“Simply put, the government lied to minimize opposition to wolf recovery.”

[turkeyfeather]

I don't give a dam about wolf introduction.  You're living in the past.  Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated.  I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well.  How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets?   

I believe this here is where we get the idea you don't think that wolves have an impact. You say we are putting words in your mouth yet this is a direct quote from you. We didn't make it up.

If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses.  There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway  ) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses.  Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.

Interesting that you would post these gmu's as not having livestock attacks. Only a couple of the most wolf decimated elk herds in all of Idaho. Kinda contradicts your earlier statement I quoted.

[AspenBud]

We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's,  WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.

So what now?

Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.

A guy needs to be able to protect his/her livestock.   Under the current law we on the east side can kill (1) wolf caught in the act,  but in doing so it brings a tremendous amount of bureaucracy down upon their heads.  I can't blame a person for killing a wolf and keeping quiet about it,  saving their family from public condemnation and death threats from the wolf groups.... and to trust in WDFW to not say it was a justified shooting       I would have to think long and hard before I made that phone call.

Even in doing all that the rest of the wolves continue to attack and harass your wildlife as shown in other cases, but you cannot shoot them because WDFW "compensates"; a legal precedence set in court about Elk damaging a farmers crop somehow equals wolves eviscerating livestock.  As I've said before "compensation" is but a small fraction of the actual real losses seen by wolves.

Given the current and broken climate I can't fault a guy for doing what needs to be done for his and hers on their private lands.  They're in a no win situation.

You know, I got into an argument with a couple of wolf loving folks the other day (pick up your jaws folks) and I hit on something that they either chose to ignore or didn't know. Not one state with a wolf management plan that includes hunting them can eliminate all of their wolves, they all have a minimum number they have to ensure exists. It's not even in their best interest to kill them all as it would mean re-listing. But that never gets talked about in a lot of these discussions. Usually you have one side that screams "kill them all!" and the other yelling "save them all!"

I have to wonder if half the problem wouldn't be solved if more calm voices would step up and point out that wolves are not going away in the lower 48, they might get heavily managed, but they won't be hunted out.   

You rarely see this mentioned. There is a very big misconception among wolf supporters that opening a season on them means they'll all be killed. They don't understand modern hunting practices that include limits and seasons.

[bobcat]

I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.

Isn't this just common sense?

I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.

If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?

I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk.  No? 

[Woodchuck]

rest assured the Government does lie to you 

that's funny

Oh yes they do, I just didn't say it..... til just now 

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, bobcat.  Kind of like the line about how wolves have never attacked anyone in the 'lower 48'....the only records they use for that claim start around the 1930's, when wolves were wiped out or in such small numbers anyways.  Well, similarly, dinosaurs haven't eaten anybody in the US either so they must not be dangerous.

[idahohuntr]

I don't give a dam about wolf introduction.  You're living in the past.  Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated.  I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well.  How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets?   

I believe this here is where we get the idea you don't think that wolves have an impact. You say we are putting words in your mouth yet this is a direct quote from you. We didn't make it up.

If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses.  There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway  ) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses.  Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.

Interesting that you would post these gmu's as not having livestock attacks. Only a couple of the most wolf decimated elk herds in all of Idaho. Kinda contradicts your earlier statement I quoted.Actually, it doesn't at all 

For the millionth time...I've never said wolves don't impact ungulates.  I point out that folks often exaggerate their impacts...wolfbait argues how wolves will end all hunting and that no game will be left where they occur.  My experience from hunting North, West, North-Central, Central, and SE parts of Idaho does not lead me to believe wolves have decimated all elk herds in Idaho.  You can have wolves and elk too...its not all or nothing. 

[KFhunter]

I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.

Isn't this just common sense?

I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.

If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?

I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk.  No? 

A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs,  which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it?  People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.

the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.

[AspenBud]

Yeah, bobcat.  Kind of like the line about how wolves have never attacked anyone in the 'lower 48'....the only records they use for that claim start around the 1930's, when wolves were wiped out or in such small numbers anyways.  Well, similarly, dinosaurs haven't eaten anybody in the US either so they must not be dangerous.

The problem with that thought train is most people will say "that's nice."

The problem you have is we're dealing with the facts of today, not 1930 or 200 years ago. There were more people attacked by other predators last year and more pets and livestock killed by them than by wolves. People look at that and essentially view wolves as a non-threat to people at their current levels. As their numbers grow it might change, but right here and now, no one will take the human safety argument seriously because it hasn't panned out other than a few oddball instances. I can think of a gentleman who got attacked by a bear while deer hunting this year here in WA, I can think of no hunters or anyone else attacked by one or more wolves (prey testing or threatening behavior does not count, I'm talking about attacks).

However true or untrue the human safety threat is, its so rare right now relative to what other predators do every year it's almost a bad joke. That might well change, but for now...

[bobcat]

Well, there are many areas of public land where I'd like to see a lot less cattle grazing, so when deer and elk migrate down in the winter there's something left to eat. What happens, is the elk move down when it snows, to find no grass left on the public lands, so they move down further into the rancher's fields, where they are then killed because they're eating the rancher's grass.

And the term "welfare rancher"- I don't think it's derogatory, it's simply the truth. They pay ridiculously low rates to graze their cattle on our public lands.

[idahohuntr]

I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.

Isn't this just common sense?

I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.

If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?

I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk.  No? 

A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs,  which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it?  People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.

the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.

I forgot to point out your mistake earlier; you are indeed incorrect in your belief that I oppose livestock on public property.  I generally support the land management agencies that responsibly manage the publics resources.

[KFhunter]

Well, there are many areas of public land where I'd like to see a lot less cattle grazing, so when deer and elk migrate down in the winter there's something left to eat. What happens, is the elk move down when it snows, to find no grass left on the public lands, so they move down further into the rancher's fields, where they are then killed because they're eating the rancher's grass.

What happens in reality is the cattle keep the grasses grazed down and growing when properly managed. When the Elk move down they find fresh new growth which is far more nutritious than old brown grasses gone to seed.

There's a lot of other benefits, from fire control to birds - the list goes on and on.


read this if you desire too
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5401590.pdf

One snippet that might interest you from that big .PDF

Grazing is also being used to treat
deer and elk winter range. There are
shrub-lands on the Forest that have
become overly mature, or overly
dense or stagnant. These areas are
grazed by a large number of cattle
for a short period of time. This treatment
will open up the shrub canopy,
creating a more open stand, and providing
more palatable under-story
vegetation. These treatments are also
used where prescribed burning is not
feasible or undesirable. Obviously, it
is also a less severe treatment than
spraying with herbicides.
Grazing is a natural process. It can
be managed to maintain plant health
and even used as a land treatment to
provide a more desirable plant community.

[KFhunter]

I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.

Isn't this just common sense?

I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.

If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?

I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk.  No? 

A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs,  which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it?  People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.

the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.

I forgot to point out your mistake earlier; you are indeed incorrect in your belief that I oppose livestock on public property.  I generally support the land management agencies that responsibly manage the publics resources.

I must have been confused due to this thread you created:

Welfare rancher Bundy back in the news
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,160967.0.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/cliven-bundy-blames-state-for-faulty-fence-after-woman-sues-him-for-interstate-cow-crash/

The scum of the earth Bundy is back in the news.  To heck with rounding up his cattle...they need to round up him and his family and send them to whatever country they would like since they do not recognize this one.  It would be far cheaper than continuing to allow this leach to live off the taxpayers!

Easy to conclude by your use of the term "welfare rancher" and "leach off taxpayers", which is a derogatory term/s that applies to any rancher utilizing public lands.
I have my doubts that you support grazing public lands.

[bobcat]

Bundy is a little more extreme than the average welfare rancher. He doesn't pay the grazing fees at all. He paid nothing for many years. So it's nearly impossible to argue that he is not a welfare rancher. 

[idahohuntr]

Yes, you are very confused alright.  If that racist bigot welfare rancher Cliven Bundy is how you envision public land grazing then you are right, I am definitely opposed to that.  Grazing needs to be regulated by the landowner or agency charged with managing the publics land.   

I am good friends with a family who owns a large cattle ranch in northern Nevada...they absolutely hate Bundy and the bad name he has brought cattle ranchers in their state.  The fact that you are a big supported of Bundy is very telling.  Sad, but telling.

And on the term "welfare rancher"...it accurately describes Bundy.  It does not describe all ranchers. It certainly does not describe all ranchers who use public lands...some...but not all.   

[KFhunter]

I'm no bundy fan, if you read the bundy threads I've stated such.

"welfare rancher" doesn't stop with Bundy, it's used against anyone with public range leases.  First I heard of the term it was used against the McIrvins during the wedge wolf deal, even though a big portion of their range was private lands and the bulk of the wolf kills were on private ground.

I've even read it against the sheep owner who was forced to remove 1800 sheep off private Hancock lands, where the sheep were I've heard, were being utilized to graze down larkspur "poison weed", water hemlock. 

Hard to spray for that crap in the watershed areas.