Framing it as "rural" vs "urban" sets up a dichotomy, which human minds frequently simplify as a 50/50 split. But only 13% of Colorado residents live in rural areas.

It would be more accurate to frame it as 7 people who want to enjoy a healthy ecosystem vs one rancher who wants to use national/state lands for farming.

If you want a healthy ecosystem than you want regenerative farming: https://www.uvm.edu/news/cals/using-regenerative-agriculture...

What you're arguing for would essentially kill off the tools needed to store more carbon in the soil, which would benefit industrial feed-lot styled operations that pollute and push massive amounts of run-off.

Yet another great example of America's 87% telling the 13% how they should live.

The idea that reintroducing an animal is telling someone "how to live" is wild. They existed there long before us, raising live stock can still happen with them there, and ranching existed in Colorado along side wolves existed long before this discussion.

I live in rural Colorado and raise a small hobby amount of animals (currently a bit over 40 chickens, turkeys, and ducks but the number varies through the year). I've lost plenty of animals to predators. I've had neighbors call me out to their land to shoot others. This is part of rural life with a healthy and functioning ecosystem. Predators exist.

I personally abstained from the vote; I felt like this is something better handled by career biologist and not the uninformed public. But the idea that is this "America's 87% telling the 13% how they should live" its trying really hard to jam this into existing framing of how we view American culture war issues. It'll do us some good to calm down, take a breath and put the topic in proper context. Rural residents and ranchers can still maintain their lifestyle.

>>The idea that reintroducing an animal is telling someone "how to live" is wild.

When the part of the population which is completely unaffected by the proposed change outvotes the part which now has to live with that change, it is only fair to call it what it is. This has nothing to do with wolves it could be about any other issue where the same pattern occurs.

13% shouldn’t get disproportionate say in how things are run just because they live in a different place

Don't a lot of these ranchers use public land? It seems like the public should have a say in how the land is used.

" No. Don't screw with nature, it doesn't end well. " You, 57 days ago. We screwed with nature, and this is putting something back into place.

>Framing it as "rural" vs "urban" sets up a dichotomy, which human minds frequently simplify as a 50/50 split. But only 13% of Colorado residents live in rural areas.

The US is not governed by simple majorities of the overall population. We have things like the house of reps for a reason. Land matters. If the 75% of Americans who live in urban areas were able to completely dictate terms to the other 25%, the union would have (and almost did) dissolve long ago.

The Civil War was not a rural-urban war. Both sides were primarily agrarian; trying to glean modern urban-rural culture war talking points from a war principally about slavery is not going to be productive.

(It’s also worth noting that we have the House of Representatives for the exact opposite reason than you’ve stated. I think you meant the Senate, which is meant to provide an aristocratic and/or rural “check” on the urban hoi polloi.)

> Land matters

But they don't own it. The majority of it is owned by the urban population. Why are you claiming that rural ranchers are supposed to have a stronger claim to public land just because they can graze their cattle there while paying subsidized prices for it (at the cost of the people who don't own any cattle or graze them on their private land).

If land matters, and as stated in another thread these ranchers are running the cattle on public lands, not their own, why do the ranchers even get a say?

The pro-wolf side won by 50.4% of the vote. So a tie.

But the folks who voted for it won't have to live with the consequences of their vote.

Given the consequences of the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem, I think literally everyone will be living with the consequences to some extent. Unless by “the consequences” you’re specifically referring to wolves attacking the livestock of billionaire (in many cases) “ranchers,” then maybe not because I’m assuming those billionaires ranching on public land aren’t voting against their pecuniary interests (as billionaires do not seem to do) and thus are not in the 50.4%.

If you want to fight climate change you want to not release packs of wolves into regenerative farms: https://www.uvm.edu/news/cals/using-regenerative-agriculture...

And many of these ranches are losing money for years (sometimes a decade) before they can get out of the red and see the benefits of regenerative farming systems...The more I look at this wolf situation the more depressed I get.

You would want wolves nearby though, so that the farm doesn't get picked clean by dear and elk

Your link is from Vermont, not Colorado. I don’t think anyone is advocating for the release of wolves into Vermont.

I did a search of regenerative agriculture in Colorado and can only find a single farm that has tried it. Given that it seems tenuous to suggest that wolves will destroy regenerative agriculture in Colorado?

Regenerative Ag seems to be focused on agriculture, as the name implies. The people upset about wolves are ranchers who stand to have their livestock attacked by wolves. I am not seeing the connection between wolves and the destruction of regenerative agriculture.

The style of farming is the same in Vermont as it is in Colorado...I found three in that state:

https://indianridgefarm.org/ https://www.flyingbbar.com/ https://thehighlonesomeranch.com/

And regenerative Ag is ranching. They are some of the innovators in grass-fed beef (I've been a vegitarian since 2005) and use the natural animal waste to improve soil conditions (integrating animals into crop farming).

I checked into those links, very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

Regenerative farms are a joke that will do zero to slow or stop climate change. They are overwhelmed by factory farming that they have no chance of reversing. Looking out for the "little guy pretending to help" is just silly.

Doing this would sure tip the scales in favor of massive feed lots and industrial farming. Tens of thousands of people are buying products from these farms. it's a viable option. This odd artificial reintroduction of an animal that's known to decimate (I'd argue they could do even more than 10% damage) these sorts of operations is bizarre and the fact that it greatly harms your number one cause (climate change) is even stranger. I'm 100% against this nonsense as should any sane individual that's reading between the lines here.

Land doesn't matter; political subdivisions do.

And all the direct and indirect subsidies for them are not a tax on urban populations?

What else is a "is essentially a wealth tax" on ranchers? They graze their cattle on public land yet so much of it is taken up by unproductive and useless national parks (just to entertain the urban progressives on their days off). It would be much fairer to convert them into productive pasture land.

That's pretty much Colorado in a nutshell. Lived in the Front Range for quite a while and voted progressive, and it's pretty crazy how purple that state is.

Yeah it’s all repetitions of the pattern of greely exercising it’s god given right to smell bad vs everyone being upset by the smell.

It's been almost a year and I can still smell it when I see the word Greeley.

Is it really so simple?

Hasn't human action had detrimental consequence for the environment? And as such aren't efforts to mitigate or undo those consequences a positive?

If that's the case won't the ranchers just pass along the increased cost of doing business to the consumers so we're all ultimately gonna pay for the actions of people a long time ago, which for better or worse, is just how it goes.

I’m a big conservationist and I think it’s much, much wiser to pick and choose the battles. Dogmatism like

> Hasn't human action had detrimental consequence for the environment? And as such aren't efforts to mitigate or undo those consequences a positive?

is too often a tool to steamroll other people.

Sure, that may be a good general sort of viewpoint, but does it apply in this situation?

If conservatives could dump nuclear waste in streams to save a penny, they'd do it. Asking them to think about their impact on the environment, and how it might come back to impact them, is a non-starter.

It depends on the kind of conservative. In blue states, some of them will shout and hollar about, say, how the new nuclear plant is going to pollute the streams with nuclear waste.

Its a non-issue. The number of ranchers that could posisbly affected is minuscule at best, and the law permitting the release of these Wolves also allows for any rancher that loses a cow to a wolf to be reimbursed by the state for their loss. A vast majority of these "ranchers" are millionaires and billionaires in the first place, and the loss of a cow to a wolf will be insanely rare. These animals will hunt deer, rabbit, and elk whose populations are literally out of control.

Most of the noise opposed to this release is generated by wildly ignorant or malicious people who don't even live in Colorado to wind up other reactionary, low-information people and make it look like liberals are releasing dangerous predators into a "red" part of the state to harm them.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Billionaires?

> These animals will hunt deer, rabbit, and elk whose populations are literally out of control.

Hard to predict what will happen over time. Over here, in a much, much smaller country, there are only a few wolves, and they do attack sheep at a pretty large scale, without actually eating them.