Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 06:15:03 AM
Quote
If we allow people to be forced off the land, our economy and our communities will suffer greatly. We are asking our Stevens County Commissioners Steve Parker, Don Dashiell and Wes McCart, our Sheriff Kendle Allen, our County Prosecutor Tim Rasmussen and our legislators Joel Kretz, Shelly Short and Brian Dansel to recognize that the time for words is over, the time for action is now.
read more: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/02/rancher-being-forced-private-grazing-land-wolves-wrong/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/02/rancher-being-forced-private-grazing-land-wolves-wrong/)
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 09:34:58 AM
From the rancher...
"In addition to being part of the WAG group, I am also one of a group of producers who have asked WDFW for wolf collar data so we can manage our herds. In our case we received no response and other producers were asked to sign a contract with certain non-lethal management rules first as some kind of test on whether they deserved the information or not. Being denied this basic tool directly caused the wolf conflict situation our ranch experienced, as we were unaware that we were moving our band of sheep near a wolf den site. Had we had access to the information, we would have made alternate grazing plans."
From CNW...
"He doesn't mention that, as I understand it, before this field season he turned down offers of cooperative agreements and substantial resources (including a rider, collars, etc.) from WSU and also DFW. Nor does he mention that during the two or so weeks in which the pack was developing a refined taste for his mutton, Dashiel and his presumably experienced “herder” thought they were experiencing cougar issues.
But what bothers me most is that he describes this as “a crisis that is becoming all too common in Eastern Washington.” Really? This and the Wedge Pack (2 years ago) make for two such crises, both with stubborn ranchers who resisted the resources to update their methods and prevent the situation. In the nine project seasons that Conservation Northwest has been involved in with more collaborative ranchers since 2012, our total number of depredations is ZERO."
Can anyone confirm that claim in bold?
Regardless, if the state wants to be serious about avoiding conflicts they have an obligation to release any and all data about where wolves may be a problem for livestock producers. Getting the collar data should not have been an issue. Conversely if the rancher is turning down help that makes him look like he's stubborn and not interested in working with the state on the problem or to avoid it.
There is no middle ground where both sides meet.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 09:38:50 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 09:53:28 AM
Post by: Stein on September 09, 2014, 10:15:38 AM
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
Spoken like a true pro-wolfer :tup: Are you finally coming out of the closet Bobcat, no more fooling around on both sides of the fence?
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 10:32:08 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 10:37:36 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.:yeah:
I find the hypocrisy a little funny...sad actually. A lot of ranchers I know support very limited government, reduced taxes, etc. Until of course a wolf eats into their profits...then its all the governments fault and taxpayers need to pay for helicopters, gunners, high tech gps collars, dozens of support staff etc.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 10:39:20 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
Spoken like a true pro-wolfer :tup: Are you finally coming out of the closet Bobcat, no more fooling around on both sides of the fence?
We will see how Bobcat's comments change when wolves invade his hunting areas and impact him or his neighbors. It's pretty easy to make those comments when it involves people you don't know and happens with wolves on the other side of the state.
County Commissioners had a public meeting and have issued statements telling the county residents we have Constitutional Rights to protect ourselves and our property against wolves. Something about there will be no prosecutions in this county for protecting yourself or your property if you shoot a wolf(s). It was on the front page of our local newspaper, I can't find it online so I can't provide an exact quote.
People in this county are ready to boot WDFW out of the county and take control of wildlife management.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 10:41:25 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.:yeah:
I find the hypocrisy a little funny...sad actually. A lot of ranchers I know support very limited government, reduced taxes, etc. Until of course a wolf eats into their profits...then its all the governments fault and taxpayers need to pay for helicopters, gunners, high tech gps collars, dozens of support staff etc.
Some of you need to review the original NRM wolf plan and the state wolf plan. Agencies and wolf groups promised compensation for losses as part of the deal to bring wolves into the states. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 10:48:47 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.:yeah:
I find the hypocrisy a little funny...sad actually. A lot of ranchers I know support very limited government, reduced taxes, etc. Until of course a wolf eats into their profits...then its all the governments fault and taxpayers need to pay for helicopters, gunners, high tech gps collars, dozens of support staff etc.
Some of you need to review the original NRM wolf plan and the state wolf plan. Agencies and wolf groups promised compensation for losses as part of the deal to bring wolves into the states. :twocents:
Truth.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 10:53:40 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.:yeah:
I find the hypocrisy a little funny...sad actually. A lot of ranchers I know support very limited government, reduced taxes, etc. Until of course a wolf eats into their profits...then its all the governments fault and taxpayers need to pay for helicopters, gunners, high tech gps collars, dozens of support staff etc.
The hypocrisy is that most of us who have to live with wolves didn't want wolves, they were forced onto us by people living in urban areas with promises and some hunters actually buy into the wolf lies. Think legislator living on San Jaun Islands!
I have seen Bobcat's comments about wolves on the westside, unless I misunderstood his comments, he seems to support wolves as long as they are in Eastern Washington, that seems like hypocrisy!
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 10:55:33 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
Spoken like a true pro-wolfer :tup: Are you finally coming out of the closet Bobcat, no more fooling around on both sides of the fence?
We will see how Bobcat's comments change when wolves invade his hunting areas and impact him or his neighbors. It's pretty easy to make those comments when it involves people you don't know and happens with wolves on the other side of the state.
County Commissioners had a public meeting and have issued statements telling the county residents we have Constitutional Rights to protect ourselves and our property against wolves. Something about there will be no prosecutions in this county for protecting yourself or your property if you shoot a wolf(s). It was on the front page of our local newspaper, I can't find it online so I can't provide an exact quote.
People in this county are ready to boot WDFW out of the county and take control of wildlife management.
Honestly, if hunting permit prices keep climbing it won't matter much. A friend of mine bought a permit to hunt the St. Helens tree farm a week before the bow opener and he said that out of 15,000 available permits only 1700 had been sold. Hunting in western Washington is already under serious assault and to be frank, I'm not sure if wolves will make much difference in what's already a bad situation. People are leaving the tradition as access is taken away or becomes too expensive to get. Once people stop hunting they stop caring about what happens with regards to predators and prey and it becomes a "WDFW problem."
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 10:55:39 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 10:58:23 AM
Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.
:yeah:
Particularly once they get delisted by the state.
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 10:59:59 AM
It seems misleading to me to suggest this rancher was "forced" off his grazing lease. It implies the state came in and rounded up his sheep and hauled them somewhere. A more accurate title would be "Wolves force rancher to flee" or "Rancher Decides to Move Flock"...as the rancher, and only the rancher, decided to move his sheep voluntarily...and he has that right. He could have left them right where they were if he (and the landowner) desired. Wolves are a natural part of the landscape now. Its going to make livestock production more difficult...but killing wolves is politically unpopular in this state...times have changed and the sooner folks realize this I think the more successful they will be. Is it true he refused resources to help reduce conflict with wolves? I think the article said something like collars/range riders etc. were offered but denied? No idea whether it would have helped, but it certainly couldn't have hurt and it would eliminate the argument from the pro-wolf crowd that he refused non-lethal help.
The way I see it, the rancher could have stayed and watched the wolves keep killing his sheep while WDFW played this out till the maximum damage had been done, taking a wolf out whenever CNW and the rest of their ilk wanted one for publicity. In the end the rancher would have lost even more.
I think most of us knew this kind of wolf management/control would be on the menu after watching the Wedge slop WDFW preformed. And this same performance is why WDFW have not had to confirm new wolf packs, ranchers etc. don't want WDFW's "help", they are taking care of their own problems. WDFW know this, it prolongs wolf delisting not having to confirm wolf packs, which WDFW want.
Refusing to take out the entire pack that is killing livestock is like driving a truck down the mountain without breaks, there is just no stopping, the outcome will always be the same. When WDFW and their pro-wolf clan came out with their 15 BPS it should have been evident to everyone just how the wolves in WA would be favored over livestock, people, wildlife etc..
This isn't a shocker to me at all, nor is the response from the pro-wolfers on W-H, which are pretty easy to recognize right now.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 11:18:15 AM
Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.
If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?
I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!
If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 11:30:32 AM
Post by: jasnt on September 09, 2014, 11:32:19 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 11:34:21 AM
Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.
If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?
I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!
If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!
I hear what you're saying but I don't think it's a stretch to say that at this point a lot of people think folks complaining about WDFW failing to acknowledge kills as wolf caused are simply upset because they didn't get some money for what might have just been a cougar or coyote related kill.
I don't care if that's right or wrong, that's the perception. Money is a big part of the problem. Instead of being livestock owners suffering losses people now see a lot of the complaints as just folks looking for a handout any time an animal is lost to a predator or act of God.
Take the monetary compensation out of it and people start to see ranchers' losses as folks actually getting hurt by wolves and not just people wanting money for losses that are typical for the business.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 11:37:56 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.
And that's exactly how those ranchers should pay for their increased business expenses- raise their prices. And no, I won't complain if the price of meat goes up. I may not buy it if the price is too high, maybe we will only buy chicken in the store, and eat deer and elk meat instead of beef (mostly already true).
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 11:40:18 AM
Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.
If the wolf groups and WDFW do not want to pay then why did they promise to pay for losses?
I think payments should be made for as long as wolves cause damage. We had rid ourselves of this proboenm and those who brought support them being back should not be let off the hook. I think you can expect to see legislation from eastside legislators soon!
If the urban westside don't want to pay then delist and let us shoot them, we will take care of this costly problem. Some people should have thought about all of this 20 years ago before they turned the wolves loose in Idaho and a few years ago before they agreed to the WA wolf plan!
The USFWS knew twenty years ago what would happen, why do you think they had to lie so extensively? Just about everything they said about wolves has been proven over the years to be lies, if they would have been truthful the wolves would never have been allowed to be introduced.
Wolf impacts underestimated
According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.
• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.
• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.
• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.
• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.
• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.
• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.
• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.”
• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.
WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.”
The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.
“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.
WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.” WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels described by the impact analysis in the 1994 EIS.”
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 11:41:34 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.
I honestly don't remember the last time I ate a piece of Washington grown beef or mutton. It simply doesn't exist in the grocery store.
And sorry, in the grand scheme your argument, at least right now, does not hold up. Feed prices, drought, and trade policies have a much much bigger impact than wolves on the price of food. The only reason beef prices have jumped as they have recently was because a bajillion cattle got slaughtered as a result of rising feed prices which were the result of the drought we had back in 2012. Bad things happen when you fuel cars with corn.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 11:43:16 AM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.
And that's exactly how those ranchers should pay for their increased business expenses- raise their prices. And no, I won't complain if the price of meat goes up. I may not buy it if the price is too high, maybe we will only buy chicken in the store, and eat deer and elk meat instead of beef (mostly already true).
Meat at the counter in Safeway or Fred Meyer is not going to go up because of wolves any time soon.
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 11:46:03 AM
Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation. The state can't afford it. How many years do ranchers expect to be compensated? Is this supposed to go on forever? How is it sustainable? It's not like the wolves are ever going to stop killing domestic animals.
:yeah:
Particularly once they get delisted by the state.
"Then let the wolf loving groups pay for the compensation".
Now that's funny coming from you two-----------------> :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:07:04 PM
So you're basically saying you agree with the revenue from our hunting license fees being used to support wolves?
Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist. If the ranchers and homeowners had the right to shoot the wolves on their property like they do coyotes, it probably wouldn't be an issue. Actually, if that were the case I would probably agree with you.
But being told that they can get in legal trouble for shooting a wolf, knowing that if they don't shoot the wolf it's likely to go after their flock..... Remember, each sheep is worth hundreds of dollars. Every time a wolf kills one sheep, it's a couple hundred bucks that just died.
edited out invalid and replaced with anti-capitalist.
Curtis
Post by: Katmai Guy on September 09, 2014, 12:20:14 PM
Post by: Stein on September 09, 2014, 12:21:23 PM
I'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
Realistically, it is like a government worker coming to your job and taking $200 on random intervals.
There are costs to introducing wolves and a significant one is being shouldered by ranchers. Another is hunters having less game where wolves are present. There should be two fair options - 1) let the ranchers kill wolves that are feeding on their property or 2) factor the cost of replacing the stock into the cost of the wolf program.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
It doesn't matter if each sheep is worth hundreds or if each cow is worth thousands of dollars in profit, they only "cost" the rancher what he paid for them and his expenses for care( inoculations, ect) or if they were born on the range they were free. We shouldn't have to reimburse expected profit because you never know what the market price will be at time of slaughter. I have no problem reimbursing actual cost, so the rancher will not lose money, he just won't profit off the lost animal.
You must be a victim of Washington public education.
In the end lost revenue is lost revenue, and in the end the cost of farm hands and ranchers is going up, not down. You're forgetting all the inherent cost of running any business - payroll, benefits, utilities, land taxes, etc. Ranchers, just like manufacturers, have *capacity*. It's not like they're going to be able to bring on an extra 100 sheep a year just to feed the wolves.
Again, if the state doesn't want to compensate the rancher, they need to let him protect his land. If the state was saying "Hey, wolves are back but if they step foot on your property you have the right to shoot them." - The story would be completely different.
Curtis
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:29:06 PM
Quote
I'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
Well it's hard to call it depredation (i.e. coyotes/crows/etc) because it's more like "protected depredation". They're essentially forcing the ranchers to help the wolf population sustain itself.
Again, if the ranchers were allowed to shoot wolves on their property it'd be different.
If the state started a fire that got out of control and killed several sheep then yes, I would be all for them compensating the rancher.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:31:00 PM
QuoteI'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.
Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 09, 2014, 12:37:00 PM
That and the wolves here at that time were a smaller subspecies than the McKenzies Dumped in the northern Rockies 20 years agoQuoteI'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.
Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 12:43:03 PM
"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."Exactly. Wolves have returned to the landscape and are a factor to consider in your ranching business. If you don't want to deal with them, don't work in the business or don't ranch where wolves occur. Otherwise, accept that you live in a democracy and the public resources (wolves) will be managed as the public sees fit; which in this state may well mean that you don't get to ever shoot wolves on sight.
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:47:12 PM
"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:48:47 PM
QuoteI'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.
Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
:yeah:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 09, 2014, 12:49:41 PM
QuoteI'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.
Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
:yeah:
Not all west siders are on the other team bearpaw :tup:
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 12:52:50 PM
"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 12:56:29 PM
"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 01:14:26 PM
So, tell me again why ranchers exterminated the wolves in the early 1900's? I mean, given they obviously never preyed on livestock I guess ranchers just didn't work as hard back then and had lots of free time?"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 01:32:36 PM
So, tell me again why ranchers exterminated the wolves in the early 1900's? I mean, given they obviously never preyed on livestock I guess ranchers just didn't work as hard back then and had lots of free time?"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
My statement stands, please show me proof of livestock losses by wolves in WA/ID/MT/WY from 1950 to 1995?
This wolf problem was created by government by introducing wolves in 1995, until government resolves the problem, government should pay for damages!
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 01:35:25 PM
Post by: stevemiller on September 09, 2014, 01:36:41 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I don't know where to start on this one, other than to say the livestock operator bend over backwards to accommodate WDFW
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/Huckleberry_Pack_ltr_to_WDFW_-_Aug_21_2014.pdf (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/Huckleberry_Pack_ltr_to_WDFW_-_Aug_21_2014.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 01:48:07 PM
Resolves the "problem?" The only resolution that would put an end to wolves preying on livestock, is the total elimination of wolves.
OK, you are probably right, isn't that what they did before, until then losses should be paid for? :dunno:
why dont these ranchers just get insurance?
Insurance Agent: Hello this is Geico!
Sheep Rancher: Uh hi, I'd like to insure my 1800 sheep against wolf attacks! :chuckle:
Insurance Agent: Do you live in Stevens County?
Sheep Rancher: Uh huh....
Insurance Agent: Sorry dude, call your legislator! :dunno:
Sheep Rancher: stevemiller thought you would insure my sheep?
Insurance Agent: Did you really believe that! :chuckle: CLANK!
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 01:50:48 PM
Wolves were largely exterminated by 1950...so livestock losses to wolves would have been minimal. (;So, tell me again why ranchers exterminated the wolves in the early 1900's? I mean, given they obviously never preyed on livestock I guess ranchers just didn't work as hard back then and had lots of free time?"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
My statement stands, please show me proof of livestock losses by wolves in WA/ID/MT/WY from 1950 to 1995?
This wolf problem was created by government by introducing wolves in 1995, until government resolves the problem, government should pay for damages!
That doesn't change the fact that wolves were exterminated in response to depredation.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 01:58:48 PM
Wolves were largely exterminated by 1950...so livestock losses to wolves would have been minimal. (;So, tell me again why ranchers exterminated the wolves in the early 1900's? I mean, given they obviously never preyed on livestock I guess ranchers just didn't work as hard back then and had lots of free time?"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
This whole mess was manufactured by government so government should pay. You don't like paying then contact your legislator and tell him to get rid of the wolves!
My statement stands, please show me proof of livestock losses by wolves in WA/ID/MT/WY from 1950 to 1995?
This wolf problem was created by government by introducing wolves in 1995, until government resolves the problem, government should pay for damages!
That doesn't change the fact that wolves were exterminated in response to depredation.
That's exactly right... :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 01:59:55 PM
That and the wolves here at that time were a smaller subspecies than the McKenzies Dumped in the northern Rockies 20 years agoQuoteI'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
That's not true- wolves were here when ranching first started in this state, and it was the ranchers who were responsible for eliminating the wolves in the first place.
The ranchers of today were barely alive (if they were) when wolves were around last time though Bobcat.
Typically I align with a lot of your arguments, but I think in this case you're so fed up with the wolf debate that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
And that apparently mattered so much that they were exterminated. Why? Because they ate livestock too!
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 02:02:50 PM
Resolves the "problem?" The only resolution that would put an end to wolves preying on livestock, is the total elimination of wolves.
OK, you are probably right, isn't that what they did before, until then losses should be paid for? :dunno
Total elimination is not management. As long as the dogs are protected ranchers should probably get a buck, though I seriously think that is a PR disaster for them. But once protections get dropped and they become a game animal all bets are off as far as compensation goes. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 02:12:56 PM
I'm not a rancher and don't personally know one. I do know they have a business and the artificial introduction of wolves costs them money. They weren't there when they started and now they are - no rancher alive had to deal with them in the past. The government artificially introduced a cost to their business against their will and without a vote.
Lots of businesses didn't want free trade either but the government signed those agreements too. The "we didn't have to deal with this before" argument isn't a very strong one. Curve balls are a part of business, be they government caused or otherwise. You either adapt or go out of business. Those are the only options. The government also requires auto companies to put in a gazillion new safety features and increase mileage every year, the companies warn it will cost more, and in the end they add the features and raise prices as necessary. They don't even blink at it.
There is only one thing you can count on in business, things change.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 02:15:19 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
My understanding is the agreement was always to cover livestock losses until wolves got to such a point that they could make it on their own and absorb any losses via depredation. This whole argument has taken on a form that is far different from the original Yellowstone deal.
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2014, 02:20:30 PM
It seems misleading to me to suggest this rancher was "forced" off his grazing lease. It implies the state came in and rounded up his sheep and hauled them somewhere. A more accurate title would be "Wolves force rancher to flee" or "Rancher Decides to Move Flock"...as the rancher, and only the rancher, decided to move his sheep voluntarily...and he has that right. He could have left them right where they were if he (and the landowner) desired. Wolves are a natural part of the landscape now. Its going to make livestock production more difficult...but killing wolves is politically unpopular in this state...times have changed and the sooner folks realize this I think the more successful they will be. Is it true he refused resources to help reduce conflict with wolves? I think the article said something like collars/range riders etc. were offered but denied? No idea whether it would have helped, but it certainly couldn't have hurt and it would eliminate the argument from the pro-wolf crowd that he refused non-lethal help.
Should have let them get ate? He couldn't protect his sheep from the wolves using legal means. He bent over backwards working with WDFW, I can't fault the guy if he didn't let every tom,dick,harry wolf group come in and make a mess of things. What about Hancock? They're loosing that lease due to wolves so that's money out of their pockets too, and does a timber company want all the fencing, flaggery and whatever else non-since the wolf groups come up with? I think not. Letting your sheep get slaughtered by wolves is NOT an option as you seem to indicate it is.
It's disgusting and sick to think that way.
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
Ranchers have been begging and fighting for the right to defend their livestock and certainty did not ask for wolves to be in a non-viable wolf habitat areas.
The ranchers also did not ask for the wolf plan of WA that specifically spells out how they're to be compensated, and furthermore the rancher most affected by wolves with the greatest losses in WA's recent history has flatly refused compensation and furthermore "compensation" doesn't begin to even come close to fully compensating wolf loss....herd weight and health, calf losses far outweigh the livestock that actually fall to wolf teeth.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 02:22:59 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 02:29:35 PM
wow
I don't know where to start on this one, other than to say the livestock operator bend over backwards to accommodate WDFW
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/Huckleberry_Pack_ltr_to_WDFW_-_Aug_21_2014.pdf (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/Huckleberry_Pack_ltr_to_WDFW_-_Aug_21_2014.pdf)
Keep mouth shut and go to store, no more wolf problem. Everyone Happy, happy, happy. :tup:
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Winchester174-Varmint-X-Rifle-Ammunition/1571904.uts?Ntk=BargainCave&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch_within.cmd%3Fform_state%3Ddefault_state%26searchWithin%3Dtrue%26N%3D0%26Ntk%3DBargainCave%26Ntt%3DAmmunition%26search%3DAmmunition%26nttWithin%3D243%26x%3D7%26y%3D10%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-Bargain%2BCave%253BSearchWithin&Ntt=Ammunition&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-Bargain+Cave%3BSearchWithin (http://www.cabelas.com/product/Winchester174-Varmint-X-Rifle-Ammunition/1571904.uts?Ntk=BargainCave&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch_within.cmd%3Fform_state%3Ddefault_state%26searchWithin%3Dtrue%26N%3D0%26Ntk%3DBargainCave%26Ntt%3DAmmunition%26search%3DAmmunition%26nttWithin%3D243%26x%3D7%26y%3D10%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-Bargain%2BCave%253BSearchWithin&Ntt=Ammunition&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-Bargain+Cave%3BSearchWithin)
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 02:30:40 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
Please see KFhunters last reply, pretty much sums it up!
Post by: Stein on September 09, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 02:44:18 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
The government is taking nothing. Did you mean the wolves? If so, they are called wildlife for a reason- they are "wild" and they go where they want and do what they want.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
I don't see anything about that in the definition of Democracy. I do see that the majority rules.
de·moc·ra·cy
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2014, 02:52:50 PM
To me it's getting old hearing all the whining from the ranchers, blaming the state when their animals are eaten by wolves. You just can't hold the state responsible for something wild animals do. Wolves have to eat, they're going to eat whatever's available, and in this case it was sheep. Get used to it, it's now just a part of doing business and being a rancher. Be glad you had nearly 100 years without wolves. But now they're back, you want to be a rancher, deal with it and don't expect the state to take care of all your problems.
and then you'll be whining about the prices of meat. When cost of business rises the consumers pay for it. Ranches like this feed our country. They should not be looked at as just a business.
:yeah:
I don't know about you but I DO NOT want to be eating beef that's been wading around belly deep in it's own excrement being fed GMO products and shipped in from over seas. Do you want to eat Chinese beef? They just came up with a brilliant idea of making their feedlots on the landfills.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/13/chinas-garbage-fed-beef-problem-cattle-graze-in-landfill-until-slaughter/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/13/chinas-garbage-fed-beef-problem-cattle-graze-in-landfill-until-slaughter/)
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-food-scandal-cattle-feed-in-landfill-2011-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-food-scandal-cattle-feed-in-landfill-2011-11)
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/06/01/01climatewire-how-a-chinese-landfill-reduces-emissions-whi-90175.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/06/01/01climatewire-how-a-chinese-landfill-reduces-emissions-whi-90175.html?pagewanted=all)
Oh ya fantastic idea! Reduces emissions! YOU want to eat that crap??
What about China buying Smithfield, if you eat a pork product it probably came through Smithfield! They're huge! AND they're now Chinese owned!
you want to see how they do cattle wait until you see what their pigs eat....no thanks!
Even our own beef lots are disgusting.
80% of The USA crops goes to feeding livestock, by removing livestock off public allotments and off private grazing (as in these 1800 sheep) by using wolves guess what???? Ya, we'll have to convert more and more lands to huge superAG big business. No thanks!
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2014, 02:54:53 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
I don't see anything about that in the definition of Democracy. I do see that the majority rules.
de·moc·ra·cy
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
We are fast heading from a Republic (rule of law) to a democracy (rule of popular vote) - that's why we have a record of Americans on government handouts and not making a living for themselves.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 02:55:50 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock/compensation.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock/compensation.html)
Gray Wolf Conservation and Management
Dial 911 to report an emergency
Carnivore Depredation on Livestock
1-877-933-9847
Compensation Rules for Depredation Incidents
Sheep, cattle or horses killed or injured by bears, cougars or wolves are eligible for compensation using state funds. Compensation for other animal losses depends on availability of federal or private funds.
The claimant is required to provide documentation that includes the commercial value of the lost livestock, an estimate of the percentage loss of value for the injured livestock, and a completed claim form. State law requires that only claims of $500 or more may be filed with the Department for compensation from state funds.
For confirmed depredations by wolves, the owner will be paid for verified losses on acreages of less than 100 acres. The owner will be paid an amount of twice the verified losses on acreages greater than 100 acres; payment at twice the verified losses assumes that multiple animals are missing.
For depredations caused by wolves that are classified by WDFW as “probable”, the owner will be paid for the verified loss, no matter the acreage size.
The claimant must:
•Notify WDFW within 24 hours of discovery of livestock attack
•Protect the carcass to avoid scavenging and allow investigation to be completed by WDFW or its designee as to the cause of the death or injury
•Request a claim form from WDFW within 10 days of discovery of the loss by contacting Ralf Schreiner, Wildlife Conflict Program Specialist in writing, by phone or via email: 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, 360-902-2926, Ralf.Schreiner@dfw.wa.gov
•Submit a completed claim form within 60 days of notifying WDFW of the loss; completed form includes a depredation claim eligibility checklist to show proactive measures taken, estimated value of lost or injured livestock, proof of ownership of lost or injured livestock, reporting of any related insurance policies, and signature.
The claimant is responsible for determining the amount and value of livestock lost or injured. WDFW is responsible for determining the cause of the livestock loss. The compensated value of the loss is set by WDFW in consultation with recognized livestock organizations and the state Department of Agriculture.
The claimant will be notified upon completion of WDFW evaluation, and has 60 days to accept or appeal the offer for settlement of the claim. Any disagreements between the claimant and WDFW over the livestock loss value may be settled through an adjudicative proceeding.
Post by: h20hunter on September 09, 2014, 03:02:39 PM
Sorry it was a cat...
Sorry it was a stray dog...
Sorry but it was "unconfirmed"....
I will jump all over anyone that takes a shot at a wolf simply becaus they don't like them but call me a hipocrate but I wouldn't blink an eye at a rancher protecting their stock.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 03:07:17 PM
Dale....how can they get compensated when wolves don't eat livestock....only yotes? What a nightmare....red tape, forms out the ying yang...."sorry but you didn't protect the carcass enough from predation so you are SOL".....
Sorry it was a cat...
Sorry it was a stray dog...
Sorry but it was "unconfirmed"....
I will jump all over anyone that takes a shot at a wolf simply becaus they don't like them but call me a hipocrate but I wouldn't blink an eye at a rancher protecting their stock.
You are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 03:10:23 PM
that's why we have a record of Americans on government handouts and not making a living for themselves.:chuckle: Yep, I think we all agree the government handouts need to be reduced!
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 03:15:24 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
The government is taking nothing. Did you mean the wolves? If so, they are called wildlife for a reason- they are "wild" and they go where they want and do what they want.
The "government refuses to allow ranchers etc. to defend their personal property, I would say yes the government is taking.
How would you like it if the government stole the tires off your Subaru every day Bobcat? You could see them out stealing your tires as you peer out from behind your keyboard, you went to them and said, I saw you do it, and the gov said too bad the majority of the people don't like tires. But if you push your Subaru to work we will compensate you for the down hill grades. I bet you wouldn't be jumping up and down with a big smile. But then agin you might, after all it is the gov and you sound like a government man/women?
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 03:20:22 PM
Dale....how can they get compensated when wolves don't eat livestock....only yotes? What a nightmare....red tape, forms out the ying yang...."sorry but you didn't protect the carcass enough from predation so you are SOL".....
Sorry it was a cat...
Sorry it was a stray dog...
Sorry but it was "unconfirmed"....
I will jump all over anyone that takes a shot at a wolf simply becaus they don't like them but call me a hipocrate but I wouldn't blink an eye at a rancher protecting their stock.
You are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that. :twocents:
I kind of think there are some ranchers in the Methow that haven't seen the honorable side of WDFW, where there hasn't yet been a Confirmed wolf predation, and not because the wolves haven't tried.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 03:23:13 PM
Quote
You are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that.
So ranchers are being compensated, then what's up with the title of this thread? If they get fully compensated for every animal killed by wolves, then why the complaints? Like I said, the whining is getting old. Some people will find any excuse just to complain about the government.
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2014, 03:27:48 PM
QuoteYou are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that.
So ranchers are being compensated, then what's up with the title of this thread? If they get fully compensated for every animal killed by wolves, then why the complaints? Like I said, the whining is getting old. Some people will find any excuse just to complain about the government.
Why do you write something you know is not true. :dunno:
You know that ranchers are not getting compensated for all their losses and that is what is frustrating for them and why Dashiel had to move his sheep.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 09, 2014, 03:41:16 PM
Beat me to it KF, but I would add the word "constitutional to republic which so many seem to have forgottenI think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.I think you are missing the point that this is a democracy and its not 1950 anymore. The public values its wildlife resources, including wolves, and does not want them reduced to 1950's levels...even if it places a hardship on ranchers. Those are the facts. Whether or not its fair...well, lifes not fair.
A country where people can get stuff taken from them without recourse because the public "values" it isn't a democracy.
I don't see anything about that in the definition of Democracy. I do see that the majority rules.
de·moc·ra·cy
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
We are fast heading from a Republic (rule of law) to a democracy (rule of popular vote) - that's why we have a record of Americans on government handouts and not making a living for themselves.
'
democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner....
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 03:43:29 PM
QuoteYou are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that.
So ranchers are being compensated, then what's up with the title of this thread? If they get fully compensated for every animal killed by wolves, then why the complaints? Like I said, the whining is getting old. Some people will find any excuse just to complain about the government.
Why do you write something you know is not true. :dunno:
You know that ranchers are not getting compensated for all their losses and that is what is frustrating for them and why Dashiel had to move his sheep.
Because Bobcat likes to keep things all twisted up?
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 03:44:13 PM
Why do you write something you know is not true. :dunno:Says the guy who wrote wolves did not kill livestock prior to 1995!
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 03:49:59 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 03:52:07 PM
democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner....
Now that's truth, but it has always been. Who the sheep is just changed over time. (waiting for smart comment in 3, 2,...)
Post by: stevemiller on September 09, 2014, 03:52:51 PM
This is funny bearpaw.Anyways what you are saying is that nobody would insure such a thing well I see insurance options for everything,Wow they even still insure mobile homes in tornado alley,I agree with the wolves are a problem I also agree with its not the publics problem like was said earlier in this thread it is not something that should still be covered with yours and my money.What difference does it make if we have to pay more at the register or at the ranch for their loss?It makes no difference at all.Resolves the "problem?" The only resolution that would put an end to wolves preying on livestock, is the total elimination of wolves.
OK, you are probably right, isn't that what they did before, until then losses should be paid for? :dunno:why dont these ranchers just get insurance?
Insurance Agent: Hello this is Geico!
Sheep Rancher: Uh hi, I'd like to insure my 1800 sheep against wolf attacks! :chuckle:
Insurance Agent: Do you live in Stevens County?
Sheep Rancher: Uh huh....
Insurance Agent: Sorry dude, call your legislator! :dunno:
Sheep Rancher: stevemiller thought you would insure my sheep?
Insurance Agent: Did you really believe that! :chuckle: CLANK!
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 03:54:00 PM
QuoteYou are correct WDFW created a lot of wiggle room to escape payment. However, I would rather deal with WDFW than some people who want to refuse payments altogether. Thankfully WDFW is a little more honorable than that.
So ranchers are being compensated, then what's up with the title of this thread? If they get fully compensated for every animal killed by wolves, then why the complaints? Like I said, the whining is getting old. Some people will find any excuse just to complain about the government.
WDFW leaves themselves open for lots of complaints against them. They could delist wolves in the eastern third of the state.........that should allow some people to pat them on the back for doing the right thing. WDFW sucks and it gets harder and harder all the time to make excuses for them. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 03:57:33 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 04:00:07 PM
I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes. Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW. Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators. :twocents:
No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.
Post by: AspenBud on September 09, 2014, 04:00:38 PM
What difference does it make if we have to pay more at the register or at the ranch for their loss? It makes no difference at all.
Yes, but then they couldn't complain about the government if they just did the obvious. They also lose out on being able to double dip, get compensated for the loss by the state and then charge more because wolves attacked the herd/flock. It's a nice racket.
To his credit, McIrvin has some shame and turned down the money.
Time for me to leave this discussion. Good luck all.
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 04:05:20 PM
I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes. Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW. Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators. :twocents:
No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.
No. I want them to manage the resource. Delist wolves, revise the wolf plan, open up spring bear for all GMU's, raise the quotas on cougars, bring back use of dogs for coyotes, stop threatening to eliminate coyote hunting tournaments, bring back trapping, hunting with hounds, etc.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 04:11:22 PM
I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes. Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW. Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators. :twocents:
No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.
No. I want them to manage the resource. Delist wolves, revise the wolf plan, open up spring bear for all GMU's, raise the quotas on cougars, bring back use of dogs for coyotes, stop threatening to eliminate coyote hunting tournaments, bring back trapping, hunting with hounds, etc.
They could do all that and still if it was up to you they'd be compensating anyone and everyone for any loss due to depredation by predators. Again, it's not the state's responsibility. They shouldn't be compensating losses from wolves, and they shouldn't be compensating for losses by any predator.
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 04:14:55 PM
I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes. Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW. Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators. :twocents:
No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.
No. I want them to manage the resource. Delist wolves, revise the wolf plan, open up spring bear for all GMU's, raise the quotas on cougars, bring back use of dogs for coyotes, stop threatening to eliminate coyote hunting tournaments, bring back trapping, hunting with hounds, etc.
They could do all that and still if it was up to you they'd be compensating anyone and everyone for any loss due to depredation by predators. Again, it's not the state's responsibility. They shouldn't be compensating losses from wolves, and they shouldn't be compensating for losses by any predator.
You're wrong. If they did some of that, then fine......I would not expect anyone but the rancher to be responsible for his losses. But when a rancher is in business, going along with normal operating expenses, then all of a sudden gets hit with a huge jump in predator numbers due to mismanagement........he should have some recourse for his losses due to no fault of his own. The fault lies with the stupid government.
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2014, 04:19:48 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 09, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
Actually, the "mis-management" is a result of the voters of this state, not the government.
That "democracy" thing right?
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2014, 04:23:52 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Post by: gaddy on September 09, 2014, 04:31:24 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 09, 2014, 04:33:37 PM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 05:51:37 PM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Managing All wildlife not importing wolves to kill everything off so they can make a land grab called wildlife corridors. You know WDFW's thirty year plan of the wildlands.
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2014, 07:35:02 PM
I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with.
The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 08:53:55 PM
Here's a twist for you all.
I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with.
The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.
Wolves are more important, they make the aspen grow, balance the ecosystem and beaver flourish.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 06:18:16 AM
Why do you write something you know is not true. :dunno:Says the guy who wrote wolves did not kill livestock prior to 1995!
I asked for proof of any livestock killed by wolves from 1950 to 1995, neither you no Bobcat have provided any proof of any livesytock killed by wolves during that time, I guess my statement was pretty solid, it was the introduction of northern wolves by government that has led to livestock losses. :twocents: :IBCOOL:
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 06:35:53 AM
This is funny bearpaw.Anyways what you are saying is that nobody would insure such a thing well I see insurance options for everything,Wow they even still insure mobile homes in tornado alley,I agree with the wolves are a problem I also agree with its not the publics problem like was said earlier in this thread it is not something that should still be covered with yours and my money.What difference does it make if we have to pay more at the register or at the ranch for their loss?It makes no difference at all.Resolves the "problem?" The only resolution that would put an end to wolves preying on livestock, is the total elimination of wolves.
OK, you are probably right, isn't that what they did before, until then losses should be paid for? :dunno:why dont these ranchers just get insurance?
Insurance Agent: Hello this is Geico!
Sheep Rancher: Uh hi, I'd like to insure my 1800 sheep against wolf attacks! :chuckle:
Insurance Agent: Do you live in Stevens County?
Sheep Rancher: Uh huh....
Insurance Agent: Sorry dude, call your legislator! :dunno:
Sheep Rancher: stevemiller thought you would insure my sheep?
Insurance Agent: Did you really believe that! :chuckle: CLANK!
I'm glad you saw the humor. :tup:
I think WDFW is more or less the insurance policy, we pay them, and they made promises to compensate for losses.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 06:42:16 AM
I also think WDFW should compensate ranchers for losses due to cougars, bears, and coyotes. Those poplulations have risen due to mismanagement by WDFW. Sure, part of the problem was created by idiotic voters back in 1996, but WDFW is sure not helping things with their continued policies that favor predators. :twocents:
No way. They can't afford to do that. You want all your hunting license fees going to compensate people for wildlife depredation? It's not the state's responsibility to keep everyone and their property safe from wild animals.
No. I want them to manage the resource. Delist wolves, revise the wolf plan, open up spring bear for all GMU's, raise the quotas on cougars, bring back use of dogs for coyotes, stop threatening to eliminate coyote hunting tournaments, bring back trapping, hunting with hounds, etc.
They could do all that and still if it was up to you they'd be compensating anyone and everyone for any loss due to depredation by predators. Again, it's not the state's responsibility. They shouldn't be compensating losses from wolves, and they shouldn't be compensating for losses by any predator.
You're wrong. If they did some of that, then fine......I would not expect anyone but the rancher to be responsible for his losses. But when a rancher is in business, going along with normal operating expenses, then all of a sudden gets hit with a huge jump in predator numbers due to mismanagement........he should have some recourse for his losses due to no fault of his own. The fault lies with the stupid government.
:yeah: very well put...
Who sets the quotas on the numbers of cougars? Who sets the seasons for bear hunting? Who took away use of dogs for coyote hunting? etc. Sure, the voters were a big reason for the crap we find ourselves in, but WDFW isn't doing all they can to counteract the predator lovefest that the voters had started. :twocents:
:yeah: correct again, in fact after the hound ban there were a lot of cougar being taken by boot hunters but WDFW greatly reduced the cougar season and put low quotas on harvest, the over population of cougars is WDFW's fault.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 06:51:03 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 07:12:28 AM
Here's a twist for you all.
I just learned that Hancock forest wanted them sheep on there to reduce some type of brush they've been having a problem with.
The sheep were a natural means to avoid spraying roundup and crap everywhere.
So is burning it.
That's actually a really great example however of where another industry could have a gripe with and help with wolves. Hancock has been fairly quiet on this one and effectively abandoned the rancher to the state on this. If it is really that important they should, and probably would, say something.
I don't know how well it applies here in Washington, but Hancock is another timber company who forces hunters to buy permits to access their land in some areas. You can bet a fair number of guys who either refuse to buy, or can't afford to, have taken on a "I don't give a rip about what happens on their land because I can't hunt on it" attitude.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 07:15:14 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 07:23:01 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 08:02:41 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
FYI - You can't assume everything is the same statewide, there are a lot of ranchers and timber companies on the eastside who let people hunt on their land without paying. Most hunters I know try to get on the best land they can to better their odds.
Also, I was talking about my friends and talking about my clients.
Quote
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 08:15:07 AM
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 10, 2014, 09:26:52 AM
So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 10:31:59 AM
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.
True.
But glancing at your website, a person who goes to an outfitter is going to be out well over $1000.00 at the bottom end and can go as high as $5000 with a guide. The price is little better if it's an unguided hunt but we're still talking about $500.00 or more for that right? People who pay that kind of money are playing for keeps and they are not the average. They are paying big money to ensure they come home with something.
Roughly speaking the average guy is out about $200.00 if he buys the full deer, elk, bear, cougar combo along with small game, waterfowl, and pheasant card. That makes most grimace and the thought of spending $500-$5000 to go to an outfitter is not within the realm of possibility for one reason or another. For most that will be a once every so often event at best and it better count. So yes, they'll quite willingly pay for the land access because that is part of what ups the odds when they use an outfitter.
Most hunters however do not use an outfitter because from their perspective it doesn't pay. $500-$5000 a person can buy a lot of beef.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 10:42:41 AM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
FYI - You can't assume everything is the same statewide, there are a lot of ranchers and timber companies on the eastside who let people hunt on their land without paying. Most hunters I know try to get on the best land they can to better their odds.
Also, I was talking about my friends and talking about my clients.QuoteA high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
No doubt. But as recently as this last weekend I talked to a guy who was out near Goldendale, or so he said, and he was upset because a lot of his old hunting holes have been gated up and have become permit only or outright locked up. This is a common complaint. Hunting in this state is getting expensive, areas open to hunting (unless you have a permit) are disappearing, and I can tell you for sure that people are leaving the tradition because of that.
Most will not travel to hunt on a ranch in the Okanogan or in Stevens County. They want and need areas closer to home but private land owners have pushed many off one way or another. That's their right, but it is negatively affecting hunter retention and recruitment.
Post by: wolfbait on September 10, 2014, 10:44:17 AM
So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
The few wolf problems ranchers had with wolves before the wolf was declared an endangered species was handled promptly, without all the BS. Since the wolf introduction ranchers and the public have had nothing but trouble. Records of past wolves in the RM showed a smaller wolf that ran in small packs, which were not as hard on livestock.
Before the wolf introduction took place there were biologist that argue it would be wiser to let the wolves repopulate the lower 48 naturally, that way they would get an education along the way. But Ed Bangs and crew knew that would take far to long, as they, the USFWS along with other state game agencies had been introducing wolves on the sly for several years only to have the wolves go back to their home range.
The wolves of the 1960's into the1990's were planted wolves, but through experimentation these agencies came up with soft release and hard release. Hard released wolves go back home, soft released wolves are held and fed in kennels until they like their new home. The wolves of Oregon and WA were brought in from ID, MT, and Wyoming, some were fed at their release site and some were just dumped to work their way back to their home range. I have to laugh at WDFW when they say wolves are just passing through, for once they aren't lying, the wolves are headed back to which ever state they were caught in. I bet their are a few biologists on W-H who are wondering who gave me that little bit of info.? :yike: ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on September 10, 2014, 10:52:12 AM
For someone who constantly criticizes how stupid, incompetent, lazy, and worthless the government is...you sure give them a whole lot of credit for pulling off this elaborate conspiracy without a shred of credible evidence being left behind.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 10:58:25 AM
So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
The few wolf problems ranchers had with wolves before the wolf was declared an endangered species was handled promptly, without all the BS. Since the wolf introduction ranchers and the public have had nothing but trouble. Records of past wolves in the RM showed a smaller wolf that ran in small packs, which were not as hard on livestock.
Before the wolf introduction took place there were biologist that argue it would be wiser to let the wolves repopulate the lower 48 naturally, that way they would get an education along the way. But Ed Bangs and crew knew that would take far to long, as they, the USFWS along with other state game agencies had been introducing wolves on the sly for several years only to have the wolves go back to their home range.
The wolves of the 1960's into the1990's were planted wolves, but through experimentation these agencies came up with soft release and hard release. Hard released wolves go back home, soft released wolves are held and fed in kennels until they like their new home. The wolves of Oregon and WA were brought in from ID, MT, and Wyoming, some were fed at their release site and some were just dumped to work their way back to their home range. I have to laugh at WDFW when they say wolves are just passing through, for once they aren't lying, the wolves are headed back to which ever state they were caught in. I bet their are a few biologists on W-H who are wondering who gave me that little bit of info.? :yike: ;)
Yes, wolves never disperse. Right...
This is one of your more nonsensical arguments. Mostly because if you were right the states of Idaho and Montana wouldn't be worried about wolves spreading to other areas as their population expands. It would naturally be contained and we both know that isn't the case.
Post by: baldopepper on September 10, 2014, 11:05:48 AM
I think this has to be put in the perspective of peoples priorities. Couple of guys in my office who are not monied elite, but put out $1600.00 per year for Seahawk tickets. They openly admit that with parking and food at the games they spend well over $3000.00 to see 10 (including preseason) 3 hour football games. They don't hunt or fish, so their recreation money goes to the Seahawks. For someone whose passion is hunting, putting out this kind of money for a guided hunt is the same thing. We never seem to question this kind of expenditure to see football games, why would we question it for a good hunting experience?If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.
Post by: AspenBud on September 10, 2014, 11:18:13 AM
I think this has to be put in the perspective of peoples priorities. Couple of guys in my office who are not monied elite, but put out $1600.00 per year for Seahawk tickets. They openly admit that with parking and food at the games they spend well over $3000.00 to see 10 (including preseason) 3 hour football games. They don't hunt or fish, so their recreation money goes to the Seahawks. For someone whose passion is hunting, putting out this kind of money for a guided hunt is the same thing. We never seem to question this kind of expenditure to see football games, why would we question it for a good hunting experience?If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.
I'm not questioning it, I'm saying it is not the average. Most hunters want and need access close to home, get out for a week at most and more likely make some day or weekend outings during the season. Family obligations, bills, etc, those keep most all away from outfitters.
It is certainly a matter of priorities however...and understanding spouses. :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on September 10, 2014, 12:28:01 PM
No poison
No traps/snares
No hunting
And far too few who know how to use them and time to do so.
fact is the average Joe hasn't felt enough pain to have a desire to manage wolves as yet. Ranchers and livestock owners are the Canary's in the gold mine, hunters will come next then the general public.
Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.
Wolves will go the same way your hope and change went once the wool's pulled off everyone's eyes.
Post by: wolfbait on September 10, 2014, 01:47:03 PM
Ranchers today do not have the tools, legal means or wherewithal to kill wolves threatening livestock.
No poison
No traps/snares
No hunting
And far too few who know how to use them and time to do so.
fact is the average Joe hasn't felt enough pain to have a desire to manage wolves as yet. Ranchers and livestock owners are the Canary's in the gold mine, hunters will come next then the general public.
Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.
Wolves will go the same way your hope and change went once the wool's pulled off everyone's eyes.
Well put KF :tup:-- you have listed some facts the pro-wolfers can not deny, although they might try.
Many people are losing their love for wolves as they learn they were lied to by the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies.
Remember, there were reasons other then livestock for the wolves being targeted since the beginning, not only in the USA but other countries as well, and yet knowing this "environmentalists" the USFWS and WDFW ignore this history and protect them above all else. How can anyone ignore their stupidity?
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF)
WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html)
Read the book, >Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages< By Will N Graves
This book is a unique review of wolves as experienced in a culture much different than ours in North America. This book summarizes the massive research on wolves, particular those in Russia. The killing of humans by wolves is generally suppressed as reading material. This book documents the fear of Russian people because of the large number of people being killed by wolves. The diseases carried by wolves is another concern. These are explained in this book in detail. The need for control of wolves runs throughout this book. Wolves are not the positive influence in balancing nature as may be thought. Without control there is wide damage to humans, domesticated animals, and wild animals.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 10, 2014, 02:35:36 PM
Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.Those "asinine" policies are in place because wolves are loved and cherished by all but a handful of small/minority user groups (ranchers, hunters) in Washington State. I don't see that changing. This is not a trivial point when it comes to understanding and implementing wolf management in WA.
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 02:44:13 PM
Due to asinine wolf policies WDFW/USFWS etc. have guaranteed wolves will be hated far and wide through all but a handful of small minority user groups.Those "asinine" policies are in place because wolves are loved and cherished by all but a handful of small/minority user groups (ranchers, hunters) in Washington State. I don't see that changing. This is not a trivial point when it comes to understanding and implementing wolf management in WA.
I think you give in too easy to the anti hunters wishes. I heard about a poll taken of Washington residents and the majority favored management of wolves. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 10, 2014, 02:56:52 PM
Post by: Bob33 on September 10, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/)
Post by: MR5x5 on September 10, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 10, 2014, 04:48:38 PM
Here's some interesting information referenced from one poll:
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/)
Thanks Bob...
Quote
The survey found only slight movement on the question of lethal removal of wolves to protect livestock, with 63 percent expressing support and 28 percent opposing. In 2008, those percentages were 61 and 31.
Over 60 percent supported cost-sharing between WDFW and landowners to prevent attacks on cattle, sheep and other stock while about a quarter opposed, and there’s a lot of support for cost-sharing as the primary strategy to prevent conflicts.
almost 2/3 support lethal removal to prevent livestock problems
60% support cost sharing for losses
Quote
There was less statewide support for lethal wolf control to help protect deer, elk and moose than to protect livestock, 55 percent and 32 percent — but it was strongest in the deer-rich corners and North-central Cascades counties.
55% support lethal removal to protect big game herds
These percentages will swing even more to our favor as wolves cause more problems! :tup:
Post by: Northway on September 12, 2014, 01:51:00 PM
Here's some interesting information referenced from one poll:
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/support-hunting-wa-ticks-wolf-recovery/)
Thanks Bob...QuoteThe survey found only slight movement on the question of lethal removal of wolves to protect livestock, with 63 percent expressing support and 28 percent opposing. In 2008, those percentages were 61 and 31.
Over 60 percent supported cost-sharing between WDFW and landowners to prevent attacks on cattle, sheep and other stock while about a quarter opposed, and there’s a lot of support for cost-sharing as the primary strategy to prevent conflicts.
almost 2/3 support lethal removal to prevent livestock problems
60% support cost sharing for lossesQuoteThere was less statewide support for lethal wolf control to help protect deer, elk and moose than to protect livestock, 55 percent and 32 percent — but it was strongest in the deer-rich corners and North-central Cascades counties.
55% support lethal removal to protect big game herds
These percentages will swing even more to our favor as wolves cause more problems! :tup:
I always appreciate when an article provides a link to the underlying data on a survey. There are so many variables to take into account - for instance, a lot of surveys are conducted over land-lines which throws the demographics off. There are many others that it's helpful to be able to interpret.
Assuming the results are right on, I'm glad it shows that many people are pro-management. What I always tell aggressive wolf supporters is that they are hardy animals and can sustain populations even under intensive management. Once they recolonize, it's better to move on to other more important issues and allow management to take place based on relevant conditions. It would also gain better acceptance, or at least tolerance to an extent. Hardcore environmentalists refuse to acknowledge local politics, which is detrimental in MOST cases.
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2014, 03:09:24 PM
Protecting livestock and supporting the ranching community? :chuckle:I think the point being missed here is that from the 50's to 90's there were only small numbers of wolves that did not run in large packs and did not prey on livestock. Our current situation is a direct result of government introduction and government rules preventing protection of property, thus government should pay as they promised.
:yeah:
The wonderful (need sarcasm font) wolf plan was shoved down our throats and it calls for compensation, so that is what needs to happen.
Now, the right thing to do is to throw out that stupid, idiotic, wolf plan and let people deal with the wolves how they want. I think the Feds and the wolf hugging groups need to pay for any damages that the wolves cause since they are the ones that caused this mess.
And overhaul the USFWS and state game agencies who agreed to allow wolves pushed on them, get these departments back to doing what they were created to do.
Ranching supports wildlife, most of my best hunting opportunities are due to the great hunting opportunities afforded by ranching.
True, but I don't know a single hunter who hunts on ranch land in Washington. It is of little benefit to many from a hunting standpoint.
A high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
That may be true where you are, but not where I am. The guys I'm thinking of...I'm not sure any of them have ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens County, ever. Most aren't forking out $150.00 to hunt on big timber either.
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
FYI - You can't assume everything is the same statewide, there are a lot of ranchers and timber companies on the eastside who let people hunt on their land without paying. Most hunters I know try to get on the best land they can to better their odds.
Also, I was talking about my friends and talking about my clients.QuoteA high percentage of my friends who are hunters like to hunt private property (ranchland) in eastern Washington.
I offer hunts on public land and private land. Most of my hunters gladly pay the higher fee to hunt on private ranches.
No doubt. But as recently as this last weekend I talked to a guy who was out near Goldendale, or so he said, and he was upset because a lot of his old hunting holes have been gated up and have become permit only or outright locked up. This is a common complaint. Hunting in this state is getting expensive, areas open to hunting (unless you have a permit) are disappearing, and I can tell you for sure that people are leaving the tradition because of that.
Most will not travel to hunt on a ranch in the Okanogan or in Stevens County. They want and need areas closer to home but private land owners have pushed many off one way or another. That's their right, but it is negatively affecting hunter retention and recruitment.
I completely agree with your last comments, I know it's a big issue in western WA. But now we are talking apples and oranges compared to the original issue and comments about hunting private land in Stevens County.
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?
The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?
It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2014, 03:29:53 PM
If the hunters you're talking about are paying clients then what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Folks who pay a guide or outfitter to help them tend to have a wad of cash to spend and they want that animal. If paying for ranch access gets them where they need to be they will do it. But they are not the norm.
You have a serious misconception of outfitting. There are some outfitters who do cater to the "elite" crowd. I do get a few "elite" hunters but the vast majority of my hunters are everyday people with common jobs. I have numerous H-W members who have hunted with us and a lot of military who come hunting while they are stationed in WA. I get plumbers, construction workers, police officers, sawmill workers, loggers, boeing workers, retail sales employees, and farmers to name a few of the professions of people who hunt with us. I simply do not understand this mentality that all hunters who use an outfitter or fishing guide are rich. Actually the rich are the minority, most clients are everyday people who save their money for a trip each year and are simply looking for a quality experience.
True.
But glancing at your website, a person who goes to an outfitter is going to be out well over $1000.00 at the bottom end and can go as high as $5000 with a guide. The price is little better if it's an unguided hunt but we're still talking about $500.00 or more for that right? People who pay that kind of money are playing for keeps and they are not the average. They are paying big money to ensure they come home with something.
Roughly speaking the average guy is out about $200.00 if he buys the full deer, elk, bear, cougar combo along with small game, waterfowl, and pheasant card. That makes most grimace and the thought of spending $500-$5000 to go to an outfitter is not within the realm of possibility for one reason or another. For most that will be a once every so often event at best and it better count. So yes, they'll quite willingly pay for the land access because that is part of what ups the odds when they use an outfitter.
Most hunters however do not use an outfitter because from their perspective it doesn't pay. $500-$5000 a person can buy a lot of beef.
If you are hunting to get meat cheaper than beef you need to take an economics class so you understand all the expenses involved. Not trying to be a smarty, just stating a fact!
I bet many of the members of this forum make more money than many of my hunters. I also bet many forum members make more money than I do, heck, when I worked a full time job I made more money. But there is a lifestyle that is worth the decrease in pay.
Many of my hunters have done the math, it's cheaper for them to come hunt with us than to buy a new hunting truck and all the equipment used in hunting and take off the time and buy the fuel to scout areas. Going with a good outfitter is actually a pretty good deal if you weigh all the costs. We are not always successful, but our hunters have a much higher than average success rate.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 12, 2014, 03:51:02 PM
I agree wolves were not a problem in 1950-1995...because they were functionally extinct and at extremely low abundance. The only part I disagreed with is your suggestion (that I bolded) where I interpreted what you were saying was wolves in the 1800's were different and did not prey on livestock.So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?
The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?
It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! :twocents:
As far as the government paying for livestock losses...I think it should be a temporary thing that goes away as soon as wolves are de-listed and more easily killed if they are observed targeting livestock.
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2014, 04:13:45 PM
I agree wolves were not a problem in 1950-1995...because they were functionally extinct and at extremely low abundance. The only part I disagreed with is your suggestion (that I bolded) where I interpreted what you were saying was wolves in the 1800's were different and did not prey on livestock.So your statement is that prior to 1995 wolf reintroduction, wolves did not prey on livestock. I've bolded it for you. You really believe that? Seriously? Again, why do you think ranchers and the US government were so hell bent on exterminating them???"Your argument is borderline anti-capitalist."
I don't agree. Depredation by wildlife is no different than losses caused by the weather or natural disasters (fires, floods, etc.). Are they also going to hold the government responsible for the loss of an animal caused by the weather?
The difference is that government hasn't brought in hail storms and tornados. The government brought in the wolf and is preventing the people from protecting themselves against it. Much different circumstances!
Wolves were already here before the introductions in Idaho and other states. Regardless of those introduced wolves, eventually wolves would have become more abundant in this state on their own. So the fact that wolves were released in other states and may have crossed the border into our state is irrelevant. The ranchers would have been forced to deal with them eventually anyway.
Sorry but you are wrong. It was a different wolf and it didn't prey on livestock. Please show us reports of any livestock predation before introduction of the Canadian wolves? When they brought in Canadian wolves they created the current wolf plans and rules against protecting your property. In the past before this big effort to recover wolves the ranchers could protect themselves.
I think you are looking at this in a different context, more like in the 1800's before they were thinned out?
The reason I made the statement about wolves from 1950-1995 is because there were not a lot of wolves, they were in smaller groups in remote areas, they were not multiplying rapidly and spreading rapidly, and just as I said they were not preying on livestock much. If you dispute that then please show some evidence I am wrong?
It's pretty obvious that the government release of wolves in 1995 in ID/YNP is responsible for today's livestock losses and thus the "G" should pony up for livestock losses just as they promised in writing! :twocents:
As far as the government paying for livestock losses...I think it should be a temporary thing that goes away as soon as wolves are de-listed and more easily killed if they are observed targeting livestock.
By different I meant a different sub-specie of wolf was planted than what was native in the NRM. Prior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS, the wolves in Canada were considered a different sub specie than the wolves in the NRM area. The farther north you go the wolves tend to get larger and travel in larger packs. If you happen to disagree please review the history of subspecies of wolves in North America.
I think the ranchers have a strong argument that payments should continue after delisting, I'm not sure where I stand on that.
Post by: bigmacc on September 12, 2014, 04:24:02 PM
I've not "given" anything to anti-hunters. I think its a mistake to not fully understand the opposition..."know thy enemy".
For once i agree with you about anti- hunters(know thy enemy)....My brother was a Green Baret sniper and he always says the enemy puts their pants on one leg at a time just like us,they are no different except for their beliefs....and they want us GONE....my :twocents:
Post by: rim_runner on September 12, 2014, 08:36:19 PM
Quote
Prior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS,I don’t think that the USFWS has the authority to reclassify subspecies into one subspecies or change species or subspecies names. This is done by an international committee and allows for input from scientists worldwide. The input is subject to peer review and usually requires a very high degree of proof. It’s not unusual to see subspecies reclassified these days due to new information coming from DNA studies.
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2014, 09:10:13 PM
QuotePrior to reclassification of several sub species into one sub specie by USFWS,I don’t think that the USFWS has the authority to reclassify subspecies into one subspecies or change species or subspecies names. This is done by an international committee and allows for input from scientists worldwide. The input is subject to peer review and usually requires a very high degree of proof. It’s not unusual to see subspecies reclassified these days due to new information coming from DNA studies.
You might be correct about who reclassifies, but it was done prior to the wolf introduction. I'm not sure I believe how scientific it really is, for some reason they seem to come up with different subspecies where they want them? Mexican Grays and Red Wolves quickly come to mind! Have you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?
Post by: idahohuntr on September 12, 2014, 10:41:09 PM
Hunters who merely want wolves delist ed should be grateful the USFWS has classified them the way they are! DoW and CNW would love to sell people on the idea that each patch of forest has a unique subspecies!
Post by: rim_runner on September 13, 2014, 04:31:46 AM
Quote
Have you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?I haven’t heard any more on that but my gut feeling is that even if the coastal wolf is a new subspecies it is or was mostly confined to the islands and had a very small presence on the mainland. I think the anti-management crowd is grasping at straws with this one.
Post by: bearpaw on September 13, 2014, 05:53:35 AM
With no real migration or other barriers it is difficult for me to accept that wolves in North id/wa were any different on a subspecies level from central canada...yea, some habitat differences, but I'm not buying there were all these different subspecies in the nw.
Hunters who merely want wolves delist ed should be grateful the USFWS has classified them the way they are! DoW and CNW would love to sell people on the idea that each patch of forest has a unique subspecies!
Have you considered that the moose in the states and the moose where the Canadian wolves came from are classified as different moose. Caribou are classified as different caribou from different regions, same is true with other species, even whitetail. If the Canadian wolves were still considered a different sub species they probably would not have been planted in ID/MT/WY in the first place. It seems that it was quite convenient for USFWS when wolves were reclassified as one wolf, now that the wolf groups need this taxonomy to work the other way for their benefit it seems they are trying to reclassify certain regions as different wolves. ;)
QuoteHave you heard what they decided with the coastal wolves in WA?I haven’t heard any more on that but my gut feeling is that even if the coastal wolf is a new subspecies it is or was mostly confined to the islands and had a very small presence on the mainland. I think the anti-management crowd is grasping at straws with this one.
I agree, there are good arguments why mainland wolves should not be included as Island Wolves, my fingers are crossed! :tup:
On the other side of the token, if Island wolves became a new subspecie that might lead to revisions in the WA Wolf Plan, warnings about livestock damages have proven true, more people can see the flaw in the current plan of not allowing management anywhere until wolves are everywhere, and wolf support is declining in Washington as people have to live with and pay for wolves.
A reclassification of Island Wolves would also lend merit to Rep Kretz's bill to transplant wolves in the San Juan's and also on the west slope of the cascades. With 100 wolves in the San Juans and I-5 corridor we might see how quickly wolves can be delisted in Washington. :chuckle: