# Colorado PAUSE Act - A very scary proposal for livestock producers!



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

A couple of animal rights activists from Boulder recently submitted a ballot initiative to the Secretary of State's office, and unfortunately the title board gave it the go-ahead to start collecting signatures. Colorado makes it very easy to get stuff on the ballot which is good because the people's voices should be heard, but it's also bad because so many voters are uninformed and the bulk of the population lives in Denver and the surrounding cities. Our state has swung very blue in the last 2-3 decades as more and more Californians have moved out here. They had to flee their own state after they ruined it and now they want to ruin ours too I guess. Sometimes they pass things that don't affect them at all but affect the entire rest of the state that doesn't live in the concrete jungle (like reintroducing wolves, for example). 

Anyway, the initiative has until August 2022 to collect around 125,000 signatures, which they will no doubt get, so we'll probably be faced with this outrageous proposal on our ballot in November next year. It basically makes it possible for someone to face sexual assault charges on an animal for things like artificial insemination, rectal exams, etc. It also bans slaughter until animals have lived 25% of their natural lifespan. I won't rattle on about it since you can read it for yourselves here:



https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/16OriginalFinal.pdf



There's a very good article about it in the Colorado Sun which you can read here:








Remember the MeatOut Day controversy? That's nothing compared to a proposed ballot initiative.


The proposed ballot measure would make ranchers wait to slaughter animals until they are older, which ranchers say would devastate Colorado’s agriculture economy.




coloradosun.com





People from Colorado, this is a heads-up! We need to be ready to stand together to defeat this kind of rubbish that has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with criminalizing animal agriculture. Fortunately since it is coming to the ballot box and not from the legislature we do have the ability to defeat it in the voting booth rather than fighting it in court.


----------



## happybleats (Sep 12, 2010)

I heard about that. People are so messed up in their head!! Most definitely need to fight it. Ugh. Can you imagine the financial down fall for farmers having to hold onto food animals for 25% if their life span? So dumb!


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

I'm not a farmer, but as a fellow goat owner, I feel for you. How can you be prosecuted for rectal exams? That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## jschies (Aug 15, 2014)

Wow.... So would you be able to even take an animal's temperature??


----------



## CountyLineAcres (Jan 22, 2014)

jschies said:


> Wow.... So would you be able to even take an animal's temperature??


You still can. In subsection 5, you’re allow to dispense care to an animal in the interest of improving their health. Taking their temperature would fall under the “accepted” category.

It is still ridiculous nonetheless.


----------



## ksalvagno (Oct 6, 2009)

What rubbish. People are stupid.


----------



## JML Farms (Jan 1, 2021)

Hope it gets defeated.


----------



## raffelsol (Apr 8, 2021)

It will be a huge hurdle to overcome in Colorado. The majority of the population lives in the front range area and are not in touch with agricultural roots and how the food gets to their table. The initiative plays on strong emotions of 'sexual abuse'.


----------



## alwaystj9 (Apr 10, 2019)

Yes, they will jump on anyone who opposes this by crying about sexual abuse of animals. This would be really bad for Colorado.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Taking a temperature would fall under "for the health of the animal." Where it gets fuzzy is when you factor in reproductive care. Artificial insemination, rectal pregnancy checks, etc. are not done "for the animals health" per se. You get an activist judge hearing a case and it could be very bad for livestock producers and veterinarians. 

The cattlemen's associations are all majorly ticked right now and since beef is one of the largest industries in Colorado I can imagine there's going to be a LOT of pushback. They have a ton of money and they're going to be spending a lot of it on PR in the coming year. They'll probably get a lot of national backing from various agricultural associations all over the country as well. No other ranching state wants stuff like this coming to them next. I hear Oregon is considering a similar proposal. 

The city folks on the front range may lean left, but not quite as much as a lot of people think, and the majority of them eat meat. There are also a lot of environmentalists who don't like this proposal because it will force Colorado to import more beef, which is less sustainable than anything home-grown. Even many vegetarians see the sense in keeping production local because they know Coloradans won't stop eating meat. They'll buy it from out of state. That doesn't help the animals or the environment and the resulting price increase would be especially hard on poor people. The agricultural industry has a lot of cards to play and I hope they play them very strategically so this thing doesn't just get defeated but buried with no hope of resurrection.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

The only thing I'm ok with is the 25% rule and the beastilaity (hopefully it's illegal)


----------



## toth boer goats (Jul 20, 2008)




----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

Oh Boy! I cannot post everything I am thinking as I will get flagged for being political. But this is not a new problem. City people have been moving to the mountains and country and passing ill-considered laws since the automobile replaced horses.

I have chastised my husband over and over for doing simple (to us) things in the open because of how they could look if recorded on someone's phone and posted on social media.

I wish there was some way to educate them.


----------



## tiffin (Mar 3, 2021)

Our world has gone insane! Agree with the comment about so many leaving California to ruin other states  I know there are lots of good people in California but also alot of nut jobs that don't understand WHY they had to leave.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

MellonFriend said:


> Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.


Personally, I feel that it isn't right to eat a 6 week old lamb or a day old chick. They are destined to be eaten, but only having 42 days in this world is a bit mean to me.

However, I do agree with you--the treatment of the animal should matter more and it should ultimately be left to the farmer to decide when the animal will be butchered.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

AlabamaGirl said:


> Personally, I feel that it isn't right to eat a 6 week old lamb or a day old chick. They are destined to be eaten, but only having 42 days in this world is a bit mean to me.


Okay, I should have been more specific. I totally agree that I don't feel comfortable eating an animal that young, but ask the animal and it wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

MellonFriend said:


> Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.


Yeah, I know! 25% is a totally arbitrary human-created number that has nothing whatever to do with an animal's quality of life! The animal has no idea whether its life is 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% or 85% used up no matter how old it is. Animals have no concept of their own lifespan or mortality other than their universal instinct for self-preservation. They don't sit around contemplating the number of their days or what it will be like to get old. One of the sponsors of this ballot measure stated that he thinks animals that are eaten should be die "naturally and humanely" before being harvested. Sorry, but the words "natural" and "humane" don't belong in the same sentence. A natural death is nearly always inhumane. Nature is cruel. Humans are capable of alleviating that cruelty by providing a quick death. The trade-off is that many animals will not attain a full lifespan and most food animals won't even reach maturity. On the other hand, many others will live much longer than they otherwise would in nature. I guarantee that if food animals are forced to be kept for 25% of their potential lifespan, animal cruelty and neglect cases will go UP. This is not a win. Living longer is not a benefit if the quality of life is poor.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

Damfino said:


> I guarantee that if food animals are forced to be kept for 25% of their potential lifespan, animal cruelty and neglect cases will go UP.


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## happybleats (Sep 12, 2010)

Here!! here Damfino! ! We raise our own meat. Our motto is happy life..one bad day. It's not the length of life but quality of life. Just because destined for the plate doesn't mean they shouldn't be well cared for and treated humanly until that day. Keeping them longer will more than likely end in cruelty and neglect. Not to mention send farmers to the poor house. Geeze next they will make it illegal to eat eggs...I mean poor birds didn't have a chance at life!


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

AlabamaGirl said:


> The only thing I'm ok with is the 25% rule and the beastilaity (hopefully it's illegal)


The 25% rule would destroy meat production in Colorado. Most cattle are slaughtered at around 2 years old. This bill would force them to be kept until 5 years old, at which point most people don't want to eat the beef any more because it gets a lot tougher as the animal matures. Goats and sheep couldn't be slaughtered until they were ~3-4 years old under this proposal. Most are currently butchered at a year or less. Feeding an animal for all those extra years only to get lower quality meat is not a win. Not to mention this would play havoc with those who for religious reasons can only eat meat from fully intact animals. If you had to keep bulls and bucklings intact all those years before slaughter in order to feed certain ethnic populations, it would be a logistical nightmare. 

As for beastiality, it's already highly illegal. There's no reason to expand the definition to include common reproductive practices used to improve herds.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

happybleats said:


> Geeze next they will make it illegal to eat eggs...I mean poor birds didn't have a chance at life!


🤣


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

The irony is that the same folks who are backing this livestock bill no doubt are highly in favor of the wolf reintroduction ballot measure that passed last November. Did they ever stop to think that wolves kill a lot of BABY animals? It's ok for wolves to eat young animals (and to torture them first!), but it's not ok for humans to eat young animals after slaughtering them quickly. Got it.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

happybleats said:


> Here!! here Damfino! ! We raise our own meat. Our motto is happy life..one bad day. It's not the length of life but quality of life. Just because destined for the plate doesn't mean they shouldn't be well cared for and treated humanly until that day. Keeping them longer will more than likely end in cruelty and neglect. Not to mention send farmers to the poor house. Geeze next they will make it illegal to eat eggs...I mean poor birds didn't have a chance at life!


Vegan propaganda... One day it'll only be soy milk and tofu on the shelves!

Just kidding, but that would be a waste of 1-300 eggs a year. Provided that they aren't raised in 1x1 cages, eggs are a very humane source of food.



Damfino said:


> The 25% rule would destroy meat production in Colorado. Most cattle are slaughtered at around 2 years old. This bill would force them to be kept until 5 years old, at which point most people don't want to eat the beef any more because it gets a lot tougher as the animal matures. Goats and sheep couldn't be slaughtered until they were ~3-4 years old under this proposal. Most are currently butchered at a year or less. Feeding an animal for all those extra years only to get lower quality meat is not a win. Not to mention this would play havoc with those who for religious reasons can only eat meat from fully intact animals. If you had to keep bulls and bucklings intact all those years before slaughter in order to feed certain ethnic populations, it would be a logistical nightmare.
> 
> As for beastiality, it's already highly illegal. There's no reason to expand the definition to include common reproductive practices used to improve herds.


I agree 100%.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

Damfino said:


> The irony is that the same folks who are backing this livestock bill no doubt are highly in favor of the wolf reintroduction ballot measure that passed last November. Did they ever stop to think that wolves kill a lot of BABY animals? It's ok for wolves to eat young animals (and to torture them first!), but it's not ok for humans to eat young animals after slaughtering them quickly. Got it.


Ah but see, wolves are "natural". So that's all that matters. 🤪


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

MellonFriend said:


> Ah but see, wolves are natural. So that's all that matters. 🤭


A bullet correctly aimed at the head is better than being wrung out by a wolf IMO


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

AlabamaGirl said:


> A bullet correctly aimed at the head is better than being wrung out by a wolf IMO


I was being sarcastic. 😉


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

What was the deal with wolves?


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Kenny Battistelli said:


> What was the deal with wolves?


Colorado recently voted by ballot measure to reintroduce wolves to our state. It won by a very narrow margin (much narrower than I would have believed actually). Naturally the people who won't be affected by wolves at all are the ones most heavily in favor of releasing them amongst everyone else. I wish wolf reintroduction included releasing them into city parks! 

Personally I have nothing against wolves. They _are_ a natural part of this environment and we have areas in Colorado where there is suitable habitat. In fact, there have been wolves here all along in some of our larger wilderness areas such as the Weminuche. Government officials will deny it of course (they've officially been "extinct" since the 1940's) but locals have sighted them occasionally in remote corners. More recently there have been two or three packs established from wolves that wandered down from the ones reintroduced to Yellowstone years ago. I have no problem with those either.

What I have a problem with are wolves officially recognized and protected by the government. Once the government throws all that red tape around them, it's virtually impossible to do anything about problem wolves who prey on livestock. If they remained unprotected, problem wolves could be eradicated and the rest could go on about their lives. From an evolutionary standpoint, you end up with wolves "trained" to avoid humans and livestock. They reproduce and teach their young how and where to hunt away from humans. On the other hand, if they are protected they learn that they can kill livestock without consequence, and they teach their young to do the same. Then you have ongoing conflict. I don't know any farmer or rancher who has a problem with wolves living "out there" and not bothering livestock. What we all have a problem with is government mandated wolves who can continually prey on livestock and the only thing we get from the government is "compensation".


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

tiffin said:


> Our world has gone insane! Agree with the comment about so many leaving California to ruin other states  I know there are lots of good people in California but also alot of nut jobs that don't understand WHY they had to leave.


Your first part of that is correct but not exactly the second. People are so far out of touch with reality and the “real world” across the country. It’s not the problem children that are leaving California for the most part, I wish it was so this state would get better! It’s the ones that are done with the crap and have given up the fight to deal with what this state has become. The bad eggs are not leaving because they LOVE what they have created here. 
But people honestly think their meat comes from the store, that brown cows make chocolate milk and and wild animal are Disney characters. Then these animal rights people come along and brain wash them some more and they are too lazy to do their own homework so ranchers and farmers are the bad guys who get their jollies off on abusing animals and murdering them for no reason.


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

There is going to be a huge issue with that 25% crap. Yes thinking about it eating a day old chick or a week old lamb is sad, but that is going to bring on SO MUCH financial strain on people. I’m sure they came up with the stupid 25% with veal calf’s in mind. Most of those are dairy calf’s (that actually live longer then new born) and no one is going to want to sink $1,000 into a calf that you might get $300 of meat from. They don’t grow fast, they don’t put the meat on like beef cows do. But what is really going do happen to those animals? People are not going to go into debt over it, well most won’t anyways, so they are going to be going hungry, probably up to that 25% life span (no idea what they are going to consider their life span being) and then what survived they will probably then slam the feed to them. It’s not going to be a very fair life for them. If we take emotion out of it animals don’t know death, they know fear yes but the mama cow doesn’t sit the baby cow down and explain it to them, but they do know pain, and hunger, and abuse. I would rather a week old calf be taken care of for that week and go out in peace then know abuse and then death. 
I really hope though that this doesn’t pass for all those in Colorado. Sadly though I don’t have much faith in man kind any more and for people to stop and look into why people AI, that there is no raping a animal in heat (except maybe chickens, that gets a bit brutal!) but sadly I don’t think that’s going to happen, and mark my words if it passed people will be like “I just don’t know why meat prices are so high!”


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> Colorado recently voted by ballot measure to reintroduce wolves to our state. It won by a very narrow margin (much narrower than I would have believed actually). Naturally the people who won't be affected by wolves at all are the ones most heavily in favor of releasing them amongst everyone else. I wish wolf reintroduction included releasing them into city parks!


I take a neutral stance on this issue for many reasons. I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where the state is coming from. I understand that you need your livestock protected, but your farm is in wolf territory, that is a risk you take. A few weeks ago, I wanted all the white-tailed deer gone from my county because I didn't want them to give my goats deer worm. I know it's different, but we put our farms on animal land and expect the animals to conform and that to me is unreasonable. 



Damfino said:


> They _are_ a natural part of this environment and we have areas in Colorado where there is suitable habitat. In fact, there have been wolves here all along in some of our larger wilderness areas such as the Weminuche. Government officials will deny it of course (they've officially been "extinct" since the 1940's) but locals have sighted them occasionally in remote corners. More recently there have been two or three packs established from wolves that wandered down from the ones reintroduced to Yellowstone years ago. I have no problem with those either.


I think it is great the wolves have large suitable habitats in Colorado, and it seems like you are fine with them as long as they stay there. That being said, what happens when those habitats are intruded upon by humans? Are the wolves expected to retreat further in? My point is, the wolves used to have all the room they wanted. Then people come and get mad when the wolves cause trouble, even though the wolves were there first. 



Damfino said:


> What I have a problem with are wolves officially recognized and protected by the government. Once the government throws all that red tape around them, it's virtually impossible to do anything about problem wolves who prey on livestock. If they remained unprotected, problem wolves could be eradicated and the rest could go on about their lives. From an evolutionary standpoint, you end up with wolves "trained" to avoid humans and livestock. They reproduce and teach their young how and where to hunt away from humans. On the other hand, if they are protected they learn that they can kill livestock without consequence, and they teach their young to do the same.


Again, your farm is on their land. Your farm used to be their home. You are saying the wolves shouldn't be protected because then they will not learn to leave farms alone and that eventually, they will learn to stay away. From what it seems, this used to be the case where wolves were not protected, and then they went extinct. So, when they were unprotected, they weren't learning their lesson then and they probably will not in the future if they become unprotected. Wolves disappearing from the habitat would cause drastic changes to the food chain.

Now, all that being said, I disagree that the state should just release wolves everywhere, seeing that they are a threat to human safety. I think that is a reckless move on their part. I understand the wolves eating your livestock means you lose money and possibly loved animals. I think the best conclusion would be that the state would set up large reserves for the wolves where they are protected. Once they leave the reserve, they are unprotected so the reserves become a place where the wolves have food and can live freely without the intrusion of humans later on. 

That's just how I feel on the matter. I hope I did not make you upset.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Disagreement, however strong, is never cause for offense so don't worry about upsetting me.  

You position would be sound if it didn't lack context. I believe you are from Pennsylvania, which means you probably don't have much understanding about land policy and history out west. The wolves weren't exterminated because they were a problem to ranchers. They were exterminated by the U.S. government during the expansion years. The government put a bounty on wolves and they were very quickly hunted, trapped, and poisoned to extinction since it was more profitable kill wolves than to stick to ranching. With a price on their heads, there was no chance for "non-problem" wolves to keep to themselves and survive. These days there is no bounty and there are laws against poaching. It is estimated that my "backyard" has more mountain lions per square mile than any other in the lower 48 states, yet I never see them and ranchers don't hunt them to extinction to protect livestock. Why? Because lions here have learned through the generations not to bother people. The ones that do get shot. Ranchers have better things to do than waste time hunting predators that aren't bothering them. But I guarantee that if the government put a bounty on lionskins, every rancher would make time to go lion hunting because it would be money in their pockets. 

Your suggestion that areas be set aside was already done 100 years ago. The US Forest Service was created after all suitable farming land was claimed during the homesteading years. Huge swathes of western land were left blank because no one at that time wanted the land other than for mining claims, which were but tiny dots in the vast expanse of wilderness. So the government took over the unclaimed land and began issuing permits for timber, grazing, mining, fishing, hunting, etc. Hence the USFS slogan, "The Land of Many Uses." Beyond that, there were huge areas of "wasteland" that at that time even the US Forest Service didn't want. The Bureau of Land Management was created to deal with these leftovers. Colorado, like most states out west, has vast areas of both USFS and BLM land. Fortunately most of it can be grazed, timbered, etc. because otherwise there would be no self-sustaining industry in areas where most of the land is owned by the government. However, there are many folks who live out east and in cities who don't understand this dynamic. They don't want the land to be used for any type of economic activity but rather they want it reserved exclusively for recreation. The sad thing about this is that it essentially turns huge areas into medieval England where you have the "King's Forest" and the lowly peasants who live in it are not allowed to make a living off of it. 

So now you see that the argument that we are "encroaching" on wolves territory is moot. They have TONS of territory where they can live quite happily far away from humans. My farm is but a tiny postage stamp on the fringe of millions of acres of land that cannot ever be sold or built up. So if predators come here for dinner, they are the ones encroaching because my little area is a fraction of the size of theirs! 

My statement that wolves should be released into city parks was not serious of course. I merely wish to point out the stupidity of letting people vote on policy that does not affect them at all and that others will have to bear the financial and logistical burdens for. I wouldn't mind dealing with wolves it were just them. What I absolutely _don't_ want to deal with is the government!


----------



## JML Farms (Jan 1, 2021)

MellonFriend said:


> Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.


I agree....a longer life sometimes results in a more miserable life. For example, most commercially grown chickens are bred to grow fast and be slaughtered between in under 12 weeks. If they live much longer than that, they develop health problems and die from painful conditions related to their size. Who determines the life expectancy of those chickens? Will their life expectancy be different than an organically raised free range chicken? I generally determine the life expectancy of the animals I harvest. Those who raise any show market animals know what I’m talking about. They are bred to produce meat efficiently and rapidly. After they have peaked, they decline in health and quality. Think about a tomato on a vine, if you don’t pick it when it’s ripe, it will deteriorate and be useless. If you don’t harvest your animal when it’s ripe, it begins to decline in quality. I can see some animal markets managing the 25% rule, but I think overall it would be devastating to the industry.


----------



## JML Farms (Jan 1, 2021)

happybleats said:


> Our motto is happy life..one bad day.


I love it!!! I'm gonna make a sign for my barn that says this!


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

I never really thought about the "repercussions" of waiting until an animal reaches 25% of their lifespan before slaughter. I now see why it's not a good idea to wait till 25% of their lifespan before eating them... 





Y'all can't change my mind about eating babies though ..


----------



## toth boer goats (Jul 20, 2008)

I do agree. 

I do understand how people love animals no matter what they are and do believe, they should not be killed for consumption.

However, there are indeed animals who are meant for food. 
It is sad but, that is what they are here for.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

JML Farms said:


> Think about a tomato on a vine, if you don’t pick it when it’s ripe, it will deteriorate and be useless.


Such a good point. Better not spread that around or we'll be having "fruit and vegetables must reach 25% of their lifespan before harvesting" on the ballot. 😂


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> They were exterminated by the U.S. government during the expansion years. The government put a bounty on wolves and they were very quickly hunted, trapped, and poisoned to extinction since it was more profitable kill wolves than to stick to ranching. With a price on their heads, there was no chance for "non-problem" wolves to keep to themselves and survive.


I have some understanding of how the west was colonized even from my eastern status, not specifically on how colonization impacted the wolf population. I don't care how or why the wolves went extinct, I care that they were there and humans made them go away. The government made them go away, and now they are trying to fix what they did and I support their cause. 

Of course, I knew there were some places where they could reside, but if you think about it, they used to have all of Colorado, as well as many other states. I'm just trying to make the point that they've lost a lot of land to humans. While given some land to reside in, they are at a loss. You have to understand my point of view, I am a huge environmentalist at heart. I believe as humans we messed up this earth really bad, and need to fix it. Animals go extinct left and right, and forests get mowed over. I like the idea of helping animals that were subjugated by humans. 



Damfino said:


> like most states out west, has vast areas of both USFS and BLM land. Fortunately most of it can be grazed, timbered, etc. because otherwise there would be no self-sustaining industry in areas where most of the land is owned by the government. However, there are many folks who live out east and in cities who don't understand this dynamic. They don't want the land to be used for any type of economic activity but rather they want it reserved exclusively for recreation. The sad thing about this is that it essentially turns huge areas into medieval England where you have the "King's Forest" and the lowly peasants who live in it are not allowed to make a living off of it.


Are you saying the "protected" land can be timbered? If so, that is not really protected land. I'm not sure we will be able to meet eye to eye on this issue. I think the land needs to be protected, with no exceptions. The animals need a place to live, and forests sustain the planet. One species does not have the right to kill all the others. 



Damfino said:


> My farm is but a tiny postage stamp on the fringe of millions of acres of land that cannot ever be sold or built up.


Your farm is a little postage stamp yes. So is the other farm, and the other farm, and the other farm, together covering a huge area. 

This conversation took a turn from wolves to environmental issues, which seems like we are on different sides. While I do live on the east coast, I live in a small, rural town. My property backs up to about 90 acres of woods, relatively small but around my area, relatively big. We get bears and coyotes around here too, and it can be scary, but I'm living on their land. I think the environment is as a whole is more important than economic profit. 

I did not do outside research on wolf reintroduction in Colorado, I simply took your post about it and broke it down using outside knowledge. I'm glad we can have a civilized conversation on the matter!


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

> Of course, I knew there were some places where they could reside, but if you think about it, they used to have all of Colorado, as well as many other states.


They used to have all of Pennsylvania and the rest of the eastern U.S. actually. Cougars, bears, and wolves were virtually wiped out in the eastern half of the U.S. and have been reintroduced in some states but not all. I'm curious if you support reintroducing wolves to the eastern U.S. Do you think it would work out well for the wolves? Do you think it would be ethical to uproot people in order to recreate wildlife populations equivalent to what was in your state before settlers arrived? 

Yes, humans have moved in and inhabited much land that used to be occupied by animals--not just in the U.S. but all over the world. What do we do about that? It's a difficult question. You can set aside land for wildlife certainly, but at what human cost? We can't commit genocide and wipe out most of human civilization "because animals were here first!" That line of reasoning applies to every square inch of the planet and implies that humans are not allowed to live on the earth. Every city was once a riparian area filled with an abundance of flora and fauna before it was paved under. How many creatures had to move to accommodate your own home which was built from timber that was once standing forests, and stone that had to be quarried, and fossil fuels which had to be brought to the surface to make all of the synthetic materials? 



> Are you saying the "protected" land can be timbered? If so, that is not really protected land.


Some of it can be timbered, yes. There are many rules about how and where it can be timbered, and permits must be purchased and in some cases environmental impact studies must be conducted depending on the scope of the timbering. Much of it, however, is designated wilderness that cannot be grazed, timbered, or have anything motorized or wheeled on it (so no chainsaws or bicycles). The county where I grew up was 95% government land--56% wilderness. This means that less than half of all available land is able to be used for any kind of economic enterprise. And while it sounds nice to have lots and lots of untouched wilderness, management is an issue. Beetles wiped out millions of acres of pine and spruce forests in southern Colorado a few years ago, leaving the entire area extremely vulnerable to wildfires that cannot be controlled because there are no access roads. The non-wilderness FS/BLM areas are currently being timbered (where accessible) to help mitigate fire danger and to harvest the dead trees which would otherwise go to waste. Arguably, if some of these areas had been timbered before the beetles killed everything, there wouldn't have been such fire danger and also less danger of having such a devastating beetle blight since beetles tend to ravage forests that have become old and unhealthy. It's an age-old process but one that's not always compatible with human habitation. 



> Your farm is a little postage stamp yes. So is the other farm, and the other farm, and the other farm, together covering a huge area.


In my particular area, our combined "postage stamps" of private land are still dwarfed by the vast amount of government land encompassing the entire mountain range behind our homes. And my 40 acres is open to wildlife who can come and go as they please. Go up to Denver where all the "environmentalists" are and all of nature has been paved under for as far as the eye can see. They've left nothing for the wildlife there. Deer and elk, foxes, skunks, bears, and coyotes all have free range across my parcel (although the predator species do get chased off by my dogs if they come too near my goats!). Yet wildlife isn't free to roam through cities and suburbs possessed by self-proclaimed "environmentalists". Why not? Every bear found messing around in a city is trapped, tagged, and relocated into MY backyard. Why?


----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

AndersonRanch said:


> But people honestly think their meat comes from the store, that brown cows make chocolate milk and and wild animal are Disney characters.


anthropomorphism:
the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object
I am sure that my father's aversion to hunting came from watching Bambi.

People decide that what makes them happy and content is what makes all animals happy and content. A dairy here got sued for saying their milk was from contented cows. The judge at that time threw it out stating that it is not his job to determine the emotional state of cattle. Do we really know that animals are happier in the wild? It is scary and dangerous out there.

I know the concept of butchering _baby_ animals is a touchy subject. I personally do not like the taste and texture of veal and other young meat. But there are millions(?) of babies born in the dairy industries as a result of the need to freshen the females to get milk. They (especially the males) are a byproduct of that industry. They are no good for breeding and do not grow well into meat animals. As long as they are treated well; (tiny veal pens make me ill) I see it as necessary all around. The feed, the waste, the water they consume makes growing them out costly. (I have a book that has drowning excess bucklings at birth as an option.) 

This is something I throw in every now and then. Until the 1970's cheese was made with natural rennet. Rennet is obtained by drying the abomasum of a ruminant that has not eaten any hay yet. It is not pleasant but we have done it with undersized kids for the purpose of cheese making.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

Damfino said:


> Yes, humans have moved in and inhabited much land that used to be occupied by animals--not just in the U.S. but all over the world. What do we do about that?


I care more about we what do more than what other countries do.



Damfino said:


> You can set aside land for wildlife certainly, but at what human cost? We can't commit genocide and wipe out most of human civilization "because animals were here first!"


There is plenty of space on this world to section out an area for wildlife. We shouldn't wipe out civilization but we shouldn't just disregard wildlife either. It's important that we maintain plant and animal life and give them plenty of land to sustain themselves. If we disregard wildlife so people can expand, they'll get less and less room to roam and live and that could force more more wildlife extinction. The only cost to people would be that we wouldn't be able to bulldoze every piece of land to create a new city.


luvmyherd said:


> anthropomorphism:
> the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object
> I am sure that my father's aversion to hunting came from watching Bambi.
> 
> ...


I'd actually argue that it's important we apply human emotions to animals, because goats, sheep, cows etc., are emotional creatures.

If I were a goat, would I want to be housed in a comfortable, weather proof shelter, or left in the rain and mud shivering in the cold.

Would I rather be starved and kept on a 5x5 lot or fed properly with plenty of room to stretch and graze.

Would I rather see my herd mates killed in front of me, or else where.

Would I rather die a slow, tortuous death. Or a quick, humane one.


*Spoiler alert, death _can_ be humane

I could go on, but this is why I think it's important we apply human emotions to other sentient animals.


----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

One of the first things I said was _as long as they are treated well_. 
Veal pens and feed lots disgust me. Just one of many reasons we prefer to grow our own food.
I do not think it is hard to notice when animals are uncomfortable. But they do not behave like critters in Disney movies and many people are convinced that they do. (Though I would not mind if I could sing and have them come clean my house.) There is no Prince of the forest who keeps track of his kids.
People here who know me know how I feel about animals and how spoiled mine are. Our rabbits had an indoor/outdoor enclosure with no cages so they could nest underground. Our chickens were pastured.
I do not disagree with what you said; it just was not the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

@Damfino 
If wolves were released in my area and protected, I think they would do well. And yes, I do think it is ethical to relocate people to benefit the planet as a whole (including people).


It is not up to us what other countries do. Let the US lead by example and join the many other countries that are doing a great job environmentally.


The human cost… What is the human cost?

Do you mean the cost humans across the world would pay to change their lives to save the planet? If so, that is a very bad way to look at things. As humans, the cost to creating a better future for the planet will include sacrifices. It will require money for sure, land, etc. By doing this, we help the earth and the plants and animals we are so brutally killing. We create a better future for the earth and for humans and for many many other things. This can be looked at as a human gain.

Human cost, again. Humans could stay put in their nice homes all over. We could remain ignorant. We could make no sacrifices. We could go on polluting, but as long as we get some sort of a profit, it’s okay, right?. I don’t see any animals dying or hurting, oh wait, that’s because they were all poached. We can lose nothing in the fight against climate change because we can choose to put up no fight. What is the human cost to this? To sacrificing nothing now? To ignore the problem at hand? To not help the planet? The human cost in this much greater than what the human cost would be to help the planet now. The human cost to be ignorant now would include: flooded coastlines (flooded homes), and an increase in pollution (an increase in health problems and shorter lifespans), unsuitable climates around the tropics (massive relocations would take place, requiring the clearing of more land, more animals pushed away), etc. So, I’m not sure what you mean by the human cost. I think that is a very bad way to look at helping the planet. So you saying is it ethical to uproot people, yes it most certainly absolutely is. Either we do it now, or we are forced to later on when the seas and temperature force us to.

You see, we either pay a cost now (relatively insignificant) or we pay one later, a much larger one.


I wouldn’t consider land protected if it could be timbered. Anyway, you mention the beetles: the beetle problem is so bad because that is part of the human cost climate change is forcing us to pay. Pine bark beetles are native to the western US. They always bore into the bark, and are usually greeted with pine sap, which prevents them from killing the tree. There was a good relationship between the beetles and the trees until… climate change. Due to the change in weather patterns, droughts are affecting parts of the west coast significantly. This leads to less sap production in pine trees, allowing the beetles to get into the tree and kill it. This is part of the human cost we are paying, because we paid no cost in the past to combat climate change.


I cannot speak for the hypocrisy of some environmentalists.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

luvmyherd said:


> I do not disagree with what you said; it just was not the point I was trying to make.


Sorry if it came of that way! I wasn't trying to direct it towards you, I was just explaining how I view that topic..



Kenny Battistelli said:


> If wolves were released in my area and protected, I think they would do well. And yes, I do think it is ethical to relocate people to benefit the planet as a whole (including people).
> 
> 
> It is not up to us what other countries do. Let the US lead by example and join the many other countries that are doing a great job environmentally.
> ...


Love. This.


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

Damfino you are SO SO correct about management! Look at California and what is going on with us now since we stopped managing the land and forests. I have lived in my forest every summer my whole life, my dad and grandpa the same since we have a lease with the forest service for grazing. I have watched a beautiful managed forest, with logging and more grazing then what it is now become this crap hole with the trees weakened by the drought and then died because they didn’t stand a chance with the bark Beatles. I have watched it burn, I have dug my dead cows out of the ash, I have found more wild life burned most to death then anyone could ever imagine. It is beyond sad. Here is kinda documentary on what we had to deal with and both sides.


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

AlabamaGirl said:


> I never really thought about the "repercussions" of waiting until an animal reaches 25% of their lifespan before slaughter. I now see why it's not a good idea to wait till 25% of their lifespan before eating them...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that’s fine if you don’t want to eat baby animals. Most are not baby baby anyways. Most veal calf’s are 6 months old when they are butchered. There are exceptions of course, one isn’t growing well, or has a deformed leg, whatever, that the animal will not thrive well are butchered earlier. I know my goat kids that I take to the sale are butchered at 3-6 months old for the most part. Chickens are usually 8-12 weeks old. And actually that is very kind to the chickens. My sin tried to keep his extra Cornish chickens he had after his market ones sold at the fair and they broke down and had to be butchered and the rest we just walked out to find them dead. I think a slightly earlier death would have been more kind. 
But nothing is totally black and white. We need those veal calf’s because we need to do something with them. Farmers, especially dairy farmers are having a hard time making ends meet as it is. Keeping a animal that will not be profitable is going to sink them and then we will want to know what is going on in other countries because that is where we will be getting our meat and milk from.


----------



## Goats Rock (Jun 20, 2011)

The biggest problem with a 25% rule regarding life span, is Johne's disease and Mad cow disease. Both can show up after a cow is 4-6 years old. Very hard to 
detect before that. There is no way a cattleman will let his beef animals get to 4 years old. Plus the meat toughness from the age and sheer costs of keeping an animal that long is 
ridiculous. 25 % of a cow's life is close to 4 years old. Cows could live an average of 18-22 yrs. (dairy cows, beef, probably the same). 

The world certainly is getting goofy......


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Kenny Battistelli said:


> If wolves were released in my area and protected, I think they would do well. And yes, I do think it is ethical to relocate people to benefit the planet as a whole (including people).


I'm glad you're ok with releasing wolves into your own area. At least you're consistent. The local ungulates might not appreciate it though. Wolves are typically large-prey animals and Pennsylvania has no large prey any more. In order to release wolves, you'd first have to restore the bison and elk. Do you think that would work well in your state? Prey is one thing that concerns me a bit about wolf reintroduction. Not only are the wolves being released nowadays NOT native to the lower U.S. (they are a larger Canadian species), but their natural prey no longer exists and largely cannot exist nowadays in most of its historic range. There aren't enough vast tracts of land left to support huge, roving herds of bison. I don't know how you fix that without causing even bigger problems. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. 

Achieving predator-prey balance in a world inhabited by humans is difficult. Colorado has one of the most successful bighorn sheep restoration projects in the country, and the folks who have invested their lives and millions of taxpayer dollars into bringing this species back from near-extinction are concerned that wolves will erase decades of progress. California and Arizona have faced similar problems when cougars were reintroduced to their environments. Bighorns are easy prey and cougars quickly began wiping them out, so land managers in Arizona had to go back and shoot the cougars. In California they're trying to trap and relocate cougars but it hasn't been successful. The cougars keep going straight back to their old territory to kill bighorns no matter how many hundreds of miles they are moved. So yeah, the balance has been messed up for over 150 years, but fixing it isn't exactly trivial. Is one species more important than another if the two are no longer compatible in today's world? 



> It is not up to us what other countries do. Let the US lead by example and join the many other countries that are doing a great job environmentally.


I'm not sure which countries are doing a "great job" environmentally. However, it _does_ matter what the rest of the world does because much of it is directly caused by U.S. policy. For example, U.S. policy has determined that many manufacturing processes are harmful to the environment, so U.S. factories shut down and instead our citizens import goods from other countries without environmental regulations. U.S. environmental regulations haven't stopped us from polluting the planet. In fact, I believe they have accelerated the problem! We have outsourced our pollution to China, India, Mexico, etc. while also taking advantage of cheap (and often slave-based) labor. We can happily preserve ALL of our forests if we just rely on timber from other countries! Even if the U.S. manages to achieve a completely Utopian environment within its own borders, we need to realize that it comes at the cost of the rest of the planet. But most people would rather ignore that rather bleak reality. The rare earth metals required for your computer and cell phone are found in the U.S. in abundance, but they were mined elsewhere because it is considered too environmentally costly to produce them here. 



> As humans, the cost to creating a better future for the planet will include sacrifices... So you saying is it ethical to uproot people, yes it most certainly absolutely is. Either we do it now, or we are forced to later on when the seas and temperature force us to.


You're on very dangerous footing here. Genocide, forced relocation, and war, are usually started by people with the very best of intentions who are only thinking of "the greater good." We can all be idealists from the comfort of our armchairs, but the devil is in the details. For example, which rich, enlightened elites get to decide who is worthy to stay and who must be forcibly relocated? And where do you put the poor unfortunates who have been evicted from their homes? Bearing in mind that even if people are relocated, they are still using up valuable resources! They need to be fed, clothed, housed, etc. on land that was once natural and with products created on land that was plowed under for human benefit. There is no way for humans to exist on this planet without impacting it in some way. Natural disasters might uproot people, but there is no greater evil than people with the power to decide what's "best" for others. Your proposed relocations, while well-intentioned I'm sure, are not well thought-out. Such a policy would spark World War III, and since war is more devastating to the environment than any other human activity, we should probably do our best to avoid it. 



> I wouldn’t consider land protected if it could be timbered. Anyway, you mention the beetles: the beetle problem is so bad because that is part of the human cost climate change is forcing us to pay. Pine bark beetles are native to the western US. They always bore into the bark, and are usually greeted with pine sap, which prevents them from killing the tree. There was a good relationship between the beetles and the trees until… climate change. Due to the change in weather patterns, droughts are affecting parts of the west coast significantly. This leads to less sap production in pine trees, allowing the beetles to get into the tree and kill it. This is part of the human cost we are paying, because we paid no cost in the past to combat climate change.


We'll have to disagree on this one. I know that pine beetles are native--I even said so. These beetle devastations are quite natural to native forests. They wipe out trees that are too mature so new growth can occur. There's nothing wrong with this process. However, one reason many of our forests went to beetles at once was due to the fact that the trees were cleared over 100 years ago during the mining boom. The trees that grew up afterward are mostly the same age and now dying at the same time. That's not a particularly healthy situation for a forest. We would have done better to selectively harvest timber in these areas over the past century to remove some old growth and allow new.

I don't believe animals or nature are more important than humans. I believe both are important and humans have just as much right to be on this planet as any other living thing. However, because we are of higher intellect, this comes with a certain amount of responsibility. We must manage the land to make it habitable for humans while also preserving nature's integrity. This is a difficult balance to achieve and one that has been thrown off many times in the past. Throwing the balance too far the other direction is not the solution. 

And I'll say this for the pine beetle... the wipeout of old spruce forests is enabling the proliferation of aspen. They are taking over entire mountainsides, and since the aspen is my favorite tree, this makes me very, very happy. Did you know that the aspen tree is the largest organism on the planet? 
Life happens.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

AlabamaGirl said:


> I care more about we what do more than what other countries do.


See my above post to Kenny. If we care about the planet at all, we'd darn well better care about what other countries do! 



> There is plenty of space on this world to section out an area for wildlife. We shouldn't wipe out civilization but we shouldn't just disregard wildlife either. It's important that we maintain plant and animal life and give them plenty of land to sustain themselves. If we disregard wildlife so people can expand, they'll get less and less room to roam and live and that could force more more wildlife extinction. The only cost to people would be that we wouldn't be able to bulldoze every piece of land to create a new city.


Places have been sectioned out west for the last 100 years. They're not going away to build new cities. What I'd like to see, actually, is for cities to stop expanding outward. Subdivisions kill the environment and turn both wildland and farmland into what I see as environmental wastelands. Cities nowadays are shaped like donuts with few people living inside them but vast populations constantly expanding the borders and moving outwards. They would do better to build up than to build out. And if they are going to build out, it should be required that a certain percentage be set aside for wild areas and agriculture with wildlife corridors aplenty. And when I say agriculture I don't mean monocrop agriculture that is destructive toward nature, but diversified farming like what was done in the old days and encourages a bit more symbiosis. We shouldn't disregard wildlife for human expansion, but we also shouldn't disregard humans in the quest for wildlife expansion. When we do, we create conflict.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Goats Rock said:


> The biggest problem with a 25% rule regarding life span, is Johne's disease and Mad cow disease. Both can show up after a cow is 4-6 years old. Very hard to detect before that. There is no way a cattleman will let his beef animals get to 4 years old. Plus the meat toughness from the age and sheer costs of keeping an animal that long is
> ridiculous. 25 % of a cow's life is close to 4 years old.


Interesting point about the Johne's and Mad Cow. 
And in this Colorado bill, they're proposing that 25% of a cow's lifespan is not 4, but 5 years old!


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

@AndersonRanch 
Did you delete a post where you said we should care what other countries do because soon most of our food will come from there? 

I know I read it somewhere on this thread last night but I can't find it today! 
In 2003 some friends of mine in western NY state went over to organic beef farming because they were appalled to read that 2003 marked the first year in U.S. history that we imported more food than we exported. It is scary to me that so much of our food supply is imported, and transporting food across vast distances can't be good for the planet.


----------



## AlabamaGirl (Jun 18, 2020)

Damfino said:


> Places have been sectioned out west for the last 100 years. They're not going away to build new cities. What I'd like to see, actually, is for cities to stop expanding outward. Subdivisions kill the environment and turn both wildland and farmland into what I see as environmental wastelands. *Cities nowadays are shaped like donuts with few people living inside them but vast populations constantly expanding the borders and moving outwards. They would do better to build up than to build out.* And if they are going to build out, it should be required that a certain percentage be set aside for wild areas and agriculture with wildlife corridors aplenty. And when I say agriculture I don't mean monocrop agriculture that is destructive toward nature, but diversified farming like what was done in the old days and encourages a bit more symbiosis. We shouldn't disregard wildlife for human expansion, but we also shouldn't disregard humans in the quest for wildlife expansion. When we do, we create conflict.


I agree with everything you said here, especially about the cities! I don't think we should disregard either issue, and we should always make sure there's room for both! (wildlife and people)


----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

AlabamaGirl said:


> Sorry if it came of that way! I wasn't trying to direct it towards you, I was just explaining how I view that topic..


No worries. Just wanted to clarify.


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

@Damfino 
Again, if bison and elk were released in my state and protected, I think they would do well in most of the state, especially in the western and northern parts of the state. Due to urbanization in the Lebanon Valley and on the right side of the Appalachians, they wouldn’t have refuge and would not be able to sustain their population. When you say there aren’t enough vast tracts of protected land for bison, etc, that is the problem that needs to be fixed. It is so pitiful how bad humans have destroyed the earth. Why can’t humans co-exist with other wildlife?


When you ask, “Is one species more important than another if the two are no longer compatible in today's world?”, the short answer is yes. But first, the reason why they can’t coexist must be examined. If the species could coexist after changes are done to the environment, those changes should be done so long as they do not throw the balance off any other food chain. Yes, if two species are no longer able to coexist, the existence of one of them could very well be more important than the other. To determine the more important species, it must be studied other natural predators to the animals, the food source of the animals, and what they do to the environment.


Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, as well as many other European countries, are very eco-friendly. Less than 1 percent of household waste is sent to landfills in Sweden. 


How do you expect the world to progress if each country says, “Well look at the US over there not doing anything. Why should we?” or “Why should we do anything if China’s not going to?” etc The US should not shut down factories if they are deemed harmful to the environment, rather adaptions should be done to those factories to make them eco friendly. If the problem with the factories was greenhouse gas emissions, there are adaptions to the factories that can be made so that they emit less. We can selectively cut forests for wood and paper instead of clear-cutting them. We should not push all the factories and businesses out. I see where you are coming from with that point, but there are many ways to turn the US in the right direction without shoving off all business.


First off, I did not propose the idea of relocations, you asked if I thought it was an ethical idea. Second off, I do not think relocations are the best way to handle the environmental crisis at our hand. Thirdly, I think I’m looking at the issue from a different angle than you are. Fixing the environment is going to require sacrifices, possibly relocations (which I would actually would like to see avoided), but definitely taxpayer dollars, amongst other supplies. These financial sacrifices, etc, are what you are focusing on. You are thinking about what people would have to give up, and what hostilities those sacrifices might bring along with them. I am looking at the matter from the consequences of what doing nothing could cause, like I said before flooding, definite relocations due to uninhabitable tropics, etc. These consequences are much greater than the consequences of becoming more eco-friendly. If we put the effort in now, while the earth is in ok condition, we lose relatively little. If we wait and wait, until the earth is near unsavable, we lose so much more. Like I said, I would like to see relocations be nonexistent. That being said, I don’t want people to have to leave their seaside homes, or homes in the tropic. I don’t want the government to tell people you have to live here. I would be devastated if that happened to me. I want to avoid the inevitable, therefore, I push for responses to the environment now. You mention the war, a human vs human conflict. The dilapidated environment is going to wage war on us in the future. So we won’t be battling bombs and guns, we will be battling air pollution, mass exoduses, droughts, famines. I’m not sure I’m getting my point across because I write this in a furry sometimes and my words get jumbled. 


I do not claim to have the solution to the ongoing problem. I just believe ve we are brutally attacking the environment, and human profit is not an excuse.


This website talking about how the beetle epidemic is related to climate change, as well as the fact that more older trees are living in today’s forests, as you mentioned: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?. 


I do not believe that humans are less important than other animals. With our intellect does indeed come a whole lot of responsibility, responsibility we are not attending to. At our rate of destruction, the world will not be habitable or preserve nature’s integrity for much longer. Throwing the balance too far to one direction is the solution is not the solution. Throwing the balance in a sustainable direction is the solution, but it must be broken down into small, steady steps that progress up to the final goal. 


The taking over of the aspen is not all the great for the environment. Most environments thrive under biodiversity. Additionally, I’m sure the food chain was linked to the spruce forests tightly, not to aspens. I glad you like aspens, I actually am fond of coniferous trees. They give you green all year and can grow where other trees cannot. I also like the willow.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't think we disagree at all so much as we have somewhat different ways of looking at things. I'm of the opinion that when you add lots of humans into a natural setting, nature is going to change and it must change, and these changes aren't necessarily all bad--they're just different. For example, I don't think it's possible for 30 million bison to roam across the U.S. any longer. With this many humans and the existence of highways and railroads, it is necessary for them to be contained and kept to much smaller numbers. Whether anyone likes it or not, it's reality. Mountain lions and bighorn sheep may not be compatible in certain areas any more because there simply aren't vast herds of bighorn sheep roaming everywhere. There is not enough connected land left to sustain vast herds--particularly not if we must keep bighorns at least 10 miles from the nearest domestic livestock. I am personally not in favor of keeping bighorn herds isolated. I think they should be allowed to roam in and out of private land like the deer and elk do. The problem is that bighorns are very susceptible to respiratory disease, and when it strikes it tends to wipe out 60-100% of the herd. I think there need to be concerted efforts to introduce pathogens to the herds in small doses so they can develop immunity and thus roam freely. But the government believes they should be kept isolated and forever naive to all livestock pathogens. Personally I don't think this is a sustainable plan, but I'm not in charge. So bighorns must be isolated in smaller herds and in smaller areas than they once did. This makes them ripe for predation. I suspect we'll lose a lot of bighorns when wolves are introduced because bighorns no longer live in the same Colorado that Coronado explored in the 1500's. 

I'm not a believer in man-made climate change. The climate has been changing without human help for thousands of years. The idea that we could stop or even influence this process is laughable to me. And even if it is true that we are changing the climate, it's not a problem I can care about because it's simply too big to wrap my head around. It's too big for anyone to fix, so why bother with it? I'm a lot more in favor doing things that make a tangible, measurable difference that can be seen in one's own lifetime. My dad started the first Earth Day celebration at SMU college in the early 1970's because pollution was so bad. Twenty years later there were fish living in once-dead creeks, there was grass and wildflowers growing along roadsides instead of litter everywhere, trees were planted, the air quality improved drastically, wildlife came back to areas devoid of it. When people started to care, they made a noticeable difference. Is there still work left to do? Of course there is! There _always_ is! But when you try to change things that you can't measure or see, you lose faith in the process and it's very easy to give up because the problem is too big, and you can't even know if you're fixing it. 



> Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, as well as many other European countries, are very eco-friendly. Less than 1 percent of household waste is sent to landfills in Sweden.


I find this statement interesting because you look at only a single factor (household waste) when our conversation has been about wild areas and how we coexist with nature. I would argue that every one of those countries has far less (and I mean far, FAR) less truly wild land than we have in the U.S. even by percentage. We're not even allowed to do the kind of high alpine cattle and sheep grazing in most of our western states they way they've been doing for thousands of years in Switzerland. It's been deemed too harmful to the natural ecosystem. I doubt anyone even _knows_ what the natural (pre-human) ecosystems were like in countries like Switzerland because people have been there for so, so long. Those countries have basically no untouched wilderness. Their alpine meadows are grazed by livestock, their forests have all been timbered throughout the centuries (notice they are not gone because timber and meadows are in fact renewable resources), yet they cannot truly be called "wild" in the same way that the U.S. has wilderness. I've met people from all of those countries here in the States. They visit our western lands in droves because they are amazed by the vast expanses of "untouched" land (even though the parts they visit are usually the most "touched" parts of our FS/BLM!). 



> We can selectively cut forests for wood and paper instead of clear-cutting them.


I mentioned selective timbering earlier and you didn't like it. You said timbered forests weren't "protected". Also, trees used for paper are not selectively harvested because the demand is too high. These days, trees that go to paper mills are farmed. They are fast-growing species that are planted and harvested like crops and then replanted. 



> At our rate of destruction, the world will not be habitable or preserve nature’s integrity for much longer.


Let's not be too doom-and-gloom. People are making progress in lots of areas. Things are much better in the U.S. than they were 50 or 80 years ago. We've learned from some of our mistakes and we've corrected some of our problems. It's a process and it takes time, but all is not lost. I'm of the belief that nature is in fact its own biggest destroyer. Things like super-volcanoes, meteor strikes, a massive solar flare, or too many sunspots could wipe out most species on this planet in a day--it's happened in the past and it can happen again. Yet life goes on. ;-) 



> The taking over of the aspen is not all the great for the environment. Most environments thrive under biodiversity. Additionally, I’m sure the food chain was linked to the spruce forests tightly, not to aspens.


No, this is not true. The life cycle of aspen trees is actually really cool. Aspens are a major contributor to biodiversity in the Rocky Mountains. For thousands of years, after any wildfire, landslide, volcano, blight, etc. wiped out the spruce trees, aspens would take over en masse. They grow in very poor, acidic soil, and they grow prolifically, sending out suckers from their roots in every direction. A single tree can be miles and miles long. The largest is currently in Utah. It took over a whole mountain long before Europeans ever touched foot there. The food chain thrives in aspen forests. Aspens are related to the willow and their bark provides food for deer and elk in wintertime. Look here at the natural aspen/spruce cycle: 





Aspen Decline







www.fs.fed.us




The aspens provide cover and enrich the bad soil so spruce and fir trees can grow up. Without them, the evergreen seedlings wouldn't even get started. Gambel oak does the same thing in my part of Colorado. The spruce and fir grow amazingly well in oak thickets. I have a stand of oak and young fir on the north slope of my property. I call it my "Christmas tree farm".


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> I don't think we disagree at all so much as we have somewhat different ways of looking at things. I'm of the opinion that when you add lots of humans into a natural setting, nature is going to change and it must change, and these changes aren't necessarily all bad--they're just different. For example, I don't think it's possible for 30 million bison to roam across the U.S. any longer. With this many humans and the existence of highways and railroads, it is necessary for them to be contained and kept to much smaller numbers. Whether anyone likes it or not, it's reality. Mountain lions and bighorn sheep may not be compatible in certain areas any more because there simply aren't vast herds of bighorn sheep roaming everywhere. There is not enough connected land left to sustain vast herds--particularly not if we must keep bighorns at least 10 miles from the nearest domestic livestock. I am personally not in favor of keeping bighorn herds isolated. I think they should be allowed to roam in and out of private land like the deer and elk do. The problem is that bighorns are very susceptible to respiratory disease, and when it strikes it tends to wipe out 60-100% of the herd. I think there need to be concerted efforts to introduce pathogens to the herds in small doses so they can develop immunity and thus roam freely. But the government believes they should be kept isolated and forever naive to all livestock pathogens. Personally I don't think this is a sustainable plan, but I'm not in charge. So bighorns must be isolated in smaller herds and in smaller areas than they once did. This makes them ripe for predation. I suspect we'll lose a lot of bighorns when wolves are introduced because bighorns no longer live in the same Colorado that Coronado explored in the 1500's.


I can't find much to disagree with in this paragraph. I do think most of the changes done by humans are bad for the surrounding ecosystems, that much I can say. Humans are just animals per se with higher intelligence, and like any animal species, humans change the environment. Just like some animals and insects, the changes humans make can be destructive, very destructive like the Emerald Ash Boer, the lanternfly that has been brought to the US very very close to my home, amongst many other organisms. Trees change the soil, and create microclimates. I must say that most of the invasive species are introduced by humans to highlight another flaw in human wildlife conservation and maintenance. I understand where you are coming from in this paragraph so I'm glad we reached an agreement here.



Damfino said:


> I'm not a believer in man-made climate change. The climate has been changing without human help for thousands of years. The idea that we could stop or even influence this process is laughable to me. And even if it is true that we are changing the climate, it's not a problem I can care about because it's simply too big to wrap my head around.


I do take huge objection to what you said here. I am a believer in man driven climate. I hope you can go deeper on your reasoning here because it baffles me. I will rebuttal further after you explain your reasoning.



Damfino said:


> And even if it is true that we are changing the climate, it's not a problem I can care about because it's simply too big to wrap my head around. It's too big for anyone to fix, so why bother with it? I'm a lot more in favor doing things that make a tangible, measurable difference that can be seen in one's own lifetime.


So you are saying because the challenge to reverse climate change is too great, we should simply move on and accept it? I think that is a really bad way of looking at things. Getting my goats to walk on a leash seems impossible (lol), but week after week I go out and train them. I do not stop because I think they will never learn and accept that I can't take them on walks. (I think training my goats to walk on a leash is about as hard as reversing climate change some days.) But in all seriousness, I do not think we should give up on a task because it seems too far-fetched. As Norman Vincent Peale said, Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. Shoot to fix global climate change, and even if you don't get the climate back to a stable, _natural_ spot, you would surely have made some of the world greener.

I'm thankful for the changes your father made!


Damfino said:


> I find this statement interesting because you look at only a single factor (household waste) when our conversation has been about wild areas and how we coexist with nature. I would argue that every one of those countries has far less (and I mean far, FAR) less truly wild land than we have in the U.S. even by percentage.


I not focusing on one single factor, I merely highlighted one. Can you not connect waste management to wildlife? Most of the world's populations' trash goes to landfills, taking space, large motorized equipment, large sheets of plastic, etc.

In addition to excellent waste management, Sweden is also very focused on becoming fossil-free. You can certainly connect this to wildlife. Less fossil fuel consumptions= less exploiting natural resources, less displacing animals, fewer forests being cleared, and less CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.



Damfino said:


> I would argue that every one of those countries has far less (and I mean far, FAR) less truly wild land than we have in the U.S. even by percentage.


You'd be wrong. I've been focusing on Sweden so...about 15% of Sweden is protected. Around 14% of the US is protected.



Damfino said:


> I doubt anyone even _knows_ what the natural (pre-human) ecosystems were like in countries like Switzerland because people have been there for so, so long. Those countries have basically no untouched wilderness. Their alpine meadows are grazed by livestock, their forests have all been timbered throughout the centuries (notice they are not gone because timber and meadows are in fact renewable resources), yet they cannot truly be called "wild" in the same way that the U.S. has wilderness.


I never claimed those countries have always done a good job, I did mention that they are now doing a good job.



Damfino said:


> I mentioned selective timbering earlier and you didn't like it. You said timbered forests weren't "protected". Also, trees used for paper are not selectively harvested because the demand is too high. These days, trees that go to paper mills are farmed. They are fast-growing species that are planted and harvested like crops and then replanted.


You did not mention selective timbering, you said timbering in general. Yes, forests able to be timbered are not protected. Timbering is necessary, so we must timber sustainability and leave protected land to be. 



Damfino said:


> Let's not be too doom-and-gloom. People are making progress in lots of areas. Things are much better in the U.S. than they were 50 or 80 years ago. We've learned from some of our mistakes and we've corrected some of our problems. It's a process and it takes time, but all is not lost. I'm of the belief that nature is in fact its own biggest destroyer. Things like super-volcanoes, meteor strikes, a massive solar flare, or too many sunspots could wipe out most species on this planet in a day--it's happened in the past and it can happen again. Yet life goes on. ;-)


I feel that sometimes you have to be doom and gloom. Sometimes that is what motivates you. You fall, and the hurt motivates you to get up and keep going. You get beaten down, and it motivates you to get up. You are upset, it motivates you to make a change. Things are much better now than they were in _some_ aspects. I also do not believe that all is lost, that is why I advocate for changes now before it is all lost. 



Damfino said:


> No, this is not true. The life cycle of aspen trees is actually really cool. Aspens are a major contributor to biodiversity in the Rocky Mountains. For thousands of years, after any wildfire, landslide, volcano, blight, etc. wiped out the spruce trees, aspens would take over en masse. They grow in very poor, acidic soil, and they grow prolifically, sending out suckers from their roots in every direction. A single tree can be miles and miles long. The largest is currently in Utah. It took over a whole mountain long before Europeans ever touched foot there. The food chain thrives in aspen forests. Aspens are related to the willow and their bark provides food for deer and elk in wintertime. Look here at the natural aspen/spruce cycle:


Fascinating! I must admit, I used knowledge that applies to many environments when I made suggestions about the spread of the aspen. It is a very interesting tree, and I now see, very important.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

This is a fun discussion and it reminds me of the days when the old Galcon gaming forum was hopping with passionate teenagers, and my husband and I provided an off-topic discussion page where we debated politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. 

RE: Manmade climate change: 

I think it's neither here nor there. It doesn't matter simply for the reason that we cannot measure our impacts. It's too big a thing to change quickly, so we can't find out whether any changes we make to our behavior are making a positive or negative change to the climate, or making no change whatsoever. Also, any changes humans make to the planet can be swung dramatically in another direction by any of a number of natural phenomena that are far more powerful than we are. There is also way too much we don't know about how the earth works. Let's keep in mind that we haven't even been reliably measuring world climate for more than 100 years in some places and not more than maybe 50 in others. It's like dipping a teacup of water out of the ocean, looking at it, then declaring ourselves experts in oceanography. The piddling handful of things people (even scientists) know are dwarfed by the vast universe of things they don't know. 

I also think "climate change" is a very distracting, polarizing subject that does nothing except prevent people from making concrete, meaningful changes that could actually improve the environment. As long as people keep bickering over whether humans are heating up the planet, it's hard to get them to work together to make tangible changes that may or may not impact the climate to any great degree, but that would have a measurable impact on our immediate surroundings. It's really hard to make people care whether a certain oil drilling operation might change the temperature of the planet by 1/100th of a degree (who could even measure that or tie it definitively to that particular activity??), but most care whether it harms the ecosystem where it's taking place. So this is why I think "climate change" is a rather dangerous red herring. 



> Can you not connect waste management to wildlife? Most of the world's populations' trash goes to landfills, taking space, large motorized equipment, large sheets of plastic, etc.


Of course, but I didn't think that was what the discussion was about. 



> In addition to excellent waste management, Sweden is also very focused on becoming fossil-free. You can certainly connect this to wildlife. Less fossil fuel consumptions= less exploiting natural resources, less displacing animals, fewer forests being cleared, and less CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere


.

I'm not even sure what this means. "Fossil-free" implies swearing off the use of all petroleum products. What fuel is everything running on? And is it _actually_ a better source of fuel than petroleum? (I think of the ethanol disaster in the U.S.) What are they using to replace plastics? And if plastics are replaced, wouldn't that create more demand for timber products and metal (mining)? I'm in favor of reducing the amount of waste in our modern society. In many ways, our ridiculous demands for absolutely everything to be completely sterile has created a huge demand for disposable plastic products, many of which cannot be recycled. Even recycling, which is a noble theory, actually takes huge energy demands that in many cases are more harmful to the environment than manufacturing new products. This is an unfortunate reality that I think we need to address. I'm of the opinion that nearly everything in modern society is over-packaged to the detriment of the planet. 



> You'd be wrong. I've been focusing on Sweden so...about 15% of Sweden is protected. Around 14% of the US is protected.


Once again, I'm not sure what you mean. 28% of the U.S. is federally protected land. Even more is state protected. There are certainly different levels of protection throughout all of these areas, but I have no idea how that compares to levels of protection in Sweden. 



> You did not mention selective timbering, you said timbering in general. Yes, forests able to be timbered are not protected. Timbering is necessary, so we must timber sustainability and leave protected land to be.


Timbering is a blanket term for any kind of tree removal, whether it's selective or not. Timbering does not necessarily imply clear-cutting. A coffin maker here in Colorado specializes in harvesting the beautiful blue and yellow timber from beetle-killed pine. Although he's only cutting select dead trees, he's still "timbering". But that doesn't mean the forest is unprotected. He has a permit to cut the particular trees he harvests from public land, but that permit does not allow him to clear-cut the National Forest. Permitting certain things and not others is how the forest is protected while still allowing it to be used. Same with grazing allotments. Ranchers are allowed by permit to graze a certain number of cattle on a certain specific parcel of land for a certain number of months out of the year. A permit does not give someone blanket permission to turn loose as many cows as they like for as long as they like on any piece of public land they want. The integrity of the land is preserved and even enhanced by allowing such activities under very specific use permits. Therefore even if the land can be used, it is still protected. 



> I feel that sometimes you have to be doom and gloom. Sometimes that is what motivates you. You fall, and the hurt motivates you to get up and keep going. You get beaten down, and it motivates you to get up. You are upset, it motivates you to make a change.


Seeing the urgency of a problem might motivate you at first, but people who have a "doom and gloom" outlook seldom remain motivated. Motivation is spurred by hope, not despair. This is why I am so much against using "climate change" as a tool to spur people to action. I'm convinced that it doe the exact opposite--people see the problem as too big for any individual to tackle, so they can comfortably absolve themselves of responsibility. People have to have hope that a problem can be changed in order to have any motivation whatsoever to even attempt to change it. This is why it's better to motivate people to improve the conditions in their own backyards. You can measurably improve the air quality in your city, restore a forest, or rejuvenate a dead river in less than a human lifetime. This gives people hope and motivates them to do more. If humans are causing climate change, then making these measurable improvements will reverse some of that overall damage. If humans aren't causing climate change, these improvements will still help the planet and not lead to despair over the lack of ability to change the climate. If you make people despair they give up and say, "Why bother?" 

I made this statement in the Coronavirus thread almost a year ago: 

_Oh, and speaking of the environment, it IS really cool to see pictures of so many places now free of smog due to restricted human activity, and waterways that are clear for the first time in decades. That's pretty awesome. Shows what nature can do when given even a short break. There are definitely good things about shutting down human activity, not only for nature but for people as well. We all need a break sometimes._


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> I think it's neither here nor there. It doesn't matter simply for the reason that we cannot measure our impacts. It's too big a thing to change quickly, so we can't find out whether any changes we make to our behavior are making a positive or negative change to the climate, or making no change whatsoever.


Climate change is everywhere to some extent, so I don't know what you mean by it is neither here nor there. Some places are experiencing the effects of climate change more than others. Here is a great graph the shows the correlation of human developments and global temperature: 












Damfino said:


> There is also way too much we don't know about how the earth works. Let's keep in mind that we haven't even been reliably measuring world climate for more than 100 years in some places and not more than maybe 50 in others. It's like dipping a teacup of water out of the ocean, looking at it, then declaring ourselves experts in oceanography. The piddling handful of things people (even scientists) know are dwarfed by the vast universe of things they don't know.


While we don't have exact temperatures from the last 1,000 years, we do know what the climate has been like to some degree. Using archaeological evidence and patterns we see all around the world, scientists have been able to predict what the climate was like throughout the ages. Scientists have found fossils that suggest animals lived where they don't anymore because of warmer climates and higher sea levels.



Damfino said:


> I also think "climate change" is a very distracting, polarizing subject that does nothing except prevent people from making concrete, meaningful changes that could actually improve the environment. As long as people keep bickering over whether humans are heating up the planet, it's hard to get them to work together to make tangible changes that may or may not impact the climate to any great degree, but that would have a measurable impact on our immediate surroundings.


"Climate change" is truly polarizing. However, if it wasn't "advertised" so heavily, I don't think there would be much action or push for a stabilized climate. There is a lot of resentment between people with different opinions on climate change. Therefore, no many tangible changes are made. I think this is because, unfortunately, the greater debate seems to be people who don't understand climate change (I use "understand" rather than "believe in" because climate change is real, some people just ignore the facts) arguing against people who do understand climate change and that is why nothing gets done. If people like you and me were in government, I think the earth would be a much greener place because, while disagreeing on the cause of climate change, we both believe it is real and that we need to protect nature's integrity. 



Damfino said:


> It's really hard to make people care whether a certain oil drilling operation might change the temperature of the planet by 1/100th of a degree (who could even measure that or tie it definitively to that particular activity??), but most care whether it harms the ecosystem where it's taking place. So this is why I think "climate change" is a rather dangerous red herring.


1/100th of a degree, when talking about a change in earth's climate is relatively significant. I use the term relatively. If your house warms by 1/100th of a degree, that doesn't mean anything. If the entire world warms by 1/100th of a degree, that is a significant change that I care about. 99 more of such operations would lead to a whole degree of warming around the world and that degree can have and will have devastating effects.



Damfino said:


> I'm not even sure what this means. "Fossil-free" implies swearing off the use of all petroleum products. What fuel is everything running on? And is it _actually_ a better source of fuel than petroleum? (I think of the ethanol disaster in the U.S.) What are they using to replace plastics? And if plastics are replaced, wouldn't that create more demand for timber products and metal (mining)?


That is what fossil-free means. Sweden plans to switch to renewable energy by 2050, and renewable energy is much better than petroleum. Sweden plans to focus on solar and wind energy specifically. Increased taxes on diesel and petroleum will finance the changes, as well as the sale of coal mines. I am not sure about plastics. A carbon tax has also been introduced to penalize the use of carbon fuels. Here is a great article that talks all about Sweden's goals. Saving the climate | The official site of Sweden



Damfino said:


> I'm in favor of reducing the amount of waste in our modern society. In many ways, our ridiculous demands for absolutely everything to be completely sterile has created a huge demand for disposable plastic products, many of which cannot be recycled. Even recycling, which is a noble theory, actually takes huge energy demands that in many cases are more harmful to the environment than manufacturing new products. This is an unfortunate reality that I think we need to address. I'm of the opinion that nearly everything in modern society is over-packaged to the detriment of the planet.


I agree. We have become a country of convenience- water comes in super small bottles, we have individually wrapped candies, small cans of soda, etc. This leads to more and more waste that can be avoided.




Damfino said:


> Once again, I'm not sure what you mean. 28% of the U.S. is federally protected land. Even more is state protected. There are certainly different levels of protection throughout all of these areas, but I have no idea how that compares to levels of protection in Sweden.


There is not much on the internet about who owns land in Sweden. The first page of this website states that 14% of the US is protected land. What Percentage Of the United States Is Protected Land?. This website states 14.9% of Sweden is protected: Protected nature. That is where I got my information from.



Damfino said:


> Timbering is a blanket term for any kind of tree removal, whether it's selective or not. Timbering does not necessarily imply clear-cutting. A coffin maker here in Colorado specializes in harvesting the beautiful blue and yellow timber from beetle-killed pine. Although he's only cutting select dead trees, he's still "timbering". But that doesn't mean the forest is unprotected.


I am not completely opposed to this. I think it is good that this man is giving these dead trees another life, kinda ironic lol. To take down a few dead trees in a protected area and here and there is ok and that doesn't mean the area is unprotected Large-scale timbering of any kind in a protected area is not ok. Timbering should be reserved for privately owned land or tree farms. When you mention grazing, I'm not so sure that it is a good idea. Livestock would eat small trees that are necessary to the future and health of the forest. How do you figure that it ok? 



Damfino said:


> Seeing the urgency of a problem might motivate you at first, but people who have a "doom and gloom" outlook seldom remain motivated. Motivation is spurred by hope, not despair. This is why I am so much against using "climate change" as a tool to spur people to action. I'm convinced that it doe the exact opposite--people see the problem as too big for any individual to tackle, so they can comfortably absolve themselves of responsibility.


How do you expect anybody to do anything about something that isn't talked about? If "climate change" is not promoted, how will anyone know it exists to do something? A lot of people don't help the cause, but some people do because of the advocacy for climate changes. Take the coronavirus for example, if it wasn't talked about everywhere, on signs, TV, etc. how would people know how to protect themselves? COVID 19 is a doom and gloom subject, but because of its popularity, there are some scientists that are working to end the pandemic, despite how hard that seems. 



Damfino said:


> This is why it's better to motivate people to improve the conditions in their own backyards. You can measurably improve the air quality in your city, restore a forest, or rejuvenate a dead river in less than a human lifetime. This gives people hope and motivates them to do more. If humans are causing climate change, then making these measurable improvements will reverse some of that overall damage. If humans aren't causing climate change, these improvements will still help the planet and not lead to despair over the lack of ability to change the climate.


While people improving air quality, rejuvenating dead forests, etc. are all great, it won't do much to combat climate change. We need more regulations of factories and mining operations that are the driving force of climate change.


----------



## jschies (Aug 15, 2014)

I visited the zoo in Houston, Tx yesterday. While there, my husband bought bottled water for $4 each. This water was amazing because they take the excess spring water from a little town in New York, pay 6 times the municipal rate so they are helping the local economy, using mostly paper and plant based plastic for the bottle, then shipping it halfway across the United States to Houston. They printed all of that on the bottle except the shipping part. It fits the mindset of most of the "save the world" people. Great ideas, but not finished. Why couldn't they find the same type of product (the bottle) in Houston? It seems to be all about making people feel good about spending $4 for a bottle of water.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

> Climate change is everywhere to some extent, so I don't know what you mean by it is neither here nor there. Some places are experiencing the effects of climate change more than others. Here is a great graph the shows the correlation of human developments and global temperature:


"Neither here nor there" is just a figure of speech that means "it doesn't matter either way." As for the graph, correlation does not equal causation, and it still doesn't change my stance that "climate change" is a highly controversial red herring that does absolutely _nothing_ to advance sound environmental practices.



> While we don't have exact temperatures from the last 1,000 years, we do know what the climate has been like to some degree. Using archaeological evidence and patterns we see all around the world, scientists have been able to predict what the climate was like throughout the ages. Scientists have found fossils that suggest animals lived where they don't anymore because of warmer climates and higher sea levels.


Exactly my point. In the past, the climate has been significantly warmer and the seas significantly higher than they are today. Some past changes to the earth's climate have been extremely sudden. The earth has gone through far greater extremes than what we're seeing today, so I see no cause for alarm. The earth was never meant to be a static, stable, predictable entity (much to the chagrin of scientists who tend to want total control of all variables). I'm just grateful that the climatologists of the 1970's were wrong about man-made global cooling and an impending ice age. It went from "global cooling" in the 1970's (my dad remembers that one), to "global warming" in the 1980's and '90's, and now "climate change" because the predicted warming has not been nearly as rapid or predictable as predicted. When I was in school, I was taught that we would run out of fossil fuels by around 2015, and by now the polar ice caps should be totally melted, the rising seas should have wiped out many of our ports and oceanside cities, and the ozone should be mostly depleted. None of that happened or even came close to happening. Now ask me why I doubt the accuracy (and even the integrity!) of scientists and their predictions. This is exactly why "climate change" fear tactics are terrible for spurring environmental action.

But that doesn't mean I'm against making positive changes to the way we interact with our environment. If the earth began cooling off tomorrow (and I believe it certainly could), it would _not_ indicate to me that humans somehow "saved" the planet. We need to be good stewards of the earth regardless of the climate. For example, I think it's great that Sweden is doing what it can to protect its environment in a variety of ways. We can all do better and I think in general we are. Large-scale agriculture is probably the biggest stewardship problem we face on this planet. Our global demand for cheap, convenient, perfect food of all varieties from around the globe has given rise to monocropping and the overuse of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, water, resources to transport goods to distant markets, etc. We seriously need to rethink agriculture and get back to some of the older, more symbiotic farming methods, and consumers need to learn to be ok with not having certain things all the time--like fresh produce when it's out of season, for example. 



> There is not much on the internet about who owns land in Sweden. The first page of this website states that 14% of the US is protected land. What Percentage Of the United States Is Protected Land?. This website states 14.9% of Sweden is protected: Protected nature. That is where I got my information from.


This website is unhelpful because it never defines "protected" and on the page for the U.S. it lists National Parks as some of our "protected" areas! In my experience, National Parks are some of the least "protected" areas in the U.S. because they are overrun with tourists! For example, you may not be allowed to hunt in a National Park, but the wildlife is far more impacted by humans than wildlife in "unprotected" areas where hunting is allowed. So I have to question what they actually mean when they say "protected". 



> Timbering should be reserved for privately owned land or tree farms. When you mention grazing, I'm not so sure that it is a good idea. Livestock would eat small trees that are necessary to the future and health of the forest. How do you figure that it ok?


Allowing timber harvesting only on private land is a "let them eat cake" mentality that puts all the economic power into the hands of a few wealthy individuals while denying unpropertied people a living or even heating their own homes! I know a few people who own sawmills, but they don't own enough land to make a living from cutting only their own timber (one guy lives on 1/4 acre in town!). And if they only cut their own private trees, it would be bad for the environment because their property would be over-timbered. It's not sound environmental practice to encourage poor ecological habits as long as it's on private land. As for tree farms, in general I am against them because it's another form of monocropping. It might be necessary in some cases, but overall it's a terrible practice. Denying people the use of public land for timber also forces them to heat their homes with alternative fuel sources (mostly fossil fuels). When you live in the mountains, you usually burn wood to heat your home. It's a renewable resource and there is plenty of dead timber in the mountains for the taking (with a firewood cutting permit of course). Cutting and removing dead timber and thinning overgrown forests is healthy and it provides heat, lumber, and local industry. I don't see any downsides to this. 

Grazing is another resource that locals can use for their own sustenance. In many places there is not enough privately owned land for most people to raise local beef. Once again, if you restrict grazing only to private ranches, it concentrates all the wealth and power into the hands of a few people with huge spreads. Grazing contracts on public land allow smaller ranches to have access to more grazing during certain times of the year. It's healthier for the cattle if they can range, and it's healthier for the land than concentrating all the cattle onto small private parcels. Cattle are good for the range because their habits are almost identical to native bison. They clear out a lot of undergrowth and make paths for smaller animals like deer and turkeys. As long as the land is not overgrazed, keeping ruminants on it is an environmental positive. 



> How do you expect anybody to do anything about something that isn't talked about? If "climate change" is not promoted, how will anyone know it exists to do something? A lot of people don't help the cause, but some people do because of the advocacy for climate changes. Take the coronavirus for example, if it wasn't talked about everywhere, on signs, TV, etc. how would people know how to protect themselves? COVID 19 is a doom and gloom subject, but because of its popularity, there are some scientists that are working to end the pandemic, despite how hard that seems.


Don't get me started on the pandemic! I've been opposed to how it was "talked about" since the beginning. I'm firmly of the opinion that the media is guilty of screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and creating a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive panic. Did you know that the U.S. media was far and away more negative about COVID than news sources in the rest of the world? Looks like all that negativity didn't help our situation one bit! 



> While people improving air quality, rejuvenating dead forests, etc. are all great, it won't do much to combat climate change. We need more regulations of factories and mining operations that are the driving force of climate change.


There you go proving my point again! If helping the environment won't impact the climate, then what's the point of doing anything at all? We can comfortably rely on government to regulate factories for us instead. Meanwhile, I've never heard anyone talk about the supposed climate equilibrium which we are supposed to achieve. What is the "climate end goal"? What is the theoretical "sweet spot" from which the earth's climate should never deviate? What if, despite all our efforts, the climate deviates anyway (which it probably will because it's the climate and it was never meant to be totally stable), what then? 



> If people like you and me were in government, I think the earth would be a much greener place because, while disagreeing on the cause of climate change, we both believe it is real and that we need to protect nature's integrity.


I had to go back to this one because my husband once bought the domain "www.nanqueenoftheworld.com". 

Personally, I'm extremely happy NOT to work in government! I was an activist who dabbled in politics back in 2008 and I learned enough not to get too close again. The problem with giving people enough power to do a great deal of good is that they also have the power to do a great deal of bad. And since power is a corrupting influence, usually it means people end up abusing their power more often than not. I have zero faith in government officials at the federal level to handle environmental problems since nearly all of them are rich city people with only a hazy idea of what an ecosystem actually is or how to protect it while also protecting local industry. 

There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle, and we can all do our small part, but none of us can individually be responsible for climate change. The climate will do what the climate will do, but we can do measurable things to improve our own backyards. However, just to brag a little, I'm doing the most anyone can do to "save the climate"--I'm not reproducing. That's right! My husband and I have no kids! If we do nothing else, no matter how many resources we hog, we'll still have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than every climate-conscious vegan on the planet having babies!


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> correlation does not equal causation


I _most_ instances, correlation does equal causation. For example, you feed your goat vitamins, it gets healthier. It could be getting healthier from some other strange reason, but the highly highly likely reason your goat is healthier is that you starting giving it vitamins. We are reducing forest size to build greenhouse gas emitting buildings on, and we are noticing an increase in the earth's global temperature. It _could_ just be a coincidence, or it could be, logically thinking, that human actions are the cause of global climate change.



Damfino said:


> I'm just grateful that the climatologists of the 1970's were wrong about man-made global cooling and an impending ice age. It went from "global cooling" in the 1970's (my dad remembers that one), to "global warming" in the 1980's and '90's, and now "climate change" because the predicted warming has not been nearly as rapid or predictable as predicted.


In the 1970s climatologists were investigating the effects of increased emissions. At the time, the two main emissions were CO2 and aerosols. CO2, we all know, is heat-trapping. Aerosols actually are tiny particles that block sunlight and can lead to cooler ground temperatures. That is why there was a disagreement between scientists at the time over what way the climate was headed. Studies showed that aerosol-related cooling by a factor of 4 in aerosol concentration could reduce surface temperatures by as much as 3.5K. As laws were passed, the amount of aerosols in the air declined, and we headed out of the "ice age". Did you know that there were 6 times more studies predicting warming in the 1970s than there were studies predicting cooling?



Damfino said:


> When I was in school, I was taught that we would run out of fossil fuels by around 2015, and by now the polar ice caps should be totally melted, the rising seas should have wiped out many of our ports and oceanside cities, and the ozone should be mostly depleted. None of that happened or even came close to happening.


This is because there are at least some people that have made significant positive impacts on the environment since then. If we would have continued at the rate of destruction we were then, we could be very well experienced those effects you listed by 2015. 



Damfino said:


> But that doesn't mean I'm against making positive changes to the way we interact with our environment. If the earth began cooling off tomorrow (and I believe it certainly could), it would _not_ indicate to me that humans somehow "saved" the planet. We need to be good stewards of the earth regardless of the climate. For example, I think it's great that Sweden is doing what it can to protect its environment in a variety of ways. We can all do better and I think in general we are. Large-scale agriculture is probably the biggest stewardship problem we face on this planet. Our global demand for cheap, convenient, perfect food of all varieties from around the globe has given rise to monocropping and the overuse of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, water, resources to transport goods to distant markets, etc. We seriously need to rethink agriculture and get back to some of the older, more symbiotic farming methods, and consumers need to learn to be ok with not having certain things all the time--like fresh produce when it's out of season, for example.


I like this very much! 



Damfino said:


> Allowing timber harvesting only on private land is a "let them eat cake" mentality that puts all the economic power into the hands of a few wealthy individuals while denying unpropertied people a living or even heating their own homes! I know a few people who own sawmills, but they don't own enough land to make a living from cutting only their own timber (one guy lives on 1/4 acre in town!). And if they only cut their own private trees, it would be bad for the environment because their property would be over-timbered.


If you own lots of forested land, then yes, you do have the power to make a huge profit over it, compared to someone who doesn't. They bought the land, so now they get to do what they want with it. That is just capitalism at its finest, the wealthy are more privileged. The people that don't own trees to cut would have to buy it, it is not like they are being denied the ability to heat their homes. I'm not sure why someone would buy a sawmill if they don't have access to wood.

I do not understand why you say if everyone only cut their own private trees, it would be bad for the environment. Everyone owns different sizes of land. You could own 150 acres and clear the whole thing so you could profit, or you could own 5 acres and selective cut trees and have enough for your house. 

I am against timbering protected areas. Protected areas are placing where no large-scale operations should take place to protect endangered species or species that have a hard time growing to begin with. If we clear cut, or even selective cut, it opens up the forest to invasive plants. Native, slow-growing, maybe even endangered plants, would have a hard time growing, and might not even grow at all. Having protected areas allows for native species to exist as they would have without humans. 



Damfino said:


> Cutting and removing dead timber and thinning overgrown forests is healthy and it provides heat, lumber, and local industry. I don't see any downsides to this.


If a few people went into the woods and got some dead lumber-fine. If everyone runs to the wood to gather dead timber, then you take out too many good things away from the woods. Dead trees and dead wood are good for forests in moderation. They provide nutrient-rich soil when they break down and provide a home to many insects and fungi. 



Damfino said:


> Once again, if you restrict grazing only to private ranches, it concentrates all the wealth and power into the hands of a few people with huge spreads.


Again, this is just capitalism. Wealthier people own more property, more possessions, and have more power. We could give everyone an equal amount of land, but I don't think you would agree with this much. 



Damfino said:


> Don't get me started on the pandemic! I've been opposed to how it was "talked about" since the beginning. I'm firmly of the opinion that the media is guilty of screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and creating a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive panic. Did you know that the U.S. media was far and away more negative about COVID than news sources in the rest of the world? Looks like all that negativity didn't help our situation one bit!


I don't want to get side-tracked on this, but I will say that it is not the media's fault for the state of the country now, it is the leader's fault and the fault of the people who don't listen to the scientists (similar to the way people don't listen to climate scientists).



Damfino said:


> There you go proving my point again! If helping the environment won't impact the climate, then what's the point of doing anything at all? We can comfortably rely on government to regulate factories for us instead. Meanwhile, I've never heard anyone talk about the supposed climate equilibrium which we are supposed to achieve. What is the "climate end goal"? What is the theoretical "sweet spot" from which the earth's climate should never deviate? What if, despite all our efforts, the climate deviates anyway (which it probably will because it's the climate and it was never meant to be totally stable), what then?


If we _all_ make small differences, like mentioned before, we would impact the environment in a very good way, and quite possibly, the climate. The keyword is "all". I think it is more effective for the government to regulate factories, but I still think we should all make small efforts here and there for our local environment at least. 

Indeed, the climate is not perfectly stable, nor will it ever be. The end goal would be to achieve net 0 emissions.



Damfino said:


> I'm doing the most anyone can do to "save the climate"--I'm not reproducing. That's right! My husband and I have no kids! If we do nothing else, no matter how many resources we hog, we'll still have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than every climate-conscious vegan on the planet having babies!


Good job lol🤣!


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

> I _most_ instances, correlation does equal causation.


Nevertheless, "climate change" is _still_ a red herring. Causation in his case doesn't matter because it can't be satisfactorily proven to any layperson, the predictions and goalposts are always moving, and even if it could be proven it can't be influenced by any individual so there is no action point. In fact, I tend to think talk of "climate change" leads directly to apathy and inaction for most people. It's a study in futility.



> In the 1970s climatologists were investigating the effects of...


Yes, but climatologists are _always_ finding new variables that they didn't account for before. It's been happening for decades now. The predictions they make are limited by the knowledge they have, and there will always be knowledge they don't have. In fact, I would state that the knowledge they have now is a drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge they will have in another 50 years. This is why I love reading about observations but I put very little faith in predictions.



> Did you know that there were 6 times more studies predicting warming in the 1970s than there were studies predicting cooling?


Yes, but the number of studies matters less than who has the loudest voice and can command the most attention. It's not what you know, it's who you know. 

Over the years I've spoken to researchers in various scientific fields and the reality is that every one of them has stated that certain things can't be published or even whispered about no matter how much evidence exists that more study is warranted. Sadly, some questions can't even be asked. If a scientist pursues a question that runs counter to the "established" narrative, they won't get funding and they can't get peer reviewed, which means they can't get published. If they can't get published then it's not "official" and can't be taken seriously. Unfortunately scientists are still human and subject to the same pitfalls as the rest of us.

I'm battling this exact problem with the packgoat vs. bighorn sheep issue right now. There is plenty of data that suggests goats are not a disease threat to bighorns, but the "established" (yet unproven!) science says they are. I know one researcher who has done a ton of wonderful in-depth and careful study in this field but can't get published because she ran afoul of a colleague who was paid to produce certain results which were peer reviewed (by his wife it turns out!) and published. The whistleblower was blacklisted and her research discounted because she uncovered dirt on a senior researcher. I have other even crazier stories from different researchers across a lot of different scientific fields who have told similar stories. Unfortunately there is quite often an established narrative that no one can challenge, and unfortunately politics, money, religion, and popular opinion all play into it. This is why there will always be doubt, and why there actually _should_ be doubt when it comes to believing scientists. They are not infallible, unquestionable, superhuman gods. 



> This is because there are at least some people that have made significant positive impacts on the environment since then. If we would have continued at the rate of destruction we were then, we could be very well experienced those effects you listed by 2015.


Um... no. The predictions were just plain wrong. That's all there is to it.



> If you own lots of forested land, then yes, you do have the power to make a huge profit over it, compared to someone who doesn't. They bought the land, so now they get to do what they want with it. That is just capitalism at its finest, the wealthy are more privileged. The people that don't own trees to cut would have to buy it, it is not like they are being denied the ability to heat their homes. I'm not sure why someone would buy a sawmill if they don't have access to wood.


Welcome to Merrie Olde England! I don't think you're grasping the concept of "The Commons". There is a LOT of land that is not owned by any individual (in some places a lot more is public than is private!). It is "owned" by the government, a.k.a. "The People". "The People" need to be able to live in their own environment even if they can't buy it. If, as in many places out west, the government "owns" all the land, then under your system it would mean NO ONE could cut timber--everyone must buy it (even to heat their homes) because there is not enough private land anywhere to harvest timber. In other words, in order to live here, you would have to import lumber from distant places even if you live in the middle of a forest! That makes zero sense economically or environmentally.

Therefore allowance is made for timber harvesting from "The Commons". It's why my friend who lives in town can purchase a small lot and build a sawmill. He gets a timber permit so he can go into the mountains and cut wood to haul to his sawmill and make furniture for a living. Other citizens who don't own timbered property or sawmills can still buy timber permits and pay my friend to mill the timber for them and then they can make cabinets and furniture and build homes from it. This is far more environmentally friendly than importing wood from Canada! Almost everyone in town buys a firewood cutting permit so they can heat their homes in the winter. This is also better than burning fossil fuels or importing firewood from afar! Local is better and more sustainable. And it doesn't mean the land is "unprotected". It just means people can use it sustainably. No one is allowed to clear-cut or bring in huge timbering operations or even use large equipment. Their permits don't allow it. Permits not only specify how many trees can be harvested, but also what sizes and types of trees can be taken. It's not a free-for-all (like it would be on private land).



> I do not understand why you say if everyone only cut their own private trees, it would be bad for the environment.


See my last quote from the previous paragraph. Private land is a bit of a free-for-all which can be worse for the environment than allowing permitted use of public land--particularly if said private land is owned by some faceless corporation and not by an individual who actually has to live there and who cares about their property. If you disallowed all use of public land in the name of "environmental protection" it would place a much higher demand on private land, leading to higher likelihood of abuse of that land, while at the same time taking us back to the medieval feudal system where a few wealthy individuals and "The King" (here it would be the U.S. Government) control all the resources and the serfs can't scratch a living off any of it. That's not a good system.



> I don't want to get side-tracked on this, but I will say that it is not the media's fault for the state of the country now, it is the leader's fault and the fault of the people who don't listen to the scientists (similar to the way people don't listen to climate scientists).


HA! The media is about 98% to blame for the state of the country right now, and the "leadership" (if you can call it that) is just a subset of the media at this point. It's all a big circus. I'm not sure who the ringmaster is, but the "leaders" are definitely the clowns! As for people not listening to scientists--they never have and they never will, and I can't fault them for it. Every calculation should expect and predict for people to not listen to scientists and experts. Any model that doesn't take real human behavior into account is faulty from the start. You can't blame people for acting like people. You can only blame the leaders and experts for not predicting the obvious. People have lives to live that usually don't include listening to sermons from so-called experts and scientists who scream at them that the sky is falling. 



> The end goal would be to achieve net 0 emissions.


There's no such things as zero emissions. As long as there is one organism left on the planet that can fart, emissions will always be greater than zero. Anyone for chili? 😂


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

New to this thread but not new to this bill. This is honestly scary and I am sure it is not going to work out in the farmers favor. The wording on it is horrendous


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Goatzrule said:


> New to this thread but not new to this bill. This is honestly scary and I am sure it is not going to work out in the farmers favor. The wording on it is horrendous


Luckily there is a LOT of opposition building up, and many organizations are already putting together targeted ads. I even read somewhere that it's possible the bill won't make it onto the ballot at all because the wording is being challenged in some type of court. Sorry, I can't remember the details. I'm on a mailing list that sends me up-to-date info, but it's been a couple of weeks and baby goats have been shoving many other things out of my brain. When baby goats start running around, nothing else seems to matter very much.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

I hope that it wont get there but with how its worded its going to fall short.


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> Nevertheless, "climate change" is _still_ a red herring. Causation in his case doesn't matter because it can't be satisfactorily proven to any layperson, the predictions and goalposts are always moving, and even if it could be proven it can't be influenced by any individual so there is no action point. In fact, I tend to think talk of "climate change" leads directly to apathy and inaction for most people. It's a study in futility.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I look at the evidence and it is too convincing to me to not believe. Since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have been rising. What happened during the Industrial Revolution? More CO2 was put into the area, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Since then, large amounts of CO2 have been emitted into the air, and forests that capture the heating trapping gas are being depleted, therefore the earth warms. It makes perfect sense to me and I don't understand how you discard all the evidence and decide that it isn't important. 



Damfino said:


> Yes, but climatologists are _always_ finding new variables that they didn't account for before. It's been happening for decades now. The predictions they make are limited by the knowledge they have, and there will always be knowledge they don't have. In fact, I would state that the knowledge they have now is a drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge they will have in another 50 years. This is why I love reading about observations but I put very little faith in predictions.


You bring up the ice age, I rebuttal it, and now you say well whatever, they didn't know much back then. I hope you see why that argument is faulty. Yes, there is always new information coming out, but that doesn't mean what we know now isn't true.



Damfino said:


> Over the years I've spoken to researchers in various scientific fields and the reality is that every one of them has stated that certain things can't be published or even whispered about no matter how much evidence exists that more study is warranted. Sadly, some questions can't even be asked. If a scientist pursues a question that runs counter to the "established" narrative, they won't get funding and they can't get peer reviewed, which means they can't get published. If they can't get published then it's not "official" and can't be taken seriously. Unfortunately scientists are still human and subject to the same pitfalls as the rest of us.


Yes, that is a very very bad problem. Maybe there isn't much to support your reasoning because 97% of scientists would agree that climate change is human-driven, or maybe it is because there isn't any evidence to go contrary to the popular belief!



Damfino said:


> Welcome to Merrie Olde England! I don't think you're grasping the concept of "The Commons". There is a LOT of land that is not owned by any individual (in some places a lot more is public than is private!). It is "owned" by the government, a.k.a. "The People". "The People" need to be able to live in their own environment even if they can't buy it. If, as in many places out west, the government "owns" all the land, then under your system it would mean NO ONE could cut timber--everyone must buy it (even to heat their homes) because there is not enough private land anywhere to harvest timber. In other words, in order to live here, you would have to import lumber from distant places even if you live in the middle of a forest! That makes zero sense economically or environmentally.


If you live in the middle of a forest and heat your house with wood, you more than likely have a nice sized piece of land to get your own wood from.

I think you are starting to get into economic systems here. First, you were complaining because some people owned more land than others, so do you want everyone to have the same amount of land, the same amount of wealth, etc like you would have in a socialist society. Then you started saying you want everyone to be able to use the land around them, so do you want no one to own land and everyone be left to harvest wood from government-owned land, like in a communist society? There are people that own more land than others, more wealth than others, more power than others, but that is the society we live in. Protected land is protected land that foresters are left to maintain as a natural area safe from human harm. If you live in the woods with no property, then that is your fault. You either have to more or import wood. 



Damfino said:


> Local is better and more sustainable. And it doesn't mean the land is "unprotected". It just means people can use it sustainably. No one is allowed to clear-cut or bring in huge timbering operations or even use large equipment. Their permits don't allow it. Permits not only specify how many trees can be harvested, but also what sizes and types of trees can be taken. It's not a free-for-all (like it would be on private land).


Local is better and more sustainable definitely. As I said, most people who live in the woods would own a significant bit of land, so they would not be importing fire wood. The people that would be importing wood would be people who live in more urban areas, which they would most likely not even heat their homes with firewood. I think the permits are a good thing, for a few people to have. What happens if a bunch of people gets permits, and the permits specific...say 30-foot black oaks, 40 sugar maples, and 50-foot poplar are allowed to be taken. (I just picked a random few). Then you have people taking these kinds of trees out of "protected lands" significantly reducing their numbers. Not to mention, the trees have to fall somewhere, and where they fall they leave a path of destruction, possibly crushing a few more trees beneath them. 



Damfino said:


> Any model that doesn't take real human behavior into account is faulty from the start. You can't blame people for acting like people. You can only blame the leaders and experts for not predicting the obvious. People have lives to live that usually don't include listening to sermons from so-called experts and scientists who scream at them that the sky is falling.


It is faulty to expect a person to wear a face-covering above their nose to go into a grocery store? Is it really that big of an expense to protect other people from a potentially life-threatening pandemic? How does where a mask and social distancing derail your private life so much that you decide you you won't listen. The scientists are doing their best, and are trying to bring the country of this disaster, but some stubborn people are prolonging it. We could have been out of this by, or not in this at all if we listened to the science from the gecko. 



Damfino said:


> There's no such things as zero emissions. As long as there is one organism left on the planet that can fart, emissions will always be greater than zero. Anyone for chili? 😂


Net 0 emissions mean that all the CO2 emitted into the air is then captured. Humans output 29 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to the 750 gigatons in the carbon cycle. The earth cannot absorb all the extra CO2 so about 60% of the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere.


----------



## toth boer goats (Jul 20, 2008)

We all have our own opinions and beliefs as do I. 
I hate to lock this thread if it gets out of control. So please remember to not get carried away. 

The posts are getting way too long and takes up a lot of time to read through. 
So please, try to keep it shorter.
Thanks


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm sorry Toth. I thought we were both being quite respectful. I enjoy sharing and debating opinions and various points of view and I think it's a way for everyone to learn something or at least see things in a different light. It's important to try to understand one another even if we don't agree, and to see that no one way is 100% correct. Every single choice we make has both positive and negative impacts for both ourselves and others. To talk out one's point of view is even a way to filter it through our own minds and figure out what we truly believe, what we're not sure about, and what things we might decide to see differently from before. Many of the very firm beliefs I held in high school, college, and beyond are quite different now, and some things I didn't care about then I care about deeply now. I expect my beliefs will mature further over the coming decades. I hope all human beings can experience changes and growth, and much of that comes from hashing things out with others, whether in person or online. Sadly, debate is an art that is swiftly becoming lost in a culture where only certain things are allowed to be said and only certain questions are allowed to be asked. 

I hope, if nothing else, that we are at least amusing our dear readers with our "tempest in a teapot".


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

I believe this concludes our debate Damfino? That debate could have gone on forever, as you can see it gradually changed from topic to topic starting with wolves! I must say, I found your opinion to be very respectable. There were times you mentioned something and I thought, "Hmmmm, that makes sense. I didn't think about that before" and I actually agreed with you on many of the small things you mentioned. For a long time now, I wanted to grow up to be an environmentalist, or an environmental lawyer, so this was great practice. Although, ever since I got goats, I want to be a veterinarian . Thank you for entertaining my questions and rebuttals, and for remaining classy! I remain fixed on my stance, but you allowed be to see the intelligence of the other side as well.


----------



## Kass (Apr 26, 2020)

I loved reading through this thread! Very informative and everyone stayed polite or agreed to disagree! I don't really know anything on this subject, so I don't have anything to add, but thank you, it was very interesting.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

I applaud you two for never divulging into ad hominem fallacies like so many "arguments" turn into these days. You both made a great example of how differences should be resolved.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

This bill just got introduced to oregon, you bet new york, California, and every other similar state are next. California and New York is our top ag producing states. We'll end up seeing a food shortage if this passes either of those states or even worse, both.


----------



## goathiker (Apr 14, 2011)

The one for Oregon is even worse. It basically outlaws all dairy farms, selective breeding, spaying and neutering, and makes ALL animal slaughter felony animal cruelty. 
The sad thing is that Oregon already has really good animal laws that are above the national average. 

Don't even talk to me about unmanaged forest right now lol. The planting on this property was never thinned at the proper times so I'm trying to fix it before the entire forest dies. It's not fun to see 20 year old trees so weak that you can push them over by hand. 
You do want some dead wood, on average around 4 dead trees per acre but, what was done here is just flat neglect. The trees are all starving to death.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

Its getting scary. Theres some states we just arent going to win. Tiktok is doing a great job of educating


----------



## Mike at Capra Vista (Nov 30, 2017)

I wonder when big tech will start cancelling, deplatforming people and groups who speak out against these proposals.


----------



## toth boer goats (Jul 20, 2008)

You all are great, continue your debate. 

I just had to put in a reminder to keep it friendly because the thread has grown so much and want to keep it friendly in case.

But it is so time consuming to read through so much, when you are moderating many threads.


----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

I have truly enjoyed the opinions expressed on this thread. I must also admit I couldn't read it all.
I am also terrified by people who think they are environmentalists (though they are not in touch with the land as farmers are) getting laws passed to "protect" animals. I came close to losing goats due to restrictions on drugs and vets. Our local rep totally ignored my pleas that rather than protecting animals; they are killing them.


----------



## goathiker (Apr 14, 2011)

Nebraska is looking better and better all the time lol.


----------



## goathiker (Apr 14, 2011)

As an example of this trend. We voted in new big cages for commercial hens that gave them twice the amount of room. Then the environmental groups decided that they wanted free range instead. 
I don't know if people didn't actually read the text or what but, when it all switches next year they will all be loose in barns (eating each other) but, the individual space goes back to 1sq foot per bird. 
Anyone who sees the reality of chickens knows that it's going to be a blood bath.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

luvmyherd said:


> I have truly enjoyed the opinions expressed on this thread. I must also admit I couldn't read it all.
> I am also terrified by people who think they are environmentalists (though they are not in touch with the land as farmers are) getting laws passed to "protect" animals. I came close to losing goats due to restrictions on drugs and vets. Our local rep totally ignored my pleas that rather than protecting animals; they are killing them.


I find it interesting that the loudest, most outspoken "environmentalists" all tend to live in cities where the environment has been completely paved over, and they think "wilderness" means a National Park. (That one drives me crazy!) The people who pass laws about animal welfare have never owned anything bigger than a dog or cat and the closest many of them have been to a farm is looking at cattle at the State Fair. 

Years ago the crazies up in Boulder passed a law in Colorado that you can't euthanize a horse with a bullet. You have to call a vet to come do it chemically. This isn't possible in most rural areas. Our vets don't come to us (or if they do, it may be many hours). If we need immediate help, we have to go to them, and if a horse is colicking badly or has a broken leg, it can't be hauled. So legally we have to let it suffer until it dies. Obviously no one does this. We shoot, shovel, and shut up. The people that pass these laws have no idea what it's like to live an hour or more from a vet clinic. They also have no clue that chemically euthanizing a horse is not the same as a dog or cat. Their hearts are enormous and it takes time to for them actually stop. My mare knew we were killing her the second that drug went into her vein. She snorted in terror, reared up, and flipped over backwards before she died. Many lie struggling on the ground and a few even make a terrified gallop around an arena before they go down. It doesn't always happen this way--old horses may go down quite peacefully, but nevertheless, vets often advise owners not to be there in case it turns ugly. A well-placed bullet is instantaneous and the horse never knows what hit it. But city people who don't have horses think shooting a horse is "violent" so they called it abuse and outlawed it.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

I really dont think anyone who has no education in a topic should be making or proposing laws for that topic. It really goes for everything.
Suzie shouldnt be making car seat laws because her kids free ranged in the backseat and "were fine" opposed to someone whose studied child safety. Same goes to Brad in his Prius who only encounter with a cow is watching Dominion, shouldnt be making laws for someone who spent 4 years in college studying an agriculture degree plus the years of hands on labor.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

MellonFriend said:


> I applaud you two for never divulging into ad hominem fallacies like so many "arguments" turn into these days. You both made a great example of how differences should be resolved.


The funny thing is that differences usually are not "resolved" any more than they have been in this thread. We all have to learn to live with the fact that other people will never see eye to eye with us, but we can learn to respect each other's viewpoints despite disagreement. Somewhere in the middle we can usually reach some compromise if we only understand a problem from many different angles, yet nonetheless there will still be unhappy parties on both sides. 

One thing I find very important is to make sure we're not dictating policy for people whose situation is very different from our own. I can only speak of what I know, which is living in places where substantially more than 50% of the land is owned by the government. If restrictions on that land become too onerous, it makes sustainable living in these areas impossible. I can't speak to how land policy can or should work out east where public land areas are small and scattered between large swathes of private land. I don't know that world and so I won't pretend I know how to manage it responsibly. I really wish public land policy out west was not dictated so heavily by people out east. I was really happy when Trump moved the BLM headquarters to Grand Junction a few years ago. Unfortunately it may move back to Washington D.C. under Biden, and I think this is a huge mistake. Officials who manage public lands need to live where public land actually is, and they need to interact daily with the people who use it. Otherwise they are officiating from the proverbial "ivory tower" and their policies often make zero sense because they don't actually live here or know how things work.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Goatzrule said:


> I really dont think anyone who has no education in a topic should be making or proposing laws for that topic. It really goes for everything.
> Suzie shouldnt be making car seat laws because her kids free ranged in the backseat and "were fine" opposed to someone whose studied child safety. Same goes to Brad in his Prius who only encounter with a cow is watching Dominion, shouldnt be making laws for someone who spent 4 years in college studying an agriculture degree plus the years of hands on labor.


Better than education is experience. You can get all the theoretical knowledge and book learning in the world and still not have a clue how a real ecosystem works if you've never observed one. I see this problem all the time among wildlife biologists. They too often study "wildlife" in controlled studies using captive wild animals. Their study of real wildlife is usually limited to collaring animals and tracking their movements remotely. They don't actually get their butts out there and just observe. They'd rather chase the animals down with a helicopter, tag and collar them, then watch the movements on a monitor. Then they wonder why so many of them keep dying! 

When I was in high school our beloved local wildlife manager was killed in an accident and was replaced by a new recruit fresh out of college. He had all this wonderful theoretical knowledge but had never been out of a city. He was in the bar and overheard some local outfitters talking about the bighorn sheep herd on the mountainside above Capital City (a ghost town site about 15 miles outside of Lake City). 

The new wildlife officer perked up and said, "Really? There's bighorn sheep up there?? Well, I need to let the Fish and Wildlife office know! We need to get up there with helicopters so we can count them and get collars on them and start tracking their movements!" 

The outfitters gave the young man an odd look and said, "Whatever for? We can tell you right now how many are up there. We know how many rams, how many ewes, and how many lambs there are. We know where they'll be this winter and next spring and next summer and fall. We can take you up there to look at them any time you like." 

The new officer was flabbergasted. It never occurred to him to actually HIKE up a mountain and LOOK at bighorns through a spotting scope. It never crossed his mind that local hunters and outfitters already counted and observed bighorns every year just out of curiosity when they were up there spotting for elk. He thought observation meant chasing bighorns from a helicopter and shooting tranquilizer darts at them so they could be scientifically catalogued and collared. 

Unfortunately wildlife biologists have not changed much in the last 25 years. They keep capturing newborn bighorns and collaring them in order to figure out what's killing them. The officers don't understand why 90-100% of the collared lambs die within days, weeks, or months. Did no one explain to these people that touching baby animals is the best way to make sure they get rejected by their mothers? Don't they know that stressing these lambs is highly likely to lead to pneumonia even if their mothers don't reject them? I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the stupidity of public officials to think that this kind of interference is even remotely acceptable. How can they possibly believe that human meddling with the mother-lamb bond is totally harmless? We know from raising goats that even our _domestic_ animals can sometimes have bonding problems if we interfere too much. If a domestic goat can reject her kid after disbudding, how much more a wild bighorn ewe whose lamb now has a giant human-smelling collar and battery strapped to its neck?? I really don't understand some of these college-educated wildlife biologists.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

toth boer goats said:


> You all are great, continue your debate.
> 
> I just had to put in a reminder to keep it friendly because the thread has grown so much and want to keep it friendly in case.
> 
> But it is so time consuming to read through so much, when you are moderating many threads.


Don't worry. We won't be unfriendly. And if you don't have time to read it all, don't worry. Kenny and I clearly like each other and even if we use a lot of words we won't be hurling insults. If someone else comes in here and makes a mess we will certainly let you know, so feel free to ignore us if you like!


----------



## luvmyherd (Apr 9, 2011)

All of this reminds me of a bill here a number of years ago. I will qualify this by saying that I do not remember exactly. Still, people in Hollywood I believe, got an initiative on the ballot to make killing horses for food illegal.
It passed nearly unopposed. Why? NOBODY EATS HORSE! Nobody seemed to care. Regardless of personal feelings about eating horses; this was a waste of time and money.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

Youre always going to have the educated *____* but in other ways you have the newest information. We are finding new research daily, especially on animal raising. The stuff that these research colleges are coming out with is so much more advanced than we have ever seen and can be used in our advantage.
Most of the information these ranches are adapting are because they are staying UTD with the schools.
I worked for someone who had raised horses for 40 years. The horses only went outside for 1 hour a day. If they ran they got put back in their stall immediately. She couldnt figure out why they were so worked up! But she's been doing it for 40 years so what do I know? 
We all know parents who do dangerous stuff with their kids where your scratching your head wondering how the kid made it this far. The ones who argue with science because they do it and their kid is fine. Yes they have experience with kids but they dont have any educational background to make an educated decision. Sure I may not be a parent but I know forward facing a 6 month old is dangerous. 
The most deadly saying is "well ive always done it this way and I have never had a problem." 
The stuff I have learned in college is more than I would have ever learned just hands on. 
Plus any ARA can go to an animal sanctuary or "rescue" an animal and claim that is adequate experience to put in a law. The ones who should be passing laws that affect their section is each state department. Transportation dept. State Vet/state ag, Education dept. etc


----------



## goathiker (Apr 14, 2011)

Never, We The People pass the laws. Anyone can propose one. We need to get the corruption out of our government and bring back our rightful power.


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> One thing I find very important is to make sure we're not dictating policy for people whose situation is very different from our own. I can only speak of what I know, which is living in places where substantially more than 50% of the land is owned by the government. If restrictions on that land become too onerous, it makes sustainable living in these areas impossible. I can't speak to how land policy can or should work out east where public land areas are small and scattered between large swathes of private land. I don't know that world and so I won't pretend I know how to manage it responsibly.


This definitely makes it hard to discuss land management. You talk about so protected land out where you live, but where I live, all the forests are being encroached on!


----------



## Kenny Battistelli (Nov 29, 2020)

Damfino said:


> Don't worry. We won't be unfriendly. And if you don't have time to read it all, don't worry. Kenny and I clearly like each other and even if we use a lot of words we won't be hurling insults. If someone else comes in here and makes a mess we will certainly let you know, so feel free to ignore us if you like!


Yep! Don't worry about us Toth!


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

I agree with that. Being in New York at the moment the laws made for the city has no place up here. Unfortunately they are trying to out law spurs, and most rodeo equipment.


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

goathiker said:


> As an example of this trend. We voted in new big cages for commercial hens that gave them twice the amount of room. Then the environmental groups decided that they wanted free range instead.
> I don't know if people didn't actually read the text or what but, when it all switches next year they will all be loose in barns (eating each other) but, the individual space goes back to 1sq foot per bird.
> Anyone who sees the reality of chickens knows that it's going to be a blood bath.


Same thing already happened here and it seemed like such a wonderful thing. The first thing it started off with was chickens could not have less then 1 square foot per bird, and I forget what the other square footage is for the other livestock animals. Who wouldn’t want at least 1 square foot for a chicken? That seemed fair enough but no one read the whole thing where it says total cage free by I think 2025. No one reads anything all the way threw.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

I got too busy during May to continue this discussion, but I read an article this morning that reminded me of it: 


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rep-bruce-westerman-don-apos-173817310.html



Living in the west and seeing the lack of proper forest management is a little scary. It also seems really wasteful to refuse to allow sustainable timber harvesting when it largely results in beetle infestations and mega-fires that destroy it all anyway. Good logging practices greatly reduce the impact of beetles and the severity of wildfires.


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

These last weeks I have been logging with horses and can really appreciate the difference in clearing out the dead and over grown trees make. 
Goes to show they dont really care about whats best for the environment and other people they just care about what sounds good.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Back to the original subject... 

The PAUSE Act was unanimously struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court before it could get on the ballot. It did not meet the single subject requirements for a citizen ballot initiative. If proponents wish to continue pursuing the measure, they will have to rewrite and file another title with the Title Board, beginning the process again. Any signatures that were collected are now void. 

Glad this one got struck down. I hope this unanimous court decision sends a strong message to the ones who proposed this ballot measure in the first place.


----------



## lada823 (Apr 2, 2018)

That's a little bit of good news but it's scary how this stuff gets as far as it does!


----------



## GoofyGoat (Sep 21, 2018)

A glimmer of sanity in a world gone nuts! I hope the city dwellers see that this doesn’t have a chance.


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

Yay! Finally something happened in politics that isn't ridiculous!


----------



## littleheathens (Apr 27, 2019)

It's not at all surprising to me that this was struck down quickly. These far-fetched proposals don't usually get enough support to actually get written into law but they keep the activists busy and relevant. They'll always try. Incidentally, this is not a liberal/environmentalist stance as it is PETA types- quite different groups with very different intents and values.

Especially since global pandemic days, there is more attention paid to our country's food supply by many people. Hopefully it trickles down and greater support for smaller/family farms continues to grow.


----------



## Mike at Capra Vista (Nov 30, 2017)

Damfino said:


> Back to the original subject...
> 
> The PAUSE Act was unanimously struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court before it could get on the ballot. It did not meet the single subject requirements for a citizen ballot initiative. If proponents wish to continue pursuing the measure, they will have to rewrite and file another title with the Title Board, beginning the process again. Any signatures that were collected are now void.
> 
> Glad this one got struck down. I hope this unanimous court decision sends a strong message to the ones who proposed this ballot measure in the first place.


Good news!
Are you not concerned, that being struck down on a technicality as opposed to content, it will just give them an opportunity to reintroduce similar measures? Yes, they will have to start over, but that is just another chance to get the topic of "animal cruelty" in front of people.


----------



## Goats Rock (Jun 20, 2011)

At least you have a little "breathing room" before the next act of stupidity occurs!


----------



## Goatzrule (Feb 7, 2013)

What a relief but California isnt looking too good right now. They are looking to phase out dairy farms


----------



## MellonFriend (Aug 8, 2017)

Goatzrule said:


> What a relief but California isnt looking too good right now. They are looking to phase out dairy farms


🤢🤮


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Mike at Capra Vista said:


> Good news!
> Are you not concerned, that being struck down on a technicality as opposed to content, it will just give them an opportunity to reintroduce similar measures? Yes, they will have to start over, but that is just another chance to get the topic of "animal cruelty" in front of people.


They can certainly start again but at least this won't be coming up in the immediate future. The ones who brought this to court also sued on the grounds that it contained inflammatory/controversial subject matter but I don't think the court got so far as to even look at that part of the lawsuit. They didn't have to because the measure could be thrown out based on the other problems.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Goatzrule said:


> What a relief but California isnt looking too good right now. They are looking to phase out dairy farms


You know, they really should stop milking those almonds. With udders that tiny, it's just not humane! 

But seriously, how are they proposing to phase out dairy farms? And do they honestly think that importing milk from other states is a win? It's not as though Californians are just going to give up and stop drinking milk if it's not produced in their state.


----------



## AndersonRanch (Oct 18, 2020)

That has been going on in the whole country for years now, California is definitely the most challenging but it’s across the country and not just PETA types are causing that. Environmentalists play a huge part as well as the politicians. What was it 2 or 3 years ago we as a country allowed Canada to back out of their trade deal of buying milk from us? Since 2017 we as a country are averaging 20,000 dairies a year that go broke and shut down, dairy farmers themselves are also something like the top 5 of committing suicide as well.


----------

