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

[wolfbait]

"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???

The few wolf problems ranchers had with wolves before the wolf was declared an endangered species was handled promptly, without all the BS. Since the wolf introduction ranchers and the public have had nothing but trouble. Records of past wolves in the RM showed a smaller wolf that ran in small packs, which were not as hard on livestock.

Before the wolf introduction took place there were biologist that argue it would be wiser to let the wolves repopulate the lower 48 naturally, that way they would get an education along the way. But Ed Bangs and crew knew that would take far to long, as they, the USFWS along with other state game agencies had been introducing wolves on the sly for several years only to have the wolves go back to their home range.

 The wolves of the 1960's into the1990's were planted wolves, but through experimentation these agencies came up with soft release and hard release. Hard released wolves go back home, soft released wolves are held and fed in kennels until they like their new home. The wolves of Oregon and WA were brought in from ID, MT, and Wyoming, some were fed at their release site and some were just dumped to work their way back to their home range. I have to laugh at WDFW when they say wolves are just passing through, for once they aren't lying, the wolves are headed back to which ever state they were caught in.  I bet their are a few biologists on W-H who are wondering who gave me that little bit of info.?  

[idahohuntr]

Wolves were not released by government officials in Wa state wolfbait.  Its really that simple.  Wolves were not released in Idaho/YNP until the mid 1990's.

For someone who constantly criticizes how stupid, incompetent, lazy, and worthless the government is...you sure give them a whole lot of credit for pulling off this elaborate conspiracy without a shred of credible evidence being left behind. 

[AspenBud]

"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???

The few wolf problems ranchers had with wolves before the wolf was declared an endangered species was handled promptly, without all the BS. Since the wolf introduction ranchers and the public have had nothing but trouble. Records of past wolves in the RM showed a smaller wolf that ran in small packs, which were not as hard on livestock.

Before the wolf introduction took place there were biologist that argue it would be wiser to let the wolves repopulate the lower 48 naturally, that way they would get an education along the way. But Ed Bangs and crew knew that would take far to long, as they, the USFWS along with other state game agencies had been introducing wolves on the sly for several years only to have the wolves go back to their home range.

 The wolves of the 1960's into the1990's were planted wolves, but through experimentation these agencies came up with soft release and hard release. Hard released wolves go back home, soft released wolves are held and fed in kennels until they like their new home. The wolves of Oregon and WA were brought in from ID, MT, and Wyoming, some were fed at their release site and some were just dumped to work their way back to their home range. I have to laugh at WDFW when they say wolves are just passing through, for once they aren't lying, the wolves are headed back to which ever state they were caught in.  I bet their are a few biologists on W-H who are wondering who gave me that little bit of info.?  

Yes, wolves never disperse. Right...

This is one of your more nonsensical arguments. Mostly because if you were right the states of Idaho and Montana wouldn't be worried about wolves spreading to other areas as their population expands. It would naturally be contained and we both know that isn't the case.

[baldopepper]

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.

I think this has to be put in the perspective of peoples priorities.  Couple of guys in my office who are not monied elite, but put out $1600.00 per year for Seahawk tickets.  They openly admit that with parking and food at the games they spend well over $3000.00 to see 10 (including preseason) 3 hour football games.  They don't hunt or fish, so their recreation money goes to the Seahawks.  For someone whose passion is hunting,  putting out this kind of money for a guided hunt is the same thing.  We never seem to question this kind of expenditure to see football games, why would we question it for a good hunting experience?

[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.

I think this has to be put in the perspective of peoples priorities.  Couple of guys in my office who are not monied elite, but put out $1600.00 per year for Seahawk tickets.  They openly admit that with parking and food at the games they spend well over $3000.00 to see 10 (including preseason) 3 hour football games.  They don't hunt or fish, so their recreation money goes to the Seahawks.  For someone whose passion is hunting,  putting out this kind of money for a guided hunt is the same thing.  We never seem to question this kind of expenditure to see football games, why would we question it for a good hunting experience?

I'm not questioning it, I'm saying it is not the average. Most hunters want and need access close to home, get out for a week at most and more likely make some day or weekend outings during the season. Family obligations, bills, etc, those keep most all away from outfitters.

It is certainly a matter of priorities however...and understanding spouses.   

[KFhunter]

Ranchers today do not have the tools, legal means or wherewithal to kill wolves threatening livestock.
No poison
No traps/snares
No hunting

And far too few who know how to use them and time to do so.


fact is the average Joe hasn't felt enough pain to have a desire to manage wolves as yet.  Ranchers and livestock owners are the Canary's in the gold mine,  hunters will come next then the general public.   

Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.

Wolves will go the same way your hope and change went once the wool's pulled off everyone's eyes.

[wolfbait]

Ranchers today do not have the tools, legal means or wherewithal to kill wolves threatening livestock.
No poison
No traps/snares
No hunting

And far too few who know how to use them and time to do so.


fact is the average Joe hasn't felt enough pain to have a desire to manage wolves as yet.  Ranchers and livestock owners are the Canary's in the gold mine,  hunters will come next then the general public.   

Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.

Wolves will go the same way your hope and change went once the wool's pulled off everyone's eyes.

Well put KF -- you have listed some facts the pro-wolfers can not deny, although they might try.

Many people are losing their love for wolves as they learn they were lied to by the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies.

Remember, there were reasons other then livestock for the wolves being targeted since the beginning, not only in the USA but other countries as well, and yet knowing this "environmentalists" the USFWS and WDFW ignore this history and protect them above all else. How can anyone ignore their stupidity?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF

WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS  http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

Read the book, >Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages< By Will N Graves

This book is a unique review of wolves as experienced in a culture much different than ours in North America. This book summarizes the massive research on wolves, particular those in Russia. The killing of humans by wolves is generally suppressed as reading material. This book documents the fear of Russian people because of the large number of people being killed by wolves. The diseases carried by wolves is another concern. These are explained in this book in detail. The need for control of wolves runs throughout this book. Wolves are not the positive influence in balancing nature as may be thought. Without control there is wide damage to humans, domesticated animals, and wild animals.

[idahohuntr]

Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.

Those "asinine" policies are in place because wolves are loved and cherished by all but a handful of small/minority user groups (ranchers, hunters) in Washington State.  I don't see that changing.  This is not a trivial point when it comes to understanding and implementing wolf management in WA.

[bearpaw]

Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.

Those "asinine" policies are in place because wolves are loved and cherished by all but a handful of small/minority user groups (ranchers, hunters) in Washington State.  I don't see that changing.  This is not a trivial point when it comes to understanding and implementing wolf management in WA.

I think you give in too easy to the anti hunters wishes. I heard about a poll taken of Washington residents and the majority favored management of wolves. 

[idahohuntr]

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

[Bob33]

Here's some interesting information referenced from one poll:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/

[MR5x5]

So if i acquire a pet wolf and it gets out of my private yard and eats the governor in a public park, am I in trouble?

[bearpaw]

Here's some interesting information referenced from one poll:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/

Thanks Bob...

The survey found only slight movement on the question of lethal removal of wolves to protect livestock, with 63 percent expressing support and 28 percent opposing. In 2008, those percentages were 61 and 31.

Over 60 percent supported cost-sharing between WDFW and landowners to prevent attacks on cattle, sheep and other stock while about a quarter opposed, and there’s a lot of support for cost-sharing as the primary strategy to prevent conflicts.

almost 2/3 support lethal removal to prevent livestock problems
60% support cost sharing for losses

There  was less statewide support for lethal wolf control to help protect deer, elk and moose than to protect livestock, 55 percent and 32 percent — but it was strongest in the deer-rich corners and North-central Cascades counties.

55% support lethal removal to protect big game herds

These percentages will swing even more to our favor as wolves cause more problems! 

[Northway]

Here's some interesting information referenced from one poll:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/

Thanks Bob...

The survey found only slight movement on the question of lethal removal of wolves to protect livestock, with 63 percent expressing support and 28 percent opposing. In 2008, those percentages were 61 and 31.

Over 60 percent supported cost-sharing between WDFW and landowners to prevent attacks on cattle, sheep and other stock while about a quarter opposed, and there’s a lot of support for cost-sharing as the primary strategy to prevent conflicts.

almost 2/3 support lethal removal to prevent livestock problems
60% support cost sharing for losses

There  was less statewide support for lethal wolf control to help protect deer, elk and moose than to protect livestock, 55 percent and 32 percent — but it was strongest in the deer-rich corners and North-central Cascades counties.

55% support lethal removal to protect big game herds

These percentages will swing even more to our favor as wolves cause more problems! 

I always appreciate when an article provides a link to the underlying data on a survey. There are so many variables to take into account - for instance, a lot of surveys are conducted over land-lines which throws the demographics off. There are many others that it's helpful to be able to interpret.

Assuming the results are right on, I'm glad it shows that many people are pro-management. What I always tell aggressive wolf supporters is that they are hardy animals and can sustain populations even under intensive management. Once they recolonize, it's better to move on to other more important issues and allow management to take place based on relevant conditions. It would also gain better acceptance, or at least tolerance to an extent. Hardcore environmentalists refuse to acknowledge local politics, which is detrimental in MOST cases. 

[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.

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.

I completely agree with your last comments, I know it's a big issue in western WA. But now we are talking apples and oranges compared to the original issue and comments about hunting private land in Stevens County.