Wildlife Services article making rounds on reddit

[fnf01]

So the titles obviously come off as hit pieces

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...stock-trapping-hunting/?utm_source=reddit.com

But the words from former trapper and wolf advocate (right there lost 50% of the forum but it is what it is) are something that always sticks in my mind when reading about wolves or other predation.

"You interviewed a former Wildlife Services trapper, Carter Niemeyer, who said ranchers refuse to accept the true cost of their business model. What does he mean by that?
Ranchers who run their livestock on public land impose a huge cost on the public in terms of direct subsidies provided by the federal government, and also via indirect subsidies like the government's predator control programs. Take the case of Idaho sheep rancher John Peavey. He tells me that to feed his cattle with a haying outfit on private land would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. When he lets his sheep out to graze on public grass, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars he keeps in his pocket. How he turns a profit, then, is by feeding off the taxpayer—a common loathsome practice of business known as corporate socialism. He also imposes a cost on the public's wildlife: He has them killed to ensure the safety of his animals. Accepting the real cost of running livestock in the backcountry of the public domain would mean accepting that when you put defenseless domesticated animals out into the wild, they are occasionally going to get eaten. And you have to also accept that wolves have every right to eat them. It's their land too."

*Edit this is obviously not saying on my part wolves or other predators should not be be managed they definitely SHOULD. The hate they get from land owners/ranchers, the 3S (sss) posts, the happy "I gut shot every wolf/coyote I see" etc, the use of crippling poison etc are what I personally disagree with just like I disagree with the lovey dovey cuddly wolves are sacred and should never be touched from the other side stuff.

queue the storm that's about to happen.

 

[Pro953]

I think the main part that gets to me is the incorrect use of the term “right”. Wolves to not have a “right” to eat, they just do. No more than we have a right to breath or pee. Not a big deal, just a very important word to throw around incorrectly.

All of these wildlife management decisions are a choice. We like having game afield and we are a nation with a history of livestock and grazing operations. We choose to control predators, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, etc... to maintain the lifestyle we choose.

As to grazing federal lands being a subsidy. We subsidize business all the time for many reasons. It may sounds dramatic to some but food security is a major issue managed on the federal level, it should be no surprise at this time of fluid international relationships and tariffs that having a domestic food supply that is not at the mercy of these situations is important. We do this for grain crops all the time as well.

Something also to consider is public land advocacy. This is a large and vocal community that finds value in grazing on these large tracks of public land. If we choose to cut off that resource the operations will still need land for grazing, this will likely increase pressure from these groups to sell these current public lands into private hands for grazing use and cutting them off from public access/use. We need more advocates for maintaining tracks of public lands, not creating new enemy’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk