Post by: mkcj on November 28, 2012, 09:03:35 PM
By Laura Ackerman and Paul Lindholdt
A wildlife tragedy began in Washington state on Aug. 7, when the state Department of Fish and Wildlife announced that a wolf in the Wedge Pack had killed a calf on a ranch close to Canada. Afterward, the rancher said that wolves were continuing to kill or maim his cattle. Wildlife staffers examined his claim and acknowledged that 16 animals had been killed or injured.
But this is the real tragedy: By Sept. 27, the entire Wedge Pack of eight wolves had been killed. The pack was wiped out because the rancher dug in his heels. He refused to accept any reparation for his losses, insisting instead that the state’s management plan for wolves needed to be rescinded.
Under that plan, ratified in 2011 after nine elaborate public hearings across the state, ranchers may receive payment for two grown beef cattle, in the case of a confirmed wolf kill, or one calf in the case of a probable kill.
The plan also requires ranchers and the agency to attempt all possible non-lethal alternatives before they resort to killing wolves. State wildlife officials urge “livestock operators to enter into cooperative, cost-sharing agreements with the department that specify non-lethal measures.” State Sen. Kevin Ranker, Dem., says it’s “inexcusable” that the state didn’t “exhaust” non-lethal methods first.
Before wolves can be taken off the endangered species list, the plan says, there must be 15 breeding pairs in existence statewide for three years. If the state hopes to reach this goal, it will certainly need to discontinue management by rifle barrel.
State agents now say they are ready to try something called Chemical Bio-scent (a smelly repellent) as a non-lethal measure. We urge them also to try a tool called Conditioned Taste Aversion, developed by biologist Lowell Nicolaus, which applies worming medicine to cow carcasses to sicken feeding wolves.
Yet the problem with the Wedge Pack is not so much wolves preying on cattle as it is the continued grazing of livestock on our federal estate. Taxpayers subsidize tens of thousands of U.S. cattle each year, and these cattle degrade the same habitats that are required by wolves’ native prey. Science shows that cattle – an exotic species in the West – displace deer, elk, moose and other prey species. Grazing also undercuts sound wolf management efforts.
We believe that money to subsidize cattle grazing would be better spent on wolf recovery – restoring the range to the way it was before public-lands ranching became an institution. Ask most fans of outdoor recreation if they would rather watch wild species than cattle in wild areas, and you know what they will say.
Wolves and other large carnivores are keystone species in functioning ecosystems. A study conducted in 2012 by Oregon State University researchers concluded that the absence of carnivores – wolves especially – harms the land.
Another scientific line would be to design an interstate, even international, conservation and management plan. Such a plan would consider wolf populations all over the West.
There is a lot at stake for taxpayers. The state’s wildlife agency had to pay employees several weeks of overtime to chase down the Wedge Pack. Whatever the price in blood, money and mismanaged compassion, this was the result: An entire wolf pack was killed for the sake of one ranch and its rancher.
Wolves in the West are here to stay. They don’t comprehend state and national boundaries, but they understand their role in ecosystems. The Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, the law of the land in Washington for now, is all the wolves have to protect them.
Let’s give the “conservation” part of the plan a fighting chance.
The writers are contributors to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). Ackerman is a Spokane farmer and environmental activist; Lindholdt is a professor of English at Eastern Washington University in Spokane.
Nov. 28, 2012
:bash: :bash: :mor:
Post by: boneaddict on November 28, 2012, 09:08:33 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on November 28, 2012, 09:20:24 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 28, 2012, 09:20:39 PM
Post by: kentrek on November 28, 2012, 09:22:52 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 28, 2012, 09:23:06 PM
Heartwarming, isn't it?
Post by: JohnVH on November 28, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
Post by: predatorpro on November 28, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Post by: bradslam on November 28, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Post by: villageidiot on November 28, 2012, 10:23:11 PM
Post by: bradslam on November 28, 2012, 10:32:09 PM
Post by: Maverick on November 29, 2012, 12:07:46 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 29, 2012, 03:11:08 AM
Just my :twocents: :twocents: four cents
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2012, 04:09:38 AM
Remember, this was in the OPINION section. At other times, there will be pro-hunting views in that section. Or religious views. Or political views on either side. It's ridiculous to try to label that piece as "from the methow paper." It is no different from the Opinion/Letters to the Editor sections of any other paper and isn't the official view point of the paper.
Glad you pointed that out!
Post by: JoeE on November 29, 2012, 04:16:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2012, 04:19:29 AM
I just googles that lady who wrote that. She's all over the place as a pro wolf activist.
She probably spends half her free time writing newspapers. She might also be "paid" by Conservation Northwest or some other wolf loving group to write letters.
Post by: CementFinisher on November 29, 2012, 04:28:21 AM
Post by: grundy53 on November 29, 2012, 05:11:40 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 29, 2012, 06:24:25 AM
Post by: netcoyote on November 29, 2012, 06:30:36 AM
Quote
..."They do not have a clue as to the environmental effects cattle have. All the govt. agencies that graze cattle have a very specific criteria they follow for the cattlemen to adhere to. You absolutely can not abuse the land or your lease will be pulled in a heartbeat. This hogwash of cattle decimating the national forest is just that HOGWASH. ....
I wouldn't try to sell that argument. I'm a hunter and I've hunted in many areas that were open to grazing. I've seen some pretty devastated areas. Not a lot, but you sure can't make the statement that abuse to public land due to grazing doesn't exist.
Post by: poopooheaddad on November 29, 2012, 06:51:32 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2012, 06:55:47 AM
villiageidiot said:Quote..."They do not have a clue as to the environmental effects cattle have. All the govt. agencies that graze cattle have a very specific criteria they follow for the cattlemen to adhere to. You absolutely can not abuse the land or your lease will be pulled in a heartbeat. This hogwash of cattle decimating the national forest is just that HOGWASH. ....
I wouldn't try to sell that argument. I'm a hunter and I've hunted in many areas that were open to grazing. I've seen some pretty devastated areas. Not a lot, but you sure can't make the statement that abuse to public land due to grazing doesn't exist.
I think there are abuses in any user group, that's why we have LEO's, bios, and managers. I think villiageidiot was trying to say that proper grazing by responsible livestock producers is compatible and I would add that it's actually "beneficial". It's not cattle that are the problem, it's the occasional violator of grazing rules and the lieing environmentalists that put a black eye on grazing. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2012, 07:01:46 AM
Just starting a rumor :chuckle: But I heard they are going to release 2 wolf packs in Seattle :chuckle:
What's fair for the rest of the west should certainly be fair for Seattle. :tup:
Post by: netcoyote on November 29, 2012, 07:54:40 AM
villiageidiot said:Quote..."They do not have a clue as to the environmental effects cattle have. All the govt. agencies that graze cattle have a very specific criteria they follow for the cattlemen to adhere to. You absolutely can not abuse the land or your lease will be pulled in a heartbeat. This hogwash of cattle decimating the national forest is just that HOGWASH. ....
I wouldn't try to sell that argument. I'm a hunter and I've hunted in many areas that were open to grazing. I've seen some pretty devastated areas. Not a lot, but you sure can't make the statement that abuse to public land due to grazing doesn't exist.
I think there are abuses in any user group, that's why we have LEO's, bios, and managers. I think villiageidiot was trying to say that proper grazing by responsible livestock producers is compatible and I would add that it's actually "beneficial". It's not cattle that are the problem, it's the occasional violator of grazing rules and the lieing environmentalists that put a black eye on grazing. :twocents:
Agree. We just have to be careful about engaging in untruthful rhetoric if we are going to be taken seriously when trying to engage with, and counter, environmentalist rhetoric. It just ends up being a peeing contest that is a waste of time and doesn't change anyone's opinion. Unless opinions change, the status quo will continue.
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
Post by: JLS on November 30, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
villiageidiot said:Quote..."They do not have a clue as to the environmental effects cattle have. All the govt. agencies that graze cattle have a very specific criteria they follow for the cattlemen to adhere to. You absolutely can not abuse the land or your lease will be pulled in a heartbeat. This hogwash of cattle decimating the national forest is just that HOGWASH. ....
I wouldn't try to sell that argument. I'm a hunter and I've hunted in many areas that were open to grazing. I've seen some pretty devastated areas. Not a lot, but you sure can't make the statement that abuse to public land due to grazing doesn't exist.
Agreed, I could show him some abused areas. I'm not a grazing opponent. In fact, I'm a sound proponent of proper rotational grazing on public lands and wildlife winter ranges, but the lack of oversight on some of these allotments is rather discouraging.
Post by: 270Flat on November 30, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 11:26:40 AM
Post by: wence5 on November 30, 2012, 12:23:29 PM
The article was so full of BS I had to force myself to continue reading literary piece of garbage.