If I remember correctly wolves returning to Yellowstone generated 5 million dollars each year to the area only by the increase in tourists. Plus environmental benefits

This has nothing to do with the livelihood of the farmers

Imagine that you are that farmer. To start, you can buy a lot of cows with five millions of dollars

Or your city could provide you with better services now that they have five extra millions each year. Better roads would allow you to move your cattle faster or to export your products better. So you lose some, but win some also.

Or maybe you will not need it, now that the new local restaurants opened want to buy your meat to feed the tourists. More competence and lower expenses to put your product in the market will allow you to sell your meat at a better price.

Tourists will want to buy souvenirs also. Maybe in stores owned by members of your family.

Your city will attract researchers. Science has a curious proven effect; each single researcher position creates tens of auxiliary jobs around to sustain their research.

In resume, the young adults in your city will have a range of new opportunities to settle, work and start a live project in their own city if they would desire so.

Or you can forget all of this and keep your cow

Be honest, do you really liked so much that stupid cow?

Yes. The farmer chose to live way out there far from people, and would appreciate the dang tourists going away.

Not, what I'm saying is that in a society everybody must sacrifice something for the mutual benefit.

Wolves had proven again and again that produce more money that they remove. Had proven also that can save human lives reducing car collissions and that they positively protect agriculture and fixate water sources in the area.

Why should a few farmers force their will over the whole population and block thedevelopment of a local area?. Isn't this a democracy?. Who are this people to decide that their village can't receive tourism and that everybody in the area must be a farmer or migrate?

Environmental services aren't free. Some resources will need to be sacrified to keep the machine working, and in any case farmers can reduce their losses to an acceptable level by several traditional and well tested ways.

And about the "dang" tourists, we need to remember that US citizens have full rights to visit and enjoy public spaces and protected areas open to public. Granted by constitution.

Why? Because is their country also. Is --their-- land also.

They have exactly the same right to enjoy a well adjusted National park as any local

Your initial argument was that farmers should want the development, "do you really like that stupid cow?" -- and my attempted point was that yes, the farmers do in fact like that stupid cow. All the benefits you propose of the increased tourism and 5 million dollars pale in many farmers' minds to the downside of having more tourists, who clog up the roads, complain about their farming practices, drive up land prices, and want to build developments. Farming is a lifestyle well suited to loners and cow farming in particular is well suited to very remote areas; thus added tourism, making it a less remote area, decreases the local farmer's reason for existing there.

To reply to your new point, an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination, and people get very upset when faraway majorities impose their wills despite the local majority disagreeing. Consider Catalonia, or other independence movements throughout history, or any number of instances of imperialism throughout history: should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre? That's how local residents who've been there for 20, 30, 60 years feel about outsiders coming in to diversify the economy or introduce wolves to eat their lambs -- why are the outsiders coming in and imposing their negatives on their apparently perfectly good way of life?

> an important part of democracy is the right of self-determination

You need to check again the definition of democracy. This self-determination fairy tale has been repeated a thousand times but is still false.

> should a national majority be able to force a local majority to give up their way of life / national independence / raison d'etre?

Hum, yeeees? This is exactly the point of having a central government making the laws for the entire nation

No one is talking about farmers at all. Farmers grow crops intensively on their own land.

Ranching is a very different activity which in the west usually involves a cheap grazing lease on thousands of acres of public land... it is the governments land and they balance the concerns of all stakeholders.

Welfare ranchers are ranchers who rely on cheap/subsidized grazing leases on federal land. It includes a shocking number of billionaires making big money off public land.