that.

0

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_is0uoqf wrote

I didn't say anything about religion. Try a Google search on the pristine myth and do some reading before commenting.

−1

erleichda29 t1_is0yylz wrote

I know what the pristine myth is. Maybe you should do some reading if you aren't aware of the source for beliefs about human superiority.

0

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_is2n4op wrote

I didn't say anything about human superiority, either. There's no denying that humans have had an impact on the landscape, but it's utterly foolish to believe that we can just expect conditions to get better by doing nothing at all. We've made the mess ourselves, and we can't return to a mythical time where humans didn't have an impact, because those environmental and climatic conditions no longer exist. It is our ethical obligation to the land to manage it to the best of our ability, using scientific data as our foundation. Suggestions otherwise are of no use to those of us actively engaged in the work.

1

hanafraud t1_iryq5mz wrote

That is absolutely not how it works anymore. Maybe a couple hundred years ago but we have destroyed the earth and we now have to actively manage it to help wildlife.

Edit: and we do have huge areas like that. National parks and refuges often don’t allow vehicles or camping. They might allow hiking but people don’t usually get off trails and if you aren’t allowed to camp, then you can’t get very far.

−4

sleeknub t1_irz86cl wrote

What national parks don’t allow camping? All of the ones in Washington do.

5

500and1 t1_irzosxh wrote

Maybe someone should use public land to hunt the ranchers

3

rontrussler58 t1_irwss8c wrote

Why not barn your herd at night? Is it because these cattle are grazing on thousands of acres of public USFS property?

53

St_Kevin_ t1_iry6iu2 wrote

Yes, much of the BLM and USFS land is leased to private ranchers for grazing. It’s normal for the herds to be many miles away from the ranchers land. It can take days just to gather the whole herd, there’s no way to herd them all each night and put them inside a structure.

9

rontrussler58 t1_irzfj5b wrote

Are the poisonings of the wolves on private lands? If on public then all that needs to be done is revoke these leases (and somehow enforce it without bloodshed). Seems a very risky maneuver to undermine other users of public lands (i.e. conservationists trying to restore the environment in the west to its former glory).

3

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_irwyhz9 wrote

Ranchers only lose cattle—that they were going to kill anyway—when they try to herd them in the wolfs territory.

And then… they STILL get paid for the lost cattle—that they were going to kill anyway.

Yeah… the ranchers are really “suffering” and it’s “understandable” why they have such wolf fear. Because… wait a second… that wolf fear is just caveman thinking they need to override and get into the modern era.

45

DungeonGushers t1_irxgeqh wrote

Maybe don’t be a rancher and do something that isn’t a shitty waste of environment.

15

lurker-1969 t1_is15qvo wrote

As you said while eating your hamburger

1

bwc_28 t1_is61rxf wrote

Now do me, I'm vegetarian. How are you going to deflect from the damage you're doing to the planet when I don't eat meat?

1

lurker-1969 t1_is633hs wrote

How are free range ranchers damaging the planet?

0

bwc_28 t1_is6481j wrote

Educate yourself

There's a reason cutting red meat consumption is something everyone can do to help the environment. You're directly contributing to our worsening climate.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is64o7n wrote

Your opinion and bad science pushing an agenda here.

0

bwc_28 t1_is67l7t wrote

It's not my opinion, it's fact. You can ignore the scientific literature, but it doesn't change reality.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is68jfp wrote

Pushing an agenda with "science: a common tactic

0

bwc_28 t1_is68p7w wrote

You can't dispute the facts so you scream "fake news!" Typical uneducated rube.

>You speak of something which you know nothing about.

1

lurker-1969 t1_isapnjc wrote

Just another one of those who can't stand another person's point of view I see.

1

bwc_28 t1_isatdnq wrote

You're the one outright dismissing facts because they're inconvenient to you. I can back up all my claims with research and hard data, you can't say the same.

1

lurker-1969 t1_isayx0x wrote

I can't back up what? I have never made any claim other than to say that it is sad that wolves pay the price and it is sad. You had to jump on the shit show and rip me a new asshole for being a rancher. Go piss up a rope.

1

bwc_28 t1_isazdlm wrote

Prove that anything I posted or said is "bad science" as you claimed. You're flat out lying because you know the facts fly in face of your bullshit.

I'm ripping you a new asshole for being a liar who's directly destroying our planet due to your own greed.

1

[deleted] t1_irxp2zp wrote

"The wolves are the ones that pay the price ultimately with their lives. It is sad."

I don't agree with you that relocating the wolves is the mistake. People can change their behaviors based on policies that have the right incentives.

I don't like the fact that predators exist, either. Super scary. Killing them proactively is not an option, though, and they will go fully extinct if we let individuals make that decision. This will have an impact on our state's ecosystem.

1