It begins again, more wolf cattle kills 2018

[elkchaser54]

Timberwolves are an NBA team all other wolves running across the US are Gray wolfs .  Just like a whitetail deer is still a whitetailed deer whether its Minnesota or Texas, they show off different genetic traits however with body size and antler size due to climate and environment.

[pianoman9701]

Answer for Wolves:
Allow Management Of The Wolves Like Other Species

Answer for Cougar:
Quit reducing the quotas, we are practically to the point that cats are not being hunted at all, and history shows that when more cougar hunting took place we did not have near as many predation problems.

Since Idaho has started hunting wolves the problems have been greatly reduced. I never said a single word about killing every wolf, I don't think I've ever said that in my entire life, I have no idea where you come up with that.

Sorry Dale, I didn't mean to imply that you've ever supported the elimination of wolves entirely. The Idaho model is pretty much what I'd expect to be a realistic management plan. Whether or not that will be applied in WA is tough to say.

No worries, just didn't want anyone thinking that was my position. My beef (pun intended) is that wolves are not being managed, in fact this state is managing cougar less and less. We must be vocal about this if we want any changes in the future.

Unfortunately most of western WA voters (the majority) either don't understand rural living or could care less what happens to people trying to earn a living in rural areas. I don't think some people understand the concept of people calling an area their home and not wanting to move or sell their ranch, it's not just a business, it's not a corporate agriculture business, to be bought and sold depending on profits, these ranches are a family heritage often passed down for generations in a family. Some people say ranchers should be making a living elsewhere doing something different. On the other hand I don't hear any ranchers telling city dwellers where to live or how they should be earning a living? I probably didn't explain this as well as I should, but I hope it made sense.

Some of us in the wetside absolutely understand and care about the predator apocalypse taking place in the NE and what is happening to ranches, other businesses, and the people who live there. It's criminal, literally.

[Dan-o]

You took a general zoology class a couple decades ago, and youre typing from your keyboard 300+ miles from the wolf problem.  Maybe you should just shut your mouth.

This just seems unproductive. What viable solution do you propose do deal with the wolves? I just pointed out that wolves are a native species, not an invasive species. If WDFW were introducing something like hyenas this would be a different issue since they're non-native.

A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! 
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!

This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.

It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW 

I understand where you're coming from with this, but what do you propose as a solution? I agree that predator management is an issue and I get why ranchers and others, like yourself, who are financially impacted by the issue are so passionate about it.

I fully support hunting as a method of controlling predator populations. Fairly often I'll here the "kill 'em all" line from folks though and that's an unrealistic perspective. The wolves aren't going to go away entirely and I think it's foolish to believe that will ever be a realistic expectation. So if there's always going to be conflict between ranchers and wolves, what's an acceptable percentage of loss that the ranchers should be expected to absorb?

When I worked as a department head/buyer for a small grocery store I was responsible for monitoring "shrinkage" for my department, not including scrap loss from perishable items. The obvious goal was have that number come in at zero but that wasn't realistic. 1.5-2% was considered acceptable and anything over 2.5% was a serious issue. A certain percentage of loss was expected as a part of doing business. I'll admit to being ignorant when it comes to the finances of running a large cattle operation, so I really am curious what's the percentage of gross revenue being lost to predators (specifically wolves)? Does that number factor in reimbursement (if any) provided by the state to help offset some of the loss? More importantly, what are realistic profit margins for a cattle operation when averaged out over 5 years to account for market cycles? I assume they operate on a pretty low margin so a loss of 2% every year could be crippling if a good year is only a 10% profit to begin with. But if they're operating on something like a 30% margin under normal circumstances then that 2% loss is much easier to absorb if the owner is really serious about staying in the ranching business or "life style".

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

[yorketransport]

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.

I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock. 

I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.

[Boss .300 winmag]

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.

I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock. 

I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.

Amen brother, SSS on all of them.👍

[jasnt]

I’d be stoked if we could shoot Thieves..... or wolves. Both would be awesome.  One of the I don’t even hate... but would love to hunt anyway

[KFhunter]

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.

I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock. 

I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.

Yes, it quite different.  Apples and Volkswagens different.

I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to 

[yorketransport]

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.

I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock. 

I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.

Yes, it quite different.  Apples and Volkswagens different.

I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to 

Alright, you believe that they’re completely different. Care to elaborate and defend your stance?

[KFhunter]

This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres.  The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work.  Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail.  The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.

Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep,  then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS.  He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location. 

He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.

but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.   

[buglebrush]

How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?

Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.

I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock. 

I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.

Yes, it quite different.  Apples and Volkswagens different.

I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to 

Alright, you believe that they’re completely different. Care to elaborate and defend your stance?

The government protects the wolves, but outlaws and prosecutes thieves.  Not even close to a fair comparison.  Pull your head out if the sand.   

[bigtex]

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...

They don't make a profit from grazing.

[wolfbait]

This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres.  The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work.  Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail.  The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.

Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep,  then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS.  He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location. 

He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.

but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.

Well Put, KF..

Article after article of the past, states non-lethal methods for livestock wolf predation does not work, but every state pretends it is different some how, or the wolves change when they "migrate" across state lines, and non-lethal controls are implemented. Years ago the USFWS said the only way to stop wolf predation on livestock was to kill every wolf involved including the the pups.

The wolf introduction into WA like the original illegal introduction was corrupt, why would WDFW pro-mote and then protect wolves knowing what the wolves would do to the ungulates? WDFW like everyone else knew what would happen to the game herds and livestock after seeing what was happening in ID, MT, and Wyoming. WDFW came out with a wolf plan that predicted WA would be full of wolves before delisting occurred, and even with a wolf plan as crappy as they gave us, they continue to drag their feet confirming BP's.

WDFW claimed wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, it took less then 5 years for ID, MT, and Wyoming to be eligible for delisting. Here we are 16 years later and WDFW are predicting delisting at around 2021

Anyone who tries to paint WDFW as honest needs to look at the wolf history.

WDFW are waring against the ranchers, game herds and the people of WA using a fake endangered wolf, and by limiting the take of other predators.

Stealing from ranchers by not allowing them to protect their cattle from wolves.

Stealing from hunters by not controlling predators. WDFW would rather the wolves poach your hunting.

Stealing from small communities by allowing predators to decimating the game herds, taking away monies that these communities rely on just before winter from hunting seasons.

Stealing from farmers who grow hay to sell to ranchers who's cows are being slaughtered by wolves that are protected by a corrupt WDFW-USFWS.


And then there's the fake environmental groups that gain $$$$$$ by latching on to state game agencies pretending they give a damn about anything environmental, as they pack water for more corruption.



WE can debate the wolf issue in WA till hell freezes over, but the bottom line is unless the public gets involves, wolves and other protected predators will decimate the game herds and WA will become a non-hunting state.

[bearpaw]

The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.

[yorketransport]

This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres.  The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work.  Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail.  The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.

Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep,  then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS.  He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location. 

He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.

but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.

Apples to Audis (the alliteration makes it sound better than using Volkswagen) is a fair comparison in some situations. We're not comparing their ability to perform a specific task, just showing the similarity between two different businesses which revolve around two different commodities. The exact commodity isn't necessarily relevant to the big picture of what's going on.

Even in the example you gave, the similarities are there. Ranchers have a commodity they're trying to protect from theft/loss. They initially follow accepted "best practices" to reduce the inevitable loss of goods. In your scenario those steps failed so the rancher stepped up and took on the additional expense of trying more aggressive tactics to reduce the loss/theft. When that failed he went to a government agency for additional options which were given in the form of a kill permit. What isn't clear in your example is whether or not the rancher followed through with the kill permits. I'm also unclear whether the land he was initially on was owned by him or if it was property owned by a private timber company which he used under a mutually beneficial agreement.

In your example you have a private company which took basic steps to prevent loss of goods, then moved to more advanced methods to prevent loss, the looked to a government agency for a solution which (likely) was tried but failed to resolve the bigger issue of loss/theft. That sounds a awful lot like the example I gave. Change the commodity we're talking about and the scenario is very similar.

The government protects the wolves, but outlaws and prosecutes thieves.  Not even close to a fair comparison.  Pull your head out if the sand.   

And we all know that by outlawing and prosecuting thieves the issue has been completely resolved. It would be interesting to see what the total percentage of loss is in each industry. What percentage of total revenue is lost in the ranching industry to predators relative to the percentage of revenue lost to theft in the retail industry? Additionally, what percentage of total revenue in each industry is spent on preventative measures to reduce loss?

The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.

Depending on where you are that might be true! I remember asking the local PD if I could use lethal force after somebody stole something off one of my delivery vehicles (which the driver left inadequately secured). The advice I was given is that vehicular man slaughter carries a pretty short sentence. Maybe the same applies for "roadkill" wolves.

[wolfbait]

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...

They don't make a profit from grazing.

The gov. is not a business if they were they would go bankrupt in a few short hours.

Grazing if done right benefits the land, which in turn benefits public lands.

The anti-grazers pick out a few areas where over grazing hurt the land and like the rest of the fake environmentalists they apply these areas to ALL grazing practices. Totally bias BS that they feed to the uninformed public.


Time For the truth about public land grazing

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/273445-time-for-the-truth-about-public-land-grazing



Livestock Grazing Benefits Public Lands

http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2014/04/livestock-grazing-benefits-public-lands.html