Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,023
I was arguing with a tree hugger on another forum and put enough into this post that I thought I'd share it here:
The wolf introduction argument comes down to a large number of people in Portland and other large cities believing it's a wonderful thing for wolves to exist "out there somewhere". People who live "out there somewhere" typically live on land they and their families have owned, and farmed or ranched for generations. Most of these family operations are marginal in nature. They don't make a lot of money, typically about enough to get by on. They are being told by the city folk that they should pay a few thousand dollars a year so that those city folks can enjoy the idea of wolves living "out there somewhere". That payment comes in the form of lost livestock. Those losses of $5000 or $6000 in livestock in a particular year may mean that they have to give up their operation, and therefor, the land that has been in their families for generations. Do you like the idea of wolves living "out there somewhere" enough to pay a few hundred dollars a month in additional taxes? Do you think it's fair to expect someone else to bear that economic burden, even to the extent that they have to give up their way of life?
Oh yes, there are reimbursement programs. And if you can PROVE that your steer was killed by wolves you stand a chance of getting reimbursed...this time. But it's not enough that there are wolf tracks around the carcass, that there are wolf bite marks and obvious signs of wolf feeding on it. No, it COULD have died of natural causes and the wolves simply fed on it. It COULD have been killed by a bear and the wolves simply fed on it. What it boils down to is that the wolves pretty much have to be caught in the act. And the same people (the government) who are liable for a payment are the ones to decide. On top of that, the professional wolf advocates are constantly nipping at the heels of the government inspectors, questioning every claim that is granted.
Meanwhile the ranchers are vilified by those same professional wolf advocates as benefitting dishonestly from grazing contracts on public land and other government programs, and put in the same class as welfare queens. The misinformation and hatred expressed on many "environmentalist" forums for ranchers and farmers goes way beyond rationality. It's hatred fueled by jealousy and deep seated resentment for anyone who owns anything. It's the kind of thing I've heard from bicycling advocates in relation to my property. I shouldn't be allowed to cut trees or clear brush, or in any way alter my property because it's theirs to enjoy from the road as they ride by, and if I'm allowed to do those things it interferes with their enjoyment of my property. At no time do they volunteer to compensate me for the things I CAN'T do with my property. They are somehow partial owners without ever having to buy or risk anything.