Rancher: Being forced off private grazing land by wolves is wrong

[bearpaw]

"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."

I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?

The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!

Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.

Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.

So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock.  I've bolded it for you.  You really believe that?  Seriously?  Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???

I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?

The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?

It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! 

[bearpaw]

If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.

You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.

True.

But glancing at your website, a person who goes to an outfitter is going to be out well over $1000.00 at the bottom end and can go as high as $5000 with a guide. The price is  little better if it's an unguided hunt but we're still talking about $500.00 or more for that right? People who pay that kind of money are playing for keeps and they are not the average. They are paying big money to ensure they come home with something.

Roughly speaking the average guy is out about $200.00 if he buys the full deer, elk, bear, cougar combo along with small game, waterfowl, and pheasant card. That makes most grimace and the thought of spending $500-$5000 to go to an outfitter is not within the realm of possibility for one reason or another. For most that will be a once every so often event at best and it better count. So yes, they'll quite willingly pay for the land access because that is part of what ups the odds when they use an outfitter.

Most hunters however do not use an outfitter because from their perspective it doesn't pay. $500-$5000 a person can buy a lot of beef.

If you are hunting to get meat cheaper than beef you need to take an economics class so you understand all the expenses involved. Not trying to be a smarty, just stating a fact!

I bet many of the members of this forum make more money than many of my hunters. I also bet many forum members make more money than I do, heck, when I worked a full time job I made more money. But there is a lifestyle that is worth the decrease in pay.

Many of my hunters have done the math, it's cheaper for them to come hunt with us than to buy a new hunting truck and all the equipment used in hunting and take off the time and buy the fuel to scout areas. Going with a good outfitter is actually a pretty good deal if you weigh all the costs. We are not always successful, but our hunters have a much higher than average success rate.

[idahohuntr]

"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."

I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?

The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!

Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.

Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.

So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock.  I've bolded it for you.  You really believe that?  Seriously?  Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???

I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?

The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?

It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! 

I agree wolves were not a problem in 1950-1995...because they were functionally extinct and at extremely low abundance.  The only part I disagreed with is your suggestion (that I bolded) where I interpreted what you were saying was wolves in the 1800's were different and did not prey on livestock. 

As far as the government paying for livestock losses...I think it should be a temporary thing that goes away as soon as wolves are de-listed and more easily killed if they are observed targeting livestock. 

[bearpaw]

"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."

I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?

The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!

Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.

Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.

So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock.  I've bolded it for you.  You really believe that?  Seriously?  Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???

I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?

The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?

It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! 

I agree wolves were not a problem in 1950-1995...because they were functionally extinct and at extremely low abundance.  The only part I disagreed with is your suggestion (that I bolded) where I interpreted what you were saying was wolves in the 1800's were different and did not prey on livestock. 

As far as the government paying for livestock losses...I think it should be a temporary thing that goes away as soon as wolves are de-listed and more easily killed if they are observed targeting livestock.

By different I meant a different sub-specie of wolf was planted than what was native in the NRM. Prior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS, the wolves in Canada were considered a different sub specie than the wolves in the NRM area. The farther north you go the wolves tend to get larger and travel in larger packs. If you happen to disagree please review the history of subspecies of wolves in North America.

I think the ranchers have a strong argument that payments should continue after delisting, I'm not sure where I stand on that.

[bigmacc]

I've not "given" anything to anti-hunters.  I think its a mistake to not fully understand the opposition..."know thy enemy".

For once i agree with you about anti- hunters(know thy enemy)....My brother was a Green Baret sniper and he always says the enemy puts their pants on one leg at a time just like us,they are no different except for their beliefs....and they want us GONE....my

[rim_runner]

Prior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS,

I don’t think that the USFWS has the authority to reclassify subspecies into one subspecies or change species or subspecies names. This is done by an international committee and allows for input from scientists worldwide. The input is subject to peer review and usually requires a very high degree of proof. It’s not unusual to see subspecies reclassified these days due to new information coming from DNA studies.   

[bearpaw]

Prior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS,

I don’t think that the USFWS has the authority to reclassify subspecies into one subspecies or change species or subspecies names. This is done by an international committee and allows for input from scientists worldwide. The input is subject to peer review and usually requires a very high degree of proof. It’s not unusual to see subspecies reclassified these days due to new information coming from DNA studies.   

You might be correct about who reclassifies, but it was done prior to the wolf introduction. I'm not sure I believe how scientific it really is, for some reason they seem to come up with different subspecies where they want them? Mexican Grays and Red Wolves quickly come to mind! Have you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?

[idahohuntr]

With no real migration or other barriers it is difficult for me to accept that wolves in North id/wa were any different on a subspecies level from central canada...yea, some habitat differences, but I'm not buying there were all these different subspecies in the nw. 

Hunters who merely want wolves delist ed should be grateful the USFWS has classified them the way they are!  DoW and CNW would love to sell people on the idea that each patch of forest has a unique subspecies!

[rim_runner]

Have you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?

I haven’t heard any more on that but my gut feeling is that even if the coastal wolf is a new subspecies it is or was mostly confined to the islands and had a very small presence on the mainland. I think the anti-management crowd is grasping at straws with this one.

[bearpaw]

With no real migration or other barriers it is difficult for me to accept that wolves in North id/wa were any different on a subspecies level from central canada...yea, some habitat differences, but I'm not buying there were all these different subspecies in the nw. 

Hunters who merely want wolves delist ed should be grateful the USFWS has classified them the way they are!  DoW and CNW would love to sell people on the idea that each patch of forest has a unique subspecies!

Have you considered that the moose in the states and the moose where the Canadian wolves came from are classified as different moose. Caribou are classified as different caribou from different regions, same is true with other species, even whitetail. If the Canadian wolves were still considered a different sub species they probably would not have been planted in ID/MT/WY in the first place. It seems that it was quite convenient for USFWS when wolves were reclassified as one wolf, now that the wolf groups need this taxonomy to work the other way for their benefit it seems they are trying to reclassify certain regions as different wolves.

Have you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?

I haven’t heard any more on that but my gut feeling is that even if the coastal wolf is a new subspecies it is or was mostly confined to the islands and had a very small presence on the mainland. I think the anti-management crowd is grasping at straws with this one.

I agree, there are good arguments why mainland wolves should not be included as Island Wolves, my fingers are crossed! 

On the other side of the token, if Island wolves became a new subspecie that might lead to revisions in the WA Wolf Plan, warnings about livestock damages have proven true, more people can see the flaw in the current plan of not allowing management anywhere until wolves are everywhere, and wolf support is declining in Washington as people have to live with and pay for wolves.

A reclassification of Island Wolves would also lend merit to Rep Kretz's bill to transplant wolves in the San Juan's and also on the west slope of the cascades. With 100 wolves in the San Juans and I-5 corridor we might see how quickly wolves can be delisted in Washington.