Post by: wolfbait on October 01, 2014, 10:14:24 PM
http://www.wyfb.org/wyfb-foundation/foundation-programs/59-predation-lies-myths-and-scientific-fraud (http://www.wyfb.org/wyfb-foundation/foundation-programs/59-predation-lies-myths-and-scientific-fraud)
Post by: mkcj on October 01, 2014, 10:38:19 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 10:38:32 PM
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
Post by: mfswallace on October 01, 2014, 11:07:15 PM
Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
I'm sure it was just a simple mistake ( :chuckle: ) but U forgot to include all his credentials...
He received his Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from Utah State University, his M.S. in environmental studies and his B.S. in wildlife biology both from the University of Montana.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 11:15:52 PM
No. I was only including what he does now. He is a politician...not a wildlife biologist. My guess is he couldn't make it in the wildlife science field where you must use pesky things like data...usually these science wanna-be's that can't hack it end up in political jobs like this. Adjunct associate bla bla bla...Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
I'm sure it was just a simple mistake ( :chuckle: ) but U forgot to include all his credentials...
He received his Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from Utah State University, his M.S. in environmental studies and his B.S. in wildlife biology both from the University of Montana.
Post by: wolfbait on October 01, 2014, 11:25:34 PM
No. I was only including what he does now. He is a politician...not a wildlife biologist. My guess is he couldn't make it in the wildlife science field where you must use pesky things like data...usually these science wanna-be's that can't hack it end up in political jobs like this. Adjunct associate bla bla bla...Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
I'm sure it was just a simple mistake ( :chuckle: ) but U forgot to include all his credentials...
He received his Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from Utah State University, his M.S. in environmental studies and his B.S. in wildlife biology both from the University of Montana.
By golly this fits right about now!
http://oldmanoftheski.com/2013/02/23/eco-fanatics-why-do-they-hate-us/ (http://oldmanoftheski.com/2013/02/23/eco-fanatics-why-do-they-hate-us/)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 11:31:57 PM
Post by: wolfbait on October 01, 2014, 11:33:36 PM
Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
The wolf introduction has always been agenda driven and then we have pro's like you Idahohuntr who try to explain it away, but the facts are all on our side, as you have seen time and agin. You are entertaining though. :hello:
The Real FWS Wolf Recovery Agenda
That agenda has been promoted in “Society for Conservation Biology” publications by federal biologists involved in wolf recovery since Canadian wolves were first transplanted. David Mech’s “The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations” appeared in the 1995 Volume. 9(2) issue of “Conservation Biology.”
In 2001, environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, joined with the National Park Service in creating a more sophisticated magazine called “Conservation Magazine” designed to sell the wildlands/biodiversity agenda to academia. In 2004 FWS Wolf Team Leader Ed Bangs praised a BS thesis by a biology student concerning non- lethal wolf “control” (later published in Conservation) and announced he had hired her as a wolf “specialist”.
Wildlife biologists in all three recovery states knew about the numbers deception but only Wyoming G&F, under pressure from its Governor, attempted to hold FWS to the original de-listing criteria. IDFG Director Groen’s Jan. 14th News Release declared the Department’s intention only to “stabilize” (halt the dramatic annual increase in) existing wolf populations in Idaho.
Because IDFG estimates Idaho had a minimum population of 732 wolves in the fall of 2007 that means F&G intended to maintain a minimum of at least seven times as many wolves in Idaho as we were told would exist after recovery. But pretending that the biologists’ estimated minimum fall wolf population is near the actual wolf population is simply another deception misleading Idahoans and their elected officials as will be illustrated later in this article.
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)
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)
Dr. Reed Noss: PHD "scientist", author, co-founder of Wildlands Project
William Soule: co-founder of the Society for Conservation Biology, serves on the Wildlands Project board and teaches in the Environmental Studies Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz.
John Davis: Editor of Wild Earth, the publication associated with The Wildlands Project
Dave Foreman: founder of the eco-guerilla group, Earth First and co-founder of The Wildlands Project
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wildlands_project.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wildlands_project.htm)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project
What do Reserves and Corridors really mean?
While this effort has a noble mission, the implications are staggering. As noted in the June 25, 1993 issue of Science, it “is nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas.”
The 100 million acres of core area required for 1000 wolves is greater than the total land area of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, (71 million acres). It would mean the nationalization of private land through regulation or other means, forcing people to move to areas zoned for occupation, and shutting down half of the agriculture, forest products and mining industries. Scarce resources means the rest of us paying double and triple for products made from these resources.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm)
WOLF MONITORING
Since 2008 when this program’s remote cameras documented the first wolf pack in Washington in over 70 years, Conservation Northwest placed major focus on wolf recovery in Washington. As of March 2013, Washington is home to ten confirmed wolf packs making up over 51 wolves.5 Though the majority of these packs have established territories in eastern Washington, three packs now reside in the North Cascades. Conservation Northwest partners with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement the state’s wolf conservation and management plan developed in 2011. In addition to shaping wolf policy in Washington, Conservation Northwest through CWMP provides on-the-ground data used to better understand the distribution of wolves across the state.
The Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, written in 2011, identifies three recovery zones in Washington: Eastern Washington, the North Cascades, and the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast.6 According to this plan, wolves will be considered recovered in the state of Washington if there are 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Additionally, each recovery zone must have at least four breeding pairs for three consecutive years. To date, there are 12 packs in Washington, none of which have been documented in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast recovery zones.
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/wildlife-monitoring/cwmp_2013_spring-fall_monitoring_report (http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/wildlife-monitoring/cwmp_2013_spring-fall_monitoring_report)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 11:43:49 PM
I don't give a dam about wolf introduction. You're living in the past. Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated. I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well. How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets? :hello: :dunno:Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
The wolf introduction has always been agenda driven and then we have pro's like you Idahohuntr who try to explain it away, but the facts are all on our side, as you have seen time and agin. You are entertaining though. :hello:
Post by: wolfbait on October 01, 2014, 11:48:55 PM
I don't give a dam about wolf introduction. You're living in the past. Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated. I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well. How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets? :hello: :dunno:Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
The wolf introduction has always been agenda driven and then we have pro's like you Idahohuntr who try to explain it away, but the facts are all on our side, as you have seen time and agin. You are entertaining though. :hello:
Did I hit one of your nerves? :dunno: Maybe it's time for your nappy? Don't forget your blankie. :chuckle:
The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf)
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 11:53:53 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: No, not at all. Good way to change the subject when you can't answer my question though :tup:I don't give a dam about wolf introduction. You're living in the past. Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated. I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well. How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets? :hello: :dunno:Dr. Charles Kay is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist with the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
:chuckle:
Simply put, the pro-wolf and the anti-wolf whackos are all liars playing a political game. :tup:
The wolf introduction has always been agenda driven and then we have pro's like you Idahohuntr who try to explain it away, but the facts are all on our side, as you have seen time and agin. You are entertaining though. :hello:
Did I hit one of your nerves? :dunno:
Post by: Duffer on October 02, 2014, 12:42:05 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 02, 2014, 05:20:52 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 07:20:28 AM
“Another lie is that wolf depredation on livestock is only a minor problem,” Dr. Kay said. “100 percent of the wolf packs in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho have turned to killing livestock and I have this in writing from the USFWS and Wildlife Services.”Talk about a lie alright! 100%!! Give me a break.
Post by: wolfbait on October 02, 2014, 07:54:10 AM
“Another lie is that wolf depredation on livestock is only a minor problem,” Dr. Kay said. “100 percent of the wolf packs in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho have turned to killing livestock and I have this in writing from the USFWS and Wildlife Services.”Talk about a lie alright! 100%!! Give me a break.
A lie? Were you there Ida?
A wolf pack was finally confirmed in the Methow because they were reported to the state patrol, hanging out at a school bus stop, and in 2009 wolves killed a cow and calf in the Methow, the rest of the wolf packs in WA have been confirmed due to livestock kills. That would be 100% for WA.
You sure are quick to criticize people that don't fit your wolf agenda.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 08:03:15 AM
It is an absurd statement to say all wolf packs kill livestock. There are many wolf packs where livestock is rare/non-existent.“Another lie is that wolf depredation on livestock is only a minor problem,” Dr. Kay said. “100 percent of the wolf packs in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho have turned to killing livestock and I have this in writing from the USFWS and Wildlife Services.”Talk about a lie alright! 100%!! Give me a break.
A lie? Were you there Ida?
A wolf pack was finally confirmed in the Methow because they were reported to the state patrol, hanging out at a school bus stop, and in 2009 wolves killed a cow and calf in the Methow, the rest of the wolf packs in WA have been confirmed due to livestock kills. That would be 100% for WA.
You sure are quick to criticize people that don't fit your wolf agenda.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 08:09:29 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 02, 2014, 08:12:06 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on October 02, 2014, 08:33:45 AM
I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.
What's funny is how contradictory he is. He'll make those comments, then in other threads say he's never said that. It's pretty entertaining.
Deer and elk are doing quite well in areas he says... The areas with no wolves! Ever notice that? We have a few units in wyoming, in the "trophy areas" near Yellowstone that are still teaming with elk. And guess what... Wolf sitings are rare! The only thing really helping them is the number of Grizzlies in the area. At least in my opinion. The management of wolves has helped immensely up there, not so much because of the reduction of wolves, but those suckers are smart and have now learned what it's like to be shot at or see others in their pack killed. Hopefully wyoming gets their act together and can get the wolves delisted again. And soon.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 02, 2014, 08:37:47 AM
I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.
.....While saying he doesn't give a "dam" about wolf introduction
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:04:39 AM
Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
Do you guys tell these lies that I have ever said wolves can't impact ungulates because you actually believe them...or do you tell these lies because its too difficult for you to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions (pro and anti) to take on wolf management?I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.
What's funny is how contradictory he is. He'll make those comments, then in other threads say he's never said that. It's pretty entertaining.
Deer and elk are doing quite well in areas he says... The areas with no wolves! Ever notice that? We have a few units in wyoming, in the "trophy areas" near Yellowstone that are still teaming with elk. And guess what... Wolf sitings are rare! The only thing really helping them is the number of Grizzlies in the area. At least in my opinion. The management of wolves has helped immensely up there, not so much because of the reduction of wolves, but those suckers are smart and have now learned what it's like to be shot at or see others in their pack killed. Hopefully wyoming gets their act together and can get the wolves delisted again. And soon.
All the zones and units I hunt in Idaho have multiple confirmed wolf packs present, so your assumptions that I hunt away from wolves in places like very S. Idaho are again incorrect.
Post by: wolfbait on October 02, 2014, 09:12:45 AM
Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
Post by: sirmissalot on October 02, 2014, 09:14:11 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 09:17:06 AM
Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
Post by: wolfbait on October 02, 2014, 09:20:45 AM
Do you guys tell these lies that I have ever said wolves can't impact ungulates because you actually believe them...or do you tell these lies because its too difficult for you to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions (pro and anti) to take on wolf management?I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.
What's funny is how contradictory he is. He'll make those comments, then in other threads say he's never said that. It's pretty entertaining.
Deer and elk are doing quite well in areas he says... The areas with no wolves! Ever notice that? We have a few units in wyoming, in the "trophy areas" near Yellowstone that are still teaming with elk. And guess what... Wolf sitings are rare! The only thing really helping them is the number of Grizzlies in the area. At least in my opinion. The management of wolves has helped immensely up there, not so much because of the reduction of wolves, but those suckers are smart and have now learned what it's like to be shot at or see others in their pack killed. Hopefully wyoming gets their act together and can get the wolves delisted again. And soon.
All the zones and units I hunt in Idaho have multiple confirmed wolf packs present, so your assumptions that I hunt away from wolves in places like very S. Idaho are again incorrect.
I'm not sure if anyone really cares where you hunt, if you hunt at all.
The only areas that wolves have not impacted the ungulates is where there are very few wolves or no wolves at all, thats a given. So what was your point again or do you even have a point?
After 18 plus years of wolves and the lies of the USFWS, state game agencies and environmentalists have told to promote wolves exposed, pro-wolfers can only BS the fans.
There are not to many fans on W-H anymore. ;)
Post by: mfswallace on October 02, 2014, 09:28:06 AM
Idaho, do you carry a wolf tag with you when hunting?
Man that's a great question!!
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats. No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence. So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. :tup:Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:39:02 AM
When I first became a non-resident and they were still $180 I did not buy them. When they changed the price to $30 you bet :tup:Idaho, do you carry a wolf tag with you when hunting?
Man that's a great question!!
In fact I was one of the first hunters to ever buy a wolf tag...I even framed it after I did not fill it...I was probably one of the first 200 or so people to ever buy a wolf tag in the west. I know this doesn't fit your cute little narrative where I am some wolf loving hippie...I'm sorry about that...I really am. Maybe you should go over to the coyote board and take a look at that cute little coyote picture I posted the other day...he's the one with his head caved in where my 160 gr 7mm smashed into him :tup:
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 09:41:43 AM
Um, I am not the one making the claims, I asked a simple question. Anybody with a keyboard can do a google search of wolf pack names. I just asked you to prove out your claim of knowledge on these packs. :dunno:How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats. No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence. So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. :tup:Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:44:32 AM
I thought we were past the bs where people tried to even remotely suggest I am not a hunter :rolleyes:Do you guys tell these lies that I have ever said wolves can't impact ungulates because you actually believe them...or do you tell these lies because its too difficult for you to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions (pro and anti) to take on wolf management?I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.
What's funny is how contradictory he is. He'll make those comments, then in other threads say he's never said that. It's pretty entertaining.
Deer and elk are doing quite well in areas he says... The areas with no wolves! Ever notice that? We have a few units in wyoming, in the "trophy areas" near Yellowstone that are still teaming with elk. And guess what... Wolf sitings are rare! The only thing really helping them is the number of Grizzlies in the area. At least in my opinion. The management of wolves has helped immensely up there, not so much because of the reduction of wolves, but those suckers are smart and have now learned what it's like to be shot at or see others in their pack killed. Hopefully wyoming gets their act together and can get the wolves delisted again. And soon.
All the zones and units I hunt in Idaho have multiple confirmed wolf packs present, so your assumptions that I hunt away from wolves in places like very S. Idaho are again incorrect.
I'm not sure if anyone really cares where you hunt, if you hunt at all.
The only areas that wolves have not impacted the ungulates is where there are very few wolves or no wolves at all, thats a given. So what was your point again or do you even have a point?
After 18 plus years of wolves and the lies of the USFWS, state game agencies and environmentalists have told to promote wolves exposed, pro-wolfers can only BS the fans.
There are not to many fans on W-H anymore. ;)
There is a ton of good hunting for elk and deer in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming...including areas where wolves are definitely present. 18 years after wolves have been reintroduced into those areas we still have a ton of good elk hunting...I understand how devastating this news is to folks who like to preach that wolves will end all hunting. The fact that with each passing year your lies become harder to tell is really unimportant to the thousand and thousands of hunters who take to the woods this fall and kill great elk in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon...some are even posted on this very site for you to see.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 09:51:41 AM
Ok, since its not your claim then you don't believe all wolf packs have killed livestock? Or you are just here to stir the pot? I'm confused. :dunno:Um, I am not the one making the claims, I asked a simple question. Anybody with a keyboard can do a google search of wolf pack names. I just asked you to prove out your claim of knowledge on these packs. :dunno:How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats. No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence. So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. :tup:Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses. There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway :yike:) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses. Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 10:02:57 AM
Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made. :dunno: So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....Ok, since its not your claim then you don't believe all wolf packs have killed livestock? Or you are just here to stir the pot? I'm confused. :dunno:Um, I am not the one making the claims, I asked a simple question. Anybody with a keyboard can do a google search of wolf pack names. I just asked you to prove out your claim of knowledge on these packs. :dunno:How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats. No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence. So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. :tup:Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?Name three...Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs. :tup:
Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?
You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.
Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.
If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses. There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway :yike:) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses. Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.
Post by: Special T on October 02, 2014, 10:03:42 AM
One of the stark contrasts i see on here, and a few other places, is the lack of rebuttal to articles like the one WB posted. Im for lively debate and think comparing facts is important. Over time i have seen WB post a huge volume of articles, many not written by people with an axe to grind, that leed people to be concerned about wolves. Aside from a little sniping with 1 or 2 articles on a given subject NO ONE had made a good case for 1 Why wolves are great here in the lower 48, Where in the world wolves are benifical and accepted 2 Made a documented attempt to defend the wolf introduction into ID or YNP 3 how it has helped hunting here or other countries, say Canada.
I have read on here that "devil's advocates" do not have the time to waste digging up contrary evidence. Most are either 1 shot trolls that like to stir up the pot, or like to tell us OFTEN that we are wrong but provide scant eveidence to back up thier assertions.
While I do not suscribe to all of Wolfbaits Assertions I do know this. Non profits and Gov agencies are pushing this adgenda on people and in areas who do not want it. The slight of hand tactics, misleading and vauge explanations do NOT promote a trusting relationship with hunters or those living in rural areas TRUST is the bedrock of ANY relationship, EVEN adversaries!
One can only assume that Wolves are not the real issue but rather a wedge for some other purpose. What that purpose is, I could guess but it really does not matter.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 10:04:32 AM
Not sure why we're arguing about this?
There's areas in WA, ID and MT that are capable of holding a well managed packs of wolves, problem is we lack the management aspect so we find wolves down in livestock holding areas and have conflict.
pro-wolf groups are against livestock on public property, if I'm not mistaken IDH holds this same position. That's fine, it's your opinion and I don't share it; but the wolves don't know when they're on private or public lands - most livestock killed in Washington was killed while on private property.
As a hunter I want to see public lands grazing as it increases wildlife and benefits ungulates. Some of the best hunting is on grazed areas.
Wolves are the best tool to date that anti-hunters, anti grazing folks have come up with. Already ranchers and livestock owners are being driven off range, both private and public.
Hunters are already loosing opportunity in WA, in ID and MT there have been fantastic losses in hunting opportunity and hunting guides/outfitters put out of work, 2nd and 3rd generation hunting guides sent to walmart to look for work.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 02, 2014, 10:10:33 AM
Yes it does...you keep repeating lies about how wolves are going to kill off ALL the game hoping that telling those lies repeatedly will make it come true...but all these folks keep posting pictures of all the bulls they are harvesting in id, mt, wy and it kind of ruins your exaggerated wolf claims.
I'm still waiting for the great Echinococcus tapeworm outbreak in humans that was supposed to happen because of wolves.
Meanwhile, I'm heading over to Idaho next week for some of their great elk and deer hunting. Hope I don't come home with worms!
PS it's not that wolves don't affect wildlife, Its that they don't affect it in the ways haters say they will and not to the extent that haters exaggerate. Where wolves can be shown to have a dramatic negative effect, they should be dealt with. But other than that, hunting and trapping can usually keep them in check.
I also believe people should be able to protect their pets and livestock from wolves and wolves that prey on said animals should be permanently removed.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 10:12:06 AM
And killing livestock by the 100's, WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.
So what now?
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 10:12:42 AM
Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made. :dunno: So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks. Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible. But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement :chuckle: Its ridiculous.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 10:18:15 AM
Yes it does...you keep repeating lies about how wolves are going to kill off ALL the game hoping that telling those lies repeatedly will make it come true...but all these folks keep posting pictures of all the bulls they are harvesting in id, mt, wy and it kind of ruins your exaggerated wolf claims.
I'm still waiting for the great Echinococcus tapeworm outbreak in humans that was supposed to happen because of wolves.
Meanwhile, I'm heading over to Idaho next week for some of their great elk and deer hunting. Hope I don't come home with worms!
PS it's not that wolves don't affect wildlife, Its that they don't affect it in the ways haters say they will and not to the extent that haters exaggerate. Where wolves can be shown to have a dramatic negative effect, they should be dealt with. But other than that, hunting and trapping can usually keep them in check.
I also believe people should be able to protect their pets and livestock from wolves and wolves that prey on said animals should be permanently removed.
100% of wolves will prey on domestic animals where packs form in populated rural areas. The huckleberry pack prey'ed on 100's of sheep and weren't removed per your suggestion, the newly listed pack near republic killed many cattle yet none of those wolves are being killed. Not all the wedge wolves were killed, neither were the smackout wolves killed.
Many areas in WA where wolves are more prolific are having a dramatic negative effect, yet none of them are being managed to negate that effect.
So?? I'm waiting for management to happen.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 02, 2014, 10:28:34 AM
We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's, WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.
So what now?
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 10:33:22 AM
First off, don't put words in my mouth. I never made that statement. I have not put words in yours. I have personally seen what wolves do to livestock and ungulates right here at home. Since our local agencies do not recognize that there is even a pack here there is no data one way or the other. So I don't put much stock in that.Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made. :dunno: So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks. Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible. But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement :chuckle: Its ridiculous.
There is a documented wolf that traveled from where it was tagged in NE Oregon clear into N. California. So I am to believe that an apex predator with that sort of documented range has or never will kill livestock? There is just plain no area that large left without some sort of population left.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 10:44:50 AM
What statement didn't you make that I "put words in your mouth"? And who doesn't recognize a pack where? I am saying, with supporting data posted on MT, ID, and WY websites, that it is a false claim to suggest 100% of confirmed wolf packs have killed livestock. I did not think it would be difficult for folks to grasp the idea that where little or no livestock occurs, wolves won't kill them. :chuckle: I guess I was wrong in that assumption. Folks who are so blinded by their hatred for wolves are clearly incapable of seeing their hand in front of their face.First off, don't put words in my mouth. I never made that statement. I have not put words in yours. I have personally seen what wolves do to livestock and ungulates right here at home. Since our local agencies do not recognize that there is even a pack here there is no data one way or the other. So I don't put much stock in that.Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made. :dunno: So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks. Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible. But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement :chuckle: Its ridiculous.
There is a documented wolf that traveled from where it was tagged in NE Oregon clear into N. California. So I am to believe that an apex predator with that sort of documented range has or never will kill livestock? There is just plain no area that large left without some sort of population left.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 10:51:49 AM
We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's, WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.
So what now?
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.
A guy needs to be able to protect his/her livestock. Under the current law we on the east side can kill (1) wolf caught in the act, but in doing so it brings a tremendous amount of bureaucracy down upon their heads. I can't blame a person for killing a wolf and keeping quiet about it, saving their family from public condemnation and death threats from the wolf groups.... and to trust in WDFW to not say it was a justified shooting :o I would have to think long and hard before I made that phone call.
Even in doing all that the rest of the wolves continue to attack and harass your wildlife as shown in other cases, but you cannot shoot them because WDFW "compensates"; a legal precedence set in court about Elk damaging a farmers crop somehow equals wolves eviscerating livestock. As I've said before "compensation" is but a small fraction of the actual real losses seen by wolves.
Given the current and broken climate I can't fault a guy for doing what needs to be done for his and hers on their private lands. They're in a no win situation.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 10:54:48 AM
Right here on the Wa side of the blues. There is not a recognized pack. They are here, I have seen them, gotten pictures of them, and have seen what they do. I don't hate wolves at all.
Please tell me where in this country, where there is an area big enough where wolves live, that there is no/little livestock within their documented range.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 10:59:54 AM
that's funny
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 02, 2014, 11:05:31 AM
I believe this here is where we get the idea you don't think that wolves have an impact. You say we are putting words in your mouth yet this is a direct quote from you. We didn't make it up.
I don't give a dam about wolf introduction. You're living in the past. Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated. I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well. How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets? :hello: :dunno:
Interesting that you would post these gmu's as not having livestock attacks. Only a couple of the most wolf decimated elk herds in all of Idaho. Kinda contradicts your earlier statement I quoted.
If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses. There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway :yike:) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses. Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 11:05:53 AM
We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's, WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.
So what now?
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.
A guy needs to be able to protect his/her livestock. Under the current law we on the east side can kill (1) wolf caught in the act, but in doing so it brings a tremendous amount of bureaucracy down upon their heads. I can't blame a person for killing a wolf and keeping quiet about it, saving their family from public condemnation and death threats from the wolf groups.... and to trust in WDFW to not say it was a justified shooting :o I would have to think long and hard before I made that phone call.
Even in doing all that the rest of the wolves continue to attack and harass your wildlife as shown in other cases, but you cannot shoot them because WDFW "compensates"; a legal precedence set in court about Elk damaging a farmers crop somehow equals wolves eviscerating livestock. As I've said before "compensation" is but a small fraction of the actual real losses seen by wolves.
Given the current and broken climate I can't fault a guy for doing what needs to be done for his and hers on their private lands. They're in a no win situation.
You know, I got into an argument with a couple of wolf loving folks the other day (pick up your jaws folks) and I hit on something that they either chose to ignore or didn't know. Not one state with a wolf management plan that includes hunting them can eliminate all of their wolves, they all have a minimum number they have to ensure exists. It's not even in their best interest to kill them all as it would mean re-listing. But that never gets talked about in a lot of these discussions. Usually you have one side that screams "kill them all!" and the other yelling "save them all!"
I have to wonder if half the problem wouldn't be solved if more calm voices would step up and point out that wolves are not going away in the lower 48, they might get heavily managed, but they won't be hunted out. :dunno:
You rarely see this mentioned. There is a very big misconception among wolf supporters that opening a season on them means they'll all be killed. They don't understand modern hunting practices that include limits and seasons.
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2014, 11:06:22 AM
Isn't this just common sense?
I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.
If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?
I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk. No? :dunno:
Post by: Woodchuck on October 02, 2014, 11:13:01 AM
rest assured the Government does lie to you :chuckle:Oh yes they do, I just didn't say it..... til just now :chuckle:
that's funny
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 02, 2014, 11:15:06 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 11:24:06 AM
:rolleyes: For the millionth time...I've never said wolves don't impact ungulates. I point out that folks often exaggerate their impacts...wolfbait argues how wolves will end all hunting and that no game will be left where they occur. My experience from hunting North, West, North-Central, Central, and SE parts of Idaho does not lead me to believe wolves have decimated all elk herds in Idaho. You can have wolves and elk too...its not all or nothing.I believe this here is where we get the idea you don't think that wolves have an impact. You say we are putting words in your mouth yet this is a direct quote from you. We didn't make it up.
I don't give a dam about wolf introduction. You're living in the past. Your claims about what effect they will have on ungulates (or have had) are all wildly exaggerated. I don't believe you hunt so I understand why you may not recognize or be aware of the general status of deer and elk herds in and around the west...but most areas are actually doing quite well. How do you explain that? Given that these wolves should have killed off all the game, and killed all the people, and their children, and their pets? :hello: :dunno:Interesting that you would post these gmu's as not having livestock attacks. Only a couple of the most wolf decimated elk herds in all of Idaho. Kinda contradicts your earlier statement I quoted.Actually, it doesn't at all :tup:
If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses. There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway :yike:) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses. Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.
Isn't this just common sense?
I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.
If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?
I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk. No? :dunno:
A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs, which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it? People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.
the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 11:29:49 AM
Yeah, bobcat. Kind of like the line about how wolves have never attacked anyone in the 'lower 48'....the only records they use for that claim start around the 1930's, when wolves were wiped out or in such small numbers anyways. Well, similarly, dinosaurs haven't eaten anybody in the US either so they must not be dangerous.
The problem with that thought train is most people will say "that's nice."
The problem you have is we're dealing with the facts of today, not 1930 or 200 years ago. There were more people attacked by other predators last year and more pets and livestock killed by them than by wolves. People look at that and essentially view wolves as a non-threat to people at their current levels. As their numbers grow it might change, but right here and now, no one will take the human safety argument seriously because it hasn't panned out other than a few oddball instances. I can think of a gentleman who got attacked by a bear while deer hunting this year here in WA, I can think of no hunters or anyone else attacked by one or more wolves (prey testing or threatening behavior does not count, I'm talking about attacks).
However true or untrue the human safety threat is, its so rare right now relative to what other predators do every year it's almost a bad joke. That might well change, but for now...
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2014, 11:34:11 AM
And the term "welfare rancher"- I don't think it's derogatory, it's simply the truth. They pay ridiculously low rates to graze their cattle on our public lands.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 11:36:10 AM
I forgot to point out your mistake earlier; you are indeed incorrect in your belief that I oppose livestock on public property. I generally support the land management agencies that responsibly manage the publics resources.I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.
Isn't this just common sense?
I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.
If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?
I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk. No? :dunno:
A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs, which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it? People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.
the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 11:42:23 AM
Well, there are many areas of public land where I'd like to see a lot less cattle grazing, so when deer and elk migrate down in the winter there's something left to eat. What happens, is the elk move down when it snows, to find no grass left on the public lands, so they move down further into the rancher's fields, where they are then killed because they're eating the rancher's grass.
What happens in reality is the cattle keep the grasses grazed down and growing when properly managed. When the Elk move down they find fresh new growth which is far more nutritious than old brown grasses gone to seed.
There's a lot of other benefits, from fire control to birds - the list goes on and on.
read this if you desire too
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5401590.pdf (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5401590.pdf)
One snippet that might interest you from that big .PDF
Quote
Grazing is also being used to treat
deer and elk winter range. There are
shrub-lands on the Forest that have
become overly mature, or overly
dense or stagnant. These areas are
grazed by a large number of cattle
for a short period of time. This treatment
will open up the shrub canopy,
creating a more open stand, and providing
more palatable under-story
vegetation. These treatments are also
used where prescribed burning is not
feasible or undesirable. Obviously, it
is also a less severe treatment than
spraying with herbicides.
Grazing is a natural process. It can
be managed to maintain plant health
and even used as a land treatment to
provide a more desirable plant community.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 11:53:03 AM
I forgot to point out your mistake earlier; you are indeed incorrect in your belief that I oppose livestock on public property. I generally support the land management agencies that responsibly manage the publics resources.I would assume that wolves that live in wilderness areas where no livestock is present, are the wolves that have not killed livestock.
Isn't this just common sense?
I can't believe there's a disagreement over this. The statement that 100% of wolves have killed livestock seems very un-believable to me.
If that number was 50% or even 75% I'd be more likely to believe it's accurate. But I'm with Idahohunter, where's the proof that 100% of the wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington have killed livestock?
I don't doubt that 100% of wolves WOULD kill livestock, if given the opportunity. But there must be wolves in areas where the only thing to eat is deer and elk. No? :dunno:
A good example of why wolves need to be run out of areas where livestock occurs, which really gets down to the root of the issue doesn't it? People like IDH do not want livestock on public property and are willing to sacrifice livestock on private property to do it.
the derogatory term "welfare rancher" has been tossed around a few times.
I must have been confused due to this thread you created:
Welfare rancher Bundy back in the news
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,160967.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,160967.0.html)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/cliven-bundy-blames-state-for-faulty-fence-after-woman-sues-him-for-interstate-cow-crash/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/cliven-bundy-blames-state-for-faulty-fence-after-woman-sues-him-for-interstate-cow-crash/)
The scum of the earth Bundy is back in the news. To heck with rounding up his cattle...they need to round up him and his family and send them to whatever country they would like since they do not recognize this one. It would be far cheaper than continuing to allow this leach to live off the taxpayers!
Easy to conclude by your use of the term "welfare rancher" and "leach off taxpayers", which is a derogatory term/s that applies to any rancher utilizing public lands.
I have my doubts that you support grazing public lands.
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2014, 11:59:06 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 12:01:39 PM
I am good friends with a family who owns a large cattle ranch in northern Nevada...they absolutely hate Bundy and the bad name he has brought cattle ranchers in their state. The fact that you are a big supported of Bundy is very telling. Sad, but telling.
And on the term "welfare rancher"...it accurately describes Bundy. It does not describe all ranchers. It certainly does not describe all ranchers who use public lands...some...but not all.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 12:06:57 PM
"welfare rancher" doesn't stop with Bundy, it's used against anyone with public range leases. First I heard of the term it was used against the McIrvins during the wedge wolf deal, even though a big portion of their range was private lands and the bulk of the wolf kills were on private ground.
I've even read it against the sheep owner who was forced to remove 1800 sheep off private Hancock lands, where the sheep were I've heard, were being utilized to graze down larkspur "poison weed", water hemlock.
Hard to spray for that crap in the watershed areas.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 02, 2014, 12:18:08 PM
Yeah, I used to know ranchers that would burn late in the season to knock the grass down so new tender shoots would come up for late grazing. If they left the old, tall grass; then in mid fall it would go brown/dry and all the nutritional value (saps/sugars) retreat back to the roots. The dry, tall stalks were basically only good for straw. There was a certain height they wanted it to be by winter to feed cattle and be able to insulate the low stalks/cut the wind.
What happens in reality is the cattle keep the grasses grazed down and growing when properly managed. When the Elk move down they find fresh new growth which is far more nutritious than old brown grasses gone to seed.
There's a lot of other benefits, from fire control to birds - the list goes on and on.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 12:20:18 PM
Yes, you are very confused alright. If that racist bigot welfare rancher Cliven Bundy is how you envision public land grazing then you are right, I am definitely opposed to that. Grazing needs to be regulated by the landowner or agency charged with managing the publics land.
I am good friends with a family who owns a large cattle ranch in northern Nevada...they absolutely hate Bundy and the bad name he has brought cattle ranchers in their state. The fact that you are a big supported of Bundy is very telling. Sad, but telling.
And on the term "welfare rancher"...it accurately describes Bundy. It does not describe all ranchers. It certainly does not describe all ranchers who use public lands...some...but not all.
There is a lot more to "Bundy" than what I want to write in a wolf thread. I think he's the target of a smear campaign and Harry's got some explaining to do with his Chinese investors connections regarding Bundy...and I got more questions about all the other Ranchers driving out of existence by the BLM in that huge grazing allotment...lot's of questions.
I just wish a more honorable and well spoken rancher than Bundy would have made these waves as Bundy is his own worst enemy and a stain on legitimate ranchers elsewhere.
Both sides of the fence on that issue is tainted with fraud and lies.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 12:20:29 PM
Yes, you are very confused alright. If that racist bigot welfare rancher Cliven Bundy is how you envision public land grazing then you are right, I am definitely opposed to that. Grazing needs to be regulated by the landowner or agency charged with managing the publics land.
I am good friends with a family who owns a large cattle ranch in northern Nevada...they absolutely hate Bundy and the bad name he has brought cattle ranchers in their state. The fact that you are a big supported of Bundy is very telling. Sad, but telling.
And on the term "welfare rancher"...it accurately describes Bundy. It does not describe all ranchers. It certainly does not describe all ranchers who use public lands...some...but not all.
There is a lot more to "Bundy" than what I want to write in a wolf thread. I think he's the target of a smear campaign and Harry's got some explaining to do with his Chinese investors connections regarding Bundy...and I got more questions about all the other Ranchers driving out of existence by the BLM in that huge grazing allotment...lot's of questions.
I just wish a more honorable and well spoken rancher than Bundy would have made these waves as Bundy is his own worst enemy and a stain on legitimate ranchers elsewhere.
Both sides of the fence on that issue is tainted with fraud and lies.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 12:38:33 PM
I'm no bundy fan, if you read the bundy threads I've stated such.I can't control how other people use the term welfare rancher. :sry: It does not detract from the fact that it very much applies in some cases.
"welfare rancher" doesn't stop with Bundy, it's used against anyone with public range leases. First I heard of the term it was used against the McIrvins during the wedge wolf deal, even though a big portion of their range was private lands and the bulk of the wolf kills were on private ground.
I've even read it against the sheep owner who was forced to remove 1800 sheep off private Hancock lands, where the sheep were I've heard, were being utilized to graze down larkspur "poison weed", water hemlock.
Hard to spray for that crap in the watershed areas.
I agree though...lets save the Bundy talk for other threads.
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 02:33:30 PM
I'm no bundy fan, if you read the bundy threads I've stated such.
"welfare rancher" doesn't stop with Bundy, it's used against anyone with public range leases. First I heard of the term it was used against the McIrvins during the wedge wolf deal, even though a big portion of their range was private lands and the bulk of the wolf kills were on private ground.
I've even read it against the sheep owner who was forced to remove 1800 sheep off private Hancock lands, where the sheep were I've heard, were being utilized to graze down larkspur "poison weed", water hemlock.
Hard to spray for that crap in the watershed areas.
People can say what they want about McIrvin, but as I said a week or two ago. You have to give the guy credit, he hasn't come asking for compensation. He has a problem and he wants it dealt with. He probably also grasps the negative connotations associated with seeking compensation in that after a while people can start to think that every reported kill is being claimed as a wolf kill just to get the money. I cringe every time someone seeking money gets upset because the state doesn't recognize a kill as wolf related. True or not, right or wrong, there is a stigma that can go with that. It's a cynical one, but it's real.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 04:59:27 PM
I wish they hadn't said to use poison, that made me cringe..but I can't be too hard on them as it was all just starting to go down when that audio was taken and emotions were very high. I know Bill seemed pretty cool and calm on camera when he said that, but he was charged up and excited. You wouldn't know that unless you knew him though.
Compensation is a farce, I've explained it numerous times on HW how it doesn't compensate at all. It's nothing more than a stipend of money for the loss of a single animal (if confirmed wolf kill) and does nothing to address the entire herd health and extra manpower/fuel to conduct operations in wolf country. I'm guess "compensation" covers 2% of over all damages.
What the most damaging thing about "compensation" is that it makes it illegal for ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, courts in addressing Elk crop damage said it was unreasonable to shoot Elk damaging crops because the farmers are being compensated for crop losses. That same logic was applied to wolves and livestock, WDFW compensates for live stock losses therefore it's unreasonable to shoot wolves killing your property. It's disgusting and needs challenged in court.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 02, 2014, 05:46:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2014, 06:11:45 PM
I would much rather we have a policy where ranchers can kill wolves (plural) in the act of attacking livestock and eliminate any sort of compensation/subsidy type program for predation. The burden to protect livestock should be on the livestock owner, not the state...pending the state does not actively interfere with his ability to protect said livestock.
:yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on October 02, 2014, 09:20:22 PM
I give them a hell of a lot of credit, they've made a few small mistakes but overall I really have a lot of respect for how they've conducted themselves.
I wish they hadn't said to use poison, that made me cringe..but I can't be too hard on them as it was all just starting to go down when that audio was taken and emotions were very high. I know Bill seemed pretty cool and calm on camera when he said that, but he was charged up and excited. You wouldn't know that unless you knew him though.
Compensation is a farce, I've explained it numerous times on HW how it doesn't compensate at all. It's nothing more than a stipend of money for the loss of a single animal (if confirmed wolf kill) and does nothing to address the entire herd health and extra manpower/fuel to conduct operations in wolf country. I'm guess "compensation" covers 2% of over all damages.
What the most damaging thing about "compensation" is that it makes it illegal for ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, courts in addressing Elk crop damage said it was unreasonable to shoot Elk damaging crops because the farmers are being compensated for crop losses. That same logic was applied to wolves and livestock, WDFW compensates for live stock losses therefore it's unreasonable to shoot wolves killing your property. It's disgusting and needs challenged in court.
:tup: We need to remember the McIrvin's had been dealing with WDFW from the beginning of their wolf problems> WDFW first said there were no wolves and then when it was proved there were wolves WDFW said the wolves wouldn't kill cattle, and finally we saw the flop of WDFW pretending to remedy the wolf problem. I wonder what some of us would have said at that point.
I have learned from WDFW that it is pretty much worthless to expect too much help from them, and that they will play the environmental card using environmentalists.
As far as compensation it is has always been a joke, there have been several ranchers in other states that in order to get compensation had to sign a statement saying they approved of wolves, which of course would be lying on their part. And as KF said it does not even come close to what is lost due to wolves either from predation, calves being aborted, and weight loss from wolf harassment, etc.. Study after study will not change the outcome.
I would much rather we have a policy where ranchers can kill wolves (plural) in the act of attacking livestock and eliminate any sort of compensation/subsidy type program for predation. The burden to protect livestock should be on the livestock owner, not the state...pending the state does not actively interfere with his ability to protect said livestock.
That sounds good and I'm sure many ranchers/people would agree as long as trapping was a part of the new ruling, after all wolves do most of their dirty work at night. I'm sure it would be better then the farce that is happening now with WDFW who can't seem to catch a wolf unless it's for wolf haven.