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

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

Yeah, I used to know ranchers that would burn late in the season to knock the grass down so new tender shoots would come up for late grazing.  If they left the old, tall grass; then in mid fall it would go brown/dry and all the nutritional value (saps/sugars) retreat back to the roots.  The dry, tall stalks were basically only good for straw.  There was a certain height they wanted it to be by winter to feed cattle and be able to insulate the low stalks/cut the wind. 

[KFhunter]

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.

There is a lot more to "Bundy" than what I want to write in a wolf thread.   I think he's the target of a smear campaign and Harry's got some explaining to do with his Chinese investors connections regarding Bundy...and I got more questions about all the other Ranchers driving out of existence by the BLM in that huge grazing allotment...lot's of questions.

I just wish a more honorable and well spoken rancher than Bundy would have made these waves as Bundy is his own worst enemy and a stain on legitimate ranchers elsewhere.

Both sides of the fence on that issue is tainted with fraud and lies.

[KFhunter]

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.

There is a lot more to "Bundy" than what I want to write in a wolf thread.   I think he's the target of a smear campaign and Harry's got some explaining to do with his Chinese investors connections regarding Bundy...and I got more questions about all the other Ranchers driving out of existence by the BLM in that huge grazing allotment...lot's of questions.

I just wish a more honorable and well spoken rancher than Bundy would have made these waves as Bundy is his own worst enemy and a stain on legitimate ranchers elsewhere.

Both sides of the fence on that issue is tainted with fraud and lies.

[idahohuntr]

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.

I can't control how other people use the term welfare rancher.     It does not detract from the fact that it very much applies in some cases. 

I agree though...lets save the Bundy talk for other threads.

[AspenBud]

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.

People can say what they want about McIrvin, but as I said a week or two ago. You have to give the guy credit, he hasn't come asking for compensation. He has a problem and he wants it dealt with. He probably also grasps the negative connotations associated with seeking compensation in that after a while people can start to think that every reported kill is being claimed as a wolf kill just to get the money. I cringe every time someone seeking money gets upset because the state doesn't recognize a kill as wolf related. True or not, right or wrong, there is a stigma that can go with that. It's a cynical one, but it's real.

[KFhunter]

I give them a hell of a lot of credit, they've made a few small mistakes but overall I really have a lot of respect for how they've conducted themselves.

I wish they hadn't said to use poison, that made me cringe..but I can't be too hard on them as it was all just starting to go down when that audio was taken and emotions were very high.  I know Bill seemed pretty cool and calm on camera when he said that, but he was charged up and excited.  You wouldn't know that unless you knew him though.

Compensation is a farce, I've explained it numerous times on HW how it doesn't compensate at all.  It's nothing more than a stipend of money for the loss of a single animal (if confirmed wolf kill) and does nothing to address the entire herd health and extra manpower/fuel to conduct operations in wolf country.  I'm guess "compensation" covers 2% of over all damages. 


What the most damaging thing about "compensation" is that it makes it illegal for ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, courts in addressing Elk crop damage said it was unreasonable to shoot Elk damaging crops because the farmers are being compensated for crop losses.  That same logic was applied to wolves and livestock,  WDFW compensates for live stock losses therefore it's unreasonable to shoot wolves killing your property.  It's disgusting and needs challenged in court. 

[idahohuntr]

I would much rather we have a policy where ranchers can kill wolves (plural) in the act of attacking livestock and eliminate any sort of compensation/subsidy type program for predation.  The burden to protect livestock should be on the livestock owner, not the state...pending the state does not actively interfere with his ability to protect said livestock.

 

[bobcat]

I would much rather we have a policy where ranchers can kill wolves (plural) in the act of attacking livestock and eliminate any sort of compensation/subsidy type program for predation.  The burden to protect livestock should be on the livestock owner, not the state...pending the state does not actively interfere with his ability to protect said livestock.

[wolfbait]

I give them a hell of a lot of credit, they've made a few small mistakes but overall I really have a lot of respect for how they've conducted themselves.

I wish they hadn't said to use poison, that made me cringe..but I can't be too hard on them as it was all just starting to go down when that audio was taken and emotions were very high.  I know Bill seemed pretty cool and calm on camera when he said that, but he was charged up and excited.  You wouldn't know that unless you knew him though.

Compensation is a farce, I've explained it numerous times on HW how it doesn't compensate at all.  It's nothing more than a stipend of money for the loss of a single animal (if confirmed wolf kill) and does nothing to address the entire herd health and extra manpower/fuel to conduct operations in wolf country.  I'm guess "compensation" covers 2% of over all damages. 


What the most damaging thing about "compensation" is that it makes it illegal for ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, courts in addressing Elk crop damage said it was unreasonable to shoot Elk damaging crops because the farmers are being compensated for crop losses.  That same logic was applied to wolves and livestock,  WDFW compensates for live stock losses therefore it's unreasonable to shoot wolves killing your property.  It's disgusting and needs challenged in court.

  We need to remember the McIrvin's had been dealing with WDFW from the beginning of their wolf problems> WDFW first said there were no wolves and then when it was proved there were wolves WDFW said the wolves wouldn't kill cattle, and finally we saw the flop of WDFW pretending to remedy the wolf problem. I wonder what some of us would have said at that point.

I have learned from WDFW that it is pretty much worthless to expect too much help from them, and that they will play the environmental card using environmentalists.

As far as compensation it is has always been a joke, there have been several ranchers in other states that in order to get compensation had to sign a statement saying they approved of wolves, which of course would be lying on their part. And as KF said it does not even come close to what is lost due to wolves either from predation, calves being aborted, and weight loss from wolf harassment, etc.. Study after study will not change the outcome.

I would much rather we have a policy where ranchers can kill wolves (plural) in the act of attacking livestock and eliminate any sort of compensation/subsidy type program for predation.  The burden to protect livestock should be on the livestock owner, not the state...pending the state does not actively interfere with his ability to protect said livestock.

 

That sounds good and I'm sure many ranchers/people would agree as long as trapping was a part of the new ruling, after all wolves do most of their dirty work at night. I'm sure it would be better then the farce that is happening now with WDFW who can't seem to catch a wolf unless it's for wolf haven.