Central Idaho sheep rancher moves flock during lambing to avoid wolves

[bearpaw]

It's obvious that wolves have cost citizens millions and wolves are continuing to cost us money. I think it's a sad day when a rancher has to look for a new place to move his herd due to wolves. As soon as the wolves possibly figure out where the sheep are, the rancher will have the same problem again.

In areas where wolves cause problems the offending wolves should be terminated. Either they fit in or they don't, when they don't fit in get rid of them. 

[AspenBud]

In areas where wolves cause problems the offending wolves should be terminated. Either they fit in or they don't, when they don't fit in get rid of them.

I think that's my point. In Idaho this guy likely has the ability to do something about the problem and yet he feels it's more cost effective to move his animals. That's actually quite the statement on his part.

[AspenBud]

I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.

No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.

In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.

[idahohuntr]

I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.

No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.

In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.

Wolves are not going away.  If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business.  Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context.  I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change. 

[idahohuntr]

Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.

So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads?  Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application? 

[pianoman9701]

I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.

No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.

In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.

I risk things getting worse? How so? You think that they state is going to increase the already ridiculous wolf plan because a large number of people object to it? You think that the rabid wolf lovers will get any more rabid because I speak out about the wrong this program has done and will do? That's bull crap. I accept that environmentalists won the debate and the wolves are here. That doesn't mean everything's OK and that doesn't mean I'll sit quietly by while they multiply in WA to a point of no return. Most of the people who've pushed for this don't have anything at stake. They live in Seattle or Portland or San Francisco, and are celebrating as ranchers lose their stock and their businesses, and we hunters lose our ungulates. I'm not doing anything to hurt your poor, defenseless little wolves.

[pianoman9701]

Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.

So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads?  Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?

Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.

[pianoman9701]

I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.

No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.

In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.

Wolves are not going away. If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business.  Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context.  I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change.

Again, said like a true nothing-at-stake extremist. 

[idahohuntr]

Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.

So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads?  Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?

Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.

Your hypocricy is hilarious.  So you want to eliminate herbicide use for private timberland owners but not ag producers.  You don't see how new laws and federal regulations regarding herbicide use on forests would impact farmers and ag producers bottom lines?  Really?  Do you have a clue how many herbicides are used in ag production?  Oh but wait, that doesn't fit your neat little story where herbicides cause hoof rot does it?  More important to this thread, your concerns about the farmers bottom line don't seem so genuine anymore do they?

[jasnt]

If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business.  Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context.  I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change. 

these ranches and farms feed America.  Have you ever ate any of the imported meat.  Its tasteless if your lucky and sometimes disgusting.  These are not just any other business, they are part of American culture, help keep us more self sufficient, and are regulated for our protection.  These are the type of businesses that should have been bailed out, they should be important to all of us. 

[AspenBud]

I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.

No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.

In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.

I risk things getting worse? How so? You think that they state is going to increase the already ridiculous wolf plan because a large number of people object to it? You think that the rabid wolf lovers will get any more rabid because I speak out about the wrong this program has done and will do? That's bull crap. I accept that environmentalists won the debate and the wolves are here. That doesn't mean everything's OK and that doesn't mean I'll sit quietly by while they multiply in WA to a point of no return. Most of the people who've pushed for this don't have anything at stake. They live in Seattle or Portland or San Francisco, and are celebrating as ranchers lose their stock and their businesses, and we hunters lose our ungulates. I'm not doing anything to hurt your poor, defenseless little wolves.

Yeah, you don't get it. It's the folks in Seattle et al that you need to get through to. But you won't until you adjust your attitude and figure out how to communicate with them.

[AspenBud]

If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business.  Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context.  I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change. 

these auto companies feed America.  Have you ever driven an imported car ?  They barely run if your lucky and sometimes rust to pieces.  These are not just any other business, they are part of American culture, help keep us more self sufficient, and are regulated for our protection.  These are the type of businesses that should have been bailed out, they should be important to all of us.

Fixed it for ya.

Free trade sucks. It was great for ranchers and farmers until they got stuck by it too. 

[pianoman9701]

I get it fine. You're a wolf lover and think I should be, too. Sorry. It's not going to work that way. It can't get worse for those of us who are realists and understand what's going on. And the wolf lovers like you aren't about to make any concessions because I change my attitude. That's a huge lie and you know it. You think everyone should start goose stepping behind your love of wolves. No.

[pianoman9701]

Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.

So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads?  Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?

Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.

Your hypocricy is hilarious.  So you want to eliminate herbicide use for private timberland owners but not ag producers.  You don't see how new laws and federal regulations regarding herbicide use on forests would impact farmers and ag producers bottom lines?  Really?  Do you have a clue how many herbicides are used in ag production?  Oh but wait, that doesn't fit your neat little story where herbicides cause hoof rot does it?  More important to this thread, your concerns about the farmers bottom line don't seem so genuine anymore do they?

I'll try and explain this to you again as simply as I can because it's obvious you're confused. Regulation wouldn't be aimed at or affect farmers and domestic livestock. It would affect our forests and clear cuts. No one's talking about going after farmers and food crops. We're talking about the forests. If you're still having a problem understanding, ask someone close to read the thread to you. That may help. I'm done with you in this thread.

[AspenBud]

I get it fine. You're a wolf lover and think I should be, too. Sorry. It's not going to work that way. It can't get worse for those of us who are realists and understand what's going on. And the wolf lovers like you aren't about to make any concessions because I change my attitude. That's a huge lie and you know it. You think everyone should start goose stepping behind your love of wolves. No.

Yes it can. It's called an initiative, and your message isn't getting through, theirs is.

It's not about winning "wolf lovers" over to your side, it's everyone in the middle and you are failing miserably.