Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
"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?
QuoteI'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.That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
Quote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:29:06 PMQuoteI'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.That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Quote from: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:31:00 PMQuote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:29:06 PMQuoteI'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.That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Quote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:25:23 PM"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!
Quote from: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:47:12 PMQuote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:25:23 PM"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.
Quote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:52:50 PMQuote from: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:47:12 PMQuote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:25:23 PM"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.This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
Quote from: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:56:29 PMQuote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:52:50 PMQuote from: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:47:12 PMQuote from: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:25:23 PM"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.This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!So, tell me again why ranchers exterminated the wolves in the early 1900's? I mean, given they obviously never preyed on livestock I guess ranchers just didn't work as hard back then and had lots of free time?