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

[wolfbait]

It seems misleading to me to suggest this rancher was "forced" off his grazing lease.  It implies the state came in and rounded up his sheep and hauled them somewhere.  A more accurate title would be "Wolves force rancher to flee" or "Rancher Decides to Move Flock"...as the rancher, and only the rancher, decided to move his sheep voluntarily...and he has that right.  He could have left them right where they were if he (and the landowner) desired.  Wolves are a natural part of the landscape now.  Its going to make livestock production more difficult...but killing wolves is politically unpopular in this state...times have changed and the sooner folks realize this I think the more successful they will be.  Is it true he refused resources to help reduce conflict with wolves?  I think the article said something like collars/range riders etc. were offered but denied?  No idea whether it would have helped, but it certainly couldn't have hurt and it would eliminate the argument from the pro-wolf crowd that he refused non-lethal help.

The way I see it, the rancher could have stayed and watched the wolves keep killing his sheep while WDFW played this out till the maximum damage had been done, taking a wolf out whenever CNW and the rest of their ilk wanted one for publicity. In the end the rancher would have lost even more.

I think most of us knew this kind of wolf management/control would be on the menu after watching the Wedge slop WDFW preformed. And this same performance is why WDFW have not had to confirm new wolf packs, ranchers etc. don't want WDFW's "help", they are taking care of their own problems. WDFW know this, it prolongs wolf delisting not having to confirm wolf packs, which WDFW want.

Refusing to take out the entire pack that is killing livestock is like driving a truck down the mountain without breaks, there is just no stopping, the outcome will always be the same.  When WDFW and their pro-wolf clan came out with their 15 BPS it should have been evident to everyone just how the wolves in WA would be favored over livestock, people, wildlife etc..

This isn't a shocker to me at all, nor is the response from the pro-wolfers on W-H, which are pretty easy to recognize right now.

[bearpaw]

Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.

If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?

I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!

If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!

[bobcat]

So you're basically saying you agree with the revenue from our hunting license fees being used to support wolves?   

[jasnt]

To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.

and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.

[AspenBud]

Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.

If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?

I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!

If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!

I hear what you're saying but I don't think it's a stretch to say that at this point a lot of people think folks complaining about WDFW failing to acknowledge kills as wolf caused are simply upset because they didn't get some money for what might have just been a cougar or coyote related kill.

I don't care if that's right or wrong, that's the perception. Money is a big part of the problem. Instead of being livestock owners suffering losses people now see a lot of the complaints as just folks looking for a handout any time an animal is lost to a predator or act of God.

Take the monetary compensation out of it and people start to see ranchers' losses as folks actually getting hurt by wolves and not just people wanting money for losses that are typical for the business.

[bobcat]

To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.

and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.

And that's exactly how those ranchers should pay for their increased business expenses- raise their prices. And no, I won't complain if the price of meat goes up. I may not buy it if the price is too high, maybe we will only buy chicken in the store, and eat deer and elk meat instead of beef (mostly already true).

[wolfbait]

Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.

If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?

I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!

If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!

The USFWS knew twenty years ago what would happen, why do you think they had to lie so extensively? Just about everything they said about wolves has been proven over the years to be lies, if they would have been truthful the wolves would never have been allowed to be introduced.





Wolf impacts underestimated



According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.



• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.

• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.

• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.

• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.

• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.

• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.

• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.

• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.

• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.”

• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.



WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.”



The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.



“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.



WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.” WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels described by the impact analysis in the 1994 EIS.”

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml



What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

[AspenBud]

To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.

and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.

I honestly don't remember the last time I ate a piece of Washington grown beef or mutton. It simply doesn't exist in the grocery store.

And sorry, in the grand scheme your argument, at least right now, does not hold up. Feed prices, drought, and trade policies have a much much bigger impact than wolves on the price of food. The only reason beef prices have jumped as they have recently was because a bajillion cattle got slaughtered as a result of rising feed prices which were the result of the drought we had back in 2012. Bad things happen when you fuel cars with corn.

[AspenBud]

To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.

and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.

And that's exactly how those ranchers should pay for their increased business expenses- raise their prices. And no, I won't complain if the price of meat goes up. I may not buy it if the price is too high, maybe we will only buy chicken in the store, and eat deer and elk meat instead of beef (mostly already true).

Meat at the counter in Safeway or Fred Meyer is not going to go up because of wolves any time soon.

[wolfbait]

Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.

 

Particularly once they get delisted by the state.

"Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation".

Now that's funny coming from you two----------------->

[ctwiggs1]

So you're basically saying you agree with the revenue from our hunting license fees being used to support wolves?

Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist.  If the ranchers and homeowners had the right to shoot the wolves on their property like they do coyotes, it probably wouldn't be an issue.  Actually, if that were the case I would probably agree with you. 

But being told that they can get in legal trouble for shooting a wolf, knowing that if they don't shoot the wolf it's likely to go after their flock.....  Remember, each sheep is worth hundreds of dollars.  Every time a wolf kills one sheep, it's a couple hundred bucks that just died.

edited out invalid and replaced with anti-capitalist.

Curtis

[Katmai Guy]

It doesn't matter if each sheep is worth hundreds or if each cow is worth thousands of dollars in profit, they only "cost" the rancher what he paid for them and his expenses for care( inoculations, ect) or if they were born on the range they were free.  We shouldn't have to reimburse expected profit because you never know what the market price will be at time of slaughter.  I have no problem reimbursing actual cost, so the rancher will not lose money, he just won't profit off the lost animal.

[Stein]

Cracks me up that the same guys telling the ranchers to deal with it are toggling over to another thread griping about how there are fewer deer and elk in wolf areas.  It's always easier when the problem belongs to someone else.

I'm not a rancher and don't personally know one.  I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money.  They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past.  The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.

Realistically, it is like a government worker coming to your job and taking $200 on random intervals.

There are costs to introducing wolves and a significant one is being shouldered by ranchers.  Another is hunters having less game where wolves are present.  There should be two fair options - 1) let the ranchers kill wolves that are feeding on their property or 2) factor the cost of replacing the stock into the cost of the wolf program.

[bobcat]

"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?

[ctwiggs1]

It doesn't matter if each sheep is worth hundreds or if each cow is worth thousands of dollars in profit, they only "cost" the rancher what he paid for them and his expenses for care( inoculations, ect) or if they were born on the range they were free.  We shouldn't have to reimburse expected profit because you never know what the market price will be at time of slaughter.  I have no problem reimbursing actual cost, so the rancher will not lose money, he just won't profit off the lost animal.

You must be a victim of Washington public education.

In the end lost revenue is lost revenue, and in the end the cost of farm hands and ranchers is going up, not down.  You're forgetting all the inherent cost of running any business - payroll, benefits, utilities, land taxes, etc.  Ranchers, just like manufacturers, have *capacity*.  It's not like they're going to be able to bring on an extra 100 sheep a year just to feed the wolves.

Again, if the state doesn't want to compensate the rancher, they need to let him protect his land.  If the state was saying "Hey, wolves are back but if they step foot on your property you have the right to shoot them." - The story would be completely different.

Curtis