Readers express concerns over the conflict between ranching and wildlife preservation, particularly regarding apex predators and public land use. One commenter highlights the irony of livestock farming's ecological impact, questioning the ranchers' right to complain about predation. Another points out the subsidized nature of grazing on public lands, suggesting that ranchers should reconsider their business model. Historical perspectives on land transfer and the nuclear narrative also provoke thought on America's past and current environmental policies.
So, let me get this straight: We decimate the wildlife that used to live here by taking over their land to raise cows so we can eat far more meat and dairy products than we need or that is healthy, and then we get all up in arms if we lose a few animals to the apex predators that were here to begin with, as they dare to hunt what's still around after we replaced their original prey with cows?
Just the fact that ranchers pay practically nothing to graze their cattle on public land that's government-subsidized tells me they are in the wrong business if it ain't working out.
As a student of American history, I have learned that such transfers are quintessentially American and have been since before our nation's founding.
We are woefully uneducated about the nuclear narrative that began in WWII with atomic bombs made at places like Washington's Hanford Nuclear Reservation, one of the most toxic sites in the Western Hemisphere.
Collection
[
|
...
]