Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 08:49:56 AM
Wolves kill calf; rancher rethinks grazing plan
Cattleman says his grazing allotment in the Colville National Forest has been great, but wolves may drive him out.
A northeast Washington rancher says he may quit a U.S. Forest Service grazing allotment that he’s had since the 1980s after wolves killed one of his calves Sunday in northern Ferry County.
Ron Eslick, 71, said the Black Angus calf, a week and a half old, was the first animal he’s lost to wolves, as far as he knows. He said he will look into grazing on private pastures this summer rather than risk losing more livestock on an open range.
“It’s been a perfect range,” Eslick said. “I don’t want to give it up, but I’m not going to feed the wolves.”
Several sources said the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed that the calf was killed by wolves. The department did not respond to requests for details and confirmation.
It’s unclear which wolfpack attacked the calf, though the herd was close to the Togo pack’s territory in northern Ferry County. Togo was one of four new packs identified by Fish and Wildlife in 2017. It has not been officially blamed for any previous depredations.
Eslick has a permit to graze cattle on the Jasper allotment in the Colville National Forest.
Eslick said a neighbor saw the wolf over the calf. The wolf left, leaving the partially eaten carcass.
“A lot of the quarters were eaten off,” he said. “If we had come two hours later, it would have been eaten and nobody would have known anything about it.”
Eslick said the calf was killed about 600 yards from his brother’s home and was found on federal land just inside the boundary with private land north of Orient, an unincorporated community that borders Stevens County.
Eslick said officials suggested he could put flashing lights on the 1,300-acre allotment to prevent wolf attacks. He said he’s checking on the condition of fences on pastures about 12 miles away.
Fish and Wildlife has adopted a policy of releasing information about wolf attacks on its own delayed schedule.
“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,” Cattle Producers of Washington President Scott Nielsen said. “There’s been less information, and it’s getting progressively worse.”
Quote
“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,”No, so I will. We all need to share the information.
Post by: jackelope on May 24, 2018, 09:31:29 AM
Post by: boneaddict on May 24, 2018, 09:34:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 24, 2018, 09:43:10 AM
Post by: Special T on May 24, 2018, 10:17:44 AM
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 24, 2018, 10:32:11 AM
This is Brilliant!! :yike: :yike: Who is going to pay for the lights and just how did they propose to run them? And how many lights do you need on that much area? How far apart are they reccomending on spacing?
Post by: Oh Mah on May 24, 2018, 11:17:24 AM
Post by: boneaddict on May 24, 2018, 11:29:08 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 11:47:42 AM
Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit. Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: nwwanderer on May 24, 2018, 12:24:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 24, 2018, 12:46:55 PM
Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit. Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 01:09:32 PM
So in an ever changing world it's the governments responsibility to support ranchers forever? Again, I will defer to capitalism.Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit. Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 24, 2018, 01:13:22 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 04:28:31 PM
So in an ever changing world it's the governments responsibility to support ranchers forever? Again, I will defer to capitalism.Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit. Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.
Your argument is flawed, more livestock have been killed by wolves on private ground than on public grazing leases, you know this, we've discussed it, you don't care. This "capitalism" argument that your using now is as disingenuous as you are.
Post by: jackelope on May 24, 2018, 04:33:41 PM
:dunno:
I'm curious how the rancher thinks putting his cattle on private pasture will help? Maybe it's in a different location?
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 04:45:01 PM
His ground borders right up against thick cover, wolves can come and go with impunity, he can't shoot them, he can't trap them, nothing the wolf huggers want him to do will work.
Another rancher nearby did all that stuff, he invited WDFW, CNW DOW whomever to come and use non lethal means to protect his livestock on his private property.
I was laughing and shaking my head (a humorless laugh) at his blinking lights and fladry then super fladry, wolves don't give a crap about all that stuff, he had dead calves inside the little enclosure of all these tricks. Fladery and all that crap is just feel good propaganda for people in the city who don't know any better what goes on out here.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 04:45:38 PM
Did I say that the government should support the ranchers? No, I didn't say anything even resembling that. What I said was those predators' protections weren't part of the equation when the ranchers' ancestors "made the choice" to settle there. Rightfully, wolves were being heavily controlled and that control was being pushed by the government with equal fervor as the cattlemen. It was the government which changed the rules of the game.Yes, government policies and laws changed. That's life...happens all the time...whats you're point if you are not suggesting the government owes the ranchers something? My stance is, capitalism will play out and people will either survive or go out of business. Sounds like this rancher may have to move his cattle to private ground where it must be safer in his view so he can continue to make a profit...good for him...that's capitalism.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 04:49:04 PM
What you bolded is not specific to public or private ground...wherever you choose to run a cattle operation, part of the equation needs to include the effect of predators. Period. I get that predators have increased as a result of government policies...that's life...deal with it or go out of business.So in an ever changing world it's the governments responsibility to support ranchers forever? Again, I will defer to capitalism.Isn't this what the enviros want? Ranching off public land?I support capitalism and free markets...if a rancher determines the costs are too great to continue grazing on public lands then he is free to move or change his operation in any manner consistent with law to ensure he maintains a profit. Part of the cost/benefit analysis needs to be expected losses as a result of predators if you choose to graze in areas where predators are present.
The irony should be thick that we will see more feed lots when these same kinds of people want free range grass fed beef.
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You final statement ignores the facts of ranching history. Most of the people who started ranches in that area had already dealt with and controlled a majority of the predators who threatened their assets and livelihood. Bringing the wolves back came after they made their "choices" decades prior. It is a fact that many of the ranchers rejected the wolf plan exactly because of that - they'd built their ranches and homes for generations, understanding they had the government's support and indeed, their help in controlling wolves. You may go on to say that they have a choice to stay in the ranching business but that's not really a choice at all.
Your argument is flawed, more livestock have been killed by wolves on private ground than on public grazing leases, you know this, we've discussed it, you don't care. This "capitalism" argument that your using now is as disingenuous as you are.
Post by: gaddy on May 24, 2018, 05:02:50 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 05:15:34 PM
Post by: timberfaller on May 24, 2018, 05:25:15 PM
The Association told the "Powers that be" you pull or force us off the range's "you'll see sitting here in Spokane the results. Cattle keep the forest floor clean and beat back the brush thickets. The sky's will glow from wildfires."They were and still are right about that prediction!!
"Environmentalism" has caused more damage to habitats and loss of forest revenue then any four legged bovine ever has! Putting the wolf back into the equitation just screwed it up even more BUT it fits the agenda!
Post by: nwwanderer on May 24, 2018, 05:27:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 05:32:36 PM
I'll bring this into the debate! Some time ago(30+ years, pre wolf) the Cattleman's Association held a meeting in Spokane because of the "greenies" taking over the USFS and other agency's controlling the ranges. This in turn was creating financial woe's on the cattlemen who put their cattle on public land. Of course this all fell on deaf ears, didn't fit the coming agenda.
The Association told the "Powers that be" you pull or force us off the range's "you'll see sitting here in Spokane the results. Cattle keep the forest floor clean and beat back the brush thickets. The sky's will glow from wildfires."They were and still are right about that prediction!!
"Environmentalism" has caused more damage to habitats and loss of forest revenue then any four legged bovine ever has! Putting the wolf back into the equitation just screwed it up even more BUT it fits the agenda!
Exactly right, this has been going on for many years, the loggers have been fighting many of the same battles as cattlemen.
Unfortunately there's too many hunters that tend to side with the tree huggers, they're either too naive to see that hunting is in the cross hairs too, or they're so selfish they'd see their enemy (tree huggers) destroy their other enemy (ranchers) just so they can have cattle free hunting, and what really galls me is some hunters believe the nonsense about over grazing and have no idea that proper grazing can and does improves hunting and habitat :DOH:
If these guys had their way all cattle would be off range, and we'd see 6 foot tall grasses that lacks neutrition go up in monster flames, again and again. Nature abhores a vacuum, if it isn't eaten it'll be burnt.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 24, 2018, 05:40:52 PM
The gov't will get less money...
The rancher may go out of business...
Beef Prices will rise...
Fuel load for forest fires will increase...risking life, property etc., let alone the cost to fight.
And some cheer this on in the name of capitalism.....? :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 05:47:54 PM
Post by: yorketransport on May 24, 2018, 05:52:13 PM
Or deal with the predators that weren't here when the business started.
Shouldn't a business be forced to adapt to changing environmental and regulatory conditions? That's what I've always had to do in business.
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
Let's say that my folks opened a small retail store front in an area 30 years ago and I took the family business 10 years ago. When the store was opened the area was a relatively quite, bedroom community. When I took over the neighborhood dynamics had changed and now it's a growing suburb with all the complications which come with that. The cost of operating have gone up through inflation, license and tax increases, increased utilities and an increase in loss due to theft. The business was still profitable, but I was starting to take a hit to my bottom line.
Fast forward to today. Now the operating costs are even higher and just like any growing city, the business climate has changed. My taxes are higher, wages are higher, utilities have gone up, theft is increasing and the city officials are less helpful than ever. When I bring the increase in theft to city officials and law enforcement they tell me to invest in better security, which I try with some improvements but not much. I go back to the city and tell them again that I'm losing money and they're responsible for creating the environment which allows this to happen. They then tell me again that this is just the byproduct of a growing city.
At this point it's up to me, as a business owner, to figure out whether or not it's worth continuing to do business in a climate which I view as detrimental to my business. If I choose to stand my ground and remain in the same location then I'm accepting the good and bad which comes with that decision. If I'm absolutely certain the everything is going in the wrong direction then I'll just lock the doors and move on. Maybe somebody else is more willing than I am to deal with the hassles of running a business in the same climate.
I've sold 2 businesses before and it was incredibly hard both times to walk away from a profitable operation. Because of changing conditions though, it was the right decision to make in both cases and I don't regret it. The wolves are here and it's very unlikely that anything is going to change that. If I were a cattle rancher I would probably be taking a very close look at whether or not I could remain profitable with the increasing numbers of wolves. If I weren't willing or able to absorb the loss caused by wolves then it would be up to me to make the decision whether or not to stay in the business. It's not WDFW, the state, the Feds or anybody else's job to make sure your business remains profitable. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 06:05:36 PM
the government outlawed all your traps and poison and your right to defend your store from rampaging mice that are destroying all your product. The giant mice are protected so they can come and go as they please and you can't do anything about it. In complaining to the government, they said you can leave all your lights on in the store all night long since the mice only come out at night and by leaving all your lights on that'll trick them into staying in hiding but you get to pay the power bill for all those bright lights on 24/7 :rolleyes: Ya right, you know better than that huh, your disgusted by the government lunacy and you know that mice still come out even when the lights are on so it's nonsense to incur all those higher cost electric bills, so you leave them off.
The mice breed and multiply and start getting into other business's, due to the increased pressure the government comes in and kills a couple mice but leave 100's of others in your neighbors stores, they come right back next season.
Now all the mice huggers are mad at you for not doing your part in using non lethal control measures like leaving bright flood lights on 24/7, and installing mouse beepers and hanging ribbons and motion controlled confetti guns, they bocoytt your store, they threaten your families lives, you can't open shop anywhere, the value of your shop due to the mice infestation has plummeted, the government forecloses your store due to diseases and ruined walls.
You go on food stamps and sell all your guns and toys, miserable you wish you could move but your stuck where you are.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 24, 2018, 06:12:29 PM
http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestock/20180523/wolves-kill-calf-rancher-rethinks-grazing-plan
Wolves kill calf; rancher rethinks grazing plan
Cattleman says his grazing allotment in the Colville National Forest has been great, but wolves may drive him out.
A northeast Washington rancher says he may quit a U.S. Forest Service grazing allotment that he’s had since the 1980s after wolves killed one of his calves Sunday in northern Ferry County.
Ron Eslick, 71, said the Black Angus calf, a week and a half old, was the first animal he’s lost to wolves, as far as he knows. He said he will look into grazing on private pastures this summer rather than risk losing more livestock on an open range.
“It’s been a perfect range,” Eslick said. “I don’t want to give it up, but I’m not going to feed the wolves.”
Several sources said the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed that the calf was killed by wolves. The department did not respond to requests for details and confirmation.
It’s unclear which wolfpack attacked the calf, though the herd was close to the Togo pack’s territory in northern Ferry County. Togo was one of four new packs identified by Fish and Wildlife in 2017. It has not been officially blamed for any previous depredations.
Eslick has a permit to graze cattle on the Jasper allotment in the Colville National Forest.
Eslick said a neighbor saw the wolf over the calf. The wolf left, leaving the partially eaten carcass.
“A lot of the quarters were eaten off,” he said. “If we had come two hours later, it would have been eaten and nobody would have known anything about it.”
Eslick said the calf was killed about 600 yards from his brother’s home and was found on federal land just inside the boundary with private land north of Orient, an unincorporated community that borders Stevens County.
Eslick said officials suggested he could put flashing lights on the 1,300-acre allotment to prevent wolf attacks. He said he’s checking on the condition of fences on pastures about 12 miles away.
Fish and Wildlife has adopted a policy of releasing information about wolf attacks on its own delayed schedule.
“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,” Cattle Producers of Washington President Scott Nielsen said. “There’s been less information, and it’s getting progressively worse.”Quote“I don’t think WDFW has a lot of interest in telling people what’s happening up here,”No, so I will. We all need to share the information.
Funny thing is, wolves have been in the town of Danville and hanging around there since 2014. Funny how the WDFW is ran by idiots.
Post by: gaddy on May 24, 2018, 06:25:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 06:32:59 PM
They'll go years not turning a profit then a couple stellar years and they'll finally be able to get some badly needed new equipment that's be dilapidated for way too long.
They'll endure the ups and downs, they always have, but slowly they'll get weeded down and disappear as their kids move off or they sell out and a bunch houses go in, but hey at least all them new home owners won't be running cattle eh?
Post by: yorketransport on May 24, 2018, 06:42:59 PM
epic strawman, but to bring it back to some semblance of relevancy.....
the government outlawed all your traps and poison and your right to defend your store from rampaging mice that are destroying all your product. The giant mice are protected so they can come and go as they please and you can't do anything about it. In complaining to the government, they said you can leave all your lights on in the store all night long since the mice only come out at night and by leaving all your lights on that'll trick them into staying in hiding but you get to pay the power bill for all those bright lights on 24/7 :rolleyes: Ya right, you know better than that huh, your disgusted by the government lunacy and you know that mice still come out even when the lights are on so it's nonsense to incur all those higher cost electric bills, so you leave them off.
The mice breed and multiply and start getting into other business's, due to the increased pressure the government comes in and kills a couple mice but leave 100's of others in your neighbors stores, they come right back next season.
Now all the mice huggers are mad at you for not doing your part in using non lethal control measures like leaving bright flood lights on 24/7, and installing mouse beepers and hanging ribbons and motion controlled confetti guns, they bocoytt your store, they threaten your families lives, you can't open shop anywhere, the value of your shop due to the mice infestation has plummeted, the government forecloses your store due to diseases and ruined walls.
And all of that would be my own fault for failing to know when to get out. If my business fails because I didn't know when to cut my losses, that's my fault. That's where the capitalism argument comes in. My business, my decision to continue on knowing that the climate has shifted against me.
You go on food stamps and sell all your guns and toys, miserable you wish you could move but your stuck where you are.
So you blame the government for the failure of your business, then go to them and ask for a handout? That mentality is exactly the reason why the business failed in the first place. Nobody is ever stuck anywhere, you are where you are because of choices you made.
Yorke, may I call you that ? Your point is valid but running cattle is totally different than, say a store where you can up and move to a more profitable location on a different street corner.
I agree, you really can't just pick up and move a ranch; that's why I'd look to leave the industry entirely. I'm not in the cattle/livestock industry but I do hear the same concerns fairly often from people who are. It seems like land access and predator control are the constant battle. I doubt those issues are going to go away anytime soon and I'd be willing to bet that it's just going to get worse. That's the point where I'd start looking into other options so I could get out while there's still a chance to at least break even after liquidating the business. I'd rather get out now and make a small profit than wait until the end and go broke trying to save a lost cause.
Post by: yorketransport on May 24, 2018, 06:45:35 PM
It's a way of life, to say it's capitalism isn't capturing what these ranches mean to these old families.
They'll go years not turning a profit then a couple stellar years and they'll finally be able to get some badly needed new equipment that's be dilapidated for way too long.
They'll endure the ups and downs, they always have, but slowly they'll get weeded down and disappear as their kids move off or they sell out and a bunch houses go in, but hey at least all them new home owners won't be running cattle eh?
That's the problem though, it's being treated as a way of life instead of a business.
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 07:07:52 PM
Land that the US will never get back, foreigners may will keep it in perpetuity.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/07/03/foreign-investment-u-s-farmland-rise-iowa-law/448506001/
It's a good thing ranchers don't give up easily, selling out at the first sniff of profitability winds that have shifted unfavorably for a bit, had they done so we'd not have steaks on our BBQ's.
Post by: buglebrush on May 24, 2018, 07:15:00 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 07:19:51 PM
A lot of these guys just do not understand pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and making it on your own. It's all about big government helping and giving handouts. Times change. I get that it's unfortunate...I'd love to live in a fantasy nostalgic world where everything was a simpler time...laws, regulations, government policies, societal views...they all change. Keep up or get left behind.
It's the same for many other industries...construction, auto mechanics, timber, fishing, ag, retail and on and on. Ranching is no different...which is back to my original point...kudos to this rancher for finding new pastures where he can make a living. We can't have the government intervening to support everyone because times changed...even if its the governments policies and laws (ESA, wolf protection etc.) that are the change. For those who can't stand it...I guess there are a number of socialist countries you could probably relocate to where government will be there to feed and clothe you.
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 07:29:06 PM
Ranchers want government to get out the way, not come "help" them, haven't you paid attention to anything? At least I have an open dialog, you just push an agenda and lie to further it.
Post by: Mudman on May 24, 2018, 07:31:39 PM
Post by: yorketransport on May 24, 2018, 08:03:07 PM
god almighty that's a lot of hogwash :puke:
Ranchers want government to get out the way, not come "help" them, haven't you paid attention to anything? At least I have an open dialog, you just push an agenda and lie to further it.
What agenda is that? What lies have been told? Everyone has an agenda and it's foolish to ignore that. The anti wolf crowd pushes one side while the pro wolf crowd pushes the other.
I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding wolves. Killing off an entire species is an absurd thought. Letting wolves go unchecked is an equally absurd notion. I'm all for allowing regulated wolf hunting to control populations in targeted areas. That doesn't mean killing all of them though. If they weren't a native species I'd say kill every single one of them but that's not the case.
See, for many of us it's precisely the loss of our "way of life" that is so concerning. I'm so sick of you Wolf apologists telling us that or way of life doesn't matter.
Don't take it personally, but why should the rest of the state be concerned with the preservation of your way of life? Your way of life is important to you because it's your way of life. What makes your way of life more important than some other person's way of life? Maybe your way of life is having a negative impact on them. How do we decide who's opinion matters the most? Is it the loudest voice in the room or is it the higher percentage of voices?
You'll be sorry, and it'll be entirely your fault for being so arrogant.
My company actually has an official response to comments like that: I'm sorry, it's my fault. I'll try harder next time. :)
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 08:19:09 PM
Quote
I'm all for allowing regulated wolf hunting to control populations in targeted areas. That doesn't mean killing all of them though.
We are of like mind here, look at that, a commonality. We need wolves managed, we need to trap and shoot them - basically we need them to avoid people - and you do that by educating them. You can insert cougar and coyotes into the same category, and to some extent bear.
We will never be able to "kill them all" even if we wanted too, that's not even a discussion, it's just an empty statement tossed out by wolf huggers to get people who are on the fence to side with them.
Quote
Don't take it personally, but why should the rest of the state be concerned with the preservation of your way of life?
because farmers and ranchers feed you and I. When things in the US go all venezuela you'll be thankful someone can produce some food, it should be looked at as national security issue.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2018, 08:23:54 PM
god almighty that's a lot of hogwash :puke::chuckle: Yea...I have a secret agenda I'm pushing on a hunting forum that I further with lies...it's my path to world domination. :rolleyes: :tinfoil:
Ranchers want government to get out the way, not come "help" them, haven't you paid attention to anything? At least I have an open dialog, you just push an agenda and lie to further it.
I'll let you in on a big secret...my agenda is capitalism and the free market. It is entirely your prerogative to support socialism and communism. There is no need for you to hide and project lies onto others because you believe in such a form of government that I'm not in favor of...to each their own.
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 08:36:56 PM
I'm kicking back with a cerveza. My work be done.
cheers :brew:
Post by: Mudman on May 24, 2018, 09:15:59 PM
Post by: yorketransport on May 24, 2018, 10:08:08 PM
Newsflash the Grey Wolf is NOT native. Timber wolf was. Yes our Elect grid is of Nat security as well as many other things. Food n water for sure?? Farms and ranches most surely should be. Foolish to not respect or protect our food supply like we now do our water. :twocents:
It’s been nearly 18 years since I studied taxonomy in zoology, but I’m pretty confident that timber wolves are still a subspecies of the grey wolf. Since there are only 2 widely recognized species of wolves in N America (red and grey), grey wolves (also called timber wolves) are in fact native to WA state. Full disclosure, I went and verified that info with one of my old text books to be sure it was accurate
It also seems a bit dramatic to imply that wolves in Washington will lead to a catastrophic disruption in the food supply making this a national security issue. Unless the wolves are actually North Korean spies sent to disrupt the food supply and weaken the US population, making it easier to invade us....... :tinfoil:
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 10:24:40 PM
I’m pretty confident that timber wolves are still a subspecies of the grey wolf.
correct, so should they grab a bunch of arctic wolves and bring em down because they too are still a sub species of the grey wolf. USFW service talked about bringing in the larger Mackenzie valley wolves (still a subspecies of "grey wolf") and were excited that the bigger wolf than native timber wolves would take on the bison which are the true culprits of stream erosion in YNP.
Well the elk population plummeted and the bison population shot up. No one likes to talk about that.
Post by: Bango skank on May 24, 2018, 10:25:15 PM
Newsflash the Grey Wolf is NOT native. Timber wolf was. Yes our Elect grid is of Nat security as well as many other things. Food n water for sure?? Farms and ranches most surely should be. Foolish to not respect or protect our food supply like we now do our water. :twocents:
It’s been nearly 18 years since I studied taxonomy in zoology, but I’m pretty confident that timber wolves are still a subspecies of the grey wolf. Since there are only 2 widely recognized species of wolves in N America (red and grey), grey wolves (also called timber wolves) are in fact native to WA state. Full disclosure, I went and verified that info with one of my old text books to be sure it was accurate
It also seems a bit dramatic to imply that wolves in Washington will lead to a catastrophic disruption in the food supply making this a national security issue. Unless the wolves are actually North Korean spies sent to disrupt the food supply and weaken the US population, making it easier to invade us....... :tinfoil:
You took a general zoology class a couple decades ago, and youre typing from your keyboard 300+ miles from the wolf problem. Maybe you should just shut your mouth.
Post by: KFhunter on May 24, 2018, 10:28:36 PM
Quote
It also seems a bit dramatic to imply that wolves in Washington will lead to a catastrophic disruption in the food supply making this a national security issue. Unless the wolves are actually North Korean spies sent to disrupt the food supply and weaken the US population, making it easier to invade us.......
A national security issue would be forcing the Hammond's off their range so the Clinton's can sell Uranium to Russia.
Post by: jasnt on May 25, 2018, 05:58:52 AM
Post by: Special T on May 25, 2018, 07:11:44 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 25, 2018, 07:16:40 AM
I'm wondering if higher voltage electric fencing will be come the norm around the home pasture....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would guess with liability issues from tourists getting hung up in it. Most likely not. :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on May 25, 2018, 07:21:10 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 25, 2018, 07:29:06 AM
I would bet electric fence could be a viable way to protect private land....till the ground gets too dry. Then not so much
Perhaps if it was field fence and not a 4 wire. Neighbor put up the field fence to keep the coyotes out and ran a strand of barbed on the top and bottom. But they can still dig under if they are inclined.
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2018, 08:10:45 AM
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2018, 08:13:13 AM
I think it's time for another heli-hunt!
Post by: idahohuntr on May 25, 2018, 08:17:59 AM
A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 25, 2018, 08:26:35 AM
A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Cattlemen hardly want to look to the government for help. They're forced to because of the ridiculous regulations keeping them from protecting their assets. The government is hardly their protector in all of this. Rightfully, they should be able to shoot on site, trap, or poison those thieves without being required to obtain government intervention or permission.
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2018, 09:07:38 AM
A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
The government took away all the effective methods of reducing livestock predation, nice try at side stepping. :chuckle:
FYI: The rancher I mention has fully cooperated with CNW and WDFW with all the recommended deterrents. He's one heck of a nice guy, a good businessman, and will do whatever he needs to do to stay in business and meet government requirements. Flashing lights, flagging, and range riders, he does it all and will likely continue to do what they say he needs to do!
I feel bad for him, he is a model rancher for working with the system yet he is stuck swallowing huge losses. This whole mess is a farce put forth by the anti-hunters to end hunting and ranching and swallowed hook line and sinker by WDFW, politicians, some of the public, and even a few hunters!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 25, 2018, 09:38:14 AM
Post by: yorketransport on May 25, 2018, 04:57:41 PM
You took a general zoology class a couple decades ago, and youre typing from your keyboard 300+ miles from the wolf problem. Maybe you should just shut your mouth.
This just seems unproductive. What viable solution do you propose do deal with the wolves? I just pointed out that wolves are a native species, not an invasive species. If WDFW were introducing something like hyenas this would be a different issue since they're non-native.
A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
I understand where you're coming from with this, but what do you propose as a solution? I agree that predator management is an issue and I get why ranchers and others, like yourself, who are financially impacted by the issue are so passionate about it.
I fully support hunting as a method of controlling predator populations. Fairly often I'll here the "kill 'em all" line from folks though and that's an unrealistic perspective. The wolves aren't going to go away entirely and I think it's foolish to believe that will ever be a realistic expectation. So if there's always going to be conflict between ranchers and wolves, what's an acceptable percentage of loss that the ranchers should be expected to absorb?
When I worked as a department head/buyer for a small grocery store I was responsible for monitoring "shrinkage" for my department, not including scrap loss from perishable items. The obvious goal was have that number come in at zero but that wasn't realistic. 1.5-2% was considered acceptable and anything over 2.5% was a serious issue. A certain percentage of loss was expected as a part of doing business. I'll admit to being ignorant when it comes to the finances of running a large cattle operation, so I really am curious what's the percentage of gross revenue being lost to predators (specifically wolves)? Does that number factor in reimbursement (if any) provided by the state to help offset some of the loss? More importantly, what are realistic profit margins for a cattle operation when averaged out over 5 years to account for market cycles? I assume they operate on a pretty low margin so a loss of 2% every year could be crippling if a good year is only a 10% profit to begin with. But if they're operating on something like a 30% margin under normal circumstances then that 2% loss is much easier to absorb if the owner is really serious about staying in the ranching business or "life style".
Post by: wolfbait on May 25, 2018, 05:40:19 PM
This program was a complete fraud from the start. Had private citizens lied to Congress and defrauded the people the way that the USFWS and WDFW have, they'd have been thrown in prison for a great many years.
P-Man, the wolf program is working out just the way it was suppose to, driving ranchers off public lands, and in some cases driving ranchers out of business and the end of hunting.
15 Years Experience Dealing With Wolves on Montana Ranch
http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-years-experience-dealing-with-wolves-on-montana-ranch/
Wolves’ Economic Bite On Cattle Goes Way Beyond Predation
http://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/wolves-economic-bite-cattle-goes-way-beyond-predation
Wolf attacks have long-term impact on cowherd
http://www.beefmagazine.com/grazing-systems/wolf-attacks-have-long-term-impact-cowherd
Post by: wolfbait on May 25, 2018, 05:41:38 PM
While we ponder what to do about wolf/livestock predation……. out in the brush
sns=fb
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2018, 05:55:56 PM
You took a general zoology class a couple decades ago, and youre typing from your keyboard 300+ miles from the wolf problem. Maybe you should just shut your mouth.
This just seems unproductive. What viable solution do you propose do deal with the wolves? I just pointed out that wolves are a native species, not an invasive species. If WDFW were introducing something like hyenas this would be a different issue since they're non-native.A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
I understand where you're coming from with this, but what do you propose as a solution? I agree that predator management is an issue and I get why ranchers and others, like yourself, who are financially impacted by the issue are so passionate about it.
I fully support hunting as a method of controlling predator populations. Fairly often I'll here the "kill 'em all" line from folks though and that's an unrealistic perspective. The wolves aren't going to go away entirely and I think it's foolish to believe that will ever be a realistic expectation. So if there's always going to be conflict between ranchers and wolves, what's an acceptable percentage of loss that the ranchers should be expected to absorb?
When I worked as a department head/buyer for a small grocery store I was responsible for monitoring "shrinkage" for my department, not including scrap loss from perishable items. The obvious goal was have that number come in at zero but that wasn't realistic. 1.5-2% was considered acceptable and anything over 2.5% was a serious issue. A certain percentage of loss was expected as a part of doing business. I'll admit to being ignorant when it comes to the finances of running a large cattle operation, so I really am curious what's the percentage of gross revenue being lost to predators (specifically wolves)? Does that number factor in reimbursement (if any) provided by the state to help offset some of the loss? More importantly, what are realistic profit margins for a cattle operation when averaged out over 5 years to account for market cycles? I assume they operate on a pretty low margin so a loss of 2% every year could be crippling if a good year is only a 10% profit to begin with. But if they're operating on something like a 30% margin under normal circumstances then that 2% loss is much easier to absorb if the owner is really serious about staying in the ranching business or "life style".
Answer for Wolves:
Allow Management Of The Wolves Like Other Species
Answer for Cougar:
Quit reducing the quotas, we are practically to the point that cats are not being hunted at all, and history shows that when more cougar hunting took place we did not have near as many predation problems.
Since Idaho has started hunting wolves the problems have been greatly reduced. I never said a single word about killing every wolf, I don't think I've ever said that in my entire life, I have no idea where you come up with that.
Post by: KFhunter on May 25, 2018, 06:13:28 PM
When it comes down to the brass tacks no one expects that they'll all be killed, or even could be killed, and if they truly do want 100% of the wolves killed then so be it, it's irrelevant, it won't happen, it can't happen. It's an empty argument to keep throwing this in all our faces.
Post by: Mudman on May 25, 2018, 06:47:26 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 25, 2018, 06:55:21 PM
WDF&wolves and Washingtons Wildlife
While we ponder what to do about wolf/livestock predation……. out in the brush
sns=fb
Like to bump this to the next page, as this is what WDF&wolves represent, and the really sorry fact is that WDFW knew without a doubt what the wolves would do to WA. Sick Bunch
Post by: jackson7 on May 25, 2018, 07:04:28 PM
Ignore the trolls, good points. For the record, I am a capitalist[not sure what it matters here.]
A good debater could argue either way, however there is only 1 right way. Thx for the info gentlemen.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 25, 2018, 07:34:00 PM
Post by: yorketransport on May 25, 2018, 07:35:30 PM
Answer for Wolves:
Allow Management Of The Wolves Like Other Species
Answer for Cougar:
Quit reducing the quotas, we are practically to the point that cats are not being hunted at all, and history shows that when more cougar hunting took place we did not have near as many predation problems.
Since Idaho has started hunting wolves the problems have been greatly reduced. I never said a single word about killing every wolf, I don't think I've ever said that in my entire life, I have no idea where you come up with that.
Sorry Dale, I didn't mean to imply that you've ever supported the elimination of wolves entirely. The Idaho model is pretty much what I'd expect to be a realistic management plan. Whether or not that will be applied in WA is tough to say.
We've all heard the catechisms "smoke a pack a day" "kill em all" "SSS" and that's all they are, catechisms.
When it comes down to the brass tacks no one expects that they'll all be killed, or even could be killed, and if they truly do want 100% of the wolves killed then so be it, it's irrelevant, it won't happen, it can't happen. It's an empty argument to keep throwing this in all our faces.
Catechisms or not, what the extremists say will be used to judge the masses. :twocents:
As for your deleted comment about my two "failed businesses", the grocery store and my lack of farming and ranching experience, I think you missed the point. None of my businesses failed, I sold them when they were no longer meeting my profit margin expectations. I committed to selling the online store I had 17 years ago as soon as my profit margins dropped bellow 20%. Despite net profits increasing my actual margins were starting to go down because of increased operating costs. Instead of waiting for the business to fail, I sold it and moved on. Business number 2 was a delivery company I operated for 13 years which at one point employed 34 full time workers. That one was sold because, once again, increased operating expenses (taxes, wages, etc) were reducing my margins. The final decision was made because I was going to be forced to relocate and that was going to drive my margins down below the 25% standard I set.
The whole point was that business is nothing more than regulating profit and loss. If you choose to stay in business knowing that something is going to drive down you profit margins then that's your choice to make. If ranchers are concerned that wolves are driving down profitability then why not treat it more like a business than a "life style" and make the necessary changes. Whether they remain in business and accept the increased loss or get out entirely because it's no longer worth it is a choice the rancher needs to make as a business owner.
Post by: R2Rcoulee on May 26, 2018, 07:09:56 AM
Post by: Tbar on May 26, 2018, 07:49:46 AM
Do you feel the same about deer and elk?A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Cattlemen hardly want to look to the government for help. They're forced to because of the ridiculous regulations keeping them from protecting their assets. The government is hardly their protector in all of this. Rightfully, they should be able to shoot on site, trap, or poison those thieves without being required to obtain government intervention or permission.
Post by: hunter399 on May 26, 2018, 08:09:06 AM
It kinda sucks to pay for lease that you can't use due to wolves.
Post by: R2Rcoulee on May 26, 2018, 09:14:13 AM
Do you feel the same about deer and elk?A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Cattlemen hardly want to look to the government for help. They're forced to because of the ridiculous regulations keeping them from protecting their assets. The government is hardly their protector in all of this. Rightfully, they should be able to shoot on site, trap, or poison those thieves without being required to obtain government intervention or permission.
I believe orchardists can shoot deer if they are damaging their trees.
Post by: nwwanderer on May 26, 2018, 09:25:48 AM
Post by: Tbar on May 26, 2018, 10:13:21 AM
Without intervention or permission?Do you feel the same about deer and elk?A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:No, it's more like some business owners recognize theft could be a factor in profits, and so they invest in ways to minimize those losses. Other businesses might turn a blind eye to theft and say its the governments responsibility to always protect them from any theft so they don't lift a finger. If theft becomes a major problem...who do you think remains in business?
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
Cattlemen hardly want to look to the government for help. They're forced to because of the ridiculous regulations keeping them from protecting their assets. The government is hardly their protector in all of this. Rightfully, they should be able to shoot on site, trap, or poison those thieves without being required to obtain government intervention or permission.
I believe orchardists can shoot deer if they are damaging their trees.
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2018, 11:11:49 AM
Answer for Wolves:
Allow Management Of The Wolves Like Other Species
Answer for Cougar:
Quit reducing the quotas, we are practically to the point that cats are not being hunted at all, and history shows that when more cougar hunting took place we did not have near as many predation problems.
Since Idaho has started hunting wolves the problems have been greatly reduced. I never said a single word about killing every wolf, I don't think I've ever said that in my entire life, I have no idea where you come up with that.
Sorry Dale, I didn't mean to imply that you've ever supported the elimination of wolves entirely. The Idaho model is pretty much what I'd expect to be a realistic management plan. Whether or not that will be applied in WA is tough to say.
No worries, just didn't want anyone thinking that was my position. My beef (pun intended) is that wolves are not being managed, in fact this state is managing cougar less and less. We must be vocal about this if we want any changes in the future.
Unfortunately most of western WA voters (the majority) either don't understand rural living or could care less what happens to people trying to earn a living in rural areas. I don't think some people understand the concept of people calling an area their home and not wanting to move or sell their ranch, it's not just a business, it's not a corporate agriculture business, to be bought and sold depending on profits, these ranches are a family heritage often passed down for generations in a family. Some people say ranchers should be making a living elsewhere doing something different. On the other hand I don't hear any ranchers telling city dwellers where to live or how they should be earning a living? I probably didn't explain this as well as I should, but I hope it made sense.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 30, 2018, 06:40:20 PM
Supporting KF and bearpaw. 2 individuals with much more experience than others.
Ignore the trolls, good points. For the record, I am a capitalist[not sure what it matters here.]
A good debater could argue either way, however there is only 1 right way. Thx for the info gentlemen.
KF is the worst troll on this site. Right KF ?
Post by: elkchaser54 on June 02, 2018, 10:19:59 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 02, 2018, 10:51:18 AM
Answer for Wolves:
Allow Management Of The Wolves Like Other Species
Answer for Cougar:
Quit reducing the quotas, we are practically to the point that cats are not being hunted at all, and history shows that when more cougar hunting took place we did not have near as many predation problems.
Since Idaho has started hunting wolves the problems have been greatly reduced. I never said a single word about killing every wolf, I don't think I've ever said that in my entire life, I have no idea where you come up with that.
Sorry Dale, I didn't mean to imply that you've ever supported the elimination of wolves entirely. The Idaho model is pretty much what I'd expect to be a realistic management plan. Whether or not that will be applied in WA is tough to say.
No worries, just didn't want anyone thinking that was my position. My beef (pun intended) is that wolves are not being managed, in fact this state is managing cougar less and less. We must be vocal about this if we want any changes in the future.
Unfortunately most of western WA voters (the majority) either don't understand rural living or could care less what happens to people trying to earn a living in rural areas. I don't think some people understand the concept of people calling an area their home and not wanting to move or sell their ranch, it's not just a business, it's not a corporate agriculture business, to be bought and sold depending on profits, these ranches are a family heritage often passed down for generations in a family. Some people say ranchers should be making a living elsewhere doing something different. On the other hand I don't hear any ranchers telling city dwellers where to live or how they should be earning a living? I probably didn't explain this as well as I should, but I hope it made sense.
Some of us in the wetside absolutely understand and care about the predator apocalypse taking place in the NE and what is happening to ranches, other businesses, and the people who live there. It's criminal, literally.
Post by: Dan-o on June 02, 2018, 12:19:07 PM
You took a general zoology class a couple decades ago, and youre typing from your keyboard 300+ miles from the wolf problem. Maybe you should just shut your mouth.
This just seems unproductive. What viable solution do you propose do deal with the wolves? I just pointed out that wolves are a native species, not an invasive species. If WDFW were introducing something like hyenas this would be a different issue since they're non-native.A cougar killed 1 calf and 4 lambs at a ranch near Colville. The lambs were killed in and drug out of the back yard! :yike:
Same rancher had cattle chewed up by wolves last year!
This massive increase in livestock predation over the last two decades is a direct result of a lack of predator management. I'm saying it again, this rests squarely on the shoulders of politicians and wdfw management who refuse to manage predators in Washington and pander to the anti-hunting groups.
It's against forum rules for me to say what I what I think about some of the pathetic comments I've read in this topic! None of these ranchers had serious problems until predator numbers were allowed to explode. Maybe every business in America should have to allow thieves to roam their stores and take whatever they like, that would just be a change in society that all businesses should have to deal with! WOW :bash:
I understand where you're coming from with this, but what do you propose as a solution? I agree that predator management is an issue and I get why ranchers and others, like yourself, who are financially impacted by the issue are so passionate about it.
I fully support hunting as a method of controlling predator populations. Fairly often I'll here the "kill 'em all" line from folks though and that's an unrealistic perspective. The wolves aren't going to go away entirely and I think it's foolish to believe that will ever be a realistic expectation. So if there's always going to be conflict between ranchers and wolves, what's an acceptable percentage of loss that the ranchers should be expected to absorb?
When I worked as a department head/buyer for a small grocery store I was responsible for monitoring "shrinkage" for my department, not including scrap loss from perishable items. The obvious goal was have that number come in at zero but that wasn't realistic. 1.5-2% was considered acceptable and anything over 2.5% was a serious issue. A certain percentage of loss was expected as a part of doing business. I'll admit to being ignorant when it comes to the finances of running a large cattle operation, so I really am curious what's the percentage of gross revenue being lost to predators (specifically wolves)? Does that number factor in reimbursement (if any) provided by the state to help offset some of the loss? More importantly, what are realistic profit margins for a cattle operation when averaged out over 5 years to account for market cycles? I assume they operate on a pretty low margin so a loss of 2% every year could be crippling if a good year is only a 10% profit to begin with. But if they're operating on something like a 30% margin under normal circumstances then that 2% loss is much easier to absorb if the owner is really serious about staying in the ranching business or "life style".
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Post by: yorketransport on June 02, 2018, 08:01:30 PM
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. :chuckle: We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.
I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock.
I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on June 02, 2018, 08:04:38 PM
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. :chuckle: We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.
I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock.
I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.
Amen brother, SSS on all of them.👍
Post by: jasnt on June 02, 2018, 08:19:21 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2018, 09:19:29 PM
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. :chuckle: We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.
I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock.
I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.
Yes, it quite different. Apples and Volkswagens different.
I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to :stirthepot:
Post by: yorketransport on June 02, 2018, 09:53:58 PM
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. :chuckle: We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.
I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock.
I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.
Yes, it quite different. Apples and Volkswagens different.
I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to :stirthepot:
Alright, you believe that they’re completely different. Care to elaborate and defend your stance?
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2018, 10:17:24 PM
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.
Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep, then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS. He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location.
He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.
but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.
Post by: buglebrush on June 02, 2018, 11:33:36 PM
How would you have felt about the "shrinkage" if the government didn't let you deal with the thieves?
Similar to ranchers with wolves, we weren't allowed to shoot, trap, poison or snare the thieves. :chuckle: We were encouraged to take preventative actions like improved lighting, door alarms and play a more active role in being a more visible presence to deter theft. Then in the event we did catch the thief, we could contact the authorities and try to press charges. Assuming we were able to prove that the thief was actually the thief, the criminal charges rarely corrected the behavior and the individual would go right back to stealing as soon as they could.
I've never been a rancher, but these steps sound pretty similar to how the government agencies expect ranchers to deal with the wolves. You can't shoot, trap or poison them. If you complain to the government about the loss they tell you to take more preventative steps to protect the herd. When you are able to prove that there's a specific threat to the livestock the appropriate agency tries to deal with the offending animal in an approved manor but it's often unsuccessful and the animal goes right back to killing livestock.
I know that the two scenarios aren't identical, but if you take out the specifics of what's being stolen they're really not that different.
Yes, it quite different. Apples and Volkswagens different.
I've come to the conclusion that you're just here to :stirthepot:
Alright, you believe that they’re completely different. Care to elaborate and defend your stance?
The government protects the wolves, but outlaws and prosecutes thieves. Not even close to a fair comparison. Pull your head out if the sand. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on June 03, 2018, 09:44:33 AM
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...They don't make a profit from grazing.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2018, 10:05:31 AM
This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres. The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work. Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail. The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.
Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep, then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS. He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location.
He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.
but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.
Well Put, KF..
Article after article of the past, states non-lethal methods for livestock wolf predation does not work, but every state pretends it is different some how, or the wolves change when they "migrate" across state lines, and non-lethal controls are implemented. Years ago the USFWS said the only way to stop wolf predation on livestock was to kill every wolf involved including the the pups.
The wolf introduction into WA like the original illegal introduction was corrupt, why would WDFW pro-mote and then protect wolves knowing what the wolves would do to the ungulates? WDFW like everyone else knew what would happen to the game herds and livestock after seeing what was happening in ID, MT, and Wyoming. WDFW came out with a wolf plan that predicted WA would be full of wolves before delisting occurred, and even with a wolf plan as crappy as they gave us, they continue to drag their feet confirming BP's.
WDFW claimed wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, it took less then 5 years for ID, MT, and Wyoming to be eligible for delisting. Here we are 16 years later and WDFW are predicting delisting at around 2021
Anyone who tries to paint WDFW as honest needs to look at the wolf history.
WDFW are waring against the ranchers, game herds and the people of WA using a fake endangered wolf, and by limiting the take of other predators.
Stealing from ranchers by not allowing them to protect their cattle from wolves.
Stealing from hunters by not controlling predators. WDFW would rather the wolves poach your hunting.
Stealing from small communities by allowing predators to decimating the game herds, taking away monies that these communities rely on just before winter from hunting seasons.
Stealing from farmers who grow hay to sell to ranchers who's cows are being slaughtered by wolves that are protected by a corrupt WDFW-USFWS.
And then there's the fake environmental groups that gain $$$$$$ by latching on to state game agencies pretending they give a damn about anything environmental, as they pack water for more corruption.
WE can debate the wolf issue in WA till hell freezes over, but the bottom line is unless the public gets involves, wolves and other protected predators will decimate the game herds and WA will become a non-hunting state. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2018, 10:21:18 AM
Post by: yorketransport on June 03, 2018, 10:32:30 AM
This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres. The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work. Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail. The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.
Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep, then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS. He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location.
He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.
but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.
Apples to Audis (the alliteration makes it sound better than using Volkswagen) is a fair comparison in some situations. We're not comparing their ability to perform a specific task, just showing the similarity between two different businesses which revolve around two different commodities. The exact commodity isn't necessarily relevant to the big picture of what's going on.
Even in the example you gave, the similarities are there. Ranchers have a commodity they're trying to protect from theft/loss. They initially follow accepted "best practices" to reduce the inevitable loss of goods. In your scenario those steps failed so the rancher stepped up and took on the additional expense of trying more aggressive tactics to reduce the loss/theft. When that failed he went to a government agency for additional options which were given in the form of a kill permit. What isn't clear in your example is whether or not the rancher followed through with the kill permits. I'm also unclear whether the land he was initially on was owned by him or if it was property owned by a private timber company which he used under a mutually beneficial agreement.
In your example you have a private company which took basic steps to prevent loss of goods, then moved to more advanced methods to prevent loss, the looked to a government agency for a solution which (likely) was tried but failed to resolve the bigger issue of loss/theft. That sounds a awful lot like the example I gave. :dunno: Change the commodity we're talking about and the scenario is very similar.
The government protects the wolves, but outlaws and prosecutes thieves. Not even close to a fair comparison. Pull your head out if the sand. :bash:
And we all know that by outlawing and prosecuting thieves the issue has been completely resolved. :rolleyes: It would be interesting to see what the total percentage of loss is in each industry. What percentage of total revenue is lost in the ranching industry to predators relative to the percentage of revenue lost to theft in the retail industry? Additionally, what percentage of total revenue in each industry is spent on preventative measures to reduce loss?
The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.Depending on where you are that might be true! I remember asking the local PD if I could use lethal force after somebody stole something off one of my delivery vehicles (which the driver left inadequately secured). The advice I was given is that vehicular man slaughter carries a pretty short sentence. Maybe the same applies for "roadkill" wolves. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2018, 02:16:59 PM
I've heard ranching skeptics say that ranchers are on gov welfare because of thier cheep rent... If they stop renting is it really cheep enough? How does the USFS propose to make up the revenue? They certainly don't log enough...They don't make a profit from grazing.
The gov. is not a business if they were they would go bankrupt in a few short hours.
Grazing if done right benefits the land, which in turn benefits public lands.
The anti-grazers pick out a few areas where over grazing hurt the land and like the rest of the fake environmentalists they apply these areas to ALL grazing practices. Totally bias BS that they feed to the uninformed public.
Time For the truth about public land grazing
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/273445-time-for-the-truth-about-public-land-grazing
Livestock Grazing Benefits Public Lands
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2014/04/livestock-grazing-benefits-public-lands.html
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2018, 02:27:46 PM
This ain't a street corner vendor in a city trying to stop thieves from stealing a soda pop, it's spread over 1000's of acres. The wolf advocates want ranchers to do all these things to prevent wolves from killing their livestock but it doesn't work. Several ranchers and sheep herders in this area have worked very closely with CNW, DOW and other NGO's including WDFW to deter wolves all to no avail. The fladdery, super fladdery, range riders ETC ETC ETC ETC (and new stuff being added all the time because the old stuff doesn't work)
"wolf prevention" is just political capitol to sell to the ignorant public "see we're doing everything we can", and when it doesn't work....well, see the case of Dashell.
Dashell was ranging his sheep on private property he went from a model rancher with NGO's and WDFW singing praises at how everyone should emulate him, he was hanging fladdery, range riders - all of the stuff the wolf huggers wanted he was putting it up, then wolves came and ate his sheep, WDFW issued kill permits so he could defend his sheep, then all the sudden he was a welfare rancher on the dole, grazing his sheep in wolf country and was a big POS. He got threats on his phone, email and social media. Literally overnight he was demonized, he had to gather the community and move his sheep off private property to a different location.
He had a mutually beneficial deal to knock down noxious weeds off timber ground, I think it was Stimson, so now they got to spray chemical crap all over the ground.
but I'm sure that's very similar to a thief trying to lift a pack of cigs.
Apples to Audis (the alliteration makes it sound better than using Volkswagen) is a fair comparison in some situations. We're not comparing their ability to perform a specific task, just showing the similarity between two different businesses which revolve around two different commodities. The exact commodity isn't necessarily relevant to the big picture of what's going on.
Even in the example you gave, the similarities are there. Ranchers have a commodity they're trying to protect from theft/loss. They initially follow accepted "best practices" to reduce the inevitable loss of goods. In your scenario those steps failed so the rancher stepped up and took on the additional expense of trying more aggressive tactics to reduce the loss/theft. When that failed he went to a government agency for additional options which were given in the form of a kill permit. What isn't clear in your example is whether or not the rancher followed through with the kill permits. I'm also unclear whether the land he was initially on was owned by him or if it was property owned by a private timber company which he used under a mutually beneficial agreement.
In your example you have a private company which took basic steps to prevent loss of goods, then moved to more advanced methods to prevent loss, the looked to a government agency for a solution which (likely) was tried but failed to resolve the bigger issue of loss/theft. That sounds a awful lot like the example I gave. :dunno: Change the commodity we're talking about and the scenario is very similar.
The government protects the wolves, but outlaws and prosecutes thieves. Not even close to a fair comparison. Pull your head out if the sand. :bash:
And we all know that by outlawing and prosecuting thieves the issue has been completely resolved. :rolleyes: It would be interesting to see what the total percentage of loss is in each industry. What percentage of total revenue is lost in the ranching industry to predators relative to the percentage of revenue lost to theft in the retail industry? Additionally, what percentage of total revenue in each industry is spent on preventative measures to reduce loss?The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.Depending on where you are that might be true! I remember asking the local PD if I could use lethal force after somebody stole something off one of my delivery vehicles (which the driver left inadequately secured). The advice I was given is that vehicular man slaughter carries a pretty short sentence. Maybe the same applies for "roadkill" wolves. :chuckle:
WDFW went forward with the kill permit, I don't recall for sure if Dashell used it or tried too, WDFW eventually hired contract hunters but they killed the breeding female by accident, the backlash from the public was such that the whole thing was scrapped.
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2018, 03:00:58 PM
As a business owner do you just roll belly up and sell out when things aren't going your way? or do you do everything you can within the confines of the law to reduce losses?
That is what's going on here, ranchers are trying to mitigate losses by educating the public and pressure WDFW to act, that is the same as I would expect any business owner to do, it could be educating the public about the new Seattle head tax and how it'll hurt their business and how they might leave Seattle or whatever the case might be.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 03, 2018, 04:44:51 PM
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK...............
Post by: bigtex on June 03, 2018, 10:51:39 PM
The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.I hope your joking because it's certainly not true.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2018, 05:38:07 PM
The biggest difference I see is that you would face more repercussion if wolves are shot than robbers.I hope your joking because it's certainly not true.
It was an off the cuff comment, but it sure seems some ranchers have had more problems over wolves being killed to protect livestock than people have had when shooting a robber in their house? Just think about what we see in the main stream media to put that in perspective!
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2018, 07:26:53 AM
Togo pack kills Ferry County calf; third kill by wolves in 7 months
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/may/24/togo-pack-wolf-kills-ferry-county-calf/
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2018, 07:36:49 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on June 14, 2018, 05:20:48 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 14, 2018, 06:56:25 PM
Post by: gaddy on June 14, 2018, 07:07:28 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2018, 07:37:53 AM
Don't forget : If someone is going to rob and kill you, you must employ 2 deterrents to stop said robber and killer.
I heard there are silent "special recipes" that work very well as a deterrent, robbers just disappear. :yike:
Post by: buglebrush on June 19, 2018, 06:33:17 PM
FYI: You can buy Xylitol at any health food store. Little store in Diamond Lake has it. Deadly for canines, but harmless for other animals and widely used as a zero calorie sugar replacement by humans.Don't forget : If someone is going to rob and kill you, you must employ 2 deterrents to stop said robber and killer.
I heard there are silent "special recipes" that work very well as a deterrent, robbers just disappear. :yike:
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2018, 07:16:56 PM
FYI: You can buy Xylitol at any health food store. Little store in Diamond Lake has it. Deadly for canines, but harmless for other animals and widely used as a zero calorie sugar replacement by humans.Don't forget : If someone is going to rob and kill you, you must employ 2 deterrents to stop said robber and killer.
I heard there are silent "special recipes" that work very well as a deterrent, robbers just disappear. :yike:
Idaho had/has a special, sweetened meatballs, just right for gulping...