Hacker News Reader

Comment by mooman219 | Hacker News Reader

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."

View on HN

Id wait till they start encroaching on human habitat and start attacking their pets, before accepting those results.

Is that really a thing?

Coyotes are prolific in places where wolves have been eradicated. If your chihuahuadoodle goes for a walkabout, seems like he's more likely to become coyote food than wolf food.

Definitely a thing in Alaska, wolves being pack animals makes it more of a danger as they can attack humans too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_...

And compared to mountain lions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_i...

Sure it happens, but it is extremely uncommon.

The list you liked to has attacks in 2010, 2005, 1996, 1989... then 1943.

Surely an event that only happen 4 times in more than 50 years is not worth mentioning.

Also, I lived in the Yukon for 4 years, roamed all over YK and AK in the summers and winters, saw tons of wolves. Never heard of a single person ever having problems with them, it's simply not a thing.

Surely that's because the gray wolf was all but extinct in the contiguous United States by the mid 1900s. As the "Wolf attack" Wikipedia article says, "wolf attacks are rare because wolves are often subsequently killed, or even extirpated in reaction by human beings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attack

AFAIU, fear of humans is both a learned and instinctual behavior of large predators. The latter can take thousands of years to develop, but the former requires active management, such as hunting and killing. To the extent that learned element isn't there and wolf populations continue to encroach on settlements, I would expect increased incidents.[1] And that seems to be reflected in the data.

Though, that's a pretty abstract argument. The risk still seems miniscule and inconsequential. OTOH, from a political perspective consequential is defined by public sentiment, not empirical data and calculated risk assessment.

[1] A quick Google search suggests that wolf hunting has been legal and practiced in Alaska since 1994. Though, maybe it's always been legal, even after wolves became protected in the lower United States. EDIT: It seems wolf hunting never ceased in Alaska (https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=intensivemanageme...), though by the 1980s even land hunting (as oppose to aerial) required permitting, which suggests people could freely shoot wolves before then, and presumably did when people felt insecure--see conclusion #5 at the very end of the page.

I'm not saying its prevalent, just that it happens. FWIW I absolutely support the reintroduction of wolves

There's far more moose attacks than wolf attacks. Being afraid of wolves as a human is completely irrational. It's one of the least threats you face in the backcountry.

Agreed, just wanted to make sure its clear that they aren't dogs, though heck - there are tons of dog maulings each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...

It's mostly not a thing. Wolves would much prefer to avoid settled areas if they can. If there's no other food in the area, they'll eat what they can get, but as long as there's deer in the woods your dog is safe.

I see wolf tracks and poop in the trails behind my house fairly regularly, there's a couple of wolf packs in the valley. There's also multiple people on my street who have "free range" cats that have managed to stay alive for 10+ years.

This is a false problem. If you expect pets having a worse life than now, you could wait for a long long time.

Cats will be much safer. Wolves equal to more saplins alive, thus increase in wolfes = increase in trees, and more trees around, mean cats climbing to safety with just an elegant jump.

Moreover, cats are perfectly able to fight back and they keep routinely german shepperds at bay. An angry cat can scratch a dog eye really fast.

Plus the benefit of 100 coyotes fleeing the area and more bird nests at soil level = Happier cats.

......................

The effect in dogs will be less clear, but will be positive in some aspects at least.

Wolves will put warnings of "do not enter" for dogs to sniff all around the place. Small dogs in wolf territory are not so prone to escape and will remain closer to their human owner. Most dog owners would appreciate that as a good thing.

Dogs close to a human are safe. Wolves will not approach or touch any human with a ten foot pole. Coyotes instead... well is a different history. Coyotes are much, much, bolder and will grab walking dogs practically from the hands of the owner if they have the opportunity.

If you are a responsible owner shouldn't let your dog roam alone in the forest at night. Wolves will not kill them, cars will do. Small dogs should sleep also inside or in a secure area at night, not chained outside. Irresponsible owners will lose pets, as usual, with and without wolves. This is not the wolves fault.

Wolves in the area mean less dogs lost, killed or severely hurt after being lost trying to chase a deer.

Can fall to mention there that the "but think in the pets!" argument is a litle hypocritical. I don't see any of those people asking for erradication of boars so the pets will be safer. A boar can severe the spine of a dog in no time. A Deer can impale a dog's neck or torax easily also.

> Cats will be much safer.

> Moreover, cats are perfectly able to fight back and they keep routinely german shepperds at bay.

Not sure why you think ylu are qualified to talk about cats or pets at large. Cats fend off german shepards because the dog wants to instinctually chase and play. Cats are routinely eaten by single coyotes and large birds, much less dedicated packs of wolves (who admittedly rarely bother with cats). Cats will try to stay closer to the home/farm pulled by instinct to roam/expand their territory and chase prey, presenting a perrenial danger.

Reintroducing wolves is reasonable, but dont simultaneously undercut your message with astounding ignorance.

> why you think ylu are qualified to talk about cats or pets

LOL We are not talking about Higgs' Boson. Is because my human brain that I'm qualified (Is awesome that we have evolved this pink thing if we think about it). In the planet earth, even toddlers are qualified to talk about cats. Pretty common stuff.

You admit that wolves will rarely would bother with cats at least. Is a start.

> Pretty common stuff.

Exactly. It's laughable to imagine cats are better off because they can claw at well-fed dogs. SMH

That's is how it always starts. Then later there is running and screaming.

Let me express that in a nice tone. You never owned a cat, do you?

Sounds like a startup opportunity to sell wolf insurance. More seriously, is livestock insurance a thing?

If there's money to be made insuring something, it undoubtedly exists.

https://www.nationwide.com/business/agribusiness/farm-insura...

I'd rather have a wolf surtax added to the bear patrol tax.

Perhaps this is not practical, but could a company produce a set of medium range drones that use ML to identify cow vs. wolf vs. human vs. vehicle and thus report which section of their range has a wolf or human poacher? A pair of drones patrols the perimeter while a pair charge up, then they swap places automatically and run 24/7. Perhaps these could even report if a rancher or hiker is laying on the ground (injury, medical issue) and send footage to the ranch owners phone with coordinates? Is this feasible?

Why on earth would a farmer pay for an insanely complicated system like that?

Besides, what exactly would the farmer do when the drones detects a wolf? It's illegal to shoot or bother them in any way.

They might not, that is why I am asking. Maybe prevention of poaching would pay for the system? Maybe they get a discount on insurance? A sheriff or other agency could tranquilize and tag the wolf, then relocate it. It would be great if some ranchers could chime in.

> it's illegal to shoot them

What would they do if they detected one. They'd shoot it. Just like they do now. It may be illegal but it's not stopping anyone.

There is a reason why the bumper sticker "earn a buck, shoot a wolf" exists.

I think it's more likely that they'd just get a guard llama (not a joke).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama

1. The study of wildlife migration patterns has been a thing for a long time. Methods exist, and are always being improved upon with better technology. A well-placed hunting camera could do the same thing without all the trendy Bay-Area BS.

2. I'm pretty sure that if (when?) a company develops drone-powered mass-surveillance technology, they will be doing it for someone other than ranchers.

3. This whole thing is really a non-issue. Individual wolf packs kill few cattle per year, and there are a lot of published papers with similar numbers. In fact, the removal costs of the wolves can exceed the potential lost profits.

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.

I'm not convinced someone raising livestock "knows how it works" beyond their personal interests either.

Not sure what you mean. I’m talking about raising cattle. They know how to raise cattle. It’s in the stores, they produced it. You know how to produce whatever you produce. They don’t know how to produce what they produce?

Is raising cattle the only topic here?

Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?

We are in Idaho. Our last two governors have been ranchers as well and have been "not friendly" to wolves. Idaho motto around wolves is "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up".

https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-num...

Their self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in CO, though. Hence the conflict of interest, on the part of the cattle owners.

This does not fall within the normal range of meanings of "conflict of interest". Cattle owners are not in a position where their personal interests conflict with their official duties. Those are perfectly synched up.

By your standards, voting is a conflict of interest.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I don't think they meant the business-context "conflict of interest" rather the more general "conflicting interests".

Your interpretation is not a strong or plausible one. It would make the parent comment completely content-free ("cattle ranchers have multiple priorities, and just like everybody else, sometimes they pick one over another one") rather than just wrong.

If cattle ranchers know there there is a public good for having wolves, yet they argue against them, I'm saying that position is a conflict of interest between them and the public good. They will almost always choose their own self interest.

Voting? Well, people often vote against their own self interest, but it is hoped (by me, at least) that people will vote for their self interest, within reason. That reason is that you aren't voting for something that benefits your group more than another group. That would be a bad use of self-interested voting. A good use would be voting for "medicare for all" because you think it will benefit you and others.

They may see the costs of wolves without seeing the benefit, whereas other Coloradans would see the inverse. It's hard to say who has the correct full picture.

The market will figure out how to continue to raise livestock and adjust.

And then the environmental crowd will freak out upon the invention of cows genetically modified to be poisonous to wolves.

Whereas the non environmental crowd would be perfectly fine with the fact that their barbecue is now made of yummy poisoned meat?

If the previous justification for hindering a market (that it will figure it out) holds, then yes.

You could sabotage the market/product however you see fit, with the justification that it will get it figured out.

It's just not always figured out in the way regulators assume it will be.

Assuming that ranchers will want to continue to raise cattle amongst protected wolves is just as irrational.

>Assuming that ranchers will want to continue to raise cattle amongst protected wolves is just as irrational.

I wonder how humans living amongst wolves could raise and even create all races of cattle in the last 4000 years.

This a problem that we had solved yet with shepherds and shepherddogs. You can find people raising three thousands of sheep all alone and just with the help of a few dogs. They never lost a sheep and they live in one of the european areas with more wolves.

We solved it by killing the wolves and making them fear coming near civilization.

Reintroducing them undoes that, and if they're going to be a protected species, the same solution that's worked forever no longer will.

Different rules, different behavior.

And most dogs are primarily to alert people. One on one, a wolf is usually going to win. Packs of dogs evens things out some, but it's not a sure thing. Although if dogs end up being the main protection loophole, I'll be interesting to see if people move towards more aggressive dogs.

Not exactly. We solved it teaming with wolves for mutual benefit.

We're not reintroducing domesticated dogs to the wild. Or are you saying we should redomesticate wolves?

We have professionals able to cope with they in the best public benefit.

Managing key species as a bussiness only for a minority of the society leads often to lots of money lost for all citizens. We talk of species absolutely necessary for having a healthy ecosystem.

Wolves create economic damages but also pay generously for them. They clean lyme, keep cattle diseases under control in wildlife reservoirs, improve pastures and build forests and rivers. Wolf's work literarily create entire biocenosis with decens of new animals linked.

In Yellowstone the wolf build from nothing a $5000000/year bussiness in a few years. Those new opportunities attract and fix young human population and put children in some states that need it.

Alive wolves trigger a lot of unexpected benefits for both humans and animals. We could never pay its environmental services, or the lifes of humans saved by wolves directly or indirectly

But we don't want that money, of course.

https://criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-hed...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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_... 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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com