Post by: wolfbait on July 29, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
http://getzone.com/descendants-of-the-first-settlers-reveal-the-truth-about-returning-wolves-to-yellowstone/
Post by: JLS on July 29, 2016, 08:31:40 PM
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.html
http://www.yellowstonegate.com/2015/03/pneumonia-kills-dozens-of-bighorn-sheep-north-of-yellowstone-park/
Regardless of how one feels about wolves, he's certainly no steward of wildlife.
Post by: wolfbait on July 29, 2016, 08:48:51 PM
"Wolf advocates protested after Hoppe shot one of two Yellowstone wolves that killed eight of his lambs."
"FWP warden Sam Sheppard said no FWP employees have seen any bighorn sheep in Hoppe’s pasture and that Hoppe also hadn’t seen any.:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
"It is not possible to detect the exact source of this pneumonia outbreak.
Pneumonia outbreaks have occurred in bighorn sheep populations with no known contact with domestic sheep (or goats)."
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.html
Post by: JLS on July 30, 2016, 12:54:10 PM
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
You make a living on here "connecting dots". Domestic sheep show up, comingle with bighorns. Hoppe refuses to cooperate to keep them separate. Bighorns get sick the next year and begin to die off, district closes. If you can't connect those dots, I can't help you. Whether the pneumonia came from Hoppe's sheep or not, it is clear he did not and does not care. Some wildlife steward.
But, yes, this is all about wolf lovers.
Post by: wolfbait on July 30, 2016, 04:17:45 PM
Bill Hoppe has done a heck of a lot more then most people in trying to get wolves controlled. I think what bothers the pro-wolf crowd is the fact that he started raising sheep in order to kill more wolves. He's probably saved more sheep etc. with just the wolves he has shot that were killing his sheep. :tup:
Yellowstone is Dead
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2016, 05:46:35 PM
A BS article? Here's one with a photo.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
You make a living on here "connecting dots". Domestic sheep show up, comingle with bighorns. Hoppe refuses to cooperate to keep them separate. Bighorns get sick the next year and begin to die off, district closes. If you can't connect those dots, I can't help you. Whether the pneumonia came from Hoppe's sheep or not, it is clear he did not and does not care. Some wildlife steward.
But, yes, this is all about wolf lovers.
The way you repsonded I though Hoppe had done something purposefully...
Quote
“I caught a motion out of the corner of my eye and saw a ram coming off the hill,” Hurley said. “He crossed over to the fence and hopped over at a low spot like he knew right where to go.”
The ram had jumped into a pasture where Jardine resident Bill Hoppe has moved his sheep.
I hate to see anything happen to wild sheep, but the domestic sheep were in a pasture and the wild sheep jumped the fence to get in. I think you are really stretching to say what you said about Hoppe! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2016, 05:52:07 PM
A BS article? Here's one with a photo.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
You make a living on here "connecting dots". Domestic sheep show up, comingle with bighorns. Hoppe refuses to cooperate to keep them separate. Bighorns get sick the next year and begin to die off, district closes. If you can't connect those dots, I can't help you. Whether the pneumonia came from Hoppe's sheep or not, it is clear he did not and does not care. Some wildlife steward.
But, yes, this is all about wolf lovers.
The way you repsonded I though Hoppe had done something purposefully...Quote“I caught a motion out of the corner of my eye and saw a ram coming off the hill,” Hurley said. “He crossed over to the fence and hopped over at a low spot like he knew right where to go.”
The ram had jumped into a pasture where Jardine resident Bill Hoppe has moved his sheep.
I hate to see anything happen to wild sheep, but the domestic sheep were in a pasture and the wild sheep jumped the fence to get in. I think you are really stretching to say what you said about Hoppe! :twocents:
the best part... :chuckle:
Quote
FWP warden Sam Sheppard said no FWP employees have seen any bighorn sheep in Hoppe’s pasture and that Hoppe also hadn’t seen any.
Post by: JLS on July 30, 2016, 09:43:30 PM
I could care less about the pro wolf crowd.
It's a free country and Bill Hoppe can put sheep wherever he wants. That doesn't make what he did right.
Bill Hoppe has made a lot of money off of a public resource. This is how he returns the favor I guess.
Edit: This has nothing to do with Bill Hoppe's stance on wolves. I really could care less whether he loves them or hates them. It's about his blatant disregard for a resource that he put at extreme risk and very likely had a hand in destroying. I see him as a hypocrite, pure and simple.
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2016, 07:49:57 AM
The photo was taken by a WSF person, hardly a wolf lover. Bill Hoppe rejected any efforts by WSF/FWP to help keep a barrier between the domestic sheep and the bighorns, relocate them, or provide any other measures to prevent interaction.
I could care less about the pro wolf crowd.
It's a free country and Bill Hoppe can put sheep wherever he wants. That doesn't make what he did right.
Bill Hoppe has made a lot of money off of a public resource. This is how he returns the favor I guess.
Edit: This has nothing to do with Bill Hoppe's stance on wolves. I really could care less whether he loves them or hates them. It's about his blatant disregard for a resource that he put at extreme risk and very likely had a hand in destroying. I see him as a hypocrite, pure and simple.
I only read the one story, so maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds like Hoppe's sheep were in a private pasture and it sounds like nobody knows if his sheep actually affected the wild herd. I see speculation, too often people are blamed without both sides of the story or all the facts being known. If I remember correctly this man used to be an outfitter before wolves were planted in YNP, if true I imagine he had to ramp up his ranching operation to offset the loss of outfitting, now it sounds like you don't like him ranching, not even on private land! :dunno:
Quote
Bill Hoppe rejected any efforts by WSF/FWP to help keep a barrier between the domestic sheep and the bighorns, relocate them, or provide any other measures to prevent interaction.
Were these efforts focused on Hoppe having to do something? My guess is yes they likely were expecting Hoppe to do the work to keep the wild sheep out! What would keep FWP from putting a fence around the outside of the property to keep the wild sheep out? That reminds me of this wolf fiasco, the F&G plants wolves and expects ranchers to make all kinds of efforts to keep the wolves away from their cattle.
I suspect there is more to the story if we heard Hoppe's side of the story!
Post by: JLS on July 31, 2016, 08:08:42 AM
I won't disparage Wolfbait's hero anymore. They are likely cut from the same conservation ethic cloth. Anyone that defends this kind of behavior needs their head examined.
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2016, 08:30:41 AM
Too funny, on one hand you talk about speculation as it pertains to the sheep and the die off. Then, you turn right around a speculate as to why Hoppe wouldn't take any measures to keep the herds separated.
I won't disparage Wolfbait's hero anymore. They are likely cut from the same conservation ethic cloth. Anyone that defends this kind of behavior needs their head examined.
You can say what you want, it's your opinion, no rules broken. But I think you and I took much different approaches, you accused Hoppe, I suggested a possible scenario and I want to know more before I condemn the guy. Too many times the other side of the story isn't known!
Post by: wolfbait on July 31, 2016, 09:47:03 AM
Too funny, on one hand you talk about speculation as it pertains to the sheep and the die off. Then, you turn right around a speculate as to why Hoppe wouldn't take any measures to keep the herds separated.
I won't disparage Wolfbait's hero anymore. They are likely cut from the same conservation ethic cloth. Anyone that defends this kind of behavior needs their head examined.
Where does one start? Why waste the time, just another pro-wolfer who's story turned sour once it was analyzed.
I would be honored to call Bill Hoppe a friend, that being said you sound like you don't like it too much when someone questions your articles. Perhaps next time post it on a DoW or CNW sites, sure you will get plenty of Atta boys.
Post by: JLS on July 31, 2016, 12:53:15 PM
Too funny, on one hand you talk about speculation as it pertains to the sheep and the die off. Then, you turn right around a speculate as to why Hoppe wouldn't take any measures to keep the herds separated.
I won't disparage Wolfbait's hero anymore. They are likely cut from the same conservation ethic cloth. Anyone that defends this kind of behavior needs their head examined.
Where does one start? Why waste the time, just another pro-wolfer who's story turned sour once it was analyzed.
I would be honored to call Bill Hoppe a friend, that being said you sound like you don't like it too much when someone questions your articles. Perhaps next time post it on a DoW or CNW sites, sure you will get plenty of Atta boys.
Where do you get the pro-wolfer aspect? You're like the kid on the playground that runs around calling names and whose favorite retort is "I know you are but what am I?"
Question the article all you want. It's based on facts that were observed by folks who are not pro wolfers as you allege them to be. I don't belong to Defenders of Wildlife or Conservation Northwest. I am a hunter and conservationist. If that doesn't fit your myopic view of wildlife management, so be it.
Edit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
Post by: 4fletch on August 01, 2016, 02:50:20 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2016, 09:09:18 AM
Quote
Edit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
You really should have said that in the first place! But I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.html
Quote
Hurley, a Wyoming Game and Fish bighorn biologist for 30 years, said the ram was initially startled by the sound of the bells on Hoppe’s sheep. But the urges of the breeding season caused the ram to get within about 6 feet of the sheep.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.html
Quote
In the Gardiner area, bighorn sheep have experienced a small number of pneumonia cases each of the last few years, but not to this extent.
It is not possible to detect the exact source of this pneumonia outbreak.
Pneumonia outbreaks have occurred in bighorn sheep populations with no known contact with domestic sheep (or goats). However, research has shown bacteria can be transmitted from healthy domestic sheep (or goats) to bighorn sheep, causing pneumonia in the wild sheep. There are currently domestic sheep flocks in the area.
Post by: jackelope on August 01, 2016, 09:21:59 AM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
You really should have said that in the first place! But I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.htmlQuoteHurley, a Wyoming Game and Fish bighorn biologist for 30 years, said the ram was initially startled by the sound of the bells on Hoppe’s sheep. But the urges of the breeding season caused the ram to get within about 6 feet of the sheep.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.htmlQuoteIn the Gardiner area, bighorn sheep have experienced a small number of pneumonia cases each of the last few years, but not to this extent.
It is not possible to detect the exact source of this pneumonia outbreak.
Pneumonia outbreaks have occurred in bighorn sheep populations with no known contact with domestic sheep (or goats). However, research has shown bacteria can be transmitted from healthy domestic sheep (or goats) to bighorn sheep, causing pneumonia in the wild sheep. There are currently domestic sheep flocks in the area.
Hopefully you're not implying that domestic sheep are not the cause of all these pneumonia outbreaks in the wild sheep? I'm pretty sure you're not implying that, but just wanted to make sure. We lost a few entire herds of bighorns in Washington because they were infected by domestic sheep. The Hell's Canyon herd has been compromised. I'm sure there are lots of others.
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2016, 09:37:51 AM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
They offered to help him find alternative pastures and/or install double fencing (this was PRIOR to any lamb predations). After that, Hoppe wouldn't even return their phone calls.
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2016, 09:44:48 AM
Here is some light reading on pneumonia and bighorn sheep.
Hoppe refused to allow his sheep to be tested, so there is no way of ever knowing if the strains matched and came from his domestic sheep.
Post by: wolfbait on August 01, 2016, 10:42:43 AM
http://bighornhealth.org/a-unique-approach
Here is some light reading on pneumonia and bighorn sheep.
"Hoppe refused to allow his sheep to be tested, so there is no way of ever knowing if the strains matched and came from his domestic sheep."
And yet you wrote:
"Bill Hoppe is a real gem. He is pretty much single handedly responsible for the closure of a bighorn sheep district near Gardiner."
Do you have a special license to be the judge and jury? Or is it just your unbiased opinion? :rolleyes:
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2016, 10:54:11 AM
Do you have a special license to be the judge and jury? Or is it just your unbiased opinion? :rolleyes:
The same license you do Wolfie.
The sudden, large scale die off is indicative of a new strain of bacteria that the sheep were exposed to. Combine that with the timing of the exposure and I think the preponderance of the evidence strongly supports my opinion.
I actually thought Hoppe was rather creative in creating the wolf conflict. A good friend of mine, who is a long time Gardiner resident, also said as much.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2016, 11:28:23 AM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
They offered to help him find alternative pastures and/or install double fencing (this was PRIOR to any lamb predations). After that, Hoppe wouldn't even return their phone calls.
I certainly want to see sheep herds grow, but I have to wonder what exactly was said to cause that to happen? Too often people try to shut out ranchers or tell them what they have to do, if that happened that was probably the wrong approach. I think that approach has caused legislation in Idaho preventing any new sheep herds from being established anywhere in the state. I think the ranchers figure if new sheep herds aren't established that excuse can't be used as the reason to push them off their grazing leases. They are probably pretty accurate!
It's sad because there are a lot of areas that could support sheep, but I can understand the ranchers position because of the people who want to take away their way of earning a living.
Post by: jackelope on August 01, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
Effects of Disease on Bighorn Populations
An extensive body of scientific literature on the effects of disease on bighorn populations has accumulated. The literature indicates the following: (1) numerous examples of bighorn die-offs due to disease have been documented; (2) bighorn die-offs were documented as early as the mid 1800s and have been documented in every state in the western U.S.; (3) bighorn die-offs typically follow known or suspected contact with domestic sheep or goats; (4) under experimental conditions, clinically healthy bighorn sheep have developed pneumonia and died within days to weeks following contact with clinically healthy domestic sheep; (5) a variety of diseases and pathogens have been implicated in die-offs, but most commonly the disease implicated in the die-off is bacterial pneumonia (Pasteurellosis) caused by Mannheimia haemolytica (formerly Pasteurella haemolytica) or other species of closely related Pasteurella bacteria; and (6) there is consensus among wildlife biologists and veterinarians experienced in bighorn sheep management that domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep must be kept separated in order to maintain healthy bighorn populations (Foreyt 1989; Garde et al. 2005; Martin et al. 1996; Monello et al. 2001; Schommer and Woolever 2001; Singer et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d; Singer et al. 2001).
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2016, 08:26:03 PM
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: jackelope on August 01, 2016, 09:06:33 PM
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2016, 09:21:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2016, 10:18:00 PM
So.... No comment?
I'm not exactly sure if you are directing your question to me, since you posted twice right after I did I'll assume you are?
I think most involved hunters know the info you posted, I assumed you were posting it for the benefit of those who don't know? :dunno:
Are you looking for something else? :dunno:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on August 01, 2016, 10:36:28 PM
Post by: JLS on August 02, 2016, 06:53:44 AM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
They offered to help him find alternative pastures and/or install double fencing (this was PRIOR to any lamb predations). After that, Hoppe wouldn't even return their phone calls.
I certainly want to see sheep herds grow, but I have to wonder what exactly was said to cause that to happen? Too often people try to shut out ranchers or tell them what they have to do, if that happened that was probably the wrong approach.
Maybe nothing was said to cause that to happen. Maybe Hoppe didn't really think or care about the effect it would have on others.
Some ranchers are excellent stewards and conservationists. Hoppe obviously is not, IMO.
Edit: Changed to reflect the last statement as an opinion and not a definitive fact.
Post by: jackelope on August 02, 2016, 07:43:32 AM
So.... No comment?
I'm not exactly sure if you are directing your question to me, since you posted twice right after I did I'll assume you are?
I think most involved hunters know the info you posted, I assumed you were posting it for the benefit of those who don't know? :dunno:
Are you looking for something else? :dunno:
It seemed to me like you were contesting that information.
Post by: jackelope on August 02, 2016, 07:44:10 AM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
You really should have said that in the first place! But I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.htmlQuoteHurley, a Wyoming Game and Fish bighorn biologist for 30 years, said the ram was initially startled by the sound of the bells on Hoppe’s sheep. But the urges of the breeding season caused the ram to get within about 6 feet of the sheep.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.htmlQuoteIn the Gardiner area, bighorn sheep have experienced a small number of pneumonia cases each of the last few years, but not to this extent.
It is not possible to detect the exact source of this pneumonia outbreak.
Pneumonia outbreaks have occurred in bighorn sheep populations with no known contact with domestic sheep (or goats). However, research has shown bacteria can be transmitted from healthy domestic sheep (or goats) to bighorn sheep, causing pneumonia in the wild sheep. There are currently domestic sheep flocks in the area.
Hopefully you're not implying that domestic sheep are not the cause of all these pneumonia outbreaks in the wild sheep? I'm pretty sure you're not implying that, but just wanted to make sure. We lost a few entire herds of bighorns in Washington because they were infected by domestic sheep. The Hell's Canyon herd has been compromised. I'm sure there are lots of others.
And this one I quoted your comments.
Post by: wolfbait on August 02, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
They offered to help him find alternative pastures and/or install double fencing (this was PRIOR to any lamb predations). After that, Hoppe wouldn't even return their phone calls.
I certainly want to see sheep herds grow, but I have to wonder what exactly was said to cause that to happen? Too often people try to shut out ranchers or tell them what they have to do, if that happened that was probably the wrong approach.
Maybe nothing was said to cause that to happen. Maybe Hoppe didn't really think or care about the effect it would have on others.
Some ranchers are excellent stewards and conservationists. Hoppe obviously is not, IMO.
Edit: Changed to reflect the last statement as an opinion and not a definitive fact.
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
Post by: jackelope on August 02, 2016, 01:27:26 PM
Aahh nevermind.
Post by: JLS on August 02, 2016, 01:28:29 PM
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Call it smearing if you want. I wanted to point out what a hypocrite Bill Hoppe is/was. He has no trouble decrying the loss of elk, yet completely disregards the risk he was posing to bighorn sheep.
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
I've stated my opinions on both the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds a number of times. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here. Wolves were native to Yellowstone. Pneumonia bacteria were never native to North America until they were brought here. As far as selectivity? No, I want to see healthy elk herds everywhere they can be supported. It's not black and white how wolves affect elk. The St. Joe elk herd has never rebounded from the tremendous winterkills of 97-98, while the elk herds north and east of there have. Is it wolves, or is it something else? Both areas have healthy wolf populations, so there is some variable in there that needs to be taken into consideration.
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Show to me a legal document that declares the release of the wolves was unlawful? I was never in favor of the releases either, but to call them illegal is disingenuous.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine.
Post by: JLS on August 02, 2016, 01:29:18 PM
Wonder what the wild sheep herds would look like without the domestic sheep .......
Aahh nevermind.
Very likely the herds would look much different than they do today.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2016, 07:52:17 PM
QuoteEdit: For the record, I don't believe Hoppe's original intent was to infect the bighorn sheep herd. I fully believe his original intent was to create a wolf conflict, which it did, and which blew up bigger than he anticipated. I believe that the bighorn sheep were just collateral damage incident to his primary agenda. His willful indifference and refusal to work with WSF (who BTW covers the cost of these projects) is what I find appalling.
You really should have said that in the first place! But I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/bighorn-sheep-mingle-with-gardiner-domestic-sheep/article_67966a20-5baf-11e3-a220-0019bb2963f4.htmlQuoteHurley, a Wyoming Game and Fish bighorn biologist for 30 years, said the ram was initially startled by the sound of the bells on Hoppe’s sheep. But the urges of the breeding season caused the ram to get within about 6 feet of the sheep.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0713.htmlQuoteIn the Gardiner area, bighorn sheep have experienced a small number of pneumonia cases each of the last few years, but not to this extent.
It is not possible to detect the exact source of this pneumonia outbreak.
Pneumonia outbreaks have occurred in bighorn sheep populations with no known contact with domestic sheep (or goats). However, research has shown bacteria can be transmitted from healthy domestic sheep (or goats) to bighorn sheep, causing pneumonia in the wild sheep. There are currently domestic sheep flocks in the area.
Hopefully you're not implying that domestic sheep are not the cause of all these pneumonia outbreaks in the wild sheep? I'm pretty sure you're not implying that, but just wanted to make sure. We lost a few entire herds of bighorns in Washington because they were infected by domestic sheep. The Hell's Canyon herd has been compromised. I'm sure there are lots of others.
And this one I quoted your comments.
OK, sorry for not replying back to that. :tup:
I'l try to be more forward with my comments. First, I think everyone that follows wild sheep knows that domestic sheep are a problem for wild sheep, even the ranchers know. I eluded to this in another post about the legislation in Idaho preventing establishment of new wild sheep herds. I have been told the reason for that legislation is so sheep ranchers don't have to deal with wild sheep issues. I also quoted that domestic sheep are not always the problem, some wild sheep herds get sick without contact with domestic sheep.
Rather than try to shut down sheep ranchers why not try to work with them to find better ways that benefit sheep and the ranchers without putting the ranchers out of business like some people would like to do. I know numerous sheep and cattle ranchers in Idaho, Montana, and Utah, I hunt some of their ranches which are some of my best hunting. They also graze in some of the same National Forest land that I am permitted to hunt. The forest officers have asked me about the sheep impacts, I tell them in honesty the only thing that concerns me is when the herders let the sheep stay in one area too long and over graze, if they move the herds like they are supposed to, I don't see any problem, I tell the herders when I see lost sheep, and the the herders give us intel on big bucks they see. Everyone wins!
The comments about Hoppe (a rancher) were offensive to me and probably to many ranchers. I am sickened by that type of comments, some people think ranchers should just roll over to wolf predation, green agendas, loss of grazing, etc, and should not be allowed to earn a living. There's nothing wrong with trying to work with ranchers to find a better way that will benefit wildlife or the environment and that will allow ranchers to earn a living, but to say what was said about Hoppe with no more proof than was presented doesn't seem right.
I stand by my comments that you quoted:
Quote
You really should have said that in the first place! But I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
I'll add additional thoughts:
If Hoppe wanted to prove that wolves would eat his sheep "even with bells on them that are supposed to deter wolves", he certainly proved it. If that was the case I still doubt Hoppe had any intention to harm the sheep. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything indicating Hoppe intended to harm the sheep. I could imagine that if someone tried to tell Hoppe what he had to do they were probably met with opposition or ignored, most ranchers are tired of people telling them what to do! I don't know what happened, I'm just trying to make sense of this and pointing out that the comments about a rancher seem uncalled for.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2016, 08:13:14 PM
Wonder what the wild sheep herds would look like without the domestic sheep .......
Aahh nevermind.
Very likely the herds would look much different than they do today.
No doubt, there would probably be more sheep without domestic sheep.
There would also probably be more wildlife if there were fewer areas of urban sprawl and fewer cars on highways slaughtering wildlife. I think in many cases ranching activities improve wildlife carrying capacity (obviously wild sheep may be an exception). I don't blame less wildlife on ranchers, maybe we should all take a look in the mirror to see who may be having a greater impact on many species of wildlife!
I think the best approach is to explore ways for all of us to have less impact on wildlife, I would rather see cooperation rather than opposition to ranching. I posted a pretty good video from sitka that finishes off with good thoughts, here it is again! I really like the idea of the disease free sheep being developed.
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: JLS on August 02, 2016, 09:44:09 PM
The comments about Hoppe (a rancher) were offensive to me and probably to many ranchers. I am sickened by that type of comments, some people think ranchers should just roll over to wolf predation, green agendas, loss of grazing, etc, and should not be allowed to earn a living. There's nothing wrong with trying to work with ranchers to find a better way that will benefit wildlife or the environment and that will allow ranchers to earn a living, but to say what was said about Hoppe with no more proof than was presented doesn't seem right.
I'll add additional thoughts:
If Hoppe wanted to prove that wolves would eat his sheep "even with bells on them that are supposed to deter wolves", he certainly proved it. If that was the case I still doubt Hoppe had any intention to harm the sheep. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything indicating Hoppe intended to harm the sheep. I could imagine that if someone tried to tell Hoppe what he had to do they were probably met with opposition or ignored, most ranchers are tired of people telling them what to do! I don't know what happened, I'm just trying to make sense of this and pointing out that the comments about a rancher seem uncalled for.
I have zero opposition to ranching. My best friend is a rancher. Big deal. I don't care what someone does for a living. I call a spade a spade.
Whether or not Hoppe intended to harm the sheep is irrelevant to the fact that he refused to cooperate to any alternative measures. I'll leave you to speculate as to whether he was "told what to do" or not. In the end, I really don't care. Sometimes it isn't easy to do the right thing, and to refuse to do it because you're pissed off at the government is a pretty sad excuse. The sportsmen are not the government, and shouldn't pay the price for his vendetta.
I don't hunt sheep. I don't care if I ever do. Yet I do understand how iconic sheep are to many hunters, and how limited that opportunity is and likely always will be. Some mistakes should be righted, and finding ways to restore bighorn is one or them.
You might be surprised to know that there are ranchers that are offended by Hoppe's behavior.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2016, 10:21:41 PM
The comments about Hoppe (a rancher) were offensive to me and probably to many ranchers. I am sickened by that type of comments, some people think ranchers should just roll over to wolf predation, green agendas, loss of grazing, etc, and should not be allowed to earn a living. There's nothing wrong with trying to work with ranchers to find a better way that will benefit wildlife or the environment and that will allow ranchers to earn a living, but to say what was said about Hoppe with no more proof than was presented doesn't seem right.
I'll add additional thoughts:
If Hoppe wanted to prove that wolves would eat his sheep "even with bells on them that are supposed to deter wolves", he certainly proved it. If that was the case I still doubt Hoppe had any intention to harm the sheep. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything indicating Hoppe intended to harm the sheep. I could imagine that if someone tried to tell Hoppe what he had to do they were probably met with opposition or ignored, most ranchers are tired of people telling them what to do! I don't know what happened, I'm just trying to make sense of this and pointing out that the comments about a rancher seem uncalled for.
I have zero opposition to ranching. My best friend is a rancher. Big deal. I don't care what someone does for a living. I call a spade a spade.
Whether or not Hoppe intended to harm the sheep is irrelevant to the fact that he refused to cooperate to any alternative measures. I'll leave you to speculate as to whether he was "told what to do" or not. In the end, I really don't care. Sometimes it isn't easy to do the right thing, and to refuse to do it because you're pissed off at the government is a pretty sad excuse. The sportsmen are not the government, and shouldn't pay the price for his vendetta.
I don't hunt sheep. I don't care if I ever do. Yet I do understand how iconic sheep are to many hunters, and how limited that opportunity is and likely always will be. Some mistakes should be righted, and finding ways to restore bighorn is one or them.
You might be surprised to know that there are ranchers that are offended by Hoppe's behavior.
I still see no proof of how Hoppe intended to harm the sheep? I don't know Hoppe, as far as I know I don't know you, but by your own words and attitude I can see how the situation was likely handled if you were involved! :twocents:
Quote
I still think you may be wrong because if Hoppe was trying to bait the wolves or if he didn't care about the wild sheep coming close, why would he put bells on his sheep? It seems he wanted wildlife to avoid his sheep by putting bells on them, we do that with our hounds to try and deter wolves and it seems to work most of the time. Either way, I really doubt Hoppe intended for the sheep to get sick and die if in fact that was caused by his sheep. I honestly don't see any mention in the articles of what the WSF proposed and what Hoppe refused to do? I've got a lot of friends who are ranchers, most have a real concern for the land and the wildlife and take better care of the land and wildlife than what agencies do with our public lands.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2016, 10:28:21 PM
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Call it smearing if you want. I wanted to point out what a hypocrite Bill Hoppe is/was. He has no trouble decrying the loss of elk, yet completely disregards the risk he was posing to bighorn sheep.
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
I've stated my opinions on both the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds a number of times. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here. Wolves were native to Yellowstone. Pneumonia bacteria were never native to North America until they were brought here. As far as selectivity? No, I want to see healthy elk herds everywhere they can be supported. It's not black and white how wolves affect elk. The St. Joe elk herd has never rebounded from the tremendous winterkills of 97-98, while the elk herds north and east of there have. Is it wolves, or is it something else? Both areas have healthy wolf populations, so there is some variable in there that needs to be taken into consideration.
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Show to me a legal document that declares the release of the wolves was unlawful? I was never in favor of the releases either, but to call them illegal is disingenuous.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine.
I have to agree with wolfbait on the illegal release, money was illegally diverted from Pittman Robertson to fund the wolf plantings. Unfortunately it's like Hillary's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation, the USFWS people involved will never be held accountable. The diversion of funds is on the congressional record.
Post by: wolfbait on August 03, 2016, 07:27:23 AM
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Call it smearing if you want. I wanted to point out what a hypocrite Bill Hoppe is/was. He has no trouble decrying the loss of elk, yet completely disregards the risk he was posing to bighorn sheep.
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
I've stated my opinions on both the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds a number of times. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here. Wolves were native to Yellowstone. Pneumonia bacteria were never native to North America until they were brought here. As far as selectivity? No, I want to see healthy elk herds everywhere they can be supported. It's not black and white how wolves affect elk. The St. Joe elk herd has never rebounded from the tremendous winterkills of 97-98, while the elk herds north and east of there have. Is it wolves, or is it something else? Both areas have healthy wolf populations, so there is some variable in there that needs to be taken into consideration.
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Show to me a legal document that declares the release of the wolves was unlawful? I was never in favor of the releases either, but to call them illegal is disingenuous.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine.
You should probably read this JLS
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done? http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
"I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine."
Sheep must have some sort of Magic that keeps the wolves away, interesting. According to all the info I have read wolves are opportunist killers.
I see now there is info that states wolves only kill a few sheep. :roll eyes:
"Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance."
Not wolves, or the over protection of predators, right JLS?
Post by: JLS on August 03, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Call it smearing if you want. I wanted to point out what a hypocrite Bill Hoppe is/was. He has no trouble decrying the loss of elk, yet completely disregards the risk he was posing to bighorn sheep.
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
I've stated my opinions on both the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds a number of times. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here. Wolves were native to Yellowstone. Pneumonia bacteria were never native to North America until they were brought here. As far as selectivity? No, I want to see healthy elk herds everywhere they can be supported. It's not black and white how wolves affect elk. The St. Joe elk herd has never rebounded from the tremendous winterkills of 97-98, while the elk herds north and east of there have. Is it wolves, or is it something else? Both areas have healthy wolf populations, so there is some variable in there that needs to be taken into consideration.
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Show to me a legal document that declares the release of the wolves was unlawful? I was never in favor of the releases either, but to call them illegal is disingenuous.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine.
You should probably read this JLS
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done? http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
"I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine."
Sheep must have some sort of Magic that keeps the wolves away, interesting. According to all the info I have read wolves are opportunist killers.
I see now there is info that states wolves only kill a few sheep. :roll eyes:
"Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance."
Not wolves, or the over protection of predators, right JLS?
I gave you some real world examples and questions that are logical to ask. This is really the best you can come up with in terms of intelligent discussion? I'm not being a smart a$$.
Do you have an answer to the St. Joe elk herd question? I don't. Numbers in the Dworshak and Palouse regions are through the roof right now, but numbers in the Joe have never rebounded. There are wolves across all of these hunt units. What is different? I'm looking for thought provoking answers, not citing some article by Tom Remington or Jim Beers.
Sometimes you have to think outside of your existing paradigm to find answers. I would refer to you Craig Jourdanais' research on the Bitterroot elk herds as an example. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, and if you're not willing to try to find the right one you'll never make any progress towards better management. Isn't that what we all want?
Post by: JLS on August 03, 2016, 01:03:34 PM
I still see no proof of how Hoppe intended to harm the sheep? I don't know Hoppe, as far as I know I don't know you, but by your own words and attitude I can see how the situation was likely handled if you were involved! :twocents:
You might be overestimating your omniscience by a fair bit, and might be surprised to find your assumptions are not nearly as accurate as you might believe.
I don't sugarcoat things. No differently than the criticisms I've directed towards WDFWs LHP/land access programs, their handling of the wolf management plan, or the delisting process for wolves.
You seem fixated on offering a myriad of reasons why Bill Hoppe chose to do nothing to prevent co-mingling of his sheep and the bighorn sheep. Whatever. He had no legal obligation to do so and I stated as much early on. However, I think it quite fair to say that conservation ethic would dictate the person would do the RIGHT thing, which is to take measures to prevent co-mingling. Hoppe did not.
I cannot speak to his reasons why, I just know he refused to do the right thing. It makes no difference to me whether he is a sheep rancher, a priest, or a checkout clerk at Wal Mart. His actions reflect very poorly on him as a conservationist, which he then turns around and tries to portray himself as in the Yellowstone elk herd issue.
It makes me laugh how you seem to characterize me. My best friend happens to raise both cattle and sheep (gasp). He is fully aware and cognizant of his potential impacts on wildlife. We have some great conversations about such issues. While we don't always agree on everything, I respect the heck out of him because he is always willing to do what is right, even when it doesn't directly benefit him. I'm a public lands hunter advocate, and he's a stockgrower, and yet we share many common ideologies and philosophies. Not all walks of life have to be mutually exclusive.
Peace out.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with WSF in any way, nor do any of my statements reflect the opinions or stances of WSF.
Post by: wolfbait on August 03, 2016, 08:48:01 PM
Getting back to the real reason you posted, trying to smear Bill Hoppe?
Call it smearing if you want. I wanted to point out what a hypocrite Bill Hoppe is/was. He has no trouble decrying the loss of elk, yet completely disregards the risk he was posing to bighorn sheep.
Funny how folks pick and choose their topic of defending the ungulates. Whats your take on the Yellowstone elk herd or the Lolo elk herd? Just too many old sick elk? Or is it all about habitat?
I've stated my opinions on both the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds a number of times. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here. Wolves were native to Yellowstone. Pneumonia bacteria were never native to North America until they were brought here. As far as selectivity? No, I want to see healthy elk herds everywhere they can be supported. It's not black and white how wolves affect elk. The St. Joe elk herd has never rebounded from the tremendous winterkills of 97-98, while the elk herds north and east of there have. Is it wolves, or is it something else? Both areas have healthy wolf populations, so there is some variable in there that needs to be taken into consideration.
Hoppe's making money raising sheep, doing it legally, unlike the USFWS etc. who released the wolves and then protected them for several years.
Show to me a legal document that declares the release of the wolves was unlawful? I was never in favor of the releases either, but to call them illegal is disingenuous.
Wonder what the sheep herd would look like today, without the wolf introduction?
I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine.
You should probably read this JLS
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done? http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
"I don't know about this herd specifically, but as a whole across the northern Rockies, the presence of wolves is a very small blip on the radar in terms of significance when it comes to sheep populations. Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance. There have been wolves in the Bob Marshall for many years, yet the sheep districts on the eastern Rocky Mountain front continue to do just fine."
Sheep must have some sort of Magic that keeps the wolves away, interesting. According to all the info I have read wolves are opportunist killers.
I see now there is info that states wolves only kill a few sheep. :roll eyes:
"Disease, habitat loss, and migration corridor integrity are much higher in terms of importance."
Not wolves, or the over protection of predators, right JLS?
I gave you some real world examples and questions that are logical to ask. This is really the best you can come up with in terms of intelligent discussion? I'm not being a smart a$$.
Do you have an answer to the St. Joe elk herd question? I don't. Numbers in the Dworshak and Palouse regions are through the roof right now, but numbers in the Joe have never rebounded. There are wolves across all of these hunt units. What is different? I'm looking for thought provoking answers, not citing some article by Tom Remington or Jim Beers.
Sometimes you have to think outside of your existing paradigm to find answers. I would refer to you Craig Jourdanais' research on the Bitterroot elk herds as an example. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, and if you're not willing to try to find the right one you'll never make any progress towards better management. Isn't that what we all want?
"I'm looking for thought provoking answers, not citing some article by Tom Remington or Jim Beers."
And yet you "refer" me to Craig Jourdanais'"
I think you probably need to read up a bit more, JLS. I will post another good read for you tomorrow.
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
Post by: JLS on August 03, 2016, 09:17:06 PM
Why do you act like Craig Jourdanais is not a credible resource?
Post by: wolfbait on August 04, 2016, 09:22:25 PM
So I take it you're not going to answer my questions? :dunno:
Why do you act like Craig Jourdanais is not a credible resource?
Can you post a link on Craig Jourdanais?
Post by: csaaphill on August 06, 2016, 12:43:19 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2016, 01:06:30 AM
I still see no proof of how Hoppe intended to harm the sheep? I don't know Hoppe, as far as I know I don't know you, but by your own words and attitude I can see how the situation was likely handled if you were involved! :twocents:
You might be overestimating your omniscience by a fair bit, and might be surprised to find your assumptions are not nearly as accurate as you might believe.
I don't sugarcoat things. No differently than the criticisms I've directed towards WDFWs LHP/land access programs, their handling of the wolf management plan, or the delisting process for wolves.
You seem fixated on offering a myriad of reasons why Bill Hoppe chose to do nothing to prevent co-mingling of his sheep and the bighorn sheep. Whatever. He had no legal obligation to do so and I stated as much early on. However, I think it quite fair to say that conservation ethic would dictate the person would do the RIGHT thing, which is to take measures to prevent co-mingling. Hoppe did not.
I cannot speak to his reasons why, I just know he refused to do the right thing. It makes no difference to me whether he is a sheep rancher, a priest, or a checkout clerk at Wal Mart. His actions reflect very poorly on him as a conservationist, which he then turns around and tries to portray himself as in the Yellowstone elk herd issue.
It makes me laugh how you seem to characterize me. My best friend happens to raise both cattle and sheep (gasp). He is fully aware and cognizant of his potential impacts on wildlife. We have some great conversations about such issues. While we don't always agree on everything, I respect the heck out of him because he is always willing to do what is right, even when it doesn't directly benefit him. I'm a public lands hunter advocate, and he's a stockgrower, and yet we share many common ideologies and philosophies. Not all walks of life have to be mutually exclusive.
Peace out.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with WSF in any way, nor do any of my statements reflect the opinions or stances of WSF.
Glad to hear you're not biased against ranchers in general. :tup:
Considering that Hoppe had bells on his sheep to ward away wild animals it seems that he was not inviting wild sheep into the pasture. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen a reason to think differently! I guess you can go ahead with hating him, but I'll wait to see some proof that he is what you say he is before I pass judgement!
Have a great day!
Post by: JLS on August 06, 2016, 07:00:04 AM
So I take it you're not going to answer my questions? :dunno:
Why do you act like Craig Jourdanais is not a credible resource?
Can you post a link on Craig Jourdanais?
http://www.intermountainjournal.org/browse/authors/jourdonnais-craig/
Here are a few. The Bitterroot elk study is a very good read. It came in my handbook on "How to be an Effective Shill". :)