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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 4:19PM #211
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:18PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:16PM, mindis1 wrote:


What is that supposed to mean? Evidently you don’t know. You throw out the term “false dilemma,” and when I point out that you haven’t offered any alternative option than the two possibilities I have stated, you respond that my “’option’ is completely rhetorical”. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.


That’s what you’ve done throughout this thread. Every time Rabello has made essentially this same point (I’ve only put what Rabello has already said dozens of times here into the form of a logical disjunction), you have merely avoided responding to it, posting a lot of muglub that is unrelated to the point. Quite obviously, the only reason you are spending so much effort avoiding the issue is because you are trying to find some way to justify animal-killing.  


I will state the disjunctive syllogism once again. Let us know if some little dim light bulb comes on and you think of a relevant response. There are two possibilities: either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You have already said several times, and have most recently repeated in #202, that it is not (b). Therefore it is (a).


Let’s formalize that disjunction:


P ν Q; ¬ Q


Therefore P.




Once again, you're taking one outrageous incident



Obviously I was not talking about one incident. Go back and read my post. Read it until you understand this fact: Either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You say it is not (b). Therefore, it is (a). Regardless of whether (a) or (b) is the case, it is a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates are unwilling to condemn what has happened, is happening and will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected.




Repeating the same rhetorical nonsense over and over won't make it any more valid. Nor will making childish, inflamatory statements such as "sicko animal-killers" do anything to bolster your point of view.


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. 


Something having "gone wrong" with the program because wolves are now being hunted is purely a matter of opinion -- and in my experience, generally unqualified opinion. 


Furthermore, way back even before the first 14 or so transplanted wolves were released in Yellowstone National Park in 1995, it was always understood that the plan was ultimately to hand managment over to the states, and the states planned to have wolf hunts.


Therefore, to come along now, in 2012, and start saying, "gee, wolves are being killed, something went wrong" is an indication of showing up late for the party.


Anybody protesting hunting now, as if it were some nasty surpirse that just got sprung, needs to be asked, "Well, if you're so worried about wolves being hunted, where have you been the last 17 years?"  


Should there be any indication that hunting is undermining the reason for the program, it will be reconsidered, changed, or ceased.


The states have a vested interest in preventing too many wolves from being killed, because if that happens, then federal jurisdiction comes back down, and the entire process will have been a waste of the states' time, money and resources.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:02PM #212
McAtheist
Posts: 7,585

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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:32PM #213
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 6:38PM #214
McAtheist
Posts: 7,585

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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 11:42PM #215
rabello
Posts: 19,325

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 1:29AM #216
solfeggio
Posts: 8,523

Rabello -


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

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:53AM #217
arielg
Posts: 9,102
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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:57AM #218
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:59AM #219
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

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
2 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 12:40AM #220
rabello
Posts: 19,325

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?




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