Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 22 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
5 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:02PM #211
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

Had to comment on this:


rabello: Have ranchers not learned an essential wisdom?  That as stewards of their cattle, they should not be leaving them vulnerable like that and expect to "get away with it".  Have they not considered having secured fields or bringing the cattle in the yard, hiring someone to watch over the cattle, or that as stewards (not owners) that they are "expected" to lose some of the cattle as that is food for the wolves and other animals (since we humans have often deprived the carnivores of their principal meat sources)?

I wonder if an underlying problem for ranchers is greed?  Being too greedy for money that they need the number of cattle that they have, that they don't properly protect them, that they continue to blame the ancestor of the dog rather than accept personal responsibility for their losses?  


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usually).  Also, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.


Does that mean I (or most ranchers I have ever met) support the idea of torturing wolves to death? Not at all!  


But since each cow killed by a wolf is money right out of a rancher's pocket, I think they have the right to protect their livelihood by shooting wolves that are attacking their stock.  After all, I haven't heard of any other group that is expected to involuntarily donate money to support wolf conservation --- have you?  Have you ever had to? Why should ranchers have to ?


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:32PM #212
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Had to comment on this:


rabello: Have ranchers not learned an essential wisdom?  That as stewards of their cattle, they should not be leaving them vulnerable like that and expect to "get away with it".  Have they not considered having secured fields or bringing the cattle in the yard, hiring someone to watch over the cattle, or that as stewards (not owners) that they are "expected" to lose some of the cattle as that is food for the wolves and other animals (since we humans have often deprived the carnivores of their principal meat sources)?

I wonder if an underlying problem for ranchers is greed?  Being too greedy for money that they need the number of cattle that they have, that they don't properly protect them, that they continue to blame the ancestor of the dog rather than accept personal responsibility for their losses?  


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usually).  Also, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.


Does that mean I (or most ranchers I have ever met) support the idea of torturing wolves to death? Not at all!  


But since each cow killed by a wolf is money right out of a rancher's pocket, I think they have the right to protect their livelihood by shooting wolves that are attacking their stock.  After all, I haven't heard of any other group that is expected to involuntarily donate money to support wolf conservation --- have you?  Have you ever had to? Why should ranchers have to ?





Thanks so much for posting that. The strawmen leveled against hunters and ranchers whenever the wolf issue gets national attention can be maddening. 


And they are almost always leveled by people who have no clue what it's like living, or trying to make a living, in the proximity of such animals as wolves and grizzly bears. 


That said, what do you think about the argument raised that public wolf hunting could end up eliminating dominant, more experienced animals from the packs, leaving juvenile, less experienced animals -- which are actually more likely to attack livestock because they lack:


A: The experience to hunt down much harder to catch wild animals.


B: The wisdom to avoid human settlement.


I think it plays into the larger argument that heavy-handed predator "control" actually makes things worse for livestock growers. In other words, the same principle might also hold true for coyotes and other species. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:38PM #213
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

mytmouse57: The reason for the wolf reintroduction program was to permanently re-establish a viable, sustainable population of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem, that is situated in parts of the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. That goal has been achieved.


Hunting has been one result of the program, as part of the subsequent managment packages implimented by the states, but was never the reason for it. 


Again, the program had one underlying reason, and one only -- re-establish a viable population of wolves here.


The program has not failed, and thus far, hunting has not proven to have flawed it in any way.


Excellent post, mytmouse57!  That is an excellent summary of the situation.


And I think all of us are probably agreed that there is a difference between hunting and the kind of torture that was shown in the OP and that the second is just flat-out unacceptable.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 11:42PM #214
rabello
Posts: 29,815

Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Had to comment on this:


rabello: Have ranchers not learned an essential wisdom?  That as stewards of their cattle, they should not be leaving them vulnerable like that and expect to "get away with it".  Have they not considered having secured fields or bringing the cattle in the yard, hiring someone to watch over the cattle, or that as stewards (not owners) that they are "expected" to lose some of the cattle as that is food for the wolves and other animals (since we humans have often deprived the carnivores of their principal meat sources)?

I wonder if an underlying problem for ranchers is greed?  Being too greedy for money that they need the number of cattle that they have, that they don't properly protect them, that they continue to blame the ancestor of the dog rather than accept personal responsibility for their losses?  




This was not my post, btw.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usually).  Also, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.




I know quite a bit about the Marlboro Man riding the range, thank you very much. I grew up in rural Colorado.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Does that mean I (or most ranchers I have ever met) support the idea of torturing wolves to death? Not at all!  




Well blimey, that's good to hear.  Not totally believeable but good to hear.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


But since each cow killed by a wolf is money right out of a rancher's pocket, I think they have the right to protect their livelihood by shooting wolves that are attacking their stock.  After all, I haven't heard of any other group that is expected to involuntarily donate money to support wolf conservation --- have you?  Have you ever had to? Why should ranchers have to ?




Well, cuz they are half the problem, with hunters being the other half.  Ranchers are adding to global warming, too, turning vast amounts of natural habitat into grazing acreage.  I heard all those rationlizations when I lived in "cattle country".  The "we have to do it" rationalization is lacking in creative thinking.

Black Lives Matter
Muslim Lives Matter
There is no such thing as "illegals"
LGBT Lives Matter
Poor Women's Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

--Professor Judith Butler
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 1:29AM #215
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

Rabello -


Hear, hear!  Excellent retort to the rancher's post. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:53AM #216
arielg
Posts: 9,116
Apr 18, 2012 --  7:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usuaso, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.



The problem is putting the ranching operations above and beyond any other consideration. Is the  activity  so sacrosanct that justifies the elimination of any other form of life that threatens it in some way?


That is the philosophical question that decides what arrangements should be made to accomodate those living forms that have as much right to the land as a rancher.


I understand the frustration of someone who struggles to rise a crop only to have some creature come and eliminate  it.  But it is hardly ever is so destructive. Maybe we should  accept some loss.  That is where one's consideration for other creatures come in.


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:57AM #217
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:53AM, arielg wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 --  7:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usuaso, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.



The problem is putting the ranching operations above and beyond any other consideration. Is the  activity  so sacrosanct that justifies the elimination of any other form of life that threatens it in some way?


That is the philosophical question that decides what arrangements should be made to accomodate those living forms that have as much right to the land as a rancher.


I understand the frustration of someone who struggles to rise a crop only to have some creature come and eliminate  it.  But it is hardly ever is so destructive. Maybe we should  accept some loss.  That is where one's consideration for other creatures come in.





Nobody is trying to "eliminate" wolves. To state such, is to advertise ignorance of the facts on the ground, and the parameters of the wolf reintroduction/manament program.


Ranchers are allowed some leeway to shoot wolves causing chronic problems with their livestock, or have hunters or government agents shoot them.


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:59AM #218
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 18, 2012 -- 11:42PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Had to comment on this:


rabello: Have ranchers not learned an essential wisdom?  That as stewards of their cattle, they should not be leaving them vulnerable like that and expect to "get away with it".  Have they not considered having secured fields or bringing the cattle in the yard, hiring someone to watch over the cattle, or that as stewards (not owners) that they are "expected" to lose some of the cattle as that is food for the wolves and other animals (since we humans have often deprived the carnivores of their principal meat sources)?

I wonder if an underlying problem for ranchers is greed?  Being too greedy for money that they need the number of cattle that they have, that they don't properly protect them, that they continue to blame the ancestor of the dog rather than accept personal responsibility for their losses?  




This was not my post, btw.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Cattle ranches in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are usually at least a few hundred acres and often run to a few thousand. (There are places in Texas that run to hundreds of thousands of acres.)  These places need to be fairly big because the grazing is pretty slim per acre (dry conditions and crappy soil, usually).  Also, ranchers also often augment their grazing by leasing rights on public forest land.  Assuming a rancher can round up his 100-200 (or more) cows from hundreds of acres and bring in them "into the yard" every night says that this poster knows very little about the realities of ranching in the west. It has nothing to do with greed, just simple practicalities.




I know quite a bit about the Marlboro Man riding the range, thank you very much. I grew up in rural Colorado.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


Does that mean I (or most ranchers I have ever met) support the idea of torturing wolves to death? Not at all!  




Well blimey, that's good to hear.  Not totally believeable but good to hear.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:02PM, McAtheist wrote:


But since each cow killed by a wolf is money right out of a rancher's pocket, I think they have the right to protect their livelihood by shooting wolves that are attacking their stock.  After all, I haven't heard of any other group that is expected to involuntarily donate money to support wolf conservation --- have you?  Have you ever had to? Why should ranchers have to ?




Well, cuz they are half the problem, with hunters being the other half.  Ranchers are adding to global warming, too, turning vast amounts of natural habitat into grazing acreage.  I heard all those rationlizations when I lived in "cattle country".  The "we have to do it" rationalization is lacking in creative thinking.




First of all, Colorado isn't the "West," and hasn't been for decades. It's essentially a suburb of California.


Secondly, perhaps you grew up in relative proximity of ranches, but apparently, it was only close enough to develop cliche stereotypes.


Just as you have with hunters.


Perhaps you should make an effort to educate yourself about just how much ranchers and hunters  -- bad eggs in both groups notwithstanding -- have done to protect and presreve habitat and wildlife before you go running your mouth again. 


Or, would you prefer that the entire region end up looking like the outskirts of Cheyenne, or, worse, like the Wasatch Front? Because the real enemy of wildlife out here isn't ranchers or hunters or the Marlboro man. It's developers and their god-damned subdivisions.


I know for a fact, conservation groups that really are making a difference -- The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Nature Conservancy to name just a couple -- work with ranchers and hunters all the time, and most certianly do not share your disparaging view.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 12:40AM #219
rabello
Posts: 29,815

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:57AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Ranchers are allowed some leeway to shoot wolves causing chronic problems with their livestock, or have hunters or government agents shoot them.




"Are allowed" as if that's the final and only word!  That's what some of us are against!! They should either strengthen their outer defenses which would include not using the people's land for the personal grazing needs of their profit-makers, or accept the losses that come with interfering with or destroying other species' habitiats.


 


Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:57AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Nobody is trying to "eliminate" wolves. To state such, is to advertise ignorance of the facts on the ground, and the parameters of the wolf reintroduction/manament program.




Can't you come up with something better than calling people who are not impressed with the lifestyle that ranchers and hunters have chosen "ignorant". 


I pretty much "turned" when, as a child, I saw my first rodeo in that supposed "suburb of California" which just happens to be the state where the National Stockman's Show is held (get it??) and when, again as a child, I had to see a steer getting his owner's "brand".  Disgusting.....yet I'm supposed to believe that ranchers "care" about the wolf that got tortured to death, eh?




Black Lives Matter
Muslim Lives Matter
There is no such thing as "illegals"
LGBT Lives Matter
Poor Women's Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

--Professor Judith Butler
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 8:05AM #220
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:40AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:57AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Ranchers are allowed some leeway to shoot wolves causing chronic problems with their livestock, or have hunters or government agents shoot them.




"Are allowed" as if that's the final and only word!  That's what some of us are against!! They should either strengthen their outer defenses which would include not using the people's land for the personal grazing needs of their profit-makers, or accept the losses that come with interfering with or destroying other species' habitiats.


 


Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:57AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Nobody is trying to "eliminate" wolves. To state such, is to advertise ignorance of the facts on the ground, and the parameters of the wolf reintroduction/manament program.




Can't you come up with something better than calling people who are not impressed with the lifestyle that ranchers and hunters have chosen "ignorant". 


I pretty much "turned" when, as a child, I saw my first rodeo in that supposed "suburb of California" which just happens to be the state where the National Stockman's Show is held (get it??) and when, again as a child, I had to see a steer getting his owner's "brand".  Disgusting.....yet I'm supposed to believe that ranchers "care" about the wolf that got tortured to death, eh?







So, you formed a negative stereotype of ranchers and ranching early on. That means little to nothing.


I have my share of problems with the cattle industry. But, again, at least my views are informed and fair.


You can oppose ranchers being able to cull wolves all you want. But to be taken seriously, you have to come up with factual arguments, not sweeping generalizations couched in thinnly veiled insults.


And, I'm sorry if the word "ignorant" offends you. But again -- thus far, your statements on the issue of wolf reintroduction/managment have been dripping with ignorance. You keep forgetting, or just ignoring, you're dealing with somebody here who has first-hand, first-person knowledge and interaction with all the major parties involved -- including, but not limited to, the USFWS, Game and Fish Department, biologists, range specialists.


And, yes, conservation groups -- such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalitiona and Nature Conservancy. Which, although they might not agree with certian points of the wolf plan thus far, aren't going around screaming about wolves being wiped out, or what horrible cretins hunters and ranchers are.


In other words, none of the adults who are actually working on these matters at the ground level share anything even remotely reflecting your opinions or ranting.


That's not "arrogance," it's just fact. I happen to know quite a lot about this issue, and am therefore not going to be particulary impressed with purely unqualified conjecture.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 22 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook