
Colorado voters are set to decide if wolves should be reintroduced to the state - pseudolus
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/803895398/colorado-voters-are-set-to-decide-if-wolves-should-be-reintroduced-to-the-state
======
riversflow
Man, I come from a rural background and generally feel for the interests of
rural folk, but these wealthy ranchers really grind my gears with their
entitlement. ‘How are we supposed to ranch and maintain our way of life when
the government makes changes’—like using the countryside to pasture livestock
as they’ve ‘done for generations’ is an inalienable birth right. Give me a
break, everyone has to adapt with the times, ranchers should be no exception.
For all their ruggedness they honestly act like spoiled children. ‘Wolves will
affect the livelihood of my archaic, wealthy rancher lifestyle’ doesn’t really
reverberate with me. Suck it up buttercup.

~~~
imglorp
To put a point on the entitlement, ranching in the midwest is often synonymous
with grazing for minimal cost, on federal land. That's basically a giant
subsidy.

SO the true cost of meat SHOULD include erosion, pollution, and management of
federal lands, antibiotic release into the water table, water use, and GHG
emissions. But instead we pay most of those costs through taxes and have lower
cost at the grocery store.

[https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-
an...](https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-
grazing/livestock-grazing)

~~~
jimmaswell
So their cows mow the grass for free while the farmer gets cows fed for free.
Sounds like a win-win on the surface.

~~~
cultus
You realize we are talking about natural habitats here, right? It's not a
lawn. Most public grazing land is arid, and quite fragile. Grazing can turn a
rich ecosystem into a moonscape very quickly.

Not to mention the feces destroys water quality.

------
mooman219
It sounds like the gist of this article is that it is beneficial to add the
wolves backs, people support adding the wolves back [1], but people who
maintain livestock do not want this for obvious reasons.

[1] "A recent online survey from Colorado State University showed 84 percent
of Coloradans support the reintroduction effort."

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
Yeah it’s a shame because 84 percent of people don’t raise livestock and have
no idea how it works, but some similar percentage of people do eat meat.

~~~
AWildC182
I'm an actual Coloradan. Very little livestock grazing is in the mountains
where the wolves would presumably be. It's almost entirely out on the plains
surrounded my a thousands of miles of barbed wire fences and desolate
nothingness.

Even if the wolves do venture out into the plains, it would be much
appreciated because my office currently smells like cow shit given that
there's a north-easterly wind and Greeley is in that direction with it's
horrendous feed lots.

~~~
TopHand
I've actually worked on ranches in Colorado. Ranchers do graze their stock in
the mountains. The other side of the coin is that the habitat for wolves is
from sea level to approximately 9800' (3000m). They hunt wherever they can
find herbivores. One part of ranching people don't seem to understand is that
the rancher (by rancher I mean whoever is working on the ranch) is caring for
living animals. That means he is looking out for these animals on a daily
basis. I know their are ranchers who don't get attached to their stock, but
they are definitely the minority. It's hard to care for anything daily and not
get attached. I've seen ranchers in tears over the loss of a single cow,
because they've cared for that cow since it was born. From time to time I
would take a steer to slaughter so that we had meat in the freezer. The last
thing I would do after unloading the steer would be to thank him for giving
his life to feed my family. When a pack of coyotes take a calf, it is heart
breaking to see the reaction of the mama cow. My neighbor last spring came
upon a cow that was struggling to give birth and she was down. The coyotes had
killed the calf and were eating it even though it was only part of the way out
of the cow. Do you think that might have upset him a little? Now they want to
release a much larger predator onto the land he is trying to care for. How do
you think that makes him feel? There is more to caring for livestock than
money.

You could work in Commerce City and be smelling the hydrocarbons all day, and
maybe even getting cancer.

~~~
AWildC182
They do graze in the mountains, just not much compared to the rest of the
state. Not really a fan of that either as the cows leave excrement all over
trails and roads. If this prevented the practice and nothing else I'd still be
for it. Cows aren't supposed to be part of nature, they're an environmental
disaster themselves.

This seems to be mostly just an emotional appeal rather than a practical one.

Also, we should totally get rid of the refinery too, I'm all for equal
opportunity environmentalism.

~~~
TopHand
Ever heard of South Park? How about North Park? Kremlin is a Ranching
community. So was Baily at one time and some of the ranchers still live there
even though it is almost part of the Metro area now. Eagle is a ranching
community. I could go on. Cow excrement is only fermented grass. I handle it
with my bare hands. How long does an animal have to live in an environment
before it becomes a part of it. When range and wild life management is turned
over to voters and the educated managers are ignored, it becomes an emotional
issue. Do you ride a bicycle to the grocery store?

~~~
AWildC182
Most of those areas are pivoting to tourism with the exception of maybe South
Park which is desolate enough I don't see wolves making a habitat there.

Cow excrement is absolutely not just fermented grass. It contains pathogens
that can be harmful to humans and end up in drinking water. Cows have existed
in this area for less than 200 years, out of the millions of years the biome
has existed. It's absolutely an emotional issue if you don't understand how
ecosystems work.

I'd rather not give out too many personal details of my living situation but
it's safe to say my little car doesn't get much use at all.

~~~
TopHand
I don't know if you are still following this conversation or not. The snow
stopped yesterday and I had to go do my work. In case you are, I found this
conversation rather thought provoking and wanted to continue for a while. Here
is a link to information on agriculture in Colorado:
[https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_...](https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Colorado/index.php)
It does not break things out by ranch or farm, but it does show that overall
in Colorado between 2007 and 2012 there was a 1% increase in farms. If you
click on the map you can see the breakout by county. In some of the mountain
counties farming has decreased close to 50%. In other mountain counties it has
increased. But it does show that farming is still a strong industry in the
mountain counties. I must confess that I have not spent much time studying
ecosystems. But I live very close to one. I know this, if it takes millions of
years for an eco system to evolve, the eco system in the Western United States
is completely non-existent. Agriculture has only existed for 12,000 years or
so. Most of the crops grown by humans can be viewed as invasive species, same
as you are claiming cattle to be. Some studies conclude that the little ice
age was caused by the dying off of native Americans (also an invasive species
as so we are) after the arrival of Europeans. They were so devastated that the
lack of Agriculture effected global climate, or so the theory goes. Now there
are a great many invasive species in both flora and fauna that the ecosystem
is not what it would have been even 15,000 years ago. The climate has not even
been stable for the past million years. So a million year old eco system does
not exist. There are those that point out that the bovine replaced the bison
in the ecosystem of the American grass lands. While I can accept this to a
point, I do think it at best a near replacement. This I know from direct
observation, if you pull cattle off the land for a number of years, the
quality of the flora suffers. I can't offer an explanation. The same can be
said for over grazing as well. One of the gripes I have with climate change
advocates is that they want everyone else to give up their petroleum habit,
but they themselves still drive SUV's. When I had a city job, to support my
ranching habit, I used mass transit, and supplemented it with a (TreK)
bicycle. I didn't even live in the city! One last antidote. A Business man and
a Rancher hit the same jackpot in the lotto. It was a large sum and they were
to split it. A reported asked the Business man what he was going to do. He
said he was going to retire and and travel the world the rest of his life,
living in hotels and being waited on. The reported then asked the rancher what
he was going to do. He replied that he was going to keep ranching until the
money ran out!

------
heimatau
This could be good for Colorado.

I had to watch this video [1] for my biology class. It's interesting how the
wolves changed the entire ecosystem by just changing the behavior of deer
(they avoided grazing near the river because that's where the wolves wanted to
be). The ripple effects are fairly significant.

1 -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q)

~~~
davidw
I had heard things along these lines that that video has been debunked:

[https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-
debun...](https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-
that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988)

~~~
heimatau
This is not debunked. Not peer reviewed from what I've gathered from that
article, just a lone voice. Yes, ecosystems are very complex but given that
complexity, let's not smear an attempt to describe the cause and effect
relationship which is assumed, even with your source.

Wolves had an effect. Is it overly simplistic in the video I linked? Yes. But
is it inaccurate? No. Is there more to learn, describe and understand? Yes.

------
ojame
Steven Rinella and the MeatEater podcast[0] is an excellent source of
information on Wolves (amongst other things).

They’ve had episode with industry experts on Wolf genetics, conservation,
migration, reintroduction, hunting, habitat control and more. Recently they’ve
had a running commentary on wolves and Isle Royale[1].

0:
[https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater](https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater)
1: [https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/natural-
history/is...](https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/natural-history/isle-
royale-save-wolves-or-let-them-die-for-science)

------
arminiusreturns
As someone who grew up in a wolf reintro zone I have a few comments and
opinions to help others have more productive conversations.

First, not all wolf reintro's are the same. Each ecosystem is different and
the scientific justifications need to be done for each, and the papers for one
do not necessarily apply to the other. The Yellowstone program may have been a
success, but other places are not Yellowstone, and it is a mistake to use it
as a way to handwave away criticisms. Also, sometimes the justifications are
pretty weak, and could easily be made up with by increase in hunting tags or
adjustment of hunting time windows and area restrictions.

Second, there are jurisdictional and public control issues at the heart of the
matter. There are people who actually have to live in these areas and they are
major changes. I strongly dislike the attitude of some that locals should have
no say. The people in our area voted against the reintro program and it was
done anyway, with the governor saying "I don't care what the people want, the
reintro program is happening". That is a problem. I have also seen the effects
of fresh Forest Department/BLM phd types ignore the locals wisdom and advice
and pay the price for it, and the same "We know better than you back country
bumpkin" condescension tends to be at play in the reintro programs. These
things have real consequences. For example, as a kid my grampa who was a
logger in the area in the 70's and many other loggers were saying the Forest
Service needed to let the loggers thin the forests out and to do more control
burns. I being young thought the old loggers were just old-fashioned and the
PhD's knew what they were doing, until reality happened. The holier than
though attitude of the credentialed people prevailed, then the pine beetle
infestation hit, and within a decade we had two ~500,000 acre forest fires
that the forests are still recovering from.

Third, there are often claims that wolves never attack humans, and those
claims are blatantly false or are using very carefully selected statistics
(North America only, etc) to craft a narrative. Beyond that, it vastly changes
the safety profile of being in the forests, in a way that discourages people
from experiencing it. Many locals from my area have posited that this is an
intentional side-effect. Even more so when the rumors of a grizzly reintro
program started floating around (I don't know if these are just rumors, but
who can blame the locals for being afraid of an unelected unaccountable
bureaucracy who already ignores them from doing something else against their
wishes). We used to be able to only have to worry about bears or mountain
lions, who both have pretty easily avoided confrontational profiles, but now
locals don't go anywhere without being armed.

Fourth, the dismissal of the cattle ranchers is far overrated. Cattle
ranching, especially in this day in age, is a science in itself, and in the
forest is a vital part of forest maintenance. Silviopasture/agroforestry is
also often studied by the kids of the old ranchers who then come back and
apply that knowledge. Thoughts of the ranchers as dumb hicks is a foolish and
insulting stereotype. Not only that, but often the forest service and BLM are
underfunded and undermanned, and many of the ranchers who are paying public
land leases do a good job assisting in maintaining the forest, and unlike the
new kid who just got shipped in from across the country after getting a
degree, they live there and have passed down local knowledge for decades if
not longer.

I know it's easy to see something like a wolf reintro program and assume it's
a great thing and just jump on the bandwagon, but maybe a perspective from
someone who grew up in one and have heard out the locals on the issues might
help color your view on the topic a bit.

Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of locals that around the campfire say
"It's all about the three S's... shoot, shovel, and shhhhh".

~~~
rsync
"Third, there are often claims that wolves never attack humans ..."

I find this hard to believe - who would make such a claim ?

One would have to be almost entirely illiterate in both historical accounts of
American settlement and rural accounts of frontier areas in Europe and middle-
Asia _and_ many, many well-respected fictional accounts of wolfpack/human
interactions all over the world.

The wedding story from _My Antonia_ comes to mind ...

~~~
arminiusreturns
You'd be surprised at how often it is heard when discussing this topic (edit:
see comments). My grandfather used to visit Alaska and talked to them about it
and not only did they just laugh when he told them that was what the forest
service "down here" said, but they said "you should talk to the Siberians!".

I'll admit the statistics of wolf attacks in NA are small, but they fail to
take into account many things, for example the high number of national forest
disappearances a percentage of which could have been animals attacks we don't
know about. Also, just from personal experience, when in wolf territory
statistics are hardly a comfort when you hear the yips a ridge over...

Some have said it's fear mongering...I wonder is there such a thing as
statistics-mongering?

------
dmitryminkovsky
So much for anyone trying to raise sheep or cattle. They did this in parts of
England, and if you follow sheep farmers on Twitter, the gore was tremendous.
Guard dogs can handle foxes, even coyotes, but not wolves. But hey, I guess
we’re not supposed to eat meat anymore?

Also, this site just autoplays the segment? :(

~~~
Seenso
> So much for anyone trying to raise sheep or cattle. They did this parts of
> England, and if you follow sheep farmers on Twitter, the gore was
> tremendous.

What if the flock was protected by a pack of large herding dogs, like German
Shepards?

Edit: Apparently _guardian dogs_ defend from wolves. Herding is a different
job. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_guardian_dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_guardian_dog).

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
German Shepherds are nothing for wolves, according to some searches I did
along this same line of thinking a while ago.

~~~
Seenso
What about this?

[https://youtu.be/x4eImh13-ow?t=1072](https://youtu.be/x4eImh13-ow?t=1072)

It appears to be a Georgian documentary, and they describe a Caucasian
sheepdog as being larger and stronger than the local wolves.

When I try to Google this topic, I'm mainly getting junk about some speech
from American Sniper.

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
Can’t play this video now, but would be neat. No idea. Just seems unlikely.
Wolves are master collaborative hunters. Dogs are... dogs. But I’m no dog vs
wolf expert.

~~~
Seenso
Watching the video a little further, it describes a time in the early 90s when
the Caucasian sheepdogs were nearly extinct, "poorly bred," and "food for
wolves." It looks like there was a breeding project to make them fit for
purpose again.

It also looks like the dogs have to stick to the right tactics and have
limitations. The dogs stay put in defensive positions and defend the flock as
a pack. They'll kill a wolf that gets too close, but they usually just chase
them away. They can't chase too far or go out individually or they risk being
killed by wolves. They're also more effective when the weather is such that
they can use their sense of smell.

Edit: I posted this upthread, but apparently _guardian dog_ is the term for
dogs defend against predators (but they do not control its movement), _herding
dogs_ control the movement of a herd (but do not typically defend it well).

Edit this is interesting: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/cinco-deseos-ranch-
livestock-...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/cinco-deseos-ranch-livestock-
guardian-dogs/using-herding-and-guardian-dogs-together-simple-guidelines-to-
build-a-great-team/1261113647266913/)

------
armenarmen
I’m seeing the “ranchers should deal with it because they graze bellow market
rate on federal land argument” thing is that 68% of Colorado is government
owned, so there isn’t much of an alternative. And the percentage of
federally/public owned is even higher in other western states. Maybe offer
these ranchers a chance to buy the land they graze on? That should adjust
grazing rates back to market price in time.

~~~
slipheen
Good god no. We don't need more of our country becoming privatized!

------
luisfmh
Shouldn't we be letting biologists and ecologists make this decision?

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _It 's about challenging more than a century of U.S. wildlife management._

Sounds like maybe said ecologists and biologist were part of the original
problem?

~~~
duxup
It certainly was an issue, folks didn't understand then.

But today I doubt you'd find many ecologists argue you should remove a native
species wholesale outside some very strange situations.

Like all science you take the mistakes, learn, and keep doing better.

------
Jgrubb
Don't do it. The ecosystem has evolved around their absence and introducing a
new predator back into the mix after the fact is going to cause problems
elsewhere.

~~~
JshWright
Is your comment informed by any research on this topic?

~~~
throwaway_tech
Your comment highlights the very real and interesting problems of
democracy...simply turning over this issue to voters (the vast majority of
which have no first hand knowledge of the issue).

~~~
duxup
That comment is asking for data. At least from that text I don't see them
arguing for a vote or not. So that's not a democracy issue, that's someone
asking for information.

