Hacker News Reader

Comment by posguy | Hacker News Reader

I'd be a touch less sympathetic, the 800 animals lost to wolves a year out of a population of over 1.6 million is infinitesimally small, if anything it shows wolves are not a notable threat to herds grazing on public lands.

Another article about a similar situation that trhway posted below: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-dena...

TLDR: Hunter kills a horse in a creek, fouling it for the local residents who rely on it & making them boil their water so its drinkable (very expensive to do).

Said hunter used dead horse to kill the majority of one of the most well known wolf packs out there, this hunter successfully fucked over the locals water supply, and gave the National Parks Service hard data that getting rid of the buffer zone was bad (as these wolves were part of their study.

Seems ridiculous to allow people to shit all over state & federal lands, creating serious health hazards and killing tourism.

View on HN

Every head of cattle is still a lot of money for those ranchers. If its only 800, then the government should have no problem getting the money for a cheap solution.

Using one idiot to brand all ranchers is pretty reprehensible especially because waving that bloody shirt has no part in the argument I put forward.

Why should the government subsidize ranchers? Seriously, the fact that ranchers got away with unrestricted grazing and nary a threat from other wildlife for decades was a gift, and if ranchers thought the government would allow them to continue to trample their local ecosystems unimpeded indefinitely, then they were really off their rocker.

Also, I'm not branding ranchers here, just idiots with guns calling themselves "hunters", which the asshat in the aforementioned article is far from being. Idiots like him have caused public sentiment about hunting to turn negative, which is bad for the rest of us as that means more restrictions & rules.

The government isn't subsidizing ranchers, its paying for the damage caused by something it basically owns. If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation. I can tell you from experience that talking to your insurance company will be non-fun.

What association should I draw from your response with that story to my proposal? He was an idiot, but there are idiots everywhere.

The US government IS subsidizing ranchers!

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

"Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West"

I am talking in this specific case.

In Washington state, ranchers are subsidized. They are allowed to graze their cattle on public land for free, and when wolves kill their cattle, Washington state Fish and Wildlife uses helicopters to kill the wolves at over $1,000/hour cost to taxpayers.

They are killing the Profanity Peak pack as we speak because a rancher refused to not let his cattle graze unmonitored right next to their den. Why should I have to pay because some rancher refuses to move his cattle to some other land he also doesn't have to pay to use?

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/profani...

I am once again telling you my statement was about my proposal. I am not talking about any other aspect of ranching.

That is completely insane, I can't believe us taxpayers in Washington State are massively subsidizing these ranchers. Letting them graze their cattle for free on public lands is a huge giveaway, but then to kill part of the environment cause they wanna graze without supervision is a massive wrong.

If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation.

What, seriously? That sounds absurd. A bison is a wild animal; why would it ever be reasonable to expect any human or group of humans to take responsibility for its behavior?

There is a group of humans who will take financial responsibility for damage wild animals cause to cars: car insurance companies. In the US, "comprehensive" car insurance covers most kinds of damage or loss other than crashing the car while driving it, including damage caused by animals. It is usually inexpensive.

The auto company will sue the rancher as its his/her problem that livestock got out.

Well, actually, if a cow hits your car (or your car hits a cow on the road) the rancher is liable. I was applying the same rules to the government.

Most bison in the USA are not wild game animals and have to follow the sames rules as any other ranch animal.

I actually did hit a cow on the road with my car, once, on a moonless night in the middle of Nevada, ninety miles from nowhere. I lived, my passenger fractured a rib, the jeep recovered, and the cow died; but in the sixteen years since, I can't say it had ever occurred to me that any person other than myself might have any liability for the damage.

If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation

I cannot fairly comprehend the entitled mentality needed for me to ever think that. Shit happens, quit whining. No matter, it's a poor analogy. The government is subsidizing ranchers because the government said, "can't shoot 'em." "Well, WTF are we supposed to do, then?", say the ranchers. So the government pays per carcass.

If an rancher's cow hits your car then the rancher is liable. I am just applying the same rule to the government. It fits in with the whole "how to get the ranchers not to shoot the wolves". It applies a rule in a fashion equal to the rancher's responsibilities in the situation.

In most of the west the inverse is true. If you hit livestock, under any condition (if it got loose and was wandering the highway), you are liable. Livestock always has right of way.

https://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/nd_fnc.htm

If an rancher's cow hits your car then the rancher is liable.

No, the rancher is not. That's what those yellow diamond "entering open range" signs mean. In fact, you hit a head of cattle in open range, you're paying for the ranchers loss.

As an aside, how is a cow supposed to "hit my car" in the first place? They might exceed 20 mph if spooked, otherwise it's like saying that a pedestrian hit your car. The fact that said pedestrian weighs upward of 1200 lbs. does not absolve you, pilot of the 70 mph 4000lb. box of steel.

Open range is limited for example ND https://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/nd_fnc.htm

I watched a bison (juvenile) hit a parked car. On a twisty road we lost a motorcycle driver to a bison that had got out. A bull will attack a car. Cows can panic too.

IANAL, but what you linked directly contradicts what you stated about ranchers paying for the damage (assuming the case of signed grazing areas). And with that, I'm done with the armchair lawyerin'. May neither of us discover the truth of liability the hard way.

Signed grazing area is not a contradiction, its very specific. I have discovered the liability as I had to help with the bison case. So I guess I was fortunate it wasn't my car.

What the fuck? No, if I run into a bison or it rams me, that is a risk I took and I carry insurance to cover that. Same if a deer jumps out in front of my car again and totals it, in no reasonable world is the government going to take on unlimited liability for every animal inside its borders.

Livestock are under different rules than deer. There are no free roaming bison in the US. They are all owned by someone.

You may be incorrect: "In fact, hundreds of wild bison freely inhabit hundreds of square miles of valley floor, sometimes coming in contact with private cattle (and human golfers at the Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Club) without incident."

"Save for occasionally colliding with motorists on the highway, goring a horse at guest ranches, moving through fences or tramping upon manicured landscaping, bison presence in Jackson Hole does not connote the political calamity it does in Montana."

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_wes...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com