collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Teanaway rancher  (Read 14011 times)

Offline jasnt

  • ELR junkie
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 6445
  • Location: deer park
  • Out shooting
  • Groups: WSTA
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2015, 06:52:10 PM »
WHAT? The range riders presents isn't enough!!! How many is he willing to lose before he's had enough? How much weight loss is this rancher losing every time the cattle are bothered?
he'll be changing his tune before long
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/take_action  It takes 10 seconds and it’s free. To easy to make an excuse not to make your voice heard!!!!!!

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2015, 10:54:39 PM »
One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.

Offline jasnt

  • ELR junkie
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 6445
  • Location: deer park
  • Out shooting
  • Groups: WSTA
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2015, 11:20:06 PM »
One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.
perfect job for me. But how's the pay
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/take_action  It takes 10 seconds and it’s free. To easy to make an excuse not to make your voice heard!!!!!!

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9113
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2015, 07:45:51 AM »
One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.

And some packs they tried everything from helicopter hazing to range riders, and nothing worked. But then they really don't expect it to work, these are programs meant to expand as much damage on the rancher as possible before the bullet is used.

In Wyoming, the USFWS discovered years ago the best way to discourage wolves that kill livestock was to kill the entire pack right down to the pups from the very first predation.

Washington's wolves are greener.

Offline Jacque

  • Pack Mule
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: May 2014
  • Posts: 136
  • Location: Belfair
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2015, 08:07:01 AM »
Please tell me that we are not paying for range riders with WDFW funds.

Offline villageidiot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 430
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2015, 05:40:24 AM »
The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   It won't be the green groups folks, it will be totally on the back of the livestock owner and no compensation for dead animals.  This is a dead end street to destruction.
  Proof being.  A Twisp rancher had a calf killed in 2014 by a cougar that was confirmed by WDFW.  There is an rcw that requires Washington state to pay for depredations from wolves, cougars and bears. The rancher took his request to Okanogan County District court and the court denied the money because the judge said they have not set any money aside for this.  We are all being whitewashed.

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2015, 07:10:12 AM »


The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline CAMPMEAT

  • CAMPMEAT
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 13347
  • Location: ARIZONA, A PLACE WHERE I DON'T WANT YOU LIVING !!
  • I love my gun rights in Arizona..
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2015, 07:22:24 AM »
Can anyone control a bunch of lawless dogs, who run in packs, without deadly means, not in my mind... :bash:
I couldn't care less about what anybody says..............

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9113
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2015, 08:00:37 AM »


The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The ranchers etc. need to take care of predator problems themselves and leave the government etc. who are promoting and protecting predators completely out of the process.

 People are beginning to realized that predators are being used as a tool by the USFWS etc. to ruin ranching, etc., just as the spotted owls were used to shut down logging.

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9113
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2015, 08:05:16 AM »
Can anyone control a bunch of lawless dogs, who run in packs, without deadly means, not in my mind... :bash:

And that is precisely why the USFWS, some state game agencies and environmentalists wanted the wolves designated as a big game animal rather then a predator like coyotes.

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2015, 11:39:14 AM »


The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.


Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2015, 12:09:01 PM »


The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.
The question posed which I responded presumed a "complete de-listing".  Certainly at that point all prevention/protection actions are on the rancher - not the taxpayer.  Lethal measures would ideally be much more common and available under such a scenario.

Your rhetoric on the term "welfare rancher" is old and tired...read what I actually wrote.   
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline jasnt

  • ELR junkie
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 6445
  • Location: deer park
  • Out shooting
  • Groups: WSTA
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2015, 02:17:03 PM »


The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.
The question posed which I responded presumed a "complete de-listing".  Certainly at that point all prevention/protection actions are on the rancher - not the taxpayer.  Lethal measures would ideally be much more common and available under such a scenario.

Your rhetoric on the term "welfare rancher" is old and tired...read what I actually wrote.   
you called it a government hand out. It's no hand out, it was promised in or rediculas wolf plan. It dosent cover a ll losses. It's designed to be just enough to not cause a bunch of squeaky wheels needing grease.  Just enough so "they" can say hey we paid ya for your losses, which didn't even come close to cover the actual losses.  Hand out my a$$!!! If they will let us protect our livestock and manage the predators like they are supposed to then they can keep there compensation!!
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/take_action  It takes 10 seconds and it’s free. To easy to make an excuse not to make your voice heard!!!!!!

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9113
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2015, 04:51:14 PM »
ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY: Cost of wolves calculable
http://www.wallowa.com/wc/editorials/20150407/analysiscommentary-cost-of-wolves-calculable

Three researchers with OSU list economic impacts from wolves on Oregon's cattle producers.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WOLVES IN NORTHEAST OREGON

Below is a “snap shot”, simplistic view of the economic impact of wolves on rural communities based upon a six year, ongoing study conducted by Dr. Doug Johnson, OSU, Dr. Larry Larson, OSU, and John Williams, OSU – Beef Extension specialist – Wallowa County. Specific details are available through these individuals.

Economic Impact on a 100 cow/calf pair operation in forested grazing areas:

1. 8-12 fewer calves come off of grazing due to wolf predation... $13,000

2. Calves average 30-50 lbs. less at weaning due to harassment by wolves... $7,000

3. All cows come off of the range thinner... $5,000

It takes 5-10 lbs. of extra energy and protein per cow per day to restore her to adequate shape to calf properly, provide sufficient milk for the baby calf for the winter and breed back.

4. Fewer cows breed back while under harassment on the range... $5,600

These un-bred cows must be sold in the fall and replaced with either young heifers from the herd, which reduces calves available to sell, or replacement cows purchased to maintain an effective herd size.

5. Management costs increase due to supervision and preventative measures while cattle are on large, forested range plot and in winter calving areas. (Range riders, vet treatment of injured calves, various preventative measures, etc.)... $9,000

Total lost income on 100 cow/calf pairs based on January 2015 cattle prices: $39,600

Related important data based on the 2013 State of Oregon Agriculture census:

Wallowa County   Cows 38,500   Calves 21,500

Union County   Cows 33,500   Calves 19,100

The above data is not meant to reflect $39,600 for every 100 cows in each county, as the wolf density presently varies by area; however the potential exists if wolf numbers ever approach the density of the forested populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Presently almost all of the forested range area in Wallowa and Union counties have identified packs. Harassment and depredation are greatest in the portions of Wallowa County nearest the Idaho border. Umatilla and Baker counties both have packs and two more known packs exist, one in the Desolation area and one in SW Oregon.

Agriculture economists fundamentally agree that it takes a herd of between 350 and 400 head to provide a middle income living for a family of four. The loss of about $140,000 for such a family trickles down into all of the fabric of these rural communities. Fewer dollars are available for local businesses and services, such as schools, health care and law enforcement. These losses in natural resource based counties further increase the economic disparities that exist between the rural and urban Oregon economies. Ranchers in northeast Oregon have proven over the last 5 years that they understand that the presence of wolves is a reality and have worked tirelessly within the law to survive, but further expansion of wolves beyond the minimum number listed in the Oregon wolf plan is not acceptable. While the State has made an honest attempt to help reduce the economic impact, the dollars available are so limited and the reimbursement areas so narrow (1 in 7 of the animals killed by wolves are ever found — 2003 study) that these, although well meaning, are not close to meeting the real economic impact of high wolf populations. Cattle populations are much larger in Malheur and Harney counties with similar range grazing operations on more open country. Presently we do not have sufficient data to predict if the impact of wolves in areas such as these will be greater or less than the more forested area. Ranchers in Wallowa, Union, Umatilla, and Baker counties are suffering from wolf harassment and predation in varying degrees and this problem will get worse as wolf numbers increase and expansion moves to far more rural counties.

Note: This analysis was originally published in “Oregon Beef Producer” magazine, published by the Oregon Cattlmen’s Association.

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: Teanaway rancher
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2015, 08:59:35 PM »
Quote
1. 8-12 fewer calves come off of grazing due to wolf predation... $13,000

2. Calves average 30-50 lbs. less at weaning due to harassment by wolves... $7,000

3. All cows come off of the range thinner... $5,000

It takes 5-10 lbs. of extra energy and protein per cow per day to restore her to adequate shape to calf properly, provide sufficient milk for the baby calf for the winter and breed back.

4. Fewer cows breed back while under harassment on the range... $5,600

These un-bred cows must be sold in the fall and replaced with either young heifers from the herd, which reduces calves available to sell, or replacement cows purchased to maintain an effective herd size.

5. Management costs increase due to supervision and preventative measures while cattle are on large, forested range plot and in winter calving areas. (Range riders, vet treatment of injured calves, various preventative measures, etc.)... $9,000

Elk are affected in the same ways.  Less calves, less cows bred, calf losses, less weights.
 
While cattle are brought off range and fattened in pens on hay Elk don't get that luxury.  The leaner Elk not carrying as much fat into winter means they need more calories to keep warm and are a lot more vulnerable to winter die offs. 

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Springer 2024 Columbia River by Blacklab
[Today at 02:35:54 PM]


Springer Fishing Opportunity 3/29 & 3/30 by Blacklab
[Today at 12:48:56 PM]


Long Beach Clamming Tides by dilleytech
[Today at 12:39:19 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by abhold87
[Today at 12:03:27 PM]


Bearpaw Season - Spring 2024 by bearpaw
[Today at 11:45:41 AM]


Walked a cougar down by Rainier10
[Today at 11:17:49 AM]


SB 5444 signed by Inslee on 03/26 Takes Effect on 06/06/24 by hughjorgan
[Today at 09:03:26 AM]


Average by lhrbull
[Today at 07:31:56 AM]


CVA optima V2 LR tapped hole for front sight by Remdawg
[Today at 07:09:22 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal