Kansas Crimson

Also semi related but also not related at all:

Remember the Bundys? Cliven and Ammon, those ranchers who had the armed standoff in Nevada, and also took over the wildlife refuge in Oregon?

I heard the other day they’re actually speaking up in support of the Portland protestors.

Go figure...fuckin feds!

Well. You think on it. Come up with your effective working policy and get it rolled through the overwhelming mass of paperwork and process. In the meantime, yes, the ranchers are gonna shoot shovel and shut up because thats the only current option.

Except many wolves have been collared. Hence the bacon grease sponges

well I’d bring up the initiatives that compensate ranchers if they loose livestock to a predator, but then you’d call me out about gummint handouts again.

How much of a problem is it?

How much livestock loss can be for sure attributed to predation?

How does it compare to other threats to livestock - disease, injury, other stuff that might be a threat to a herd?

Correct. I dont think ranchers should be given money for lost cattle. I dont think they should be punished for protecting their herd and their income.

The other things, disease, injury, drought etc can all be protected against and dealt with as they arise......which is exactly what cam be done with wolves.

How much of a problem. For that guy it was 38k this year. Can you tske 38 k outta yoir year and be good? I cant.

I think part of the solution is wilderness areas. We don’t need to graze every single square inch of the country.

But again, it’s sort of a novel idea to manage land for any reason besides economic exploitation.

Grazing is good for the wilderness. Overgrazing isnt.

Grazing clears brush to help prevent forest fires, allows sunlight to forwat floor. The millions of hoof prints hold water and prevent it from running off a dry crusty slope, allowing water to seep in the ground to promote plant growth. Manure provides nutrients to the soil and provides a pathway for the spread of seedlings.


I can go on, but you either get the point or not.

Long term land/forest management IS economic benefit. Like rotating crops/fields. The short term loss allows for long term gain.

Problem being...."short term" when it comes to tbese things is a lifetime. Very few can see past their own lifetimes to understand the benefit or even care about it.

Those are good economic benefits. There are also economic benefits that might be less beneficial - the mindset to take all the trees, or all the oil, or all the wolves.

And there can be downsides to grazing. A herd can degrade stream habitat. And have you ever tried to camp on public land with a bunch of cattle everywhere?

There’s just a lot of interests that should be balanced.

Though I’m kinda bummed you don’t see the appeal of a wilderness area.

It’s crazy to think about how this debate will look after population growth too.

If humans keep popping out so many more humans, how much longer til we don’t even have room for things like grazing?

I love wilderness areas. Spend lots of time in them, as much as possible. Where have i said otherwise?

Yea, you think camping with cattle is bad....you should try being a mama cow with a wolf prowling.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:50 pm That’s a good argument I guess, but also short sighted, and exactly the kind of mindset we humans need to grow out of if we have any chance on this planet long term.

How far is too far to take the adapt or fail argument? If we chop down all the trees and drill up all the oil and use up all the water, what good does refraining “adapt or fail” do then?

I think, in bigger terms, we need to adapt or fail to a sense of conservation.

Real conservation is only done by passing laws and rules so yes, adapting to the rules put in place would cover that.

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:49 pm I love wilderness areas. Spend lots of time in them, as much as possible. Where have i said otherwise?

Yea, you think camping with cattle is bad....you should try being a mama cow with a wolf prowling.

Well, I'm not sure an area that permits grazing can still be a true wilderness area. It's supposed to be even less disturbed than that.

And if you you think a mama cow is nervous around a wolf, just wait til she finds out how they make the veal parmesan!

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:36 pm How much of a problem. For that guy it was 38k this year. Can you tske 38 k outta yoir year and be good? I cant.

whaddya mean, like he had to buy a new refrigerator?

So wait, weve gone wayyy off course here. My main point was about when wolves attack on thw ranchers own property....not public lands, not forest allotments etc

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:24 am So wait, weve gone wayyy off course here. My main point was about when wolves attack on thw ranchers own property....not public lands, not forest allotments etc

But your article was about a rancher whose cattle were attacked on land they did not own.

"Cassie Miller and her husband, John Petersen, graze several hundred mother cows and their calves on roughly 10,000 acres of spring pasture owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in the Blue Mountains east of Pendleton."