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

[KFhunter]

Here's a twist for you all.

I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with. 

The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.

[wolfbait]

Here's a twist for you all.

I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with. 

The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.

Wolves are more important, they make the aspen grow, balance the ecosystem and beaver flourish.

[bearpaw]

Why do you write something you know is not true. 

Says the guy who wrote wolves did not kill livestock prior to 1995!

I asked for proof of any livestock killed by wolves from 1950 to 1995, neither you no Bobcat have provided any proof of any livesytock killed by wolves during that time, I guess my statement was pretty solid, it was the introduction of northern wolves by government that has led to livestock losses. 

[bearpaw]

Resolves the "problem?"  The only resolution that would put an end to wolves preying on livestock, is the total elimination of wolves.

OK, you are probably right, isn't that what they did before, until then losses should be paid for?

why dont these ranchers just get insurance?

Insurance Agent: Hello this is Geico!

Sheep Rancher: Uh hi, I'd like to insure my 1800 sheep against wolf attacks! 

Insurance Agent: Do you live in Stevens County?

Sheep Rancher: Uh huh....

Insurance Agent: Sorry dude, call your legislator! 

Sheep Rancher: stevemiller thought you would insure my sheep?

Insurance Agent: Did you really believe that!  CLANK!

This is funny bearpaw.Anyways what you are saying is that nobody would insure such a thing well I see insurance options for everything,Wow they even still insure mobile homes in tornado alley,I agree with the wolves are a problem I also agree with its not the publics problem like was said earlier in this thread it is not something that should still be covered with yours and my money.What difference does it make if we have to pay more at the register or at the ranch for their loss?It makes no difference at all.

I'm glad you saw the humor. 

I think WDFW is more or less the insurance policy, we pay them, and they made promises to compensate for losses.

[bearpaw]

I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes.  Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW.  Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators.

No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.

No.  I want them to manage the resource.  Delist wolves, revise the wolf plan, open up spring bear for all GMU's, raise the quotas on cougars, bring back use of dogs for coyotes, stop threatening to eliminate coyote hunting tournaments, bring back trapping, hunting with hounds, etc.

They could do all that and still if it was up to you they'd be compensating anyone and everyone for any loss due to depredation by predators. Again, it's not the state's responsibility. They shouldn't be compensating losses from wolves, and they shouldn't be compensating for losses by any predator.

You're wrong.  If they did some of that, then fine......I would not expect anyone but the rancher to be responsible for his losses.  But when a rancher is in business, going along with normal operating expenses, then all of a sudden gets hit with a huge jump in predator numbers due to mismanagement........he should have some recourse for his losses due to no fault of his own.  The fault lies with the stupid government.

  very well put...

Who sets the quotas on the numbers of cougars?  Who sets the seasons for bear hunting?  Who took away use of dogs for coyote hunting? etc.  Sure, the voters were a big reason for the crap we find ourselves in, but WDFW isn't doing all they can to counteract the predator lovefest that the voters had started.

   correct again, in fact after the hound ban there were a lot of cougar being taken by boot hunters but WDFW greatly reduced the cougar season and put low quotas on harvest, the over population of cougars is WDFW's fault.

[bearpaw]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

[AspenBud]

Here's a twist for you all.

I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with. 

The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.

So is burning it.

That's actually a really great example however of where another industry could have a gripe with and help with wolves. Hancock has been fairly quiet on this one and effectively abandoned the rancher to the state on this. If it is really that important they should, and probably would, say something.

I don't know how well it applies here in Washington, but Hancock is another timber company who forces hunters to buy permits to access their land in some areas. You can bet a fair number of guys who either refuse to buy, or can't afford to, have taken on a "I don't give a rip about what happens on their land because I can't hunt on it" attitude.

[AspenBud]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.

[bearpaw]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

[AspenBud]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.

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.

[bearpaw]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.

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.

FYI - You can't assume everything is the same statewide, there are a lot of ranchers and timber companies on the eastside who let people hunt on their land without paying. Most hunters I know try to get on the best land they can to better their odds.

Also, I was talking about my friends and talking about my clients. 

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

[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.

[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??? 

[AspenBud]

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.

[AspenBud]

I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.

 

The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.

Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want.  I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.

And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.

Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? 

Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.

True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.

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.

FYI - You can't assume everything is the same statewide, there are a lot of ranchers and timber companies on the eastside who let people hunt on their land without paying. Most hunters I know try to get on the best land they can to better their odds.

Also, I was talking about my friends and talking about my clients. 

A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.

I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.

No doubt. But as recently as this last weekend I talked to a guy who was out near Goldendale, or so he said, and he was upset because a lot of his old hunting holes have been gated up and have become permit only or outright locked up. This is a common complaint.  Hunting in this state is getting expensive, areas open to hunting (unless you have a permit) are disappearing, and I can tell you for sure that people are leaving the tradition because of that.

Most will not travel to hunt on a ranch in the Okanogan or in Stevens County. They want and need areas closer to home but private land owners have pushed many off one way or another. That's their right, but it is negatively affecting hunter retention and recruitment.