Post by: denali on February 18, 2014, 12:33:04 PM
The letter in the Jan. 24 Readers’ Views reads the same as nearly every other revered Canadian Gray Wolf vs. Evil Rancher letter written by a supporter of wolves over mankind.
These supporters’ talking points rarely stray from the list, though they don’t adhere to any particular order. So long as the repeating of the half-truth is accomplished, it has a chance to be believed, especially by those who have no working knowledge of the topic.
Yes, disease, domestic dogs and coyotes do cause loss in cattle and sheep. So do wolf attacks. The difference is there are no state laws against treating livestock for disease or actually trying to prevent disease. If coyotes or domestic dogs are guilty of harassing or killing livestock, there are no laws trumping the livestock owners’ right to protect their personal and private property against such losses. However, where the non-native wolves in Oregon are concerned, the state protects wolves over the rights of people.
The use of the words “hysteria and denial of facts” against ranchers is a not-so-subtle attempt to belittle their legitimate concern over losses to wolves. This favored ploy attempts to shift the blame from livestock killing wolves to the very ones who suffer the losses, the ranchers.
Quoting from ranchers who do not have a wolf population to deal with is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Those with critical thinking skills would understand this.
Yet the wolf supporters see it as a “one-size-fits-all” argument-ender.
Then we come to the most favored mis-used factoid of them all — the inference that all ranchers enjoy free grazing for their livestock at taxpayers’ great expense.
First off, let me make it very clear, public grazing rights are not free. Holders of public grazing rights are not taking anything from anyone. A fee is charged. Often there is a list of improvements required to be performed on the public grazing allotment at the rancher’s expense. The grazing livestock turn a renewable resource, grass, growing on public land, into usable items for humans such as meat, leather and wool.
The anti-grazers paint the picture for those who don’t know any differently that every grazing animal they see is somehow picking taxpayers’ pockets, somehow causing them harm while the evil ranchers profit.
The truth is, of the 125 wolf-livestock depredation investigations performed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from 2009 to the present, 15 were on public grazing permit property and the other 110 were on private property. My husband and I are the sole taxpayers for our private property our cattle graze on. We lease private property from our neighbor. He too pays his own share of taxes on his private property. Most of my friends and neighbors’ livestock graze entirely on private property. They are also taxpayers.
Despite the fact the state of Oregon was not included in the Canadian gray wolf recovery plan because Oregon lacks the large blocks of contiguous public land habitat needed for wolves — see page 29 of the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan — wolves are allowed to occupy private property no matter the cost to the private property owner.
Finally, there’s the plea for open-mindedness, responsibility and the incompetent ranchers to come over to their way of thinking — or else. The myopic disregard displayed by wolf supporters for those who do not agree with their bent never fails to astonish me. Their assumption of somehow possessing superior knowledge giving them the right to insert themselves into the everyday working lives of ranchers with all their “energy available” is the height of arrogance and ignorance at the same time.
I would certainly welcome a letter displaying open-minded, responsible, competent use of the truth from the lock-step wolf supporters.
They might begin with one topic never openly opined on by wolf supporters — the question of personal and private property rights. Where do they think they begin and end with wolves “on the landscape?”
- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140213/ARTICLE/140219944/1009#sthash.cNzSmaIO.dpuf (http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140213/ARTICLE/140219944/1009#sthash.cNzSmaIO.dpuf)
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 12:58:10 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2014, 01:03:53 PM
http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756 (http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756)
Feeder Steers: Medium and Large 1-2: 500-600 lbs 179.00-187.00; 600-700 lbs
181.50-183.50; 600-700 lbs 161.00, Full; 700-800 lbs 158.00-167.00; 800-900 lbs
153.50-154.00. Small and Medium 1-2: 400-500 lbs 178.00.
Bred Cows (Per Head): Medium and Large 1-2: Few Broken Mouth 1400 lbs 6-9
mos. bred 1300.00.
Feeder Heifers: Medium and Large 1-2: 400-500 lbs 184.00; 500-600 lbs 168.00-
175.00; 500-600 lbs 178.00, Thin Fleshed; 600-700 lbs 155.50-159.00; 600-700 lbs
152.50, Full; 600-700 lbs 168.00-174.00, Thin Fleshed; 700-800 lbs 154.50-157.00;
800-900 lbs 147.50-149.00; 800-900 lbs 111.50, Heiferettes. Small and Medium 1-2:
500-600 lbs 156.00-158.00.
Post by: AspenBud on February 18, 2014, 01:24:24 PM
beef is already going through the roof, not due to wolves but drought.
http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756 (http://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=ML_LS756)
Feeder Steers: Medium and Large 1-2: 500-600 lbs 179.00-187.00; 600-700 lbs
181.50-183.50; 600-700 lbs 161.00, Full; 700-800 lbs 158.00-167.00; 800-900 lbs
153.50-154.00. Small and Medium 1-2: 400-500 lbs 178.00.
Bred Cows (Per Head): Medium and Large 1-2: Few Broken Mouth 1400 lbs 6-9
mos. bred 1300.00.
Feeder Heifers: Medium and Large 1-2: 400-500 lbs 184.00; 500-600 lbs 168.00-
175.00; 500-600 lbs 178.00, Thin Fleshed; 600-700 lbs 155.50-159.00; 600-700 lbs
152.50, Full; 600-700 lbs 168.00-174.00, Thin Fleshed; 700-800 lbs 154.50-157.00;
800-900 lbs 147.50-149.00; 800-900 lbs 111.50, Heiferettes. Small and Medium 1-2:
500-600 lbs 156.00-158.00.
Wolves aren't even a blip on the radar right now as far as beef prices go. A lot of cows got slaughtered because of the drought the year before last. Those increases were forecast to occur about now once the excess was sold.
Post by: steen on February 18, 2014, 06:22:48 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 18, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.
We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!! :bash: :bash:
Post by: wence5 on February 20, 2014, 10:30:23 AM
I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.
We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!! :bash: :bash:
And Idaho isn't a liberal stronghold yet. What do you suppose will happen in Oregon and Washington? We have a wait and see what happens attitude in Washington, which translates into a hands off policy for a number of years to let the wolf problem get totally out of control, and in Oregon it is a do nothing stance which translates into a hands off policy until the problem is out of control. Both states have enough environmental nut jobs in high places that will see to it there will be weak enough numbers of elk and deer to have hunt in the future and the ranchers and farmers will be put out of business. I am soooo glad I am not a rancher in cattle country, I think I would be in jail. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 10:40:09 AM
I feel bad for these ranchers being impacted by uncontrolled wolf populations.
We hear or see the impact wolves are having on livestock and the anger can't be expressed on paper. Now think of the impact wolves are having on the deer, elk etc. these impacts are not seen or heard of like livestock kills, until the game agencies are forced to admit the impacts. Look at IDFG and the Lolo elk herd as an example 14 years later!! :bash: :bash:
And Idaho isn't a liberal stronghold yet. What do you suppose will happen in Oregon and Washington? We have a wait and see what happens attitude in Washington, which translates into a hands off policy for a number of years to let the wolf problem get totally out of control, and in Oregon it is a do nothing stance which translates into a hands off policy until the problem is out of control. Both states have enough environmental nut jobs in high places that will see to it there will be weak enough numbers of elk and deer to have hunt in the future and the ranchers and farmers will be put out of business. I am soooo glad I am not a rancher in cattle country, I think I would be in jail. :twocents:
I really think it depends on who you are. Timber companies will most likely be quietly happy there are fewer ungulates gnawing the tops off saplings and trampling the ground. Crop farmers, like apple growers, will probably not miss elk eating their crops. It's bad news for big game hunters and livestock owners, but for others whose livelihood is negatively affected by ungulates and in a world where more and more private property is closed to hunting...
Pay attention to who is not complaining. If you go out of state people talk about Washington timber and Washington apples, not Washington beef.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 11:02:38 AM
If someone isn't complaining, that doesn't mean we should embrace unchecked populations of new predators. That's incredibly skewed thinking.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 11:18:10 AM
Going out of state to ask people what they know about or want out of WA is worse than letting the people who live in Seattle and Tacoma decide what we should be doing with wolves on the east side. Apple growers and tree farmers are currently working alongside an abundant population of ungulates. They don't get to decide that we should not have abundant ungulates solely for the purpose of their profit, nor have any of them suggested we do so. Ranchers would probably also benefit from fewer elk ruining their pastures and fences. However, all of the groups have figured out a way to live with the ungulates that have existed here for a long time, ungulates which support a vibrant hunting industry which in turn supports our WDFW and communities and guides and sporting goods, and give recreation and satisfaction to a large number of our residents.
If someone isn't complaining, that doesn't mean we should embrace unchecked populations of new predators. That's incredibly skewed thinking.
I'm not saying it's a reason to accept it. I'm saying silence from them can often be acceptance, and once wolves leave cattle country in this state you are dealing with an entirely different dynamic. This is not Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. The economy is more diverse than cattle ranching and hunting.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 11:25:39 AM
One big ol bull was never found, they musta run that big feller for a good long ways before he succumbed. Lot of open cows when that happens. He was probably getting too big anyways, the younger heifers couldn't hold him up.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 11:53:01 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 12:02:31 PM
YA - I'm talking about you Mr. Vaagen, I know you're reading this.
Post by: WSU on February 20, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
Is it the farmer we all really care about? If so, why shouldn't farmers get to shoot elk on sight?
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 12:29:50 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 12:37:43 PM
Going out of state to ask people what they know about or want out of WA is worse than letting the people who live in Seattle and Tacoma decide what we should be doing with wolves on the east side. Apple growers and tree farmers are currently working alongside an abundant population of ungulates. They don't get to decide that we should not have abundant ungulates solely for the purpose of their profit, nor have any of them suggested we do so. Ranchers would probably also benefit from fewer elk ruining their pastures and fences. However, all of the groups have figured out a way to live with the ungulates that have existed here for a long time, ungulates which support a vibrant hunting industry which in turn supports our WDFW and communities and guides and sporting goods, and give recreation and satisfaction to a large number of our residents.
If someone isn't complaining, that doesn't mean we should embrace unchecked populations of new predators. That's incredibly skewed thinking.
I'm not saying it's a reason to accept it. I'm saying silence from them can often be acceptance, and once wolves leave cattle country in this state you are dealing with an entirely different dynamic. This is not Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. The economy is more diverse than cattle ranching and hunting.
You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber. And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country. When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.
Correct
When they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.
Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.
I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.
Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:36:55 PM
You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.
I'm not disagreeing with that.And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.
CorrectWhen they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.
Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.
I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.
Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.
You have very little knowledge of the economic impact of hunting, while it may not matter in Seattle, it is huge in many rural comminities. :bash: :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 01:39:25 PM
You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.
I'm not disagreeing with that.And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.
CorrectWhen they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.
Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.
I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.
Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.
I don't think they'll be any more welcomed in apple country than they are in cattle country. I don't see loggers being thrilled about packs in their woods, either. I'd love you to show me differently. Their so-called "silence" isn't enough. I would bet quite a few of the people on here who oppose the wildly irresponsible wolf plan are loggers. And they've been far from silent about it.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:40:38 PM
You're correct, but to the residents of 2/3s of the land mass of WA, hunting and ranching, whether it be cattle or sheep or llamas, are all very important alongside the apples and timber.
I'm not disagreeing with that.And, wolves aren't going to leave cattle country, ever. I think you misspoke. They're just going to spread out to areas in addition to their present location in cattle country.
CorrectWhen they spread into apple country, I guarantee the conflicts with them will far outweigh the benefits from them. Many apple growers hunt, have pets, and families. They'll be adversely affected once the wolves spread out and the danger to them from wolves will far outweigh the ungulate damage that they've been dealing with as part of business for decades. When you compare WA to ID, MT, and WY you must also recognize that in comparison to all three of those states, our vastly more aggressive wolf plan with our "entirely different dynamic" is going to reek havoc with many people in many different areas and occupations.
Wolves don't trample crops. Wolves don't eat apples. Wolves don't kill trees. Wolves don't write software or build airplanes or run ports or log or do just about anything that makes this state money when you factor out cattle and outfitting.
I'm sure wolves will become viewed as a pest, but I'm sorry, they won't make much of a dent in the state's economy or most peoples' livelihoods. This is not Idaho. The people who stand to lose the most in areas less reliant on cattle and outfitting are big game hunters.
Again, the silence from growers, be it of apples or trees or anything else, on the issue is deafening in this state.
I don't think they'll be any more welcomed in apple country than they are in cattle country. I don't see loggers being thrilled about packs in their woods, either. I'd love you to show me differently. Their so-called "silence" isn't enough. I would bet quite a few of the people on here who oppose the wildly irresponsible wolf plan are loggers. And they've been far from silent about it.
Nothing "so-called" about it. Livestock people and outfitters, that's who is most at risk financially. Wolves don't eat crops. Elk and deer do.
Sorry to the loggers, but they aren't the number crunchers that matter in the equation.
Post by: snowpack on February 20, 2014, 01:46:35 PM
If wolves are coming onto porches to attack dogs in Twisp, they'll likely do the same anyplace on the westside. Not many places on the westside where the distance between populated areas is more than 5 miles, so a wolf pack would be within 2.5 miles--barely 20 mins away for a wolf.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 01:48:21 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 20, 2014, 01:49:14 PM
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 01:50:48 PM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
Post by: AspenBud on February 20, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
Post by: bearpaw on February 20, 2014, 02:28:51 PM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
Thank you for public displaying the harsh reality of Washington. :twocents:
Post by: denali on February 23, 2014, 03:44:45 AM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
I can see you have spent a lot of time in the Palouse, PM me when WDFW ID's the den site site near Endicott :chuckle:
Post by: rasbo on February 23, 2014, 04:12:47 AM
Post by: Duffer on February 23, 2014, 04:17:41 AM
here in grant county we have many gophers and other small animals for coyotes to feed on,but being the smart predator they are,calves and pets take a good hit along with chickens..Wolves will be they same but worse in my opinion,the very rural areas like the palouse will be hit hard I believe..Cattle are easy shopping...there is no shortage of wolves in country or Canada,I'm a firm believer this is about hurting hunters and hunting at any cost to wildlife and ranchers..Start managing the wolves now!!!!
This!!! :yeah:
Post by: AspenBud on February 24, 2014, 10:44:06 AM
This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
I can see you have spent a lot of time in the Palouse, PM me when WDFW ID's the den site site near Endicott :chuckle:
PM me when wolves are known to eat wheat. :chuckle:
Post by: thatdamguy on February 24, 2014, 12:58:31 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 01:14:35 PM
What happens when Elk are protected or make the ESA list? the farmers won't be able to do anything if they get on the wheat fields.
Post by: snowpack on February 24, 2014, 01:17:21 PM
I think what the one guy was saying is that the wolves will kill off more coyotes than humans will. And coyotes keep the rodents down, so wolves may cause more crops to be lost. Guess time will tell. I've encountered more than one farmer that wouldn't allow yote hunting because of rodent control. I think coyotes will focus on vermin more than game, where wolves will go for game more than vermin.This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
I can see you have spent a lot of time in the Palouse, PM me when WDFW ID's the den site site near Endicott :chuckle:
PM me when wolves are known to eat wheat. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on February 24, 2014, 01:23:12 PM
I think what the one guy was saying is that the wolves will kill off more coyotes than humans will. And coyotes keep the rodents down, so wolves may cause more crops to be lost. Guess time will tell. I've encountered more than one farmer that wouldn't allow yote hunting because of rodent control. I think coyotes will focus on vermin more than game, where wolves will go for game more than vermin.This topic details the proven economic impact in idaho, wolves hit local and state economies hard. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147923.0.html)
That's nice. This isn't Idaho.
Again it's obvious your head is so far in the sand that you can't see the daylight. Much of eastern Washington has the same economy as Idaho. This is the impact we'll be seeing in eastern WA. Of course you have made yourself clear that you don't care what happens outside your little world.
I somehow doubt wheat and lentil farmers in the Palouse will lose a lot of money because of wolves. I rather doubt people in Spokane will lose a lot of money.
I don't agree with how the state is handling the wolf issue. You won't believe that, but I really don't. But there are some harsh realities in play here in Washington and they go far beyond WDFW's "management plan."
I can see you have spent a lot of time in the Palouse, PM me when WDFW ID's the den site site near Endicott :chuckle:
PM me when wolves are known to eat wheat. :chuckle:
That's a really good point.
Post by: thatdamguy on February 24, 2014, 01:29:46 PM
umm..
What happens when Elk are protected or make the ESA list? the farmers won't be able to do anything if they get on the wheat fields.
LOL the idiots who were pro-wolfers and the WDFW will probably recommend high fences and more night rides and noise makers for deterrent...... :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
umm..
What happens when Elk are protected or make the ESA list? the farmers won't be able to do anything if they get on the wheat fields.
LOL the idiots who were pro-wolfers and the WDFW will probably recommend high fences and more night rides and noise makers for deterrent...... :bash:
don't forget flaggery and range riders :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on February 25, 2014, 07:23:59 AM
umm..
What happens when Elk are protected or make the ESA list? the farmers won't be able to do anything if they get on the wheat fields.
Okay I'll bite, if they get listed their numbers will be so small that any damage they do won't amount to much.
Even if you're right people are short sighted and in that part of the state the old joke used to be that a bad year for a wheat farmer is when they have to drive a Lincoln instead of a Cadillac. Wolves will not bankrupt them and neither will hypothetically endangered elk. Genetically modified wheat popping up where it shouldn't, now that's a different story.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 25, 2014, 07:53:49 AM
Post by: wence5 on February 25, 2014, 09:02:34 AM
Wolves and annual crops are like Peterbilt's and Prius's, not related. But with nearly a billion dollar cow/calf industry in this state and a single calf approaching or exceeding a $1000 any predator is a big deal, a wolf population is a nightmare.
Right on nwwanderer! People in the large cities don't get it because they haven't been directly effected, yet. If they were being hit hard in the wallet they would be bi***** too, but right now they are more than happy to drive into the forest in their Subaru to hear the wolves howl and feel all fuzzy inside. Wait until they go out to have a nice steak dinner or go to the grocery store and see beef prices have tripled!
Post by: wolfbait on February 25, 2014, 01:05:40 PM
Wolves and annual crops are like Peterbilt's and Prius's, not related. But with nearly a billion dollar cow/calf industry in this state and a single calf approaching or exceeding a $1000 any predator is a big deal, a wolf population is a nightmare.
Right on nwwanderer! People in the large cities don't get it because they haven't been directly effected, yet. If they were being hit hard in the wallet they would be bi***** too, but right now they are more than happy to drive into the forest in their Subaru to hear the wolves howl and feel all fuzzy inside. Wait until they go out to have a nice steak dinner or go to the grocery store and see beef prices have tripled!
Or when fluffy gets chomped at their second home in the Methow Valley, just like the over population of cougars, those who voted for no hound hunting were the first to scream kill it.
Post by: wence5 on February 26, 2014, 09:55:45 AM
Wolves and annual crops are like Peterbilt's and Prius's, not related. But with nearly a billion dollar cow/calf industry in this state and a single calf approaching or exceeding a $1000 any predator is a big deal, a wolf population is a nightmare.
Right on nwwanderer! People in the large cities don't get it because they haven't been directly effected, yet. If they were being hit hard in the wallet they would be bi***** too, but right now they are more than happy to drive into the forest in their Subaru to hear the wolves howl and feel all fuzzy inside. Wait until they go out to have a nice steak dinner or go to the grocery store and see beef prices have tripled!
Or when fluffy gets chomped at their second home in the Methow Valley, just like the over population of cougars, those who voted for no hound hunting were the first to scream kill it.
True that wolfbait. I have seen that same thing happen here in SW Washington because of no hound hunting. A few years ago there was a young male cougar making his living in the Camas hills just off of small dogs and cats. A lot of the people in these high dollar homes, which BTW I'm confident many up there voted to stop hound hunting, were screaming long and loud for WDFW to DO SOMETHING! You guys flocked up the watering hole and now you want someone to do something? This is why we have the problems with predators we do, because everyone has a vote, even if they don't have a clue what the consequences will be when they vote on these issues. I'll bet that if there were a ballot measure up for a vote to allow limited wolf hunting it would go down in flames, thanks to the Seattle crowd. :bash:
Post by: AspenBud on February 26, 2014, 10:22:48 AM
Wolves and annual crops are like Peterbilt's and Prius's, not related. But with nearly a billion dollar cow/calf industry in this state and a single calf approaching or exceeding a $1000 any predator is a big deal, a wolf population is a nightmare.
Right on nwwanderer! People in the large cities don't get it because they haven't been directly effected, yet. If they were being hit hard in the wallet they would be bi***** too, but right now they are more than happy to drive into the forest in their Subaru to hear the wolves howl and feel all fuzzy inside. Wait until they go out to have a nice steak dinner or go to the grocery store and see beef prices have tripled!
Or when fluffy gets chomped at their second home in the Methow Valley, just like the over population of cougars, those who voted for no hound hunting were the first to scream kill it.
True that wolfbait. I have seen that same thing happen here in SW Washington because of now hound hunting. A few years ago there was a young male cougar making his living in the Camas hills just off of small dogs and cats. A lot of the people in these high dollar home, which BTW I'm confident many up there voted to stop hound hunting, were screaming long and loud for WDFW to DO SOMETHING! You guys flocked up the watering hole and now you want someone to do something? This is why we have the problems with predators we do, because everyone has a vote, even if they don't have a clue what the consequences will be when they vote on these issues. I'll be that if there were a ballot measure up for a vote to allow limited wolf hunting it would go down in flames, thanks to the Seattle crowd. :bash:
:tup:
Wildlife management should never be left to voters. I absolutely agree with that.