Saw a post on another forum and it got me thinking. For the sake of this discussion let’s say one scenario is exclusive of the other ie. choosing wolves over cattle means that cattle never have and never will be there.
There’s two sides to this coin.
Heads:
Public lands are open to cattle grazing, you encounter cattle as you’re out and about much like we do today. Cows don’t bother us much while we’re out hunting, but they do compete with native wildlife for resources. Also ranchers sometimes lock gates and restrict access to some areas, like they sometimes do today. But otherwise, when you’re out hunting, you can expect to see some amount of cattle out on the landscape. An argument can be made that the presence of cattle and ranchers create certain impacts in the forms of ranch roads, dug- out cattle tanks, old salt blocks or feeder tanks left behind, etc.. Cattle can scar the landscape, but at the same time a road that a rancher has made is sometimes pretty convenient and cattle aren’t chasing the same elk I’m chasing.
Tails:
In lieu of cattle on the landscape instead, you know wolves could be there instead. They compete with you for resources ie. deer, elk, moose etc., and can have measurable impacts on those animals. Wolves were here before us, and so were deer and elk but we still often clash as a species. There’s a safety risk with wolves, here in my home state they built protected school bus stops for kids who live near wolf populations. But… wolves and no cattle means you’re seeing a different landscape. Think hunting the west, before the west was won. This scenario assumes the balance of nature as it existed before humans threw it off when we started to really take over. Often I fantasize about hunting the Western US before humans really spread out, I’m curious what the land would look like.
So let’s say you had to choose with a gun to your head, cattle or wolves?
There’s two sides to this coin.
Heads:
Public lands are open to cattle grazing, you encounter cattle as you’re out and about much like we do today. Cows don’t bother us much while we’re out hunting, but they do compete with native wildlife for resources. Also ranchers sometimes lock gates and restrict access to some areas, like they sometimes do today. But otherwise, when you’re out hunting, you can expect to see some amount of cattle out on the landscape. An argument can be made that the presence of cattle and ranchers create certain impacts in the forms of ranch roads, dug- out cattle tanks, old salt blocks or feeder tanks left behind, etc.. Cattle can scar the landscape, but at the same time a road that a rancher has made is sometimes pretty convenient and cattle aren’t chasing the same elk I’m chasing.
Tails:
In lieu of cattle on the landscape instead, you know wolves could be there instead. They compete with you for resources ie. deer, elk, moose etc., and can have measurable impacts on those animals. Wolves were here before us, and so were deer and elk but we still often clash as a species. There’s a safety risk with wolves, here in my home state they built protected school bus stops for kids who live near wolf populations. But… wolves and no cattle means you’re seeing a different landscape. Think hunting the west, before the west was won. This scenario assumes the balance of nature as it existed before humans threw it off when we started to really take over. Often I fantasize about hunting the Western US before humans really spread out, I’m curious what the land would look like.
So let’s say you had to choose with a gun to your head, cattle or wolves?
