It begins again, more wolf cattle kills 2018

[KFhunter]

http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestock/20180523/wolves-kill-calf-rancher-rethinks-grazing-plan

Wolves kill calf; rancher rethinks grazing plan
Cattleman says his grazing allotment in the Colville National Forest has been great, but wolves may drive him out.

A northeast Washington rancher says he may quit a U.S. Forest Service grazing allotment that he’s had since the 1980s after wolves killed one of his calves Sunday in northern Ferry County.

Ron Eslick, 71, said the Black Angus calf, a week and a half old, was the first animal he’s lost to wolves, as far as he knows. He said he will look into grazing on private pastures this summer rather than risk losing more livestock on an open range.

“It’s been a perfect range,” Eslick said. “I don’t want to give it up, but I’m not going to feed the wolves.”

Several sources said the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed that the calf was killed by wolves. The department did not respond to requests for details and confirmation.

It’s unclear which wolfpack attacked the calf, though the herd was close to the Togo pack’s territory in northern Ferry County. Togo was one of four new packs identified by Fish and Wildlife in 2017. It has not been officially blamed for any previous depredations.

Eslick has a permit to graze cattle on the Jasper allotment in the Colville National Forest.

Eslick said a neighbor saw the wolf over the calf. The wolf left, leaving the partially eaten carcass.

“A lot of the quarters were eaten off,” he said. “If we had come two hours later, it would have been eaten and nobody would have known anything about it.”

Eslick said the calf was killed about 600 yards from his brother’s home and was found on federal land just inside the boundary with private land north of Orient, an unincorporated community that borders Stevens County.

Eslick said officials suggested he could put flashing lights on the 1,300-acre allotment to prevent wolf attacks. He said he’s checking on the condition of fences on pastures about 12 miles away.

Fish and Wildlife has adopted a policy of releasing information about wolf attacks on its own delayed schedule.

“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,” Cattle Producers of Washington President Scott Nielsen said. “There’s been less information, and it’s getting progressively worse.”

“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,”

No, so I will.  We all need to share the information.

[jackelope]

I'm curious how the rancher thinks putting his cattle on private pasture will help? Maybe it's in a different location?

[boneaddict]

Dang!   Good people too.   

[pianoman9701]

I'm opposed to poaching. But when the state refuses to be forthright about the damage caused by wolves and continues to pander to DOW and CNW instead of protecting the livelihoods and safety of our NE residents, I would be completely understanding of those who would take matters into their own hands to do so for themselves. This program has gone so far off the tracks it's unbelievable.

[Special T]

Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?

The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.

I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Ridgeratt]

Eslick said officials suggested he could put flashing lights on the 1,300-acre allotment to prevent wolf attacks. He said he’s checking on the condition of fences on pastures about 12 miles away.



This is Brilliant!!    Who is going to pay for the lights and just how did they propose to run them? And how many lights do you need on that much area? How far apart are they reccomending on spacing?

[Oh Mah]

Obviously the wolves are smarter than these people,Wolves will study these flashing lights,test them no fear and then go right on by.this is as bad as a milk jug of water on property line will keep cats out. 

[boneaddict]

Is that why these wolves are deterred from crossing freeways. Lol.    (Sarcasm)

[idahohuntr]

Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?

The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.

I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit.  Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.   

[nwwanderer]

A rancher is not 'free' to move.  He may choose to go stop, sell out, but move?  You do not just pick up new grazing for a herd and in the long run the loss is to all of us.  Those critters are food, supply down, cost up.  On top of that the value of the grazing allotment decreases as possible returns fall and the returns on public land collapses.  DNR, USFS and BLM all cry to you for more general fund money.  Not just a concept, has happened all over the west.  Be careful what you ask for.

[pianoman9701]

Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?

The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.

I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit.  Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.

You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.

[idahohuntr]

Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?

The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.

I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit.  Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.

You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.

So in an ever changing world it's the governments responsibility to support ranchers forever?  Again, I will defer to capitalism. 

[pianoman9701]

Did I say that the government should support the ranchers? No, I didn't say anything even resembling that. What I said was those predators' protections weren't part of the equation when the ranchers' ancestors "made the choice" to settle there. Rightfully, wolves were being heavily controlled and that control was being pushed by the government with equal fervor as the cattlemen. It was the government which changed the rules of the game.

[KFhunter]

Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?

The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.

I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit.  Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.

You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.

So in an ever changing world it's the governments responsibility to support ranchers forever?  Again, I will defer to capitalism.

Your argument is flawed, more livestock have been killed by wolves on private ground than on public grazing leases, you know this, we've discussed it, you don't care. This "capitalism" argument that your using now is as disingenuous as you are.

[jackelope]

So my question is legit then....
 

I'm curious how the rancher thinks putting his cattle on private pasture will help? Maybe it's in a different location?