The realities of ranching and wolves

[denali]

A rancher writes about the facts about wolves.

The letter in the Jan. 24 Readers’ Views reads the same as nearly every other revered Canadian Gray Wolf vs. Evil Rancher letter written by a supporter of wolves over mankind.

These supporters’ talking points rarely stray from the list, though they don’t adhere to any particular order. So long as the repeating of the half-truth is accomplished, it has a chance to be believed, especially by those who have no working knowledge of the topic.

Yes, disease, domestic dogs and coyotes do cause loss in cattle and sheep. So do wolf attacks. The difference is there are no state laws against treating livestock for disease or actually trying to prevent disease. If coyotes or domestic dogs are guilty of harassing or killing livestock, there are no laws trumping the livestock owners’ right to protect their personal and private property against such losses. However, where the non-native wolves in Oregon are concerned, the state protects wolves over the rights of people.

The use of the words “hysteria and denial of facts” against ranchers is a not-so-subtle attempt to belittle their legitimate concern over losses to wolves. This favored ploy attempts to shift the blame from livestock killing wolves to the very ones who suffer the losses, the ranchers.

Quoting from ranchers who do not have a wolf population to deal with is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Those with critical thinking skills would understand this.

Yet the wolf supporters see it as a “one-size-fits-all” argument-ender.

Then we come to the most favored mis-used factoid of them all — the inference that all ranchers enjoy free grazing for their livestock at taxpayers’ great expense.

First off, let me make it very clear, public grazing rights are not free. Holders of public grazing rights are not taking anything from anyone. A fee is charged. Often there is a list of improvements required to be performed on the public grazing allotment at the rancher’s expense. The grazing livestock turn a renewable resource, grass, growing on public land, into usable items for humans such as meat, leather and wool.

The anti-grazers paint the picture for those who don’t know any differently that every grazing animal they see is somehow picking taxpayers’ pockets, somehow causing them harm while the evil ranchers profit.

The truth is, of the 125 wolf-livestock depredation investigations performed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from 2009 to the present, 15 were on public grazing permit property and the other 110 were on private property. My husband and I are the sole taxpayers for our private property our cattle graze on. We lease private property from our neighbor. He too pays his own share of taxes on his private property. Most of my friends and neighbors’ livestock graze entirely on private property. They are also taxpayers.

Despite the fact the state of Oregon was not included in the Canadian gray wolf recovery plan because Oregon lacks the large blocks of contiguous public land habitat needed for wolves — see page 29 of the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan — wolves are allowed to occupy private property no matter the cost to the private property owner.

Finally, there’s the plea for open-mindedness, responsibility and the incompetent ranchers to come over to their way of thinking — or else. The myopic disregard displayed by wolf supporters for those who do not agree with their bent never fails to astonish me. Their assumption of somehow possessing superior knowledge giving them the right to insert themselves into the everyday working lives of ranchers with all their “energy available” is the height of arrogance and ignorance at the same time.

I would certainly welcome a letter displaying open-minded, responsible, competent use of the truth from the lock-step wolf supporters.

They might begin with one topic never openly opined on by wolf supporters — the question of personal and private property rights. Where do they think they begin and end with wolves “on the landscape?”


- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140213/ARTICLE/140219944/1009#sthash.cNzSmaIO.dpuf

[bearpaw]

I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.

[KFhunter]

beef is already going through the roof,  not due to wolves but drought.

http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756

Feeder Steers:  Medium and Large 1-2:  500-600 lbs 179.00-187.00;  600-700 lbs
181.50-183.50;  600-700 lbs 161.00, Full;  700-800 lbs 158.00-167.00;  800-900 lbs
153.50-154.00.  Small and Medium 1-2:  400-500 lbs 178.00.

Bred Cows (Per Head): Medium and Large 1-2: Few Broken Mouth 1400 lbs 6-9
mos. bred 1300.00.



Feeder Heifers:  Medium and Large 1-2:  400-500 lbs 184.00;  500-600 lbs 168.00-
175.00;  500-600 lbs 178.00, Thin Fleshed;  600-700 lbs 155.50-159.00;  600-700 lbs
152.50, Full;  600-700 lbs 168.00-174.00, Thin Fleshed;  700-800 lbs 154.50-157.00;
800-900 lbs 147.50-149.00;  800-900 lbs 111.50, Heiferettes.  Small and Medium 1-2:
500-600 lbs 156.00-158.00.     

[AspenBud]

beef is already going through the roof,  not due to wolves but drought.

http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756

Feeder Steers:  Medium and Large 1-2:  500-600 lbs 179.00-187.00;  600-700 lbs
181.50-183.50;  600-700 lbs 161.00, Full;  700-800 lbs 158.00-167.00;  800-900 lbs
153.50-154.00.  Small and Medium 1-2:  400-500 lbs 178.00.

Bred Cows (Per Head): Medium and Large 1-2: Few Broken Mouth 1400 lbs 6-9
mos. bred 1300.00.



Feeder Heifers:  Medium and Large 1-2:  400-500 lbs 184.00;  500-600 lbs 168.00-
175.00;  500-600 lbs 178.00, Thin Fleshed;  600-700 lbs 155.50-159.00;  600-700 lbs
152.50, Full;  600-700 lbs 168.00-174.00, Thin Fleshed;  700-800 lbs 154.50-157.00;
800-900 lbs 147.50-149.00;  800-900 lbs 111.50, Heiferettes.  Small and Medium 1-2:
500-600 lbs 156.00-158.00.     

Wolves aren't even a blip on the radar right now as far as beef prices go. A lot of cows got slaughtered because of the drought the year before last.  Those increases were forecast to occur about now once the excess was sold.

[steen]

They should be able to protect their livestock from wolves!!!! We had a sheep killed by a neighbor's dog and we hand delivered the dog to the neighbor and he payed $300.00  for the sheep.  It in no way covered the cost of the lambs she carried and what the kids would have gotten out of those lambs and the fair that summer but they got something. The dog didn't kill again.  Unfortunely my husband missed the second dog.   There should be no way city folks can control what goes on where they don't live. Just my 

[wolfbait]

I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.

We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!!

[wence5]

I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.

We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!!

And Idaho isn't a liberal stronghold yet. What do you suppose will happen in Oregon and Washington? We have a wait and see what happens attitude in Washington, which translates into a hands off policy for a number of years to let the wolf problem get totally out of control, and in Oregon it is a do nothing stance which translates into a hands off policy until the problem is out of control. Both states have enough environmental nut jobs in high places that will see to it there will be weak enough numbers of elk and deer to have hunt in the future and the ranchers and farmers will be put out of business. I am soooo glad I am not a rancher in cattle country, I think I would be in jail. 

[AspenBud]

I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.

We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!!

And Idaho isn't a liberal stronghold yet. What do you suppose will happen in Oregon and Washington? We have a wait and see what happens attitude in Washington, which translates into a hands off policy for a number of years to let the wolf problem get totally out of control, and in Oregon it is a do nothing stance which translates into a hands off policy until the problem is out of control. Both states have enough environmental nut jobs in high places that will see to it there will be weak enough numbers of elk and deer to have hunt in the future and the ranchers and farmers will be put out of business. I am soooo glad I am not a rancher in cattle country, I think I would be in jail. 

I really think it depends on who you are. Timber companies will most likely be quietly happy there are fewer ungulates gnawing the tops off saplings and trampling the ground. Crop farmers, like apple growers, will probably not miss elk eating their crops. It's bad news for big game hunters and livestock owners, but for others whose livelihood is negatively affected by ungulates and in a world where more and more private property is closed to hunting...

Pay attention to who is not complaining. If you go out of state people talk about Washington timber and Washington apples, not Washington beef.

[pianoman9701]

Going out of state to ask people what they know about or want out of WA is worse than letting the people who live in Seattle and Tacoma decide what we should be doing with wolves on the east side. Apple growers and tree farmers are currently working alongside an abundant population of ungulates. They don't get to decide that we should not have abundant ungulates solely for the purpose of their profit, nor have any of them suggested we do so. Ranchers would probably also benefit from fewer elk ruining their pastures and fences. However, all of the groups have figured out a way to live with the ungulates that have existed here for a long time, ungulates which support a vibrant hunting industry which in turn supports our WDFW and communities and guides and sporting goods, and give recreation and satisfaction to a large number of our residents.

If someone isn't complaining, that doesn't mean we should embrace unchecked populations of new predators. That's incredibly skewed thinking.

[AspenBud]

Going out of state to ask people what they know about or want out of WA is worse than letting the people who live in Seattle and Tacoma decide what we should be doing with wolves on the east side. Apple growers and tree farmers are currently working alongside an abundant population of ungulates. They don't get to decide that we should not have abundant ungulates solely for the purpose of their profit, nor have any of them suggested we do so. Ranchers would probably also benefit from fewer elk ruining their pastures and fences. However, all of the groups have figured out a way to live with the ungulates that have existed here for a long time, ungulates which support a vibrant hunting industry which in turn supports our WDFW and communities and guides and sporting goods, and give recreation and satisfaction to a large number of our residents.

If someone isn't complaining, that doesn't mean we should embrace unchecked populations of new predators. That's incredibly skewed thinking.

I'm not saying it's a reason to accept it. I'm saying silence from them can often be acceptance, and once wolves leave cattle country in this state you are dealing with an entirely different dynamic. This is not Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. The economy is more diverse than cattle ranching and hunting.

[KFhunter]

If you're running cattle in the NE you could be out there every day on horse back riding in around the cattle and never see a wolf, only find carcasses the next morning or a week later if at all.

One big ol bull was never found, they musta run that big feller for a good long ways before he succumbed.  Lot of open cows when that happens. He was probably getting too big anyways, the younger heifers couldn't hold him up.

[AspenBud]

Seriously, timber companies are getting more and more restrictive in the access they give to hunters in the state. A lot of that comes from how badly people have treated their lands over the years not to mention crime. Do you really think they care if wolves stroll in and take care of the ungulates on their lands rather than hunters? If anything it will probably give them a good reason to kick hunters out once and for all. Wouldn't want too much pressure on diminished ungulate numbers now would they?

[KFhunter]

screw timber companies that don't allow recreational access.  Tax the hell out of them until they see the light.

YA - I'm talking about you Mr. Vaagen, I know you're reading this.

[WSU]

It is interesting that people have such different views on wildlife damage to private property depending on what that wildlife is.  We've seen threads here on hunt-wa where the majority of people are very much against killing elk that are doing damage to a farmer's profits.  Those same people often appear to have no problem killing wolves doing damage to a farmer's profit.  I know a local dairy that has anywhere from 20 to 60 or more elk in their hay field every day.  The dairy could feed dozens of additional cows.  To me, that is the same as if the elk were killing dozens of cows every year and the farmer damn-sure sees it as the same.  And, before someone goes there, the farmer lets people hunt all the time.  There is rarely a day during archery, muzzleloader, and rifle seasons that someone isn't hunting those elk.

Is it the farmer we all really care about?  If so, why shouldn't farmers get to shoot elk on sight? 

[KFhunter]

It's the same with everything else WSU - It all depends on their exposure to the problem and the first bias they have often sticks with them forever.