Post by: bearpaw on July 07, 2014, 03:11:24 PM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS June 25, 2014
KETCHUM, Idaho — A central Idaho sheep rancher whose flock sustained losses to wolves each spring during lambing season moved them this year from his ranch near Carey to a new area where wolves aren't present.
The Idaho Mountain Express reports (http://bit.ly/1meOoQZ (http://bit.ly/1meOoQZ)) that John Peavey moved 1,800 ewes in April to the desert about 20 miles south.
Peavey says he lost a couple lambs to coyotes but none to wolves.
Wildlife Services says that since 2008 wolves killed 153 sheep and three calves in the Flat Top Ranch area in 19 incidents. The agency killed 15 wolves in response.
Continued:
http://tinyurl.com/of43lsj (http://tinyurl.com/of43lsj)
Post by: Dan-o on July 07, 2014, 03:41:50 PM
Doesn't he know that the wolves would only kill the sick and old, while restoring harmony to the environment?
Post by: KFhunter on July 08, 2014, 06:55:41 PM
How many died during the roundup, moving and off loading and stress involved with the move (X2)
how much man hours
fuel there and back
range lease?
how many lost on the trip home?
how many lambs never get paired and lost?
lambs trampled?
It wasn't cheap to move those sheep back and forth, but the wolf advocates will praise him for doing it and use it as leverage to get others to do the same.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 08, 2014, 10:48:30 PM
I'd be interested to know the cost break down on moving 1800 to birth and then moving the pairs back (up to 3600 now)I guess I don't see the problem with folks looking for ways to reduce conflict with wildlife. Frankly, I wish more landowners had this attitude...particularly with elk and deer herds.
How many died during the roundup, moving and off loading and stress involved with the move (X2)
how much man hours
fuel there and back
range lease?
how many lost on the trip home?
how many lambs never get paired and lost?
lambs trampled?
It wasn't cheap to move those sheep back and forth, but the wolf advocates will praise him for doing it and use it as leverage to get others to do the same.
As far as the cost it seems pretty logical that he was ahead to move them or he wouldn't have done it. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on July 08, 2014, 10:58:40 PM
I'd be interested to know the cost break down on moving 1800 to birth and then moving the pairs back (up to 3600 now)I guess I don't see the problem with folks looking for ways to reduce conflict with wildlife. Frankly, I wish more landowners had this attitude...particularly with elk and deer herds.
How many died during the roundup, moving and off loading and stress involved with the move (X2)
how much man hours
fuel there and back
range lease?
how many lost on the trip home?
how many lambs never get paired and lost?
lambs trampled?
It wasn't cheap to move those sheep back and forth, but the wolf advocates will praise him for doing it and use it as leverage to get others to do the same.
As far as the cost it seems pretty logical that he was ahead to move them or he wouldn't have done it. :dunno:
A lot of landowners do have this same attitude. The ranchers are changing up things for the calving season, I know some ranches moved their herd for calving.
It's expensive though, and not everyone has the capability or place to move their herds.
What about the little guy raising a few critters for their own use? They can't move their animals 20-30 or 200 miles away to keep them safe for wolves.
The bigger operations might have more options available, but the family raising a couple horses with a foal or two, or a few head of beef/sheep whatever won't be able to uproot their little homestead to keep things out of the wolves mouths.
We need aggressive management and be able to shoot wolves 24/7 365 in residential areas.
Post by: jasnt on July 08, 2014, 11:08:36 PM
That's over $30,000.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 08, 2014, 11:36:08 PM
Different circumstances = different solutions. My point is I applaud folks who find ways to reduce conflict without demanding all the public's wildlife be killed...again, I'm far more concerned about deer and elk herds being affected than wolves.I'd be interested to know the cost break down on moving 1800 to birth and then moving the pairs back (up to 3600 now)I guess I don't see the problem with folks looking for ways to reduce conflict with wildlife. Frankly, I wish more landowners had this attitude...particularly with elk and deer herds.
How many died during the roundup, moving and off loading and stress involved with the move (X2)
how much man hours
fuel there and back
range lease?
how many lost on the trip home?
how many lambs never get paired and lost?
lambs trampled?
It wasn't cheap to move those sheep back and forth, but the wolf advocates will praise him for doing it and use it as leverage to get others to do the same.
As far as the cost it seems pretty logical that he was ahead to move them or he wouldn't have done it. :dunno:
A lot of landowners do have this same attitude. The ranchers are changing up things for the calving season, I know some ranches moved their herd for calving.
It's expensive though, and not everyone has the capability or place to move their herds.
What about the little guy raising a few critters for their own use? They can't move their animals 20-30 or 200 miles away to keep them safe for wolves.
The bigger operations might have more options available, but the family raising a couple horses with a foal or two, or a few head of beef/sheep whatever won't be able to uproot their little homestead to keep things out of the wolves mouths.
We need aggressive management and be able to shoot wolves 24/7 365 in residential areas.
Post by: KFhunter on July 08, 2014, 11:41:49 PM
I know you don't care about livestock producers one iota, but you have no qualms about forcing them to avoid conflict with wolves, for the wolves sake!
Post by: idahohuntr on July 08, 2014, 11:54:33 PM
I have never made some blanket statement that wolves are not detrimental to deer/elk. In fact, depending on scope and scale, a wolf can be extremely detrimental...like if you are the elk being eaten! :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Romulus1297 on July 09, 2014, 12:18:08 AM
FlaggedNo sense and double talk..as usual..More useless chatter from someone who contributes nothing to the conversation...as usual.
Post by: jasnt on July 09, 2014, 06:11:41 AM
bigger operations might have more options available, but the family raising a couple horses with a foal or two, or a few head of beef/sheep whatever won't be able to uproot their little homestead to keep things out of the wolves mouths.
I agree kf. If the wolves where to hit or farm we'd be broke over night. Alot of small farms in my area and most are already having enough trouble as it is. We have a dozen cows +caves and about as many goats, chickens, and pigs. But it's no booming business. It wouldn't take much to loose alot. We already have coyote and cougar troubles. This farm could not afford to move our livestock.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 07:21:58 AM
I'd be interested to know the cost break down on moving 1800 to birth and then moving the pairs back (up to 3600 now)I guess I don't see the problem with folks looking for ways to reduce conflict with wildlife. Frankly, I wish more landowners had this attitude...particularly with elk and deer herds.
How many died during the roundup, moving and off loading and stress involved with the move (X2)
how much man hours
fuel there and back
range lease?
how many lost on the trip home?
how many lambs never get paired and lost?
lambs trampled?
It wasn't cheap to move those sheep back and forth, but the wolf advocates will praise him for doing it and use it as leverage to get others to do the same.
As far as the cost it seems pretty logical that he was ahead to move them or he wouldn't have done it. :dunno:
Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 09:07:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 09:27:04 AM
I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
Post by: jasnt on July 09, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 09, 2014, 09:54:00 AM
In areas where wolves cause problems the offending wolves should be terminated. Either they fit in or they don't, when they don't fit in get rid of them. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 10:00:31 AM
In areas where wolves cause problems the offending wolves should be terminated. Either they fit in or they don't, when they don't fit in get rid of them. :twocents:
I think that's my point. In Idaho this guy likely has the ability to do something about the problem and yet he feels it's more cost effective to move his animals. That's actually quite the statement on his part.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:17:46 AM
:yeah:I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.
Wolves are not going away. If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business. Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context. I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:23:02 AM
Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads? Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.
I risk things getting worse? How so? You think that they state is going to increase the already ridiculous wolf plan because a large number of people object to it? You think that the rabid wolf lovers will get any more rabid because I speak out about the wrong this program has done and will do? That's bull crap. I accept that environmentalists won the debate and the wolves are here. That doesn't mean everything's OK and that doesn't mean I'll sit quietly by while they multiply in WA to a point of no return. Most of the people who've pushed for this don't have anything at stake. They live in Seattle or Portland or San Francisco, and are celebrating as ranchers lose their stock and their businesses, and we hunters lose our ungulates. I'm not doing anything to hurt your poor, defenseless little wolves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 10:31:54 AM
Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads? Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?
Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 10:34:44 AM
:yeah:I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.
Wolves are not going away. If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business. Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context. I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change.
Again, said like a true nothing-at-stake extremist. :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:39:03 AM
Your hypocricy is hilarious. So you want to eliminate herbicide use for private timberland owners but not ag producers. You don't see how new laws and federal regulations regarding herbicide use on forests would impact farmers and ag producers bottom lines? Really? Do you have a clue how many herbicides are used in ag production? Oh but wait, that doesn't fit your neat little story where herbicides cause hoof rot does it? More important to this thread, your concerns about the farmers bottom line don't seem so genuine anymore do they?Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads? Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?
Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.
Post by: jasnt on July 09, 2014, 12:47:03 PM
these ranches and farms feed America. Have you ever ate any of the imported meat. Its tasteless if your lucky and sometimes disgusting. These are not just any other business, they are part of American culture, help keep us more self sufficient, and are regulated for our protection. These are the type of businesses that should have been bailed out, they should be important to all of us.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
I think some of you are missing the greater point here. Idaho uses some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48 and this guy still feels he needs to move his animals away.
No one is missing that point. The point that you're missing is that with "some of the most aggressive wolf management techniques in the lower 48" being used, the wolves are still wreaking havoc on our ranchers. They're uncontrollable. This has gone way beyond a manageable level because they don't belong here.
In another time and place most people would have agreed with you. But this isn't that time and place, I recognize that and you don't. You have to learn to work within the current environment or you risk things getting even worse.
I risk things getting worse? How so? You think that they state is going to increase the already ridiculous wolf plan because a large number of people object to it? You think that the rabid wolf lovers will get any more rabid because I speak out about the wrong this program has done and will do? That's bull crap. I accept that environmentalists won the debate and the wolves are here. That doesn't mean everything's OK and that doesn't mean I'll sit quietly by while they multiply in WA to a point of no return. Most of the people who've pushed for this don't have anything at stake. They live in Seattle or Portland or San Francisco, and are celebrating as ranchers lose their stock and their businesses, and we hunters lose our ungulates. I'm not doing anything to hurt your poor, defenseless little wolves.
Yeah, you don't get it. It's the folks in Seattle et al that you need to get through to. But you won't until you adjust your attitude and figure out how to communicate with them.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 01:28:10 PM
If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business. Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context. I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change.
these auto companies feed America. Have you ever driven an imported car ? They barely run if your lucky and sometimes rust to pieces. These are not just any other business, they are part of American culture, help keep us more self sufficient, and are regulated for our protection. These are the type of businesses that should have been bailed out, they should be important to all of us.
Fixed it for ya.
Free trade sucks. It was great for ranchers and farmers until they got stuck by it too.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 01:47:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 01:53:21 PM
Your hypocricy is hilarious. So you want to eliminate herbicide use for private timberland owners but not ag producers. You don't see how new laws and federal regulations regarding herbicide use on forests would impact farmers and ag producers bottom lines? Really? Do you have a clue how many herbicides are used in ag production? Oh but wait, that doesn't fit your neat little story where herbicides cause hoof rot does it? More important to this thread, your concerns about the farmers bottom line don't seem so genuine anymore do they?Of course you don't see the problem because you have nothing at stake. You want the wolves at any cost (to someone else, not you), and you've made that abundantly clear. But regardless of your inability to see it, the problems are the added expenses, which this farmer doesn't need. Farmers are in enough trouble in this country and even without adding expenses, many don't make a profit. The cost in transportation, time, and lost animals drives the price of his domestic lamb higher, making the purchase of NZ lamb more affordable to consumers and drives US ranchers out of business.So Piano, how does this statement fit with your desire to end herbicide use or greatly expand environmental regulations related to herbicide use in other threads? Here you are worried about the farmer...what the heck do you think you will do to the bottom line of farmers and ag producers if you outlaw their ability to control pests and weeds with herbicide application?
Two separate issues, but thanks for taking the WDFW's line on yet another thread. I'm not going after farmers' use of herbicides. I'm concerned with the use of herbicides to sterilize clearcuts, eliminating forage and nutrition from wildlife. Whole different story. If you can't see the difference, have someone else explain it to you.
I'll try and explain this to you again as simply as I can because it's obvious you're confused. Regulation wouldn't be aimed at or affect farmers and domestic livestock. It would affect our forests and clear cuts. No one's talking about going after farmers and food crops. We're talking about the forests. If you're still having a problem understanding, ask someone close to read the thread to you. That may help. I'm done with you in this thread.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 02:13:03 PM
I get it fine. You're a wolf lover and think I should be, too. Sorry. It's not going to work that way. It can't get worse for those of us who are realists and understand what's going on. And the wolf lovers like you aren't about to make any concessions because I change my attitude. That's a huge lie and you know it. You think everyone should start goose stepping behind your love of wolves. No.
Yes it can. It's called an initiative, and your message isn't getting through, theirs is.
It's not about winning "wolf lovers" over to your side, it's everyone in the middle and you are failing miserably.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 02:16:08 PM
Post by: jasnt on July 09, 2014, 02:52:11 PM
If ranchers affected by wolves can't find ways to adapt then they will go out of business. Millions and millions of businesses go under every year because of changes outside their control...adapt or you will not survive...I see no difference between ranchers and any other line of business in that context. I applaud this guys efforts to looking for solutions instead of crying about something that is not going to change.
these auto companies feed America. Have you ever driven an imported car ? They barely run if your lucky and sometimes rust to pieces. These are not just any other business, they are part of American culture, help keep us more self sufficient, and are regulated for our protection. These are the type of businesses that should have been bailed out, they should be important to all of us.
Fixed it for ya.
Free trade sucks. It was great for ranchers and farmers until they got stuck by it too.
What a joke!
Post by: KFhunter on July 09, 2014, 04:19:09 PM
Australia has their own K9 problems with dingo's, so they built the worlds longest fence.
Post by: AspenBud on July 09, 2014, 04:34:04 PM
If we want free trade with NZ sheep then we need to drop a bunch of wolves there too.
Australia has their own K9 problems with dingo's, so they built the worlds longest fence.
Australia also has very favorable trade terms with us now and the country is effectively swimming in cows.
Wolves are not why domestic beef is more expensive these days. It's not unfair to say that they'll have a rather insignificant impact even in the long haul. Weather and feed prices, that's another story.
Post by: wolfbait on July 09, 2014, 09:40:44 PM
WDFW can keep ignoring wolves until they are forced to confirm again.