The realities of ranching and wolves

[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.

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.

You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber. And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country. When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.

[AspenBud]

You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.

Correct

When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.

Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.

I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.

Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.

[bearpaw]

You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.

Correct

When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.

Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.

I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.

Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.

You have very little knowledge of the economic impact of hunting, while it may not matter in Seattle, it is huge in many rural comminities. 

[pianoman9701]

You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.

Correct

When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.

Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.

I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.

Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.

I don't think they'll be any more welcomed in apple country than they are in cattle country. I don't see loggers being thrilled about packs in their woods, either. I'd love you to show me differently. Their so-called "silence" isn't enough. I would bet quite a few of the people on here who oppose the wildly irresponsible wolf plan are loggers. And they've been far from silent about it.

[AspenBud]

You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.

Correct

When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.

Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.

I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.

Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.

I don't think they'll be any more welcomed in apple country than they are in cattle country. I don't see loggers being thrilled about packs in their woods, either. I'd love you to show me differently. Their so-called "silence" isn't enough. I would bet quite a few of the people on here who oppose the wildly irresponsible wolf plan are loggers. And they've been far from silent about it.

Nothing "so-called" about it. Livestock people and outfitters, that's who is most at risk financially. Wolves don't eat crops. Elk and deer do.

Sorry to the loggers, but they aren't the number crunchers that matter in the equation.

[snowpack]

It might not be just cattle and outfitters once they are well established on the westside.  Lots of small farms with animals like llamas and sheep and ducks.  Instead of the 5000 acre places on the eastside, it would be thousand 5 acre places.  Lots of pets running in the backyards on the outer edges of the suburbs.
If wolves are coming onto porches to attack dogs in Twisp, they'll likely do the same anyplace on the westside.  Not many places on the westside where the distance between populated areas is more than 5 miles, so a wolf pack would be within 2.5 miles--barely 20 mins away for a wolf.

[bearpaw]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

[pianoman9701]

You're the one that brought up the timber and apple industries, not me. I've started two threads asking people from those industries whether they welcome the wolves or not. Of course, even if they say not, you'll have a reason why they answered that way or their answers are invalid. The article at the beginning of this thread explains that very well.   

[AspenBud]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

That's nice. This isn't Idaho.

[bearpaw]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

That's nice. This isn't Idaho.

Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.

[AspenBud]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

That's nice. This isn't Idaho.

Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.

I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.

I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."

[bearpaw]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

That's nice. This isn't Idaho.

Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.

I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.

I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."

Thank you for public displaying the harsh reality of Washington. 

[denali]

This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html

That's nice. This isn't Idaho.

Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.

I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.

I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."

I can see you have spent a lot of time in the Palouse,  PM me when WDFW ID's the den site site near Endicott 

[rasbo]

here in grant county we have many gophers and other small animals for coyotes to feed on,but being the smart predator they are,calves and pets take a good hit along with chickens..Wolves will be they same but worse in my opinion,the very rural areas like the palouse will be hit hard I believe..Cattle are easy shopping...there is no shortage of wolves in country or Canada,I'm a firm believer this is about hurting hunters and hunting at any cost to wildlife and ranchers..Start managing the wolves now!!!!

[Duffer]

here in grant county we have many gophers and other small animals for coyotes to feed on,but being the smart predator they are,calves and pets take a good hit along with chickens..Wolves will be they same but worse in my opinion,the very rural areas like the palouse will be hit hard I believe..Cattle are easy shopping...there is no shortage of wolves in country or Canada,I'm a firm believer this is about hurting hunters and hunting at any cost to wildlife and ranchers..Start managing the wolves now!!!!

This!!!