Printable View
Word salad.
I’m sure reintroducing wolves has been mismanaged, you’re the one that brought up stereotypes. Stereotypes exist for a reason, welfare ranching in the inter mountain West, on public or private lands, is unnecessary.
I don’t think reintroducing wolves anywhere is necessary, if they can and want to live somewhere they will.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I stopped caring about cattle when my wife told me we had to stop eating beef. Something about not having another heart operation.
Socialism for me, but not for thee.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
:rolleyes:
farming and agribusinesses can be devastated by changes in commodity costs and weather and we all benefit from the smoothing influences of crop subsidies
stockmen hate wolves - it's kind of a natural thing. To come across a dead steer or cow from a wolf kill must suck. I agree it doesn't happen often and the owner of the kill should be fairly compensated
Yes - it's the willful ignorance that they exhibit that is objectionable. It's quite *literally* socialism that keeps things steady. But they will *rail* against and, more importantly, vote against the "thing" that quite literally butters their bread.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
I'm a supporter of the cattle industry but there is smoothing and there are some of the gov programs that are simply a handout. Would you believe that I know an insurance actuary that bought apple and cherry orchards that personally makes over $1m a year from farming but $0 from his crops because he figured out which crops, at what spacing, and planting intervals to maximize government payouts. No family history of farming. Probably for a different thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
At least with a wolf kill, there needs to be a dead body for reimbursement.
I don't doubt it sucks, but the fact is, they're indemnified for those losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
What chaps my ass is when these ranchers brag about, and in fact do, practice shoot, shovel, shut up with wolves because they're either (a) unnaturally afraid of a wild animal, (b) willfully ignorant of the governmental stop-losses for any wolf kills of their stock, or (c) repressed psychopaths that like killing animals for their amusement like that other rugged bootstrapping individual and known donkey molester, Cody Roberts, of Daniel, WY.
Crop insurance is one thing - farmers can buy that on open markets (and few do)Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
Crop subsidies is just welfare - UBI for farmers - doesn’t smooth anything
ETA- conundrum beat me to it.
Why should they be compensated? The ranchers that suffer loss from wolves aren’t really contributing much beef for the market. Most, like nearly all, beef is produced on private pasture lands and feedlots that are at zero risk of wolf depredation. That’s like saying that I should be compensated by the government if my house burns down in a wildfire. Assumed risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I *believe* that some of the crop insurance is backed by the fed. But I'm no expert on these things, so could have gotten it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
This is the article about the Colorado insurance fraud case (perhaps was posted earlier?): https://coloradosun.com/2024/09/08/p...aud-insurance/
This is the paragraph that indicated insurance getting federal backing (from that article):
"U.S. crop insurance programs are a key backstop. In 2022, the federal government paid back private insurers for more than $19 billion in crop-related claims nationwide."
Can we at the very least put an end to subsidies for ethanol?
When you pull the corn from my cold, dead hands...Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Every time you open your mouth in this thread to mock and disparage rural Americans for what you think are their ignorant and emotionally charged ideas, you come off sounding ignorant and emotionally charged yourself. It's startling how much you take for granted the fact that food just magically appears at the grocery store, or on your plate at a restaurant. And you're perfectly happy to throw the people responsible for growing that food under the bus and let them take the hit for your naive dreams of wild doggies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
I hear your point, thanks. Know that I am by no means mocking rural Americans, ranchers or those that are part of the system that feeds this country, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
I am mocking those that I explicitly listed above, and no one else, as the people that fall into those 3 categories (a) place an outsized value on the perceived threat that "wild doggies" are to them personally or their stock, (b) willfully ignore the publicly funded insurance available to them in the event they do suffer a loss (likely on public lands) in their arguments for eradication/against reintroduction, or (c) worst of all and most worthy of shaming, is someone who sees themselves as the rugged western man who knows what's best for all creation, when in reality they just like killing stuff for fun and to look tough in front of their friends, the most notable example of which is named a few posts up.
yeahman is just tossing out the same straw man shit he always does in this thread.
Why should they be compensated? The ranchers that suffer loss from wolves aren’t really contributing much beef for the market. Most, like nearly all, beef is produced on private pasture lands and feedlots that are at zero risk of wolf depredation. That’s like saying that I should be compensated by the government if my house burns down in a wildfire. Assumed risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBdude
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
What I learned in 15 years in the PNW and trips to north California is that multi generational western families believe that public land is for their benefit. Many are good stewards of the land. Some folks not working the land but with generational ties see recreation and grazing rights as their sole purview from an early 20th century attitude. That I as a Seattleite or urban resident would have a say on practices on Federal lands is incomprehensible.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Running cattle on rangeland in the inter mountain West isn’t compatible with being a good steward of the land. Cattle destroy natural range. Full stop. Get out and see for yourself. Same with sheep.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I agree
Their hooves kill high dessert range and they shit in water holes and streams. Devastate river banks where they water and over graze
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yup, my understanding is the private carriers take some of the risk, and USDA re-insures the carriers for excess losses. Nothing wrong with that in my view, as long as USDA is getting sufficient premium income to at least offset their long-term loss experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
Maybe conundrum can elucidate
And whoever upthread mentioned the Farm Bill…yeah, a giant farmer welfare program with the SNAP program tied on. So farm state legislators hold the SNAP program hostage to squeeze out more benefits for themselves.
All absolutely true. I’ve read that only about 2% of beef cattle production comes from public land.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
The reimbursement plan was to get ranchers to stop killing the animals. Not much risk to shoot & shut up.
Easiest answer is to close off public land to private grazing leases. But the legislators in the inter mountain west would make sure that doesn’t happen.
They put down a bison the other day. 2 black wolves having dinner.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...88323a1c64.jpg
Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Wolves are rad
That’s pretty cool. How many in the pack?Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1