U.S. drafts plan to bring grizzly bears back to Washington’s North Cascades (WAPO)

Status
Not open for further replies.
krusty said:
The way to mitigate the ranchers' concerns (expressed through their legislators) about predation is to make it easy to get compensation for associated loses.

That would be more than fair, considering the damage their open range hoofed locusts inflict on public lands.
Click to expand...
For the sake of a couple arguments, I've thought the following: The wolf ESA listing is federal. Shouldn't the feds pay the compensation for wolf depredation of livestock? And should any compensation be paid for depredation of livestock that are grazing on public lands? The cheap grazing fees come with certain associated risks that are well known. Coyote depredation of calves each year has long been part of the bargain with no compensation. Shouldn't wolf depredation be treated the same way?
 
krusty said:
considering the damage their open range hoofed locusts inflict on public lands.
Click to expand...

Yup
Tired of subsidizing a bunch of welfare case cattle ranchers. Same with dairy farmers.
Fuck 'em...
They both been sucking off the government tit for so long now they forgot how to make a living without it.

Go Grizz !!!!
Go Otters !!!!
Go Wolves !!!!
 
krusty said:
Apparently the folks living in the city of vancouver aren't spazzing out about their grizzly bear neighbors.
www.vancouverisawesome.com

Grizzly bears live surprisingly close to Vancouver

Here's something I didn't expect to come across during a recent road trip up Squamish Valley Road: grizzly bear tracks on the side of the Squamish River! I spend quite a bit of time up the Sea to Sky Highway ( HERE is a video we produced about salmon
www.vancouverisawesome.com www.vancouverisawesome.com
Click to expand...
Neither are Seattlites or (probably to a somewhat lesser degree) Spokanites.
krusty said:
Plus grizz would help deal with the urban tent city problem...just equip the wildlife enforcement officers with narcan so they can resuscitate any bears suffering from a fentanyl overdose.
Click to expand...
:unsure: but again, not good for the bears!!
krusty said:
The way to mitigate the ranchers' concerns (expressed through their legislators) about predation is to make it easy to get compensation for associated loses.
That would be more than fair, considering the damage their open range hoofed locusts inflict on public lands.
Click to expand...
Salmo_g said:
For the sake of a couple arguments, I've thought the following: The wolf ESA listing is federal. Shouldn't the feds pay the compensation for wolf depredation of livestock? And should any compensation be paid for depredation of livestock that are grazing on public lands? The cheap grazing fees come with certain associated risks that are well known. Coyote depredation of calves each year has long been part of the bargain with no compensation. Shouldn't wolf depredation be treated the same way?
Click to expand...
When this discussion first started the Federal ESA regulations stated the only way to get compensation for listed predator species predation was if they were stocked. Natural migration did not warrant Federal compensation.
Coyotes are not stocked.
 
Mossback said:
Yup
Tired of subsidizing a bunch of welfare case cattle ranchers. Same with dairy farmers.
Fuck 'em...
They both been sucking off the government tit for so long now they forgot how to make a living without it.

Go Grizz !!!!
Go Otters !!!!
Go Wolves !!!!
Click to expand...
So have you if you eat beef and consume dairy products, just sayin'.
 
Flymph said:
Exactly! These are Cattle lobbyist regions where the EPA will be all but nullified by Zeldin. Unfortunately, the rest of the biosphere will suffer as well as it won't stop with the eliminaiton of Griz!
Click to expand...
Yeah, the biosphere has been doing so great with the EPA..
 
Salmo_g said:
But we do pay the taxes that provides the various agriculture subsidies. So we as consumers are covered. I think.
Click to expand...
True. But I wonder how the cost of retaining and administration of BLM lands for grazing, minus any grazing fees (how little they may be) compare to other farm subsidies?
 
The public lands livestock program produces only 1.9% of our nation’s beef, yet has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over the past decade.


It's as hard to make an argument for subsidized public lands grazing of livestock as it is for the Lower Columbia non tribal gillnet salmon fishery. Neither one shows any real consumer benefit for the money invested, basically zero return on that investment to the taxpayer (actually a huge loss), and does next to nothing to ensuring stability of a food supply commodity.

Current rate of $1.35 per animal unit, the lowest possible rate under the law, is simply ridiculous.
 
Flymph said:
You can't be serious! You do stay on top of the news and are aware of the environmental onslaught that is about to take place!
Click to expand...
It won't be any different than we've had by ALL of our leaders for the last 10 years..
The concept that one party has been better or worse for the environment is demonstrably and objectively false.
 
Brian Miller said:
True. But I wonder how the cost of retaining and administration of BLM lands for grazing, minus any grazing fees (how little they may be) compare to other farm subsidies?
Click to expand...
Without doing a look up, I'm pretty sure that ag subsidies significantly exceed the cost of running BLM, with or without the paltry addition of grazing fees. The ag subsidy Trump had to give midwest farmers to offset his last round of China tariffs is greater than the BLM budget.
 
Rob Allen said:
The concept that one party has been better or worse for the environment is demonstrably and objectively false.
Click to expand...
I would really appreciate seeing that objective demonstration. I think it would take a little work because there was a time (the 1970s) when both parties gave more than lip service to environmental protection, but that pretty well went away under Reagan. If the Rs have picked up on it again, it must have escaped my notice. Sticking to objectivity, not trying to be political, which is prohibited here.
 
Salmo_g said:
I would really appreciate seeing that objective demonstration. I think it would take a little work because there was a time (the 1970s) when both parties gave more than lip service to environmental protection, but that pretty well went away under Reagan. If the Rs have picked up on it again, it must have escaped my notice. Sticking to objectivity, not trying to be political, which is prohibited here.
Click to expand...

The objective proof is all around. Both parties have had their turns in power and neither one of them has improved things much. Clean water act and ESA both signed into law by a republican president. Clean air act by a democrat. We "stopped" logging in national forests but all the animals we did that to save are still in grave danger of extinction. We saved birds of prey with the elimination of DDT but we have protection of marine mammals that are reasonably devastating to wild fish. All in all I think which party is in control of the federal government has had next to no influence over the conditions of our environment or our fish and wildlife.
there is a big difference between being closer to the environmental protection community and actually doing things that are good for the environment.
 
Mossback said:
The public lands livestock program produces only 1.9% of our nation’s beef, yet has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over the past decade.

It's as hard to make an argument for subsidized public lands grazing of livestock as it is for the Lower Columbia non tribal gillnet salmon fishery. Neither one shows any real consumer benefit for the money invested, basically zero return on that investment to the taxpayer (actually a huge loss), and does next to nothing to ensuring stability of a food supply commodity.

Current rate of $1.35 per animal unit, the lowest possible rate under the law, is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...
@Salmo_g and @Mossback have made a VERY valid point about the economics of grazing on public lands. There are other benefits to maintaining public lands as open space.
www.trcp.org

Why Public Land Grazing is So Important to the American West | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

As the demographics of the West change, sportsmen and women can feel good about supporting working ranches that responsibly graze their cattle on public lands.
www.trcp.org www.trcp.org
People who struggle with balancing money for food against heating (or cooling) their homes, sportsmen-recreationalists, environmentalists, and even other groups may unknowingly receive a meaningful benefit.

Back on point, there is predation of livestock on private land by Grizzly bears (and other predator species) reintroduced into adjacent public land that had not seen those predators in 50-150 years. Unfortunately with the increased human population, I believe it is not going to go well for the bears.
 
I'm gonna sit this one out...at least until my endocrine system sends out a stronger 'shack nasties' red flag chemical messenger directly associated with the realization of just how long it will be before inland waters open up again**.

It is nice to see discussions that remain civil even if the participants disagree and deviate from my astoundingly correct opinions. 😆

** Actually...wife had to slap me and tell me to 'snap out of it and man-up, mofo'.

Whatever that means...anyhow, for some reason it seems to work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top