Wash. reports new wolf pack found

[idahohuntr]

Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a price

Not downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.

[timberfaller]

"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."

Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.

You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer.  Economics 101

I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption.

[jasnt]

Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a price

Not downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.

yup easy to say when ya don't have a small farm.  No big deal with it. Yup just raise your price or let the state cover it. Then to top it all off we have to have permission to protect our livestock.  Not down playing anything?? Not how it comes across idahohunter. Many off these things maybe not a huge deal for a big ranch.  These little guys its huge. In the 30 years my family has been farming this little chunk we've had 2 depradations. Both were caught in the act luckily and got lead poisoning.  Now we have multiple packs confirmed north and west and east of us. With plenty of sightings just next door its only a matter of time before its on our door step or our neighbors. I understand it hasn't effected you but it may very well affect us in the near future. Yet unlike Idaho we don't get to hunt them giving them fear of man, we can't porte t ours till we've already lost some,then the dam left coastys want us to spend more money or tax payers money to try these nonlethal means first so we could loose some before we can protect our stock.  I don't see much light at the end myself. 

[idahohuntr]

Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a price

Not downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.

yup easy to say when ya don't have a small farm.  No big deal with it. Yup just raise your price or let the state cover it. Then to top it all off we have to have permission to protect our livestock.  Not down playing anything?? Not how it comes across idahohunter. Many off these things maybe not a huge deal for a big ranch.  These little guys its huge. In the 30 years my family has been farming this little chunk we've had 2 depradations. Both were caught in the act luckily and got lead poisoning.  Now we have multiple packs confirmed north and west and east of us. With plenty of sightings just next door its only a matter of time before its on our door step or our neighbors. I understand it hasn't effected you but it may very well affect us in the near future. Yet unlike Idaho we don't get to hunt them giving them fear of man, we can't porte t ours till we've already lost some,then the dam left coastys want us to spend more money or tax payers money to try these nonlethal means first so we could loose some before we can protect our stock.  I don't see much light at the end myself. 

I understand how it could effect a small operation more than larger operations, again, that seems to be similar to many other industries.  Its the little guy that suffers the most.  I don't agree with wolves being listed in Wa state...you should be able to protect your livestock...wolves are not at risk of extinction/endangered status anywhere in the West...they should be de-listed by state and feds everywhere in the northwest...but that is not the reality.  If I had a wolf come at one of my mules while out hunting in washington...I know what I would do...and its not going to be watching a predator attack or kill them.  I will just hope wolfbaits on my jury   

[jasnt]

At least you understand a little of my side. And yes just like you stated. Most people in eastern WA will not live peacefully with wolves when faced with costly depredation, Probably not ever.  My family has been fortunate so far. We watch our herd with a close eye and cross hairs but some day we may have to break the law just to keep a float. I pray we are giving the right to protect ours before were forced to do so.

[jasnt]

Fyi I don't think a jury in eastern WA would prosecute in that situation. I know they've had trouble even getting leads on the so called poaching of wolves here wolf bait is not a minority around here!

[CAMPMEAT]

Fyi I don't think a jury in eastern WA would prosecute in that situation. I know they've had trouble even getting leads on the so called poaching of wolves here wolf bait is not a minority around here!

I bet only the FEDS would go after you relentlessly and ruin your life. Ferry County wouldn't do squat I bet...

[wolfbait]

Fyi I don't think a jury in eastern WA would prosecute in that situation. I know they've had trouble even getting leads on the so called poaching of wolves here wolf bait is not a minority around here!

I bet only the FEDS would go after you relentlessly and ruin your life. Ferry County wouldn't do squat I bet...

WDFW would be hot after you to Campmeat, they love their wolves as much as they do their grizzly bears, and you need to remember, both agencies are run by environmentalists and yes people.

I think more people are starting to seeing the true wolf, not the imaginary wolf that Environmentalists, WDFW, and the USFWS promote. There is less push back from what used to be the pro-wolf crowd. We need to remember the environmentalists and the USFWS started brain-washing the public back in the 1960's, that's a whole generation of people that believe the lies that have been told by those agencies. WDFW had a big wolf push in the 1980's and 90's until the environmentalists and USFWS decided to to release wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming and took their wolf and grizzly bear money away.

If you read back on the history so far in WY, ID, and Montana you will see that most wolf predation on livestock occurred on private land, yet the environmentalists   claim the reason for the wolf introduction was to run 30,000 ranchers off public lands. The USFS is on the same page as the USFWS, we just don't hear anything from them, they are just another environmental silent partner working for the same agenda, the wildlands project.

Wolves are an effective weapon against the American people using the ESA.

[CAMPMEAT]

I was looking at property in western Utah/eastern Nevada and the seller said there are, elk, deer, bear, birds and WOLVES around the area. It was Modena Utah.

[Elkslayer]

"The Profanity Peak pack has been in the area at least a year, said David Ware, game division manager for the  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Photos indicate the pack has at least three adults and three pups. To be recognized as a pack, at least two wolves must have traveled together through a winter."

So by there own admission they have known about this pack for at least a year. Why are they just now confirming that it is a pack? Because it made the news and they were forced to confirm it that's why. How many other packs are in the state that they wont confirm? Probably twice as many!

[PolarBear]

Probably a splinter off of the very large Sanpoil pack.   Its been spreading for some time north east west and south

[Northway]

"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."

Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.

You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer.  Economics 101

I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption.

The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.

I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.

A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.

[pianoman9701]

"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."

Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.

You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer.  Economics 101

I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption.

The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.

I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.

A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.

These particular wolves weren't here long before cattle, sheep, or other businesses being negatively affected by the relatively recently introduced Canadian Gray wolf (1996). The tourism and transportation businesses which surround hunting in places like Gardiner, MT and ID have also been devastated by the loss of ungulates to wolves. In defense of the ranchers, the new wolves are an invasive species compared to the cattle and sheep, which have been here for 100 years now. The wolves that were here before, and were probably made completely extinct by the new wolves, were smaller.

[idahohuntr]

I find it sad that hunters would want to support the illogical arguments of the extremist environmental groups that there are all these sub-species of wolves in Id/Wa/Mt/BC etc...which would require separate de-listing process and criteria.  I don't think folks who push this illogical belief that wolves in central canada are a different species/sub-species have any understanding or realization of what this would mean in terms of wolf management...if you think things are bad now...  

FAQ on Wolves
Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.

 Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.

 Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.[/i]

[pianoman9701]

Shocking you defend the wolves. I'm sure everyone is stunned. You must love them very much. And, so sorry you're sad.