Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

doing-mybestOK t1_irw8mbp wrote

:(

103

YallNeed_Shrooms t1_irxrxo5 wrote

Cattle farmers are the only people invested in killing these wolves.

56

shinsain t1_iry0y5v wrote

This is totally the cause. Those entitled fucks. Think they've owned the land longer than the wolves. It's going to be unfortunate when they realize that they were incorrect, but whatever. Being stupid is fun for some people.

32

RangerDangerrrr t1_irymb6n wrote

I hate to be the guy with the controversial opinion but I'm going to have to say it.

The cattle farmers did use this land before these wolves were introduced to the area. Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho were home to a very large subspecies of coyotes up until 200 years ago.

In the 1990's and 2000's Washington State purchased these grey wolves (a subspecies from Canada known to be the largest wolves in North America) and introduced them to the ecosystem. They have wreaked havoc on deer, elk, bear and moose population through all of Idaho and Eastern Washington. It has completely destroyed ecosystems in many counties of Idaho and the government spends upwards of $125,000 an HOUR sniping them from helicopters.

Yellowstone National Park will tell you that the ecosystem has flourished since the introduction but that is simply because Yellowstone is a man-made and maintained ecosystem it is not natural and should not represent the whole introduction of a non native wolf to an area that never had wolves that size.

−27

Jaynier t1_irysucx wrote

Wolves used to cover the whole continent before being displaced and often eradicated by humans. We are obligated to restore the natural order of our ecosystems. Nice story but farmers don’t have the high ground here.

26

RangerDangerrrr t1_iryuak6 wrote

Maybe, but they were nothing when compared to the largest sub species of grey wolf on the planet. North Idaho was home to the red wolves, but the sub species of coyote was larger. The ecosystem cannot support these large wolves and it shows. Washington introduces a non native species and Idaho spends millions of dollars cleaning up the mess.

There are dozens of organizations that are investigating the elk and deer population and reporting their data. Here's one:

https://www.rmef.org/elk-network/informing-misinformed-wolves/

−13

firephoto t1_iryshwe wrote

Nice talking points. It must be my imagination living in Eastern Washington that these large coyotes I see are not actually so. This isn't to say I haven't seen typical smaller coyotes, but there are in fact larger ones at this now point in time. Are they hybridized from dogs, probably, is a coyote a dog? yes. Is a wolf a dog? yes. hmm. Before the wolves it was wild packs of wolf hybrids in northeast Washington. Yes, before the wolves this was the news. Then wolves became established and the hybrid wild dog packs were no more or not news worthy.

Now lets get into some physics. How high of a fence can a wolf jump? Will a wolf cross a boundary with a high voltage pulsing electric wire? I know my local coyotes will not cross a path that has a pulsing electric wire that is 8 feet off the ground. I even observed some raccoons in the middle of the night that would not cross an extension cord that was powering something within the last month. Seems these wild animals don't like electricity, maybe they've been shocked, but whatever it is they certainly can sense it. Now this isn't new, anyone with animals and an electric fence knows that the animals won't just stroll up to the wire and get shocked, they know it's there. With solar and batteries, a single charged electric fence line can be anywhere. This isn't 1820 or 1920 or even 20 years ago.

But back to the point, most of us do protect our animals with fences of various types. We keep in and we keep other things out. I have trees safe from beavers and I have birds safe from everything and used to have horses safe from everything. It would seem like a very small minority of the livestock animal owning population is allergic to fences that protect their livestock. They claim the fence is expensive but then cry when their expensive animal is killed. They don't cry when they install $100,000 irrigation systems, or buy $75,000 pickups, or $20,000 trailers, or $15,000 atvs, but that fence is just too expensive. It's not that surprising considering the law in a lot of places requires the non-livestock owner to fence OUT the livestock. Free range free loaders.

The real problem here isn't even fences, or animals, it's government leases that I could afford if I were allowed to lease those lands and I don't have any cattle. It's stupidly ridiculously cheap. If it was corporate land they would get a fine for giving something away.

10

500and1 t1_irzof5r wrote

Maybe the government should snipe the farmers from helicopters

5

sleeknub t1_irz7qul wrote

I’d rather not have a ton of wolves around when I go outside. Probably a lot of people with children feel the same way.

−14

500and1 t1_irzok2p wrote

I’d rather not have a ton of children around when I go outside

4

sleeknub t1_is4ayrz wrote

The wolves will help with that.

To be clear, I don’t have children and I still don’t want there to be a ton of wolves around when I’m outside.

1

bwc_28 t1_is1g60t wrote

They don't attack people 99.99% of the time, and when they do attacks aren't fatal. In the past 30 years there has been ONE fatal wolf attack in the US, and that was in Alaska.

Children themselves are more of a threat to people than wolves.

0

sleeknub t1_is3fsiu wrote

In the past 30 years there haven’t been a lot of wolves around people. With populations growing at 25 percent per year, that definitely will increase.

I’m pretty sure you didn’t word your last sentence correctly, because I don’t think children are a threat to people or wolves.

−1

platypus253 t1_irwvv87 wrote

Cattle-ranching is one of the most devastating things we as humans can do to the environment. Forgive me for not pitying the ranchers who want to do harm twice-over by killing the wolves who were here first.

74

pappiwheelie t1_irwaj09 wrote

Gray wolf populations have grown an average of 25 percent each year in WA! That’s amazing! That’s including mortalities. I couldn’t find total population count, but that’s pretty amazing. It looks like they were pulled from federal endangered classification in the eastern portion of WA n 2011.

Edit WDFW has a great information about the wolf population in the state. I did see below they count 206 wolfs n 33 packs. It seams tricky to count them. There’s a good video on this. I am curious what the goal population is. Their range rather large.

66

[deleted] t1_irxonru wrote

From the article:

"Gray wolves are listed by the state as endangered, and they're federally endangered in the western two-thirds of the state."

"Fish and Wildlife officials said there were 206 known wolves in 33 packs in Washington at the end of 2021."

It's true that wolf populations are recovering but they are still not nearly recovered.

It is not okay to kill a wolf and this is illegal, wrong, and harmful to our state.

20

pappiwheelie t1_irxy1mo wrote

Yes

Recovery goals – The plan establishes a delisting objective of 15 breeding pairs of wolves present in the state for at least three years, with at least four in eastern Washington, four in the northern Cascades, four in the southern Cascades / northwest coastal area, and three others anywhere in the state. The plan also provides for WDFW to consider initiating the delisting process if 18 breeding pairs are documented during a single year and the distribution objectives are met.

3

sleeknub t1_irz76g8 wrote

Wouldn’t 33 packs mean well over 15 or 18 breeding pairs?

3

pappiwheelie t1_irzdabh wrote

Yes, population total isn’t an issue in recovery anymore. There just aren’t any breeding pairs in the southern cascades.

3

sleeknub t1_irzh3ej wrote

Seems like that might be the hardest place to achieve that and avoid conflicts with humans. But the way you listed it above it sounds like they could be in the southern cascades OR the NW coast (which I take to mean Olympic peninsula/national park).

2

Enchanting_Smith t1_irxdl1h wrote

Wish people read up on it before responding/reposting

4

[deleted] t1_irxoiyu wrote

I'm familiar with this. The person above you is minimizing the issue.

−1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_irwy6l0 wrote

Idiots just can’t update their brains and still think “wolf = bad” like it’s still the 1500s or something.

64

Nilfux t1_iry1037 wrote

OK cool, go pet one.

−16

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_iry1s4i wrote

> OK cool, go pet one.

No problem! Right after I go slap a grizzly around for stealing “my” salmon. 😅

16

firephoto t1_irysp3k wrote

You haven't listened to fisherman talk about birds. This isn't protectors of the wildlife kind of talk.

−1

realif3 t1_irxfle9 wrote

Well if you're livelihood is connected to livestock in any way...

−49

curatedcliffside t1_irxhlc6 wrote

Livestock deaths are mostly on public land where ranchers turn their cattle out unsupervised. With simple deterrence there is little to no predation.

43

realif3 t1_irxj3x9 wrote

Sure but with a average population increase of 25 percent year it's only a matter of time before they end up causing conflicts on actual private fenced off ranches. I was just trying to put my feet on someone else's shoes. I wouldn't poison wolves, that's just wrong, but I wouldn't like them either.

−35

bwc_28 t1_irxk9vd wrote

Ranchers are an antiquated relic who provide zero tangible benefits to society, and continually lead to the destruction of our planet's fragile ecosystem. We absolutely should be prioritizing wolves over ranchers. The reality is we no longer need red meat, especially at the exorbitant cost to the planet.

22

[deleted] t1_iryg1cz wrote

[deleted]

−3

bwc_28 t1_iryoslh wrote

The issue with ranching is that land you mention is a small fraction used for cattle. Red meat consumption is causing the amazon rainforest to be clear cut, it's causing old growth forests to be razed. That's absolutely devastating to our planet and is directly making climate change worse. The reality is red meat consumption is terrible for the environment.

3

parejaloca79 t1_iryrdiw wrote

How much red meat do we import from the Amazon?

−2

[deleted] t1_irzke9d wrote

[deleted]

1

parejaloca79 t1_irzkn3j wrote

I agree its not a good environment for grazing but the previous commenter talked about the Amazon being destroyed for ranching and raising beef, red meat, implying that the US is part of that problem. My question is how much red meat is the US importing from the Amazonian región?

0

sleeknub t1_irz8mfs wrote

Cattle is good for the planet in many of these areas, not bad for it. The US was home to millions and millions of bison not very long ago, and cattle provide many of the same ecosystem services when allowed to graze. Ideally we’d have bison, but cattle do a good job in their stead.

−3

bwc_28 t1_is1hvj8 wrote

I'd be ecstatic if we had millions of free roaming bison in America, but we both know that's not how modern ranching operates.

0

sleeknub t1_is3f7f1 wrote

They don’t have to be free roaming in the sense of being able to go anywhere they want, but many ranches have quite a bit of land that the cattle can roam. There are bison ranches around, so it’s definitely doable.

0

realif3 t1_irxszgq wrote

I have a well rounded diet but I still like eating a steak a few times a year. Id argue the ecosystem isn't fragile, it's actually quite robust. It's us who are fragile, nature will endure long after we are gone. Chernobyl is a good example

−6

redandrew02 t1_irycuyk wrote

“Zero tangible benefit” lol try getting your food from some place that isn’t a grocery store for once

−6

GodsSwampBalls t1_iryftp9 wrote

They said ranchers, not farmers and red meat, not all meat.

Try reading the whole comment before you reply. It's a good way to avoid sounding stupid.

7

redandrew02 t1_iryhah7 wrote

“Not all ranchers use poison” “Not all factory farms let rats into their meat blend” “Not all tofu is environmentally friendly because of trucks” “Not all meat” Sheesh

−5

redandrew02 t1_irygyyr wrote

And factory farms are supposed to be better than independent ranchers who actually take care of the animals? “Not all X” is an asinine argument when we are arguing over the perceived morality of meat production. Try having something useful to add if you’re gonna be snarky.

−6

firephoto t1_irytlsi wrote

Pro-tip, build a real fence instead of a folksy one out of 3 strands barbed wire. My animals are safe, anyone's animals can be safe, we have the technology, and if I'm not mistaken a cattle rancher has a lot of spare time on their hands to build that fence. The story you've told over coffee 200 times can miss a few sessions while you put up woven wire with an electric top. Sheep people know this and everything kills sheep so why aren't cattle protected in the same way? Interesting isn't it..

6

sleeknub t1_irz7age wrote

Or just normal people who enjoy the outdoors.

1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_irxkryy wrote

As if the ranchers were paid for the cattle they lose. The cattle they were planning on killing anyway.

Yup… the rancher’s are really “suffering” here with their made up “victim” status.

12

KittenKoder t1_irykc29 wrote

The amount of "livestock" that are destroyed for no reason other than to drive prices up, the wolves would be doing them a favor.

3

realif3 t1_irylbo8 wrote

I'm not in support of what they do. Just putting myself in someone else's shoes. It's been a conflict since the first days of animal husbandry.

1

lurker-1969 t1_irwevsm wrote

As a lifetime rancher I can understand the anger these guys have when they see their cattle torn up. It is truly upsetting. I do not believe that poisoning wolves will solve the problem. I do not understand how the groups that are relocating wolves thought this would be a good idea. The wolves are the ones that pay the price ultimately with their lives. It is sad.

39

Oftheunknownman t1_irwyit2 wrote

I would like to add that Washington State compensates ranchers for any cattle killed by wolves. Also, there are several ranchers who have bragged about herding their cattle near known wolf dens just to increase conflict and raise issues. With a cooperative mindset a lot of these conflicts are avoidable.

106

mstylesequence t1_iscnyt9 wrote

Shoot shovel and shut up is what they say. Entitled a-holes thinking only of themselves. Kill any animal that even so much as mildly inconveniences them.

1

Nilfux t1_iry17sk wrote

Stupid ugly cow, nice cute wolfie. Which one do you think would eat you?

−25

Petunias_are_food t1_iry74gd wrote

Just how many wolves attacking mankind in WA state are there? No? Cause there have been very few wolf eating man incidents since you've been alive. Edit oops talking to a troll is like talking to a brick wall except I like the bricks a lot better

15

Jaynier t1_iryt8zp wrote

Wolves don’t attack people. Come join us in the 21st century

11

bwc_28 t1_irwqbkm wrote

It's far more upsetting seeing wolves poisoned and shot by ranchers. You're reimbursed for lost cattle, the entire world loses out when wolves die.

79

lurker-1969 t1_is160mr wrote

As I said, the wolves pay the price and it is sad.

1

bwc_28 t1_is1h9b3 wrote

>I can understand the anger these guys have when they see their cattle torn up. It is truly upsetting.

Uh huh. So upsetting seeing an animal you were planning on killing anyway being hunted for food by a natural predator.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is5xl79 wrote

You could never understand a rancher's point of view regarding compassion toward their animals if you have not lived the life. You speak of something which you know nothing about.

0

bwc_28 t1_is5ybix wrote

Yeah, you're so compassionate to the animals you're going to kill to make money, while also speeding up climate change. Thanks for everything you do!

1

lurker-1969 t1_is63glt wrote

As you put on your leather belt and slip on your leather shoes and drive your car with leather seats.

0

bwc_28 t1_is640wn wrote

Whole lot of assumptions, I don't wear or use leather. Keep trying to justify your killing off animals for profit.

1

Nilfux t1_iry1b9c wrote

Yeah eff cows, they're ugly anyways. I want a wolf-burger.

−11

erleichda29 t1_irxby3e wrote

Maybe ranchers should stop using public land if they are so offended by wild animals existing in their natural habitat.

75

lurker-1969 t1_is15lfj wrote

That's fine BUT I doubt the Wolves know the boundaries between private and public land

−1

hanafraud t1_iryomk6 wrote

Would you prefer that they purchased that land and you no longer got to use it? Or would you prefer for cattle to not be able graze and just be locked up in a barn?

Or do you have a better way for BLM to make money that they use to often times just to improve habitat (because your taxes do NOT pay for stuff like that)

−13

erleichda29 t1_irypuvi wrote

I don't think "the habitat" requires human assistance. We just need to stay out of it. I wish we had huge protected areas that no one was allowed to use for any reason.

7

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_irzcmcw wrote

You're espousing what is often referred to as "the pristine myth". Humans have been here, actively managing the land, for thousands of years before European settlement. There is no chance of ever returning to the environmental state that existed before humans stepped foot in the Americas. That world is gone forever, and it doesn't make any ecological sense for humans to just "stay out of it". We're way beyond that point. Any landscape that is affected by human actions requires management. It's silly and unrealistic to think that any good would be done by just locking up vast swaths of land and not allowing any form of use.

−1

erleichda29 t1_is0tpz1 wrote

Wow. And you are espousing the "everything belongs to humans" theory created by religion. We are not the owners or the rulers of the planet. It's sad that you don't understand that.

0

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_is0uoqf wrote

I didn't say anything about religion. Try a Google search on the pristine myth and do some reading before commenting.

−1

erleichda29 t1_is0yylz wrote

I know what the pristine myth is. Maybe you should do some reading if you aren't aware of the source for beliefs about human superiority.

0

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_is2n4op wrote

I didn't say anything about human superiority, either. There's no denying that humans have had an impact on the landscape, but it's utterly foolish to believe that we can just expect conditions to get better by doing nothing at all. We've made the mess ourselves, and we can't return to a mythical time where humans didn't have an impact, because those environmental and climatic conditions no longer exist. It is our ethical obligation to the land to manage it to the best of our ability, using scientific data as our foundation. Suggestions otherwise are of no use to those of us actively engaged in the work.

1

hanafraud t1_iryq5mz wrote

That is absolutely not how it works anymore. Maybe a couple hundred years ago but we have destroyed the earth and we now have to actively manage it to help wildlife.

Edit: and we do have huge areas like that. National parks and refuges often don’t allow vehicles or camping. They might allow hiking but people don’t usually get off trails and if you aren’t allowed to camp, then you can’t get very far.

−4

sleeknub t1_irz86cl wrote

What national parks don’t allow camping? All of the ones in Washington do.

5

500and1 t1_irzosxh wrote

Maybe someone should use public land to hunt the ranchers

3

rontrussler58 t1_irwss8c wrote

Why not barn your herd at night? Is it because these cattle are grazing on thousands of acres of public USFS property?

53

St_Kevin_ t1_iry6iu2 wrote

Yes, much of the BLM and USFS land is leased to private ranchers for grazing. It’s normal for the herds to be many miles away from the ranchers land. It can take days just to gather the whole herd, there’s no way to herd them all each night and put them inside a structure.

9

rontrussler58 t1_irzfj5b wrote

Are the poisonings of the wolves on private lands? If on public then all that needs to be done is revoke these leases (and somehow enforce it without bloodshed). Seems a very risky maneuver to undermine other users of public lands (i.e. conservationists trying to restore the environment in the west to its former glory).

3

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_irwyhz9 wrote

Ranchers only lose cattle—that they were going to kill anyway—when they try to herd them in the wolfs territory.

And then… they STILL get paid for the lost cattle—that they were going to kill anyway.

Yeah… the ranchers are really “suffering” and it’s “understandable” why they have such wolf fear. Because… wait a second… that wolf fear is just caveman thinking they need to override and get into the modern era.

45

DungeonGushers t1_irxgeqh wrote

Maybe don’t be a rancher and do something that isn’t a shitty waste of environment.

15

lurker-1969 t1_is15qvo wrote

As you said while eating your hamburger

1

bwc_28 t1_is61rxf wrote

Now do me, I'm vegetarian. How are you going to deflect from the damage you're doing to the planet when I don't eat meat?

1

lurker-1969 t1_is633hs wrote

How are free range ranchers damaging the planet?

0

bwc_28 t1_is6481j wrote

Educate yourself

There's a reason cutting red meat consumption is something everyone can do to help the environment. You're directly contributing to our worsening climate.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is64o7n wrote

Your opinion and bad science pushing an agenda here.

0

bwc_28 t1_is67l7t wrote

It's not my opinion, it's fact. You can ignore the scientific literature, but it doesn't change reality.

1

lurker-1969 t1_is68jfp wrote

Pushing an agenda with "science: a common tactic

0

bwc_28 t1_is68p7w wrote

You can't dispute the facts so you scream "fake news!" Typical uneducated rube.

>You speak of something which you know nothing about.

1

lurker-1969 t1_isapnjc wrote

Just another one of those who can't stand another person's point of view I see.

1

bwc_28 t1_isatdnq wrote

You're the one outright dismissing facts because they're inconvenient to you. I can back up all my claims with research and hard data, you can't say the same.

1

lurker-1969 t1_isayx0x wrote

I can't back up what? I have never made any claim other than to say that it is sad that wolves pay the price and it is sad. You had to jump on the shit show and rip me a new asshole for being a rancher. Go piss up a rope.

1

bwc_28 t1_isazdlm wrote

Prove that anything I posted or said is "bad science" as you claimed. You're flat out lying because you know the facts fly in face of your bullshit.

I'm ripping you a new asshole for being a liar who's directly destroying our planet due to your own greed.

1

[deleted] t1_irxp2zp wrote

"The wolves are the ones that pay the price ultimately with their lives. It is sad."

I don't agree with you that relocating the wolves is the mistake. People can change their behaviors based on policies that have the right incentives.

I don't like the fact that predators exist, either. Super scary. Killing them proactively is not an option, though, and they will go fully extinct if we let individuals make that decision. This will have an impact on our state's ecosystem.

1

Chesterlespaul t1_irxyfvt wrote

Wolves were here first. They also do a lot for the ecosystem. Why’s anyone mad at them?

15

kmwlff t1_iryohi4 wrote

Cattle ranchers are so fuckin annoying. Lived in rural PNW working in public land management and they’re so fucking entitled

13

shinsain t1_irxygw0 wrote

Pretty sure we can find the source of the poison.

Pretty sure that same poison works on that source.

Just saying.

11

KittenKoder t1_iryk86m wrote

Whoever is doing it is just a monster.

5

MinuteMap4622 t1_irylgiv wrote

The uneducated still screaming the loudest.

4

chupacabra-food t1_is0kzsj wrote

There are federal funds available to farmers who lose livestock to endangered species.

They are just being assholes

3

BarLiving t1_irwy1nn wrote

These rural backwaters are a breeding ground for lawlessness. If you don’t like the laws here, feel free to leave.

−5

parejaloca79 t1_iryrzyi wrote

Have you ever been to any of these áreas?

1

BarLiving t1_irz7ce4 wrote

Yés. Í háve.

0

parejaloca79 t1_irzdmhb wrote

What areas?I have family over there and the people around there arent pushing towards lawlessness. I'm fact they are extremely upset with people moving there and acting poorly. One of the problems they have seen is the wolves killing for fun. They don't even bother eating the livestock.

1

zer05tar t1_irxclza wrote

What, did Inslee force them to take the vax or lose their job also?

−18

Sammy12345671 t1_irxkys5 wrote

If he mandated breathing, people would probably protest that too

12

darlantan t1_irxr0bz wrote

On the other hand, if he mandated breathing, the number of ignorant assholes in the state ruining shit for everyone else might just see a sharp decline as a result of said protests.

15

[deleted] t1_irwe9xj wrote

[deleted]

−27

[deleted] t1_irwjlr4 wrote

[deleted]

49

aj_thatdude t1_irwkhex wrote

This comment is the relevant one. We put them in areas that aren't fully rehabbed and expect them to not go after farm animals? Laughable. They are doing what comes naturally.

19

[deleted] t1_irwlgj7 wrote

[deleted]

9

aj_thatdude t1_irwlpby wrote

It's what we as humans did with mountain lions after stepping foot in this continent. Those in power continue to make stupid uninformed decisions

2

[deleted] t1_irwnko9 wrote

[deleted]

8

aj_thatdude t1_irwnyov wrote

You're right, I should clarify, dumbass white colonizers (I'm white, it's embarrassing) and not the indigenous peoples that had full on civilizations happening here. They lived in harmony with nature

−1

Crackertron t1_irx8n31 wrote

They're not uninformed, they're greedy.

4

aj_thatdude t1_irxgouc wrote

Greedy, yes. But if they're not getting all the information (which in the case of people this greedy) then they are also highly uninformed as they only want info that suits their needs.

1

[deleted] t1_irwkjfn wrote

[deleted]

−1

[deleted] t1_irxpips wrote

>I’m literally saying that we need to do our due diligence to repopulate them.

There has been significant due diligence. It's not like they sent a barefoot hippie into Montana to lead a couple wolves back on a leash they bought 50% off from Chewy.com. Scientists have studied this for decades.

1

sleeknub t1_irz8dq3 wrote

Native Americans actually haven’t lived here very long, according to the current understanding of anthropology.

−2

[deleted] t1_is0xoqb wrote

[deleted]

1

sleeknub t1_is3fxga wrote

Yeah 15,000 years is a blink of an eye from a broader evolutionary perspective. Humans have lived in much of the rest of the world for much, much longer. Even seemingly remote places like Australia have been occupied by humans for many times longer.

1

bwc_28 t1_irwne5d wrote

>maybe we should put them in a different area where say you don’t have a bunch of people who quite literally wish death upon them?

Or maybe we address the real problem, ranchers unnecessarily killing wolves due to misplaced fears of lost profit despite the fact the government reimburses them for lost cattle. The wolves aren't the problem, the ranchers are.

9

[deleted] t1_irwol27 wrote

[deleted]

−2

bwc_28 t1_irwpzg1 wrote

Because relocating entire packs isn't easy and you're assuming they won't deal with the same misplaced fears wherever they're moved to. You say the ranchers are without question to blame but your suggestion simply cows to their desires and doesn't even attempt to address the root cause of the problem.

5

[deleted] t1_irwqz3a wrote

[deleted]

1

bwc_28 t1_irwruvy wrote

It's almost like ranchers are the problem. The entirety of US history has cowed to their desires which is why these wolves are endangered in the first place. Have you stopped to question if grey wolves would even be able to thrive in the areas ranchers want them relocated to? It doesn't seem like their well being is of any real concern to you, just avoiding conflict with ranchers who have spent decades creating the current situation.

6

[deleted] t1_irwtqe3 wrote

[deleted]

3

bwc_28 t1_irwukgr wrote

The solution isn't to move the wolves but to get rid of the ranchers and punish those severely who poison and kill wolves. Seems pretty simple to me. Ranchers are an antiquated product of American greed and shortsightedness, and are far from a necessity.

6

[deleted] t1_irwuuey wrote

[deleted]

1

bwc_28 t1_irwxsto wrote

Beef is absolutely not a necessity to feed Americans. The reality is Americans eat far too much red meat already, which numerous studies have shown is bad for your health and the environment.

The sole purpose of ranchers in America today is to make money. And their profits are at the expense of declining American health and our natural resources. This response proves your original comment was true

>there’s probably something way above my head that I’m not factoring in and I’m a dumbass.

5

wdbmr t1_irwykmb wrote

Hope you have a good day dude!

0

bwc_28 t1_irxjgql wrote

So you were really just looking for affirmation that your idea of relocating wolves is the solution 🙄

1

erleichda29 t1_irxcwyb wrote

Pretty sure most of our beef comes from corporate factory farms, not small scale ranchers.

2

erleichda29 t1_irxcrx0 wrote

What makes no sense is ranchers using public property to create private profits. Is there some reason you think ranchers deserve to keep doing this?

1

wolf1moon t1_irwoogp wrote

Um, where are you suggesting? We've cut into their territory so much. They need a wide range and enough of it to maintain genetic diversity. Plus, they don't stay put where you drop them

7

[deleted] t1_irxpc4h wrote

>But at the same time, it’s kind of a crummy deal being that people that live in these areas can barely coexist with them.

They can barely co-exist because they choose not to respect the wolves' territory. It's like me spending time in my neighbor's backyard and saying it's really too bad that I can barely maintain a good relationship with my neighbors.

1

[deleted] t1_irw60s0 wrote

[deleted]

−78

duckduckohno t1_irwdmu4 wrote

The federal government says they are endangered.

The state government says they are endangered.

Local NGOs say they are endangered.

Local news say they are endangered.

Some random redditor says they are thriving and not endangered and offers no anecdote or source.

Guess which one I don't believe.

52

azdood85 t1_irwl4q2 wrote

The local NGO?

−8

duckduckohno t1_irze5ov wrote

Non-government organization. Think of your local rotary/Lions club or a non-profit as an example of an NGO

2

BarLiving t1_irwxvdf wrote

If you don’t like the laws in this country, you can leave.

3

tnakahara t1_irx38nt wrote

Now do the 2nd amendment.

−17

tylerthehun t1_irx8f9s wrote

That's the right to bear arms, not wolf arms. Stay in school, kids.

13

BarLiving t1_iryf6j0 wrote

Do I tell that to the guns in my gun safe, or did you think that I’m not a combat vet, hunter, and gun owner who is tired of this far right pissant PaTrIoT bullshit? Talk is cheap.

3

IsXp t1_irz4xkk wrote

Genuinely curious, why do avid hunters hate wolves? My family in the PNW who hunt elk and deer always talk about the Wolves returning to the PNW by the state as a horrible act, but all news stories seem to paint the regrowth as a positive thing?

2

Leather-Mirror-86 t1_irzg7vs wrote

It's not all avid hunters, it's just hunters who choose to ignore the science and data. Plenty of hunters love wolves and want to see them on the landscape, myself included. It's also important to note that they were not returned to the state via human introduction, but rather through natural population dispersal.

This topic is a huge pain in the ass because it's so divisive. Take a look at the comment section. Folks love to reference the Yellowstone wolf story but also love to leave out any other environmental factors that led to greater QA regeneration in the GYE. Folks love to spin the lie that WDFW introduced mutant wolves that have been running roughshod through deer and elk herds while simultaneously depleting cattle ranchers of their livelihoods. Others think that it doesn't matter what ranchers want, because they shouldn't be allowed to raise cattle anyway. Some think that wolves on the landscape means that kids will be getting picked off on their way to the bus stop.

There's a middle ground somewhere in this mess, but it's incredibly difficult to get both sides to come to the table when both sides can point to utter bullshit being peddled by the other side.

Sorry for dumping all of this in response to your genuine question. I just can't reply to every comment.

5