Rural Living??

[Anonymous Poster]

Grant(Robert)

Grant,

You asked for an update from Oregon. I live in oregon, in the foothills of the Coast Range.
I have not followed the cougar issue closely, but watch the news regularly, as a rule.

I have not heard of any cougar-casualties in Oregon since the no-dog-hunting rule passed.

There was an incident where a man shot and killed a cougar in Washington State. Supposedly he discovered the cat "stalking" he and/or his wife while the two were hiking in dense woods. Fortunately he was carrying a handgun (.357 or .44 it seems) with which he killed the cougar at close range. This might or might-not have occured regardless of any 'rule' as the couple was not in a "populated" area, but a wild one.

Someone in washington may be able to correct-or-add-to this story, but this is my recollection of the event.

Regarding people who are "emotional" about the controversy "not thinking of the consequences".

Many people think that those who disagree "must not be thinking" etc., otherwise they would not be disagreeing.

There are people who don't believe that every place that people choose to move into should become the equivalent of a Disney theme-park,.. in other words "exciting and adventurous, but entirely safe".

These qualities are not compatible, in real life. Entirely safe HAS to mean dull, predictible, etc. "Tame", in other words. There are indeed people who choose "real" life, with its uncertainties, in preference to a "hothouse-plant" experience.

Entirely-safe also has to mean the eradication of any even-maybe threatening wildlife.

So every "wild-country" home becomes simply an extension of "the suburbs", ...the "yards" are just bigger. Everything else has been sacrificed to the convenience/safety, etc. of the all -(self)important humans.

That's an "UN-natural" world. And, hard as it is to belive (for those who like the "Disney" version, ) there actually ARE some who want a "real" experience, "warts-and-all". Sort of an "I came here to participate, not to 'spectate' from a box-seat." attitude.
Tto find out if my money is-where-my-mouth-is, read my soon to be posted "thoughts" to "CowboyDoc".

Robert,
The "balanced" view of the cougar would, of, course, be neither "cute" nor "vile". It is simply another creature, surviving exactly as it was intended to, except for whatever special "concessions " it has to make, to the presence of man.

Too many people think that the only way to deal with its "scary" aspects are to kill it or drive it away.
There is another way. Stay with the "herd" of people, in one of the places where all the "offensive" creatures have already suffered the kill-or-drive-away "cure". Safety in numbers, don't you know!

Live the life that that type of "safe" haven provides, and spare a little more of the real world from the "improvements" of mankind.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer a cougar attack to a "city-predator" attack. there is something more "natural" about it (there's that word again.)
It's also statistically a lot less-likely.

Pain is pain. death is death. Our choice is not "whether" to die, it is "how" to live.
I believe the natural plan has a lot to offer, and is nearly impossible to experience, what with all the "improvements" man has already made to the planet.

The care and precautions necessary to a reasonably safe life at the edge of the woods, in cooperation with nature, are certainly no more demanding than attaining the same level of relative-safety in the midst of a bunch of the REALLY dangerous species.

If you're thinking "This guy really hears a different-drum", ... thank you!

I just can't buy the philosophy that has led us to a diminuation or extinction of nearly every species we've come into contact with, as a way to continue. It's a literal "dead-end".

I don't expect much agreement on this topic.( that doesn't mean I don't value the discussion!). Every day we drift more towards the "I'm entitled" end of the philosophy-scale, and further from the "I'm responsible" end.
With schools, parents, and lawyers pushing the "I'm doing just as well whether I pass-or-fail", "It's not my fault", and "somebody OWES me" approachs-to-life, anything with needs conflicting with our own is for-sure "the bad guy", and we'll soon rid ourselves of such nuisances.

Which I'm starting to consider myself with all-this-writing(you're all probably way-ahead of me here /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif ),... I plan to get back to "tractor-talk" after I post to Richard.

Larry

 

[DarinRay]

Speaking for myself, I would prefer a cougar attack to a "city-predator" attack. there is something more "natural" about it (there's that word again.)
It's also statistically a lot less-likely

Just had to reply to this part and I am not even going to go into further detail because I swear after reading how most of you write with grammar and all I feel inferior in the way I translate what I'm thinking....Let alone trying to remember all the crap that goes through my pea-brain. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif [cry] /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

I just think that was an excellent statement and I would agree totally. Eventhough it is very unfortunate when accidents or natural disaster, if that's the way to describe it, happen it is alot better that most of the stories you hear in the news about what humans do to other humans every day so now let's start population control with humans. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Now that end was just a dumb joke. Blah, blah ,blah lost my train of thought..../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif see what I mean!

 

[GrantMO]

Larry,
Thanks for the update. You live in a beautiful part of the country! I'm glad that there haven't been a lot of reports of cougar-human interactions. My prediction was based on what has happened in California in the past. Luckily Oregon hasn't had the huge push of subdivision developement into cougar areas that CA has.
I don't think that a belief based on emotion is invalid, only that when a course of action is based mostly on emotion the consequences are often not well planned for. That's one of the advantages(for some) and/or problems with the referendum process. Anyway, it's good to hear that people and cougars are keeping their distance in OR, for now anyway. Of course the livestock loss from cougars and similar predators doesn't make the news like a snatched family pet or a threatened jogger.

 

[cowboydoc]

Larry,
Last time I looked ground squirrels, praire dogs, coyotes, gophers, snakes, etc. weren't even close to being a threatened species. I suppose if your yard is overrun with moles or gophers being you just let them take over. If mice get in your house that's ok because they were there first. A few rats get in, hey don't kill them let them live. Let them carry disease to your family no problem that's just natural nature. After all they were there first. Just because you worked your butt off to build a nice and yard those mice, rats, gophers, etc. have full right to it. Hey insects, well they're people too aren't they? Don't kill any flies in your house. And those mosquitos don't use anything to kill them or ward them off your body. Hey you are in their natural area. And that coyote that ate your dog last night. Hey don't worry about that it's ok you're in their natural habitat. And we probably shouldn't be fishing either right? I mean let's get real here. I am not talking about killing just for the sport of killing. If we saw a mountain lion way up in the forest we never killed him. We never hunted down a wolf or a mountain lion just because we knew they were there. ONLY when they came down and killed our stock. Once they start they don't stop. As far as coyotes, praire dogs, ground squirrels, etc. they were usually killed with poisons and not hunted because we didn't have the time to do it and only when there numbers became out of control. Deer, elk, antelope, etc. were all fed on our land. These deer, elk etc. then migrated to public lands where they were hunted and their populations were kept under control. The government does an excellent job of keeping track of the numbers of all these animals. We work hand in hand with them to make sure that nature is preserved but not overpopulated to the extent that nature and man suffer. Many times the govt., fish and game, etc. would come out and want us to cut down the numbers of coyotes, and other animals because their studies showed they were getting out of control. We'd allow them to put out poisons and other control measures. The ranchers and farmers today give back ten fold what they take. You have no-till farming, improved pesticides and fertilizers etc. all to work more closely with nature to preserve what we have for the next generation. It's been said to walk a mile in a man's shoes before you go to judging. There's nothing wrong with responsible hunting and responsible control of some species of animals. We're not talking about extinction we're talking about control and responsibility, preserving a balance among nature and man.

 

[cowboydoc]

BTW why is it ok to talk about controlling the out of control human poplulation but it's not ok to talk about controlling an out of control population of an animal, insect, weed, etc?

 

[Keoke]

Larry, your points on sharing natures blessings with ALL of gods creatures are right on the mark.

happy easter,
george

 

[Wingnut]

Cowboydoc,
I certainly don't want to get on your bad side ... 'cause I respect you - from all the psotings I've read - and what you do. But I do have a slightly different view of the world and I thought I'd throw it into the pond and see if it sinks or swims. I'm on one side and then the other of the whole "kill the all" and "don't kill anything" argument. I do feel for the farmers and ranchers to a great degree. I was born, and spent quite some of my childhood, on a farm and then bought my own when I could. I have a step-brother with a huge ranch in northern Alberta, a step-brother with an elk ranch in Saskatchewan and I now have this little place in Michigan with almost-horses. So I have some ties to the land.
I guess part of my problem is that I know too many farmers who expect that they will/should equal my off-farm salary with their on-farm activities. They should be treated like small business and not just simple farmers. BUT they should get subsidies, crop protection, tax protection, etc. Heck, my very-well-off step-brother buys ultra-expensive equipment to minimize the tax he pays ... but shops for every subsidy he can find. And my real problem is that I remember farming as a life-style, not big business. The farm would provide all the necessities and you could sell the extras to buy those things you couldn't raise or produce. Now, however, the expectation is completely different. So ... pack more cows on the land, htrow more chemicals at the ground to force it to produce more ... and pack everything so close together that a virus or a mold or a fungus can create havoc instead of a little damage.
I had 2 packs of coyotes on and near muy land in Alberta ... and I never dreamed of killing them off ... because their main food is varmints. Yes, I had to watch my wife's little furry poodle ... but the alternative was that I'd have to trap mice, rabits, etc to protect my little garden.
Is there a perfect answer? heck no ... but let's not blame either the wildlife or the farmers or the ranchers ... let's try to find some middle ground.


too bad that common sense ain't

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Richard,

I posted this on 4/10:

I trust that these comments will not be taken as opposition to hunting, or to really NECESSARY predator-control, ...I object to neither.

You posted this on 4/14:

There's nothing wrong with responsible hunting and responsible control of some species of animals.

-------------------------------------------------

So how did I become the guy who wants to protect flies, mosquitoes, /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif and disease carrying mice and rats??

-------------------------------------------------
You on 4/14:

I mean let's get real here. I am not talking about killing just for the sport of killing.
( OK, so you're NOT.)                              

Me on 4/12:

This kind of killing "for SPORT" is not "sporting" in any sense. It Is neither Killing-for-food, nor in self-defense. --and ... Destroying another creatures life, for the inane purpose of "seeing if you-can-do-it", is something I like to think most would have satisfied themselves about as children, with the flies'-wings experiments and such.


( So, I WAS! OK?)( If you remember, I was responding to the prairie-dog shoot, etc., ...and not to you.)

--------------------------------------------------

I don't see any big difference of opinion here, ... do YOU ?? /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif But it sounds like I've become the "representative" in your mind, for all the lunatic-fringe "never-kill-a-living-thing" crowd. (It seems only fair then, that you should take the "kill-every-or-any-thing without a thought" crowd's position, ... since they're who I was "shooting"-at.) /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

---------------------------------------------------

I obviously exaggerated when I said, on 4/10:

"It's not bad enough that nearly every species on earth is in far worse-than-ever condition because of humans."
( I should have said "many species" are ...etc. I was thinking in broader-terms, in that acid-rain, ozone-layer depletion, global warming, etc., are examples of mankind's "disruption" of the system, and everything is effected in some way by it. Frogs are disappearing, worldwide, for example. Salmon, sharks, elephants, gorillas, cod, etc., etc., are far-fewer, and mostly declining, because of OUR "predation". The list is very long.

However, I do stand corrected,...I concede that some mouse in a grain silo somewhere, is indeed fatter and happier because of man. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif


Rather than continue in this point-by-point rehash, I'll just post here what I decided NOT to post, last night. ( I just felt like it was getting a little far-afield and weighty for our good-natured tractor group, ..."off-topic" alright, but maybe not "just for fun" anymore.Too many possibly-inflammatory viewpoints for "strangers" to discuss comfortably, without knowing each-other better.(I think your setting-me-straight post this morning makes my point. Your impression of me seems quite different than my own.)

What changed-my-mind was the remark about me not-minding the coyote killing my dog. (I've walked a little further in some "shoes" than you're aware of.)

So, for better-or-worse, I'm posting, below this line, what I had written, (and "written-off").

The "warning" is for-real!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fair warning, ... this is lengthy! ( and comes with no guarantee of merit)
Feel free to remember your "clicker" if (when) your patience runs out. I'm not particularly delighted with it, ...but I wrote it, so I'll post it.


Richard,

These issues are "thin-ice" for people wishing to preserve an atmosphere of congeniality and good-will, but I still prefer the up-front "tell it like (you think) it is" method of communication. I think anything else is really NON-communication. And I seek and prefer the occasionally-friction-loaded company of courageous "explorers-of-ideas", to that of smiling "yes"-people. So, hoping that honest words and camaraderie are not mutually-exclusive, ... here are some more "thoughts":

It is easy and tempting to give the "worst examples" of behavior we oppose, as I did in my last post on this subject, in order to make-a-point.
I believe you did the same thing with the "people who hit a deer with the car" example. Still, the "point" may indeed be valid.

But most of us don't fit in the worst-example category. Many have mixed feelings about these kinds of issues ( as Rob has stated).

For the record, we have had beloved pets taken/killed by coyotes/raccoons 3 or 4 times, ... our immediate neighbor (our properties are separated by the woods on my place) says he has lost 2 calves to a cougar(s).

I know cougars kill people now and then,... and if I go outside at night (particularly) I feel uneasy about what "sees me", that I "don't see". I have no "mountain man" illusions about my chances, unarmed, against a determined "big-cat".

We have found coyote tracks right under our bedroom window, and the coons are always around looking for pet food or whatever. so any life other than "penned-up" or "inside" is risky for our pets. But, it also has rewards for them that can only be experienced with a degree of freedom. They kill things, ... some"thing" may kill THEM. The fate of a "pet" includes having such judgement-calls being made FOR him by his owner. We try to do our best in choosing, and have had some indoor-only and some outdoor animals.

The pets we lost were not our "livelyhood", of course. But my guess is that we would have spent as much to save one of them as your lost cow or calf is worth., ... considering that we have paid plenty to try to patch-up a few that made it back from an attack. (No, we are not "well-off", so this expense is no "small-matter" to us.)My point here is that our losses were "important" to us also.

But the whole issue IS a matter-of-principle. We are simply not interested in re-arranging the whole scheme-of-life, in order to make things perfectly safe or to-the-liking-of HUMANS, all the time, in every way, and in every place.

Life has some risks. People are hurt/killed every day "on the job". Hikers fall off cliffs, ... I don't want the earth bulldozed-flat to prevent that. Swimmers drown, ... I don't want to wear a life-vest when I'm swimming.
Skiers break-their-necks, ..I don't want skiing outlawed. People are killed every year here in the NW by falling limbs, ..I don't want all the trees cut down. And yes, people get hurt stepping into holes,... and I don't want everything that digs-a-hole exterminated. (You may have guessed, by now, that I oppose motorcycle "helmet-laws" also, for adults.)

If some of these examples seem silly to you, I assure you that there are people who will support nearly any proposal that claims "greater safety".

There seem to be more and more people, with each generation, who feel that something is "very wrong" with the world, if anything happens to THEM. And are willing to change whatever it takes to try to get that good old "cradle-to-the-grave-security". Including giving up our freedom-of-choice as to personal risk/activities, and destroying our "threatening" environment.

While not wishing anyone to suffer any injury, I have some strong views on who should be "blamed" (if someone has-to be).

Let's say I'm a cowboy ( I'm not, but I have owned a horse, and have ridden him "cross-country" in the mountains.). Let's say I'm riding my "cow-pony" at breakneck-speed, chasing a cow, over rough ground through vision-obscuring 'ground cover". Let's say (surprise!) my horse steps in an animal hole, throwing me to my death, breaking his leg, and having to be shot.
Let's say my family/friends are (understandably) upset. They decide the critter who dug THE hole, (or any critter who digs any hole) is a "varmint", and should be killed for his efforts.

Now stay with me and tell me where my logic falls-apart when I look at a different "threat" the same way:

Lets say I'm a race driver. Let's say I'm driving my "race-car", at breakneck-speed, chasing my buddy, over rough ground, through vision obscuring brush. Let's say (surprise!) my car hits a stump, "totaling it, and throwing me out to my death.
Let's say my family/friends are (understandably) upset. They decide the tree which left THE stump (or any tree which could leave any stump) is a "varmint", and should be destroyed.

Does this "nonsensical comparison" really contain any "sense"?
Politically incorrect question: why is the car-ride a dumb-stunt, ...while the horse-ride is good-ole Americana? "Yahoo!"

Is it because coyboys have "always done it this way!"? Yep, they have. Always broke their hoses legs now and then, too. Got "kilt" sometimes, too. If there are ways to do it better today, and places to do it better (not all "cowboys" ride like this in places like this. Or break their horses legs, or get killed.) maybe it's not the "varmints" fault if the cowboy does the race car "dumb stunt" on-a-horse. Maybe the prarie-dog is no more a "varmint" than a tree.

And maybe that "let's say" exercise was just silly.
Maybe not!

Now, before I'm misunderstood (if it's not too-late), let me say that I have no problem with the cowboy trying to "control" the hole-makers, in the area where he has to ride and "run" stock. [UNLESS he thinks everywhere he can-find-them is an "appropriate" place, and "controlling" (to-death) is too-good for the "detestable" things anyway. To me the word "detest" is on the strong-side of "hate". I can think of many things that can "kill" people, (cars and electricity for example) but not many people "detest" them. Awful lot of emotion behind a word like that. seems

Anyway, I acknowledge "conflicts" between people and wildlife.I will shoot any coyote I see around our immediate living-area, if I can. Not likely, because although they are often "singing" in the woods in what sounds like a sizeable pack, I have only actually seen two in 10 years. But they are smart enough to prefer to stay where-they-are-not-shot-at, and that degree of "respect" is all I ask. I don't need the whole woods. (They are very good at what-they-do, and I admire that. I would like the world less if they were not in it. As I said before, we chose the country. It certainly wouldn't have chosen us!) In turn, if it could, the coyote would kill ME for the same reason ( to protect-her-own), or an even-more-valid one ( as food, to survive). So I don't consider my position "extreme", but in-line-with that of other creatures. But I would not want to kill ALL the coyotes/cougars in the wilderness, so I could run no-risk-at-all, no matter where I roam. And I certainly wouldn't go somewhere and kill them "just because I could"! ( NOT saying you would, either.)

The difference between you-and-I may be largely the amount of "country" that we would like to "make-safe"for our purposes.
I don't know who owns the land that your stock is on, how vast it is, nor the predator-control laws that are in effect there. I personally would not be opposed to further-subsidizing a rancher (who had done everything he could reasonably-do to protect his stock) when proven predator-losses occur. [I say "further" subsidize, thinking of the mixed feelings I have about "public land " supporting "private profit".(Maybe the govt. should give the rest of us the use of enough land to put OUR businesses on.) Is it really the nation-that-wants-to-eat-beef that gives these good ol' boys that free land use (if they want that steak so-bad, you'd think they'd be willing to pay a living-wage-for-the-rancher price for it wouldn't you?) Or was it some lobbyists for big ranches in areas of small non-rancher populations to oppose them, that railroaded these laws through congress? ... a separate debate!)

Nor would I oppose "control" of the offending predator(s) by the most "humane" effective-methods. This is often nearly impossible, I concede, and this is why I would support the subsidy( I would consider it a "wildlife conservation" expense). If an entire calf or foal crop is destroyed(or anything like it) , then obviously there is a serious problem in that particular area at-that-time, and I would be surprised if laws in your area don't provide for extreme-measures being permitted. (?)

Nearly every business is subject to losses, and I'm not sure why the losses of a rancher are more lamentable than the losses of any other "businessman". Nor why they are more important than those which cause the failure of many businesses each year, some of which have ALSO "been in the family for generations".

ALL the harvesters of passenger-pigeons-for-the-market have "lost" their livelyhoods. Personally I wish they had lost them a little sooner, before we-all lost the species.

Buffalo hunters are also out-of-work, ...barely-in-time(thankfully) to spare the largest mammal on our continent the same fate.

My point is (obviously) that there are other-things-to-consider than the "ease" with-which "man" can accomplish his goal-of-the-moment. And worse-things than some "rain" falling into any individual's life.

I don't want us (ME!) living in a rubber-room, for "safety".
And I don't want the "environment " sanitized, homogenized, paved, mowed, smoothed, etc. for my (OUR) "convenience". I also believe that human-life is not the only "life" of value, or worthy of consideration.

In any "conflict" with another species, (microbes perhaps being the exception) we are inevitably able to "triumph" if we consider the elimination of the "opponent" a victory. Some of us think that it is (literally) "overkill", to pursue that course, ...and prefer some cooperative-compromise "solution". The minute you say "compromise" or "cooperate", you have accepted that you can not have everything "your way".I happen to think that this is simply the "nature" of life, and am content to participate on-those-terms.

Ranch-life hardships? Those can be avoided by big-city officework, or by working in the coal-mines of W. Va., for 2 examples. ( of course they both offer hardships of their own, and success is not guaranteed there either.

Unless I miss-my-guess, we would both choose ranching over either-one (and I sure would have a worse-chance of making it as a rancher than you do). If ranching is really a nearly-hopeless enterprise, I wonder if killing every predator in the country would solve the problem?

I notice you used the phrase "YOUR nature"(emphasis mine), presumably speaking to those whose views are different from your own. It makes me wonder what you believe YOUR relationship to "nature" is (none?)! It reminds me of the (loggers/fishermen/hunters, for example) who spit-out the word "environmentalists" with such vehemence. Are they, themselves, NOT environmentalists? What IS an environmentalist?

So much antagonism has come-to-be-associated with certain "labels", that the words are almost meaningless in any communicative sense.

Regarding the "blood, sweat. and tears" with which the "rancher" paid-for his land; ..if the rewards for this effort ( not unlike the price paid by other people for THEIR dreams) are so poor that a degree of loss-to-predation is a "make-or-break" element, then they're just too-darn-low! If the market won't support a price that makes the enterprise possible, then you're simply trying to sell something that people don't want to buy (badly-enough). The fact that they used-to want it more badly (if they did), hasn't got anything to do with wolves or cougars.

If the people ARE willing to pay-the-price, but the rancher is not getting a fair share-of-it, that is an issue to be settled with the packing houses/marketers/whoever. If this is the case I certainly sympathize, but don't know enough about it to help. Don't ranchers have any kind of "organization" to look after their interests?

I'm no expert on ranching, that's for sure. But you can't really expect anyone TO be, except ranchers themselves. And people will still have ideas about what sort of basic-attitudes should underlie our actions.These particular "thoughts" are my own of course,and are mainly meant to suggest a little-more awareness of the "value" to be found in the existence of the other living things on this planet. Taking the time to put them down here is just my response to what I perceive as a growing disregard by the human race for any other form of life, and the seemingly arrogant view that WE are the only things that "matter". It's not that I don't think human-interests are worthy of consideration, ... it's that I want OTHER elements given due regard.

Remember, this whole tirade (on my part at least) resulted from someone's reference to having fun("a blast" ) killing things (prairie dogs).
I'd like the destruction of another creature to be more than a casual or "fun" activity, carried out, when it is, for some "rational" purpose, with a degree of respectful "reluctance".

You referred to those who "love nature so much". Without knowing just what you call "so much", I'm assuming you mean "TOO much",... by your standards.

My own standards would require that we all give at least a little evidence of loving it SOME!

Respectfully,

Larry

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Amen!, Wingnut


/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Larry

 

[Anonymous Poster]

DarinRay,

I understood you just fine.
Don't let uncertainties about your level-of-"grammar" make you hesitant to participate.

It's the "thoughts" that contibute to an exchange of ideas, ,,, "perfect-expression" of them is nice-but-not-necessary!

As far as your comment about population control, there are a great many people (pun?) who feel you've hit a very-big-nail "right-on-the-head" ( myself included!).

/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Larry