As a livestock producer, a small rancher, I am always interested in anything to do with ranching and raising cattle. I also follow with interest any stories on predators moving into regions where ranches have been established. I go ballistic with those who see no value in ranching, most especially if they are vegans which means they already want to see ranching ended as cruel and inhumane but see that how a wolf kills is not.
Vegan/vegetarians come in various packages; so I know not all feel that everybody should give up meat; but for others, it's exactly how they see it as almost a religious cause. So let the wolves have it all-- including people's pets. Exactly how that fits with caring for living animals is a bit interesting but logic isn't a factor for a lot of things where it comes to human behavior.
First of all if everybody switched to not eating beef, lamb, chicken or fish, any of those animals living on farms or ranches would have to be killed, I guess. No problem to the vegetarian type but would be a little hard on the animals dying to satisfy a politically correct viewpoint about meat.
However, this blog really is about the predator versus the rancher and the animals the rancher is protecting. It was triggered by reading a defense of the cattlemen which I liked a lot as it made sense (of course, since I am one). The issue of moving wolves into the places people live, protecting predator species that can kill big prey (guess what we are without a weapon) has become personal to me where I raise livestock, love my animals, and if wolves can move into NE Oregon, they can move into my backyard.
If grizzlies can grow in numbers due to being protected, they likewise will someday be up my gravel road. Right now we only have to deal with coyotes (yes they can kill calves and do kill sheep), cougar (so far they have stayed off our fenced property but it's not like our fences could keep them out; so it's all about habit), and finally bears which, like the cougar, kill deer up our road but haven't yet our cattle. We rarely see deer any more by our house and that's mainly due to increasing cougar population which also gets the wild turkeys when possible. I mean, come on, predators have to eat and we can't blame them for that.
The thing is as city folks grow in numbers or move into rural areas in little estates, they like the idea of wolves running wild. They think it's needed environmentally and they do not give a damn about a cow being torn apart and eaten while still alive because that's the fault of the men and women who raise those cattle.
This is one of those issues that makes it hard for me to stay sweet and nice in my response; and so I won't try but as articles come up on the subject and the various ideas being presented to deal with the growing problem for cattlemen, which is very much an environmental and political issue, I'll be posting them here under farm and cultural issues. Read it please to be informed.
Men pushed them out of populated areas for a reason. I will fight to keep them in wilderness areas; but when they come down where it's populated, when someone says a cow isn't important, but the wolves are, I will argue my viewpoint on that also.
Yada yada yada I know the spiel how nature needs them. No, nature needs a balance of predators and prey. There are many ways to attain that. When it's done by nature itself, it's not idyllic nor is it often merciful. It's a tough issue for Americans to be thinking through because who we vote for will be deciding a lot of this and the sad part is where I value the environment, a lot of those who would slay all the wolves, do not. So how we work it out, with nobody getting all they might want, isn't easy by any means.
17 comments:
I think you are correct in that it is all about balance and doing things as naturally as possible. I am not vegan, but I do try to eat only organic meat and I do try to cut my protein intake way back. I grew up in Colorado and saw the horror of the feed lots, but I also saw the tremendous destruction that the growing populations of wild buffalo has done to Yellowstone Park. I see the eating trails of deer throughout suburbs and their growth is not due to habitat destruction as there are more deer now in my woods than decades ago. It is all about balance and that is a very difficult dance.
No need to be at all defensive about the 'politicization' of offensive husbandry concerning wolves and coyotes on farm or ranch land. The tricky areas of contention though are still problematic with rancher violations on federally owned public lands under lease. My particular bone to pick is with the BLM and wild horses.
At least in the states where I am most familiar, there is little or no abuse of public lands by ranching leases. The cattle are moved regularly and there's plenty of grass. On the problem of wild horses, it's a lot more serious as I thought Democrats would be more understanding of the value of the wild herds but they have not been. Something must be done because the wild horses will overgraze and starve but on land where they naturally run like the Kiger and northern California, cattle should be kept off and the horses given what is their natural range. The argument, of course, is they aren't native to here. Well neither are we or cattle...
I want to see grizzly and wolves protected in wilderness areas. I just don't like it when a man shoots a grizzly 60 feet from his back porch and he's charged because there was no proof the grizzly would have eaten one of his six children or his hogs that he raises. The charges were dropped or reduced over rage but there has to be some sense to protection and 60 feet from my backdoor is too close in my mind for any predator to be.
If there is a grizzly 60 feet from my back door one of us has to go Rain...I love nature and wildlife, but we have to use common sense too...I am with you here...:-)
Well said!!! There's a fine line between theory and reality. I am as concerned as anyone about wildlife and the environment. However, about the time a cougar/grizzly/whatever starts hanging out in my 'hood and threatening our quality of life, I'm armed and dangerous.
Very interesting post, Rain. I have some passionate vegan acquaintances and I guess whenever we have great passion for a lifestyle or cause, all of us are pains in the neck to those with different POVs. Wherever two or more are gathered there is bound to be dissension. I love your paintings.
Great post Rain. The violations I remember were more than thirty years ago in Colorado, where ranchers routinely overgrazed the mesa highlands destroying the natural flora and killing horses. As for bears.....have a good shotgun and defend your 60'. 60'? that's close.
PS. good to see the art work again!
Rain--Unfortunately (well...some of our vegan friends may not find it unfortunate) with world population growing by leaps and bounds, animals as a food source may be a luxury that we cannot afford. The grain/rangeland that it takes to feed the cattle would (theoretically) feed a lot of people. Me? I believe that we should be fighting population growth with all resources available. In my view, we need to cut the population, not encourage its growth!
Cop Car
P.S. I do not consider war a resource, BTW.
CC
Unfortunately (well those of us who eat meat don't consider it so *s*) humans, as omnivores, require protein as part of a healthy balance. If we avoid all animal products, we can get it through soy or combinations of beans but that takes some knowledge to do it right or we end up with bone and health problems.
Soy isn't without its own land needs to produce. We can't eat grass which a lot of the land out there can only produce. Cattle can actually survive and thrive very nicely on grass. In places (Northern Great Plains is one good example) where if you put a plow to it, with climate as it is for unpredictable rains, you will eventually get a dust bowl.
When cattle are on the range where grass is all that can really be grown, it's actually healthier for the land if it's grazed some but the problem is overgrazed. They have found like in National Forests, there are less catastrophic fires where there has not been tree plantations (all the same kind of conifer) and where the grasses and brush are grazed-- responsibly. That's the key. The animals must be moved as they have had their natural tendency to do that bred out of them. The Forest Service has learned a lot about how to make sure it happens now. And those who own private land and don't manage their grass are poor husbandry men too.
The idea of feeding cattle grain is relatively new, costly on land and our own health as while we do need protein and beef provides it nicely, it's grassfed beef that does that. Forget whether it's organic. The important part is not being on antibiotics or hormones. It's the grass though that makes beef the equivalent of salmon for the benefits it has for our bodies.
As I understand it, we (America) are the only ones who have been grown on fatty beef. In Europe it's been grassfed. They didn't have a cornbelt to insure it profits from our fat. Not that many years ago, we had big agribusiness wanting to sell soft wheat/corn and Americans on the idea of fat is best. Well it's been successful considering how many of us are fat for following this regime (corn syrup in so many things to sweeten them up).
So basically as was said above, not eating too much beef, buying that which is grassfed and ideally direct from the producer (to be sure you know it didn't get antibiotics or hormones to force growth) and it'd be better for the livestock and the humans.
National Forest lands should be managed for logging and any agricultural use. That has been done by the Forest Service; but when we have a government who doesn't believe government can do anything, that's when abuses happen as some ranchers would never overgraze but the evidence is there to show that others will and they don't care if it ruins the land when it's national forest service. Regulation is the ticket and for those who want to hate government, sorry, but it's the group who can do it best if that's their mandate from the people
And I agree on population control, CopCar. It's why we had two children, why our children have two children but it's evident the world is going to go its way with power still seen in large families for those of certain ways of thinking. Well it might be power, but those families need things from the rest of us if the children will be educated and in many cases even fed and in some places it's leading to dust bowls and famine where there is not enough land possible to feed them. It's a huge tragedy and growing worse. Cattle though, in my opinion, are not a factor in it. I should look for where I read it, but growing soy is not a better way to feed everybody. It's managing that is what matters-- managing and balance. Those aren't simple answers but the bunch out there who want simple are buying into a lot of stupid as a side dish ;)
During my 26 years in the Forest Service and later I've heard from few people who have your deep understanding of what it's all about.
It is a matter of balance, good judgment, and population control. As with all else, extremists on all sides of natural resource issues do us no favors.
"but the bunch out there who want simple are buying into a lot of stupid as a side dish" Isn't the case too often these days with public understanding of complex scientific issues?
Impressed by your beautiful paintings of wolves. --- Julie
Your paintings? Wonderful.
Yes, they are mine and thank you. They are digital not in oils although I am thinking of painting them in oils as I like them a lot also.
Post a Comment