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

[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!

[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.

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?

My statement stands, please show me proof of livestock losses by wolves in WA/ID/MT/WY from 1950 to 1995?

This wolf problem was created by government by introducing wolves in 1995, until government resolves the problem, government should pay for damages!

Wolves were largely exterminated by 1950...so livestock losses to wolves would have been minimal. (;

That doesn't change the fact that wolves were exterminated in response to depredation.

[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.

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?

My statement stands, please show me proof of livestock losses by wolves in WA/ID/MT/WY from 1950 to 1995?

This wolf problem was created by government by introducing wolves in 1995, until government resolves the problem, government should pay for damages!

Wolves were largely exterminated by 1950...so livestock losses to wolves would have been minimal. (;

That doesn't change the fact that wolves were exterminated in response to depredation.

That's exactly right... 

[AspenBud]

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.

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?

That and the wolves here at that time were a smaller subspecies than the McKenzies Dumped in the northern Rockies 20 years ago

And that apparently mattered so much that they were exterminated. Why? Because they ate livestock too!

[AspenBud]

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? :dunno

Total elimination is not management. As long as the dogs are protected ranchers should probably get a buck, though I seriously think that is a PR disaster for them. But once protections get dropped and they become a game animal all bets are off as far as compensation goes.   

[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.

[AspenBud]

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.

Lots of businesses didn't want free trade either but the government signed those agreements too. The "we didn't have to deal with this before" argument isn't a very strong one. Curve balls are a part of business, be they government caused or otherwise. You either adapt or go out of business. Those are the only options. The government also requires auto companies to put in a gazillion new safety features and increase mileage every year, the companies warn it will cost more, and in the end they add the features and raise prices as necessary. They don't even blink at it.

There is only one thing you can count on in business, things change.

[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.

My understanding is the agreement was always to cover livestock losses until wolves got to such a point that they could make it on their own and absorb any losses via depredation. This whole argument has taken on a form that is far different from the original Yellowstone deal.

[KFhunter]

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.

Should have let them get ate?  He couldn't protect his sheep from the wolves using legal means.  He bent over backwards working with WDFW,  I can't fault the guy if he didn't let every tom,dick,harry wolf group come in and make a mess of things.   What about Hancock?  They're loosing that lease due to wolves so that's money out of their pockets too, and does a timber company want all the fencing, flaggery and whatever else non-since the wolf groups come up with?  I think not.   Letting your sheep get slaughtered by wolves is NOT an option as you seem to indicate it is.

It's disgusting and sick to think that way.

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.

Ranchers have been begging and fighting for the right to defend their livestock and certainty did not ask for wolves to be in a non-viable wolf habitat areas.
 
The ranchers also did not ask for the wolf plan of WA that specifically spells out how they're to be compensated,  and furthermore the rancher most affected by wolves with the greatest losses in WA's recent history has flatly refused compensation and furthermore "compensation" doesn't begin to even come close to fully compensating wolf loss....herd weight and health, calf losses far outweigh the livestock that actually fall to wolf teeth.



 

[idahohuntr]

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.

I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore.  The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers.  Those are the facts.  Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.

[wolfbait]

wow

I don't know where to start on this one, other than to say the livestock operator bend over backwards to accommodate WDFW

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/Huckleberry_Pack_ltr_to_WDFW_-_Aug_21_2014.pdf

Keep mouth shut and go to store, no more wolf problem. Everyone Happy, happy, happy.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Winchester174-Varmint-X-Rifle-Ammunition/1571904.uts?Ntk=BargainCave&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch_within.cmd%3Fform_state%3Ddefault_state%26searchWithin%3Dtrue%26N%3D0%26Ntk%3DBargainCave%26Ntt%3DAmmunition%26search%3DAmmunition%26nttWithin%3D243%26x%3D7%26y%3D10%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-Bargain%2BCave%253BSearchWithin&Ntt=Ammunition&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-Bargain+Cave%3BSearchWithin

[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.

I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore.  The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers.  Those are the facts.  Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.

Please see KFhunters last reply, pretty much sums it up!

[Stein]

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.

I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore.  The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers.  Those are the facts.  Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.

A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.

[bobcat]

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.

I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore.  The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers.  Those are the facts.  Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.

A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.

The government is taking nothing. Did you mean the wolves? If so, they are called wildlife for a reason- they are "wild" and they go where they want and do what they want.

[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.

I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore.  The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers.  Those are the facts.  Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.

A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.

I don't see anything about that in the definition of Democracy. I do see that the majority rules.

de·moc·ra·cy

1
a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
:  a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
:  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
:  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy