Ranchers urge relocation of Washington wolf packs [to Western Washington]

[gfull]

http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/washington/ranchers-at-colville-meeting-complain-about-wolves/nhdtg/

Makes sense to me.  Why should they have all the fun.  Maybe, once the libs get a taste of these killing machines, they will rethink their wolf re-introduction strategy.

[boneaddict]

In all honesty they will be there shortly.   As the food declines they will move and eat elsewhere.   There is an aweful lot of good country over there for a secretive animal, just ask bigfoot

[headshot5]

I'm betting confirming wolf packs is going to be pretty tough on the Westside (in the thick jungle).  At least if they moved them from the Eastside, they could radio collar them first making it easier.       

[bobcat]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

[baldopepper]

Wish I knew anything about live trapping, I'd be tempted to do a little clandestine relocation operation.  Not that I would ever suggest that anyone attempt to do such a thing and I'd never suggest that if they did it that they should choose the Tiger Mtn area as a release point.

[vandeman17]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

My assumption was that he was saying that to prove a point. Something along the lines of, wait until they directly impact you, type of deal. I could be mistaken but that is how I took it.

[pianoman9701]

I'd support it, especially if it would help move up delisting.

[pianoman9701]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

My assumption was that he was saying that to prove a point. Something along the lines of, wait until they directly impact you, type of deal. I could be mistaken but that is how I took it.

Of course he was. I bet those folks are really tired of W.WA residents without a clue deciding the fate of E.WA residents living with the problem.

[PA BEN]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.

[vandeman17]

I always enjoy the comments on articles like these. I wish they would leave their location and first hand experience with wolves.

[bobcat]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.

I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.

[KFhunter]

Wish I knew anything about live trapping, I'd be tempted to do a little clandestine relocation operation.  Not that I would ever suggest that anyone attempt to do such a thing and I'd never suggest that if they did it that they should choose the Tiger Mtn area as a release point.

Do you need to borrow a stock trailer? 

[PA BEN]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.

I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.

You as a businessman can take a 100,000 dollars lost over night and stay in business? Tell that to the cattlemen at that meeting who were almost in tears telling about their loses. Talking about all the years it took to build their cattle business so they can retire and pass the business to his son and grandson, (who was at the meeting too.) No one at that meeting wanted to wish wolves on anybody and go through what they have gone through, BUT, if thats what it will take so be it. 

[AspenBud]

I'm betting confirming wolf packs is going to be pretty tough on the Westside (in the thick jungle). 

Not to mention sheer numbers of people, cars, and everything else that goes with modern life. Even the prey base is different, including an elk species that is bigger and isn't descended from imported Yellowstone elk.

Like I've said, western Washington, in every way, is nothing like anywhere that wolves have occurred so far in the lower 48. Once they cross that mountain range they are no longer in the middle of nowhere and unlike coyotes they don't blend in well. They will have A LOT more hazards and obstacles, the biggest of which starts with over 5 million people.

[ctwiggs1]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.

I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.

You as a businessman can take a 100,000 dollars lost over night and stay in business? Tell that to the cattlemen at that meeting who were almost in tears telling about their loses. Talking about all the years it took to build their cattle business so they can retire and pass the business to his son and grandson, (who was at the meeting too.) No one at that meeting wanted to wish wolves on anybody and go through what they have gone through, BUT, if thats what it will take so be it.

I haven't heard of any ranchers taking a $100k loss overnight.  Even with todays inflated beef prices I haven't heard of anything that significant.

I am not saying that this hasn't added (once again) more stress on the cattle farmers, but I am saying that I think you or they may have inflated the number there quite a bit.  As much of a pro-ranchers as I am on this subject, I don't think I would inflate the numbers. 

Oh and don't bother telling me that I don't know what it's like to have the government force me to take losses - our family business is spending close to 100k (that's a real number this time) on health care for our employees.  I get way less coverage than I used to, it costs three times as much, oh and here's the best part:  Even though I technically own zero shares in the company, I still have to pay taxes on my health benefits because I am an "implied shareholder".  Oh and the government doesn't compensate me or my family for any of these things.

My biggest complaint in the entire wolf issue is that it doesn't seem that we give the ranchers the right to shoot back.  Let the ranchers watch over their cattle and shoot wolves that are getting too close.   Makes sense to me???

Curtis