Teanaway rancher

[full strutting]

Chooses to adapt with Wolves, despite losing one calf. Free ranging cattle. Range riders to have a presence afield, to distract the wolves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

Chooses to adapt with Wolves, despite losing one calf. Free ranging cattle. Range riders to have a presence afield, to distract the wolves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder how many cattle he is willing to lose, or how many he can afford to lose and still make a profit.

[netcoyote]

Chooses to adapt with Wolves, despite losing one calf. Free ranging cattle. Range riders to have a presence afield, to distract the wolves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got any facts or information to back this up?

[mburrows]

I think hes talking about the Seattle Times article from a couple days ago.

[full strutting]

Won't let me down load, but yes hard facts. The CNW and WDFW are paying range riders


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonathan_S]

Won't let me down load, but yes hard facts. The CNW and WDFW are paying range riders


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Range riders with .22-250s and handloads 

[wheels]

i dont know anything about rang riders but i do know the ranchers have ability to use radio collar  so can move cattle when wolves get to close

[DRobnsn]

Won't let me down load, but yes hard facts. The CNW and WDFW are paying range riders


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Range riders with .22-250s and handloads 

If that were the case I'd be more acceptable to the idea of the wdfw spending tax dollars on Range rider salaries.  Of course if that were the case I'd bet the volunteers would trump the need for tax dollars. 

[denali]

Capital Press
Published:
August 5, 2015 1:30PM
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150805/stuck-with-wolves-rancher-says-hell-make-the-best-of-it#.VcJ8LfsGM4A.facebook

Central Washington rancher says one depredation hasn't changed his views on range-riders or living with wolves.

CLE ELUM, Wash. — An Ellensburg rancher who lost a cow to wolves in Central Washington says he still believes his cattle can co-exist with the returning predators.

“I’m not excited about it, but it doesn’t matter whether I’m excited,” rancher Sam Kayser said Tuesday. “We’re stuck with them. I want to think there’s room for all of us.”

Kayser lost a yearling Angus in mid-July to the Teanaway pack in Kittitas County, the state’s most-western pack and one of its best tracked. Three wolves in the pack, which may have as many as six members, have been fitted with collars transmitting their locations.

Kayser’s range-rider, Bill Johnson, gets updates three times day. He said the attack showed the difficulty of protecting 400 cows grazing over 40,000 acres from predators that he called “incredibly smart.”

“I don’t think it could have been prevented, no way,” he said.

Kayser and Johnson met with the media at the Teanaway Community Forest, near where the depredation took place on state grazing land. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife arranged the meeting with Kayser and Johnson as part of a presentation on how the agency is managing wolves.

The forest is about 100 miles east of Seattle and is the western edge of the gray wolf’s dispersal since being reintroduced to Idaho and Wyoming in 1995.

Because the Teanaway pack roams in the western two-thirds of Washington, it’s protected by the federal Endangered Species Act. If Teanaway pack wolves continue to prey on livestock, shooting them isn’t an option, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Four cows were killed in early July by the Dirty Shirt pack in northeast Washington, where wolves have only state protection. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that if the pack kills one more cow, the agency will offer the rancher a permit to shoot up to two wolves.

WDFW hopes it won’t come to that. Range-riders are WDFW’s No. 1 preventative measure, but they have not been universally embraced by ranchers.

In an interview Wednesday, Stevens County rancher Scott Nielsen agreed human presence can keep away wolves, but the wolves may merely move toward somebody else’s livestock.

“Show me the evidence a range-rider has prevented one single attack,” he said. “It plays well in the press, but I’m just highly skeptical.”

Johnson has been riding for Kayser for 18 years. For the past three years, his wages have been partially funded by the environmental group Conservation Northwest.

He described himself as “pro wolf” and said he hoped ranchers will adapt to wolves. He acknowledged managing wolves won’t be easy. They don’t seem to be afraid of him, and they know where the livestock are, he said. “It doesn’t matter where we run the cattle, the wolves have a way of knowing.”

The Teanaway pack was documented in 2011 and one depredation is “not the end of the world,” said Kayser, who has been compensated by the state for his cow.

“One is a lot different than five or six,” said Kayser, noting the next depredation may occur in 10 years or next week. “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” he said. “So far, we’ve been successful. But we have enough habitat for the wolves we have.”

Kayser said he sympathizes with northeast ranchers, who graze livestock on ranges with more wolves. “I think there’s a real problem up in the northeast corner of the state,” he said. “The northeast part of the state is carrying too much of the impact.”

WDFW has contracted with five range-riders and Conservation Northwest has shared costs with ranchers to employ seven more.

Budget restraints and the difficulty of recruiting people for the seasonal work have limited the number of range-riders, WDFW wolf policy coordinator Donny Martorello said. “I think we have a need for more.”

[pianoman9701]

I wonder what he'll think when he finds a dozen dead one fine spring day.  I respect that at least he's a rancher. He should have a say in this. Anyone not being exposed to harm from those vermin shouldn't be able to be part of a determination which can bring financial or physical ruin from exposure to wolves.

[full strutting]

I was up in teanaway for opener for bear. Cattle have been free ranging up their, and yes plenty wolf tracks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[full strutting]

Thank you Denali for the post. Mine wouldn't load. For those who asked for proof


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T Pearce]

Hey gang, not to jack this thread...... but did any of you see the dead wolf pup on the west bound side of i90, just east of Kititas? (Aprox 2 miles past the RR trestle).

It's gone today and the coyote (1/4 mile past) is still there.
T

[Ice Cap]

Local paper just reported another confirmed wolf killed cow north of Cle Elum.

[Killmore]

WHAT? The range riders presents isn't enough!!! How many is he willing to lose before he's had enough? How much weight loss is this rancher losing every time the cattle are bothered?

[jasnt]

WHAT? The range riders presents isn't enough!!! How many is he willing to lose before he's had enough? How much weight loss is this rancher losing every time the cattle are bothered?

he'll be changing his tune before long

[KFhunter]

One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.

[jasnt]

One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.

perfect job for me. But how's the pay

[wolfbait]

One rancher enjoying some success with a range rider does not make a successful program.  Each rancher has different conditions, each range rider has differing experience levels and commitment.  The range rider program also comes with strings attached. I know a range rider who does do a good job and that ranch has some success because of it.

I've looked into this quite a bit, I've talked to numerous ranchers some of whom lose dozen of cattle to wolves about the range rider program.  One rancher I talked to did sign up and commitment himself to all the bureaucracy to get a range rider...a hippy type dude showed up and rode a horse a couple miles then left, came back next week and drove a pickup a few miles and left, this is zero net benefit to the cattle or wolves for that matter. 

I think it can be successful in certain conditions for certain ranchers, but to say it can be successful everywhere just isn't true. It's a big commitment, gotta be out there almost every day (and night).  Log on to the computer see what the wolf GPS says and try to cut them off.

And some packs they tried everything from helicopter hazing to range riders, and nothing worked. But then they really don't expect it to work, these are programs meant to expand as much damage on the rancher as possible before the bullet is used.

In Wyoming, the USFWS discovered years ago the best way to discourage wolves that kill livestock was to kill the entire pack right down to the pups from the very first predation.

Washington's wolves are greener.

[Jacque]

Please tell me that we are not paying for range riders with WDFW funds.

[villageidiot]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   It won't be the green groups folks, it will be totally on the back of the livestock owner and no compensation for dead animals.  This is a dead end street to destruction.
  Proof being.  A Twisp rancher had a calf killed in 2014 by a cougar that was confirmed by WDFW.  There is an rcw that requires Washington state to pay for depredations from wolves, cougars and bears. The rancher took his request to Okanogan County District court and the court denied the money because the judge said they have not set any money aside for this.  We are all being whitewashed.

[idahohuntr]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CAMPMEAT]

Can anyone control a bunch of lawless dogs, who run in packs, without deadly means, not in my mind...

[wolfbait]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The ranchers etc. need to take care of predator problems themselves and leave the government etc. who are promoting and protecting predators completely out of the process.

 People are beginning to realized that predators are being used as a tool by the USFWS etc. to ruin ranching, etc., just as the spotted owls were used to shut down logging.

[wolfbait]

Can anyone control a bunch of lawless dogs, who run in packs, without deadly means, not in my mind...

And that is precisely why the USFWS, some state game agencies and environmentalists wanted the wolves designated as a big game animal rather then a predator like coyotes.

[KFhunter]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.

[idahohuntr]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.

The question posed which I responded presumed a "complete de-listing".  Certainly at that point all prevention/protection actions are on the rancher - not the taxpayer.  Lethal measures would ideally be much more common and available under such a scenario.

Your rhetoric on the term "welfare rancher" is old and tired...read what I actually wrote.   

[jasnt]

The big question is.  Once the wolves are completely delisted, who pays for all this wolf protection in the form of range rider, flaggers and such?   

The rancher who is profiting needs to pay for any personal property protection he deems necessary.  The government handouts will have to stop at some point.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The "compensation" isn't a hand out, it's a slap in the face.  It's a pittance of the real losses suffered.  You know this, we've talked in detail about this.  A lot of ranchers would LOVE the ability to protect their own but WDFW won't let them.  They withhold the wolves' location  (Dashiell sheep depredation is a good example) even when the rancher or sheep grower is doing everything asked of them to prevent wolf conflict. 

Dashiell was lauded and praised by wolf advocates for wolf conflict prevention and working with WDFW/CNW.....until the wolves gorged themselves on mutton...then he was an evil sheep herder running sheep too close to a denning site and should have known better...WDFW withheld that information though...Dashiell didn't know, couldn't know, he would have moved the sheep had he known...now he's a welfare sheep herder accepting government handouts according to you.

The question posed which I responded presumed a "complete de-listing".  Certainly at that point all prevention/protection actions are on the rancher - not the taxpayer.  Lethal measures would ideally be much more common and available under such a scenario.

Your rhetoric on the term "welfare rancher" is old and tired...read what I actually wrote.   

you called it a government hand out. It's no hand out, it was promised in or rediculas wolf plan. It dosent cover a ll losses. It's designed to be just enough to not cause a bunch of squeaky wheels needing grease.  Just enough so "they" can say hey we paid ya for your losses, which didn't even come close to cover the actual losses.  Hand out my a$$!!! If they will let us protect our livestock and manage the predators like they are supposed to then they can keep there compensation!!

[wolfbait]

ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY: Cost of wolves calculable
http://www.wallowa.com/wc/editorials/20150407/analysiscommentary-cost-of-wolves-calculable

Three researchers with OSU list economic impacts from wolves on Oregon's cattle producers.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WOLVES IN NORTHEAST OREGON

Below is a “snap shot”, simplistic view of the economic impact of wolves on rural communities based upon a six year, ongoing study conducted by Dr. Doug Johnson, OSU, Dr. Larry Larson, OSU, and John Williams, OSU – Beef Extension specialist – Wallowa County. Specific details are available through these individuals.

Economic Impact on a 100 cow/calf pair operation in forested grazing areas:

1. 8-12 fewer calves come off of grazing due to wolf predation... $13,000

2. Calves average 30-50 lbs. less at weaning due to harassment by wolves... $7,000

3. All cows come off of the range thinner... $5,000

It takes 5-10 lbs. of extra energy and protein per cow per day to restore her to adequate shape to calf properly, provide sufficient milk for the baby calf for the winter and breed back.

4. Fewer cows breed back while under harassment on the range... $5,600

These un-bred cows must be sold in the fall and replaced with either young heifers from the herd, which reduces calves available to sell, or replacement cows purchased to maintain an effective herd size.

5. Management costs increase due to supervision and preventative measures while cattle are on large, forested range plot and in winter calving areas. (Range riders, vet treatment of injured calves, various preventative measures, etc.)... $9,000

Total lost income on 100 cow/calf pairs based on January 2015 cattle prices: $39,600

Related important data based on the 2013 State of Oregon Agriculture census:

Wallowa County   Cows 38,500   Calves 21,500

Union County   Cows 33,500   Calves 19,100

The above data is not meant to reflect $39,600 for every 100 cows in each county, as the wolf density presently varies by area; however the potential exists if wolf numbers ever approach the density of the forested populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Presently almost all of the forested range area in Wallowa and Union counties have identified packs. Harassment and depredation are greatest in the portions of Wallowa County nearest the Idaho border. Umatilla and Baker counties both have packs and two more known packs exist, one in the Desolation area and one in SW Oregon.

Agriculture economists fundamentally agree that it takes a herd of between 350 and 400 head to provide a middle income living for a family of four. The loss of about $140,000 for such a family trickles down into all of the fabric of these rural communities. Fewer dollars are available for local businesses and services, such as schools, health care and law enforcement. These losses in natural resource based counties further increase the economic disparities that exist between the rural and urban Oregon economies. Ranchers in northeast Oregon have proven over the last 5 years that they understand that the presence of wolves is a reality and have worked tirelessly within the law to survive, but further expansion of wolves beyond the minimum number listed in the Oregon wolf plan is not acceptable. While the State has made an honest attempt to help reduce the economic impact, the dollars available are so limited and the reimbursement areas so narrow (1 in 7 of the animals killed by wolves are ever found — 2003 study) that these, although well meaning, are not close to meeting the real economic impact of high wolf populations. Cattle populations are much larger in Malheur and Harney counties with similar range grazing operations on more open country. Presently we do not have sufficient data to predict if the impact of wolves in areas such as these will be greater or less than the more forested area. Ranchers in Wallowa, Union, Umatilla, and Baker counties are suffering from wolf harassment and predation in varying degrees and this problem will get worse as wolf numbers increase and expansion moves to far more rural counties.

Note: This analysis was originally published in “Oregon Beef Producer” magazine, published by the Oregon Cattlmen’s Association.

[KFhunter]

1. 8-12 fewer calves come off of grazing due to wolf predation... $13,000

2. Calves average 30-50 lbs. less at weaning due to harassment by wolves... $7,000

3. All cows come off of the range thinner... $5,000

It takes 5-10 lbs. of extra energy and protein per cow per day to restore her to adequate shape to calf properly, provide sufficient milk for the baby calf for the winter and breed back.

4. Fewer cows breed back while under harassment on the range... $5,600

These un-bred cows must be sold in the fall and replaced with either young heifers from the herd, which reduces calves available to sell, or replacement cows purchased to maintain an effective herd size.

5. Management costs increase due to supervision and preventative measures while cattle are on large, forested range plot and in winter calving areas. (Range riders, vet treatment of injured calves, various preventative measures, etc.)... $9,000

Elk are affected in the same ways.  Less calves, less cows bred, calf losses, less weights.
 
While cattle are brought off range and fattened in pens on hay Elk don't get that luxury.  The leaner Elk not carrying as much fat into winter means they need more calories to keep warm and are a lot more vulnerable to winter die offs. 

[wolfbait]

Howling mad: Wolf damage claims remain unpaid for some livestock producers
http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/region/3689815-howling-mad-wolf-damage-claims-remain-unpaid-some-livestock-producers

[nwwanderer]

Similar numbers with Montana studies.  Actual paid predation compensation represents less than 10% of the loss.  As stated, individual producers 'living' with wolves can not economically tolerate sustained wolf activity.  If the wolf supporters and governments want them, pay the bill. 

[wolfbait]

Similar numbers with Montana studies.  Actual paid predation compensation represents less than 10% of the loss.  As stated, individual producers 'living' with wolves can not economically tolerate sustained wolf activity.  If the wolf supporters and governments want them, pay the bill.

It's bad enough that they refuse or don't have the funding for "confirmed" wolf killed livestock, but then they purposely lie about what kills your livestock when they know it was wolves, as has happened in WA etc. many times.

It seems in many cases going to the state game agencies do to livestock killed by wolves has shown to be a total waste of time and money for the ranches. 

[jasnt]

Ya then they waste $850k on a "specialist" for an advisory group that dosent even mak decisions, just advises.   then they will say we are too broke to save the deer and elk or pay the ranchers the 10% of there losses. At least in Montana they can use hunting pressure to push the wolves away from livestock.

And to think people still have faith in wdfw. The mis-management of Washington's resources has got to stop! 

Attention WDFW: stop wasting our conservation money on wolves. They are here to stay no matter what we do from here on out wolves will be here for century's to come. Let's put that money in to ensuring the future of our elk deer and moose herds and the wolves food. Get back to doing your job managing game for a sustainable hunting numbers and hunting opportunities 

[nwwanderer]

Lack of money?  Allocation problems yes, $850,000 facilitators, multi million dollar wolf plans, designated wolf staff, research budgets, helicopter shoots, collaring budgets, predation studies, public wolf meetings, advisory groups, I could go on.  This is just Washington, not including any multi state 'programs' like the $100,000,000 transplant theft, some say only $70,000,00, others $120,000,000 with no hope of really knowing.  Should I mention the budgets of the many groups that support the wolves?

Just pay the bill