Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Anders-
Getting back to rationality again, and making an attempt to answer your questions!
In Wyoming, in order to receive compensation for losses due to predation, the rancher must produce a carcass; this is not always possible since the big critters often drag them away and hide them for "future consumption."
Then the carcass is sent to the State Game & Fish Laboratory on the University of Wyoming campus for "study." By the time they finally "get around tuit," it can be 3-6 months before there is even a determination of how the subject animal died. Then, there is a problem of bureaucratic denial, that's to say, they really don't care to admit there's a problem! For a newborn calf, the compensation is about $50.00. The reason I haven't received compensation for my losses is I have better things to do with my time than beat my head against the wall just for a lousy $100.00 for the loss of 2 calves. With cattle prices as high as they are right now, those 2 steers would have brought me about $2,200.00.
Indirectly I've answered another of your questions: the numbers reported OFFICIALLY are for cases fully investigated by the Fish and Chips...er...Game and Fish Laboratories and associated Wildlife Biologists.
These are the fully compensated and hence "investigated" cases. Last year the 2 wolves (since "removed" by G & F) cost the ranchers that I know about just in a 5 day span...$2,200 for 2 calves (me!), and Diemer lost $12,000 for his one horse actually killed as well as $14,000 in vet amd animal hospital fees for those stampeded into a barbed wire fence. I don't know the upshot of whether or not he was able to sell his injured horses. He is in the "horse business," and depending on the age and pedigrees involved, has received as much as $25,000 per horse. At the very least, those 2 wolves inflicted damages of ~$30,000 in a matter of a few days. That figure assumes there was no need to euthanize any of the neighbor's horses, and that he sustained no loss other than veterinary expenses.
|
|
Chewybacca
Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
|
|
I logged back onto this forum tonight to respond to the other Cali/wolf thread. But after perusing this active thread one post hit me like a brick. Brokedowns post helps bring this topic into focus. I have supported a natural return of wolves for all the years I've lived in Montana. But I nor anyone I know want to see a hard working honorable person negatively affected by the return of wolves. I have many friends who own or work on ranches. To be frank, I am offended by those throwing blanket criticisms of all ranchers. I challenge you to spend just one day in their shoes.
That said, and here is my personal hypocrisy jumps out, I support the fanged fleabags. Wolves are not just an important part of a functioning ecosystem, they are part of our heritage. Wolves belong here. I know I'll never convince the honorable Rox and his confederates that these are the same species that lived here before, so I will not waste my time trying. I've already posted data on the other thread that proves there are no monster wolves here. If people wish to accuse Montana F&G and Idaho F&G (I have no data for Wyoming) of lying, well that is their right. If their prime evidence is a photoshopped or well angled photograph so be it.
Even Rox's link to mister Unsworth's interview counters Rox's claim. Mr Unsworth states quite clearly that he does not believe there is any truth to the assertion that there was a different sub-species introduced. He also dispells the myth that wolves are going commit elk genocide. In fact, elk populations in Montana have been increasing.
In regards to the livestock issue. No, ranchers are not compensated enough. Even when they are paid fair market value (which does not always happen) for a lost animal, they are not compensated for the potential value of that animal. I wish I could resolve this issue, but my humble brain doesn't know how. It is far a more complex than the uninitiated might presume.
I could fill pages with my thoughts on this subject but the clock is telling me it is sleepy time. So I would like to close with a couple of thoughts.
First of all to Brokedown,I know this won't bring back your animals but I am truly sorry for your loss. I know this won't help materially but sadly this is all I can offer. I've had to look my dear friends in the eye after loss due to wolves and I weep for them and you. You seem to be a good steward of the land and I thank you for that.
Rox- Wow brother. You are one of the most interesting personalities I've come across on the internetz. Next time I get to Boise I hope you allow me to buy you a drink or six. Some of your words are offensive, others reflect original and unique thought. Beneath all your words I sense a good man who would go far out of his way to help a brother or sister in need.
Have a great night all.
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
They don't call those guys "welfare ranchers" for nothing.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, Rodger - that's quite helpful. It seemed likely that the compensation program had the same problems as with other "insurance" programs - proving loss, cause and value, bureaucracy, etc. With domestic animals often spread out, and all the different ways they can get into trouble, all the more complex. Perhaps with a little time it will sort itself out, although there may always be people with unreasonable expectations.
It sounds like the state fish & wildlife departments are stuck between a rock and hard place. That is, between science, professionalism and the Endangered Species Act on one hand, and on the other hand, their history as captive regulators, beholden to domestic hunting and ranching interests. State governments, whatever their rhetoric, must know that if they aren't careful, the wolf will go back on the endangered list - they'll lose their bargaining power. It will be interesting to see if they can manage carefully enough, or somehow pull the wool over federal eyes in terms of what they're up to.
It would help to see some reliable per year statistics, by state, as to number of wolves, number of domestic animals allegedly and actually hurt or killed by wolves, and populations of prey animals. For the daring, economic benefit/loss estimates.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Good reply Anders!
The basis of the problem is "proof of loss." Trouble is, in these trying economic times, many of the smaller ranchers such as myself, just can't sustain these losses indefinitely, or conversely wait for the "State" to cough up the compensation money.
Ranching is a very capital intensive business, contrary to many opinions here. Even with grazing leases, there are definite time and animal number restrictions in place. I don't have...or want to have, any leases. It's against my Libertarian principles to take any government handouts regardless of how they are disguised. So, figure on land ownership as a significant capital investment.
I raise "natural grass fed beef." That means I also raise and put up 77 acres of grass and clover hay. That also means I need (1) a very capable tractor; (2) a swather-windrower for cutting hay, and (3) a decent baler for baling up to 100 tons of hay annually. If I were to have to buy everything new again, it would cost me around $150,000.00.
In one regard, what Rox said about a "taking" is conceptually correct; the State (Federal Government) has engaged in an action resulting in my sustaining losses not of my own making. The "compensation plans" are viewed as a joke by most ranchers, and are seldom brought into play.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Wolves belong here. I know I'll never convince the honorable Rox and his confederates that these are the same species that lived here before, so I will not waste my time trying. I've already posted data on the other thread that proves there are no monster wolves here. If people wish to accuse Montana F&G and Idaho F&G (I have no data for Wyoming) of lying, well that is their right. If their prime evidence is a photoshopped or well angled photograph so be it.
I respect and praise the overall tone of your post, Chewybacca. However, I'm compelled to quibble with your statements bracketed above as they attempt to uphold the long running any-wolf supporter’s ballad that the subspecies argument is invalid.
I don’t recall anyone on S.T. mentioning “monster wolves” …except in jest or hyperbole. Weight and length measurements by Idaho and Montana Fish and Game departments ARE testament of significant size difference between the recently transplanted Canis Lupus Occidentalis in our area and the Canis Lupus Nubilus subspecies present in Wisconsin and formerly native to our northern Rocky Mountain tri-state area.
According to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, the deadweights of adult males averaged 101 and adult females averaged 86 pounds.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin nubilus live specimens of adult males, in that states wolf population, weigh an average of 75 pounds, average for adult females is 60 pounds.
(And how much less does a “bled out” wolf cadaver weigh than a live animal?)
Yes, they are both “Gray Wolves” (Canis Lupus). …And so are domestic dogs, from Teacup Poodles to Mastiffs. But there appears to be a definite size difference between the two wolf subspecies in question.
Animal taxonomists , long before the wolf re-introduction controversy, expended considerable effort classifying various wolf subspecies…and size is but one aspect of those differences. But in the 1990’s, with promissory endowments from the federal government, contract biologists conveniently sidestepped and annulled the subspecies contention and ultimately transplanted a non-indigenous subspecies of wolf.
Offering the opinion that the difference is insignificant is certainly your prerogative. But you must understand that ignoring or trifling over the established subspecies delineations is going to invite argument from those who believe subspecies contrasts and distinctions proffer some selectivity in the ecosystem niches we assign predators.
I don’t believe Rokjox or other critics, here, have accused Fish and Game of lying, as you seem to suggest. (Idaho F & G indeed wants the wolf population reduced)
With regard to “photoshopped or well angled” photos of Wolf Cadavers, I have posted three photos in past months…none have been shown to be photoshopped files . I have photos of over a dozen more very large wolves slain in Idaho and Montana. I can send them to you or other individuals on request…overposting such photos on the forum however, might suggest a celebration of gore.
Your sensitivity to Brokedownclimber, Quietparter and other rancher’s issues is appreciated.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Decline in elk populations using Idaho Fish and Game’s elk counts in Zone 10 and 12 …zones with significant wolf populations. Calf number declines are especially alarming.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Well this thread is certainly full of ironies. We have vegetarians and vegans who object to slaughter of any animals for food advocating for wolves, the most vicious killing machines around and it seems some people have now moved past the 19th century, and are extolling the pre Columban horseless life of the Native Americans. I'll bet the Native women who used to have to drag those heavy travois behind them while their men walked out in front would really appreciate that.
But why stop there? Why not retrogress to the age of the dinasaurs when there weren't any humans to disturb the other species? The fact is, the earth has always been a dynamic place, 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, and so will wolves and humans both eventually. The question therefore is how to live in the best possible manner now, given what we have been handed down to us from history.
And I'll say again that I do not think reintroducing wolves was a good solution to control any perceived problems with ungulates. I never said I was against all feds or all environmentalists. In fact one of the many things that grieves me about the way the wolves were reintroduced is that it has given environmentalists and environmentalism a bad name all over the Rocky Mountain West. Right now calling someone an environmentalist is right up there with using traditional swear words on them.
Whatever problems were solved with the reintroduction of the wolves and I can't think of a single one, has been more than offset by cost, inconvenience, and bad will toward the federal government and the environmental movement. And in the end, after the holocaust on ungulates, there will be another one on the wolves. And this is progress?
|
|
monolith
climber
berzerkly
|
|
No Jan, as a vegan I know that wolves are essential to a healthy ecosystem and have no choice but to be a predator. Humans on the other hand, have a choice and don't need to contribute to the disastrous eco and health results of cattle ranching.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Oh bullshit Jan. Wolves were reintroduced to add balance back into the natural enviroment. Most ranchers are not part of the 99% of America's have nots. The US government spends over $120 million a year to poison, trap and kill over 4 million wild animals for ranchers. Adding wolves doesnt seem so extravagant.
Here is an appeal by Toby Cooper to change this.
http://www.mountainlion.org/publications/ATL%20Grim%20Anniversary.asp
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Studley-
I'm well aware of the money the government spends on eliminating predators and how carelessly they do this. As a child I helped collect data on the misuse of the poison 1080 and all the animals it killed in addition to the coyotes which were its prime target. In some cases, it was getting into watersheds as well. That's exactly why I can't see the purpose of reintroducing wolves and then adding them to the list to be killed. They're smart and it will take poison and traps to control them which is far less humane than hunting which works for the overpopulation of ungulates.
All those nasty methods of control you listed above, by the way, are for coyotes not, wolves. Likewise, guard dogs can defend herds against coyotes but can not stand up to a pack of wolves as the body count in both guard dogs and household pets attests.
Monolith-
I agree that humans have a choice in what to eat and wolves don't. One can also argue that wolves killing large numbers of other animals for fun is instinctual as well. Knowing this about them, then why reintroduce them?
Beyond that, it seems to me the bigger question is what is the over all goal here? To what period of time do you wish to restore the ecosystem? As it was 150 years ago, pre Columbian etc ? And isn't it naive and hypocritical to think that you can do this with animals in a modern industrial country? Even if all the ranchers were cleared out of the mountain states, eventually there would be a problem with tourists or even suburbanites being over run with predators as they already have been in some places like Aspen.
And how come everyone is so eager to restore the ecosytem of animals to some previous version of history but no one seems to be talking about reintroducing Native Americans to their original habitat? Wolves are worth more than indigenous people? Or maybe it's easy to ask ranchers to sacrifice but we don't want to go as far as to inconvenience the urbanites? It seems to me there are a whole lot more issues involved here than just being pro or anti wolf.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Others have questioned whether or not I support the "restoration" of wolves to the ecosystem, and my answer is a resounding NO!
The reasons are very rational; it's really impossible to "turn back the clock" to the 1800's and allow uncontrolled spread of vicious predators. There are the rabid "environmental purists" who happen to think otherwise, however. Fact: cows and sheep are HERE TO STAY. People are HERE TO STAY. There is a built-in imcompatibility between these species, since one is a predator, and the others are prey.
I also have a very deep emotional attachment to my animals. It's impossible not to have caring feelings about creatures I have known and cared for since birth. Some of my old cows have been here on the ranch for 12-14 years since they were born.
So those of you who are vegan fans...just shut up and go eat your vegetables.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Dingus-
You're right. I do happen to think that humans are more important predators than wolves. Part of this is our greater intelligence which gives us choice. Just as we have a choice of diets, we have a choice of humane killing if that's what is necessary, whereas the wolves do not.
Already many places in Colorado have problems with coyotes and bears in urban areas, wolves they don't need on top of that.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Of all the methods of predator control Jan mentioned--using 1080 was the most reprehensible. As a retired chemist, I can only shake my head in wonder that this crap was EVER allowed! Chemically it's monofluoroacetic acid, as a salt or as an ester. It's also one of the most toxic substances known to man, and professionals such as myself have gone to great extremes to avoid contact with that schitt. It kills whatever happens to come along and eat it...then kill whatever comes along and eats the poisoned animal. This becomes an ever diminishing component of the "food chain" until it at last, becomes diluted to a level that is near undetectable.
The wolves near my ranch were hunted from the air, and only one of them was "officially" killed. The other one simply "disappeared." Probably by the 3-S pathway? For the city dwellers: that's "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up."
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
DMT-
Until recently the rancher did NOT have the "right to defend his property." The rancher was subject to a $10,000 fine for killing an endangered species. And no, I don't need a bunch of drunk and crazed "wolf killers." I'm quite an "adept" with firearms. Anymore, I see wolf--kill wolf. Then simply call the State Game and Fish to "come collect your garbage."
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Bears and coyotes are native to Colorado... most humans are not.
But this is exactly my point. If you want to remove conflict between predators and humans, either the predators will have to go or the humans. If you use the argument that animals preceded humans, then we should all just swallow a dose of 1080 I guess and give the earth back to the animals? I'm sure that some of the extremists would think that's a good idea, forgetting they are human too.
Or we could strive for some kind of balance whereby there wouldn't be so many predators that they come out of the mountains and break into people's homes as happens more and more frequently in Colorado thanks to the stringent anti hunting element there. And that's in a state where wolves were not reintroduced. The problem is coyotes, bears, and mountain lions stalking people in their own yards. Eventually somebody's child or grandmother will be killed and then a lot of animals will die, more than if the population had been controlled all along. And the same thing will happen with wolves.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
I'm well prepared for a bear trying to break into my home: I too, have some plaid jammies and some "Italian heat."
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Studly posted: "Most ranchers are not part of the 99% of America's have nots, sorry"
I don't think that is anywhere near accurate Steve. In Oregon and Washington that is truer than in the Rocky Mountain states. Ranchers in the mountains and higher elevations work their asses off during a very short growing season. It's hard brutal marginal work that a lot of them do because they love being out there. Most of them are much more in tune with nature than city people. Sure, there is a profit motive as well, and in return, US citizens and others get a benefit from their products. The ranchers are having this foisted on them, and as many of them receive no subsidies, they should not have to bear the financial brunt of it.
How many of you advocating wolf reintroduction on this board have contributed to the fund? Time? Money?
See. Everyone wants someone else to get stuck with the bill to pay for it. Again, although I support the reintroduction as noted above as it's a good thing overall, ranchers shouldn't be stuck with the bill.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
Humans are the most vicious killing machines in the hood, period.
The humane argument doesn't work either. Ask a cow whether a jackhammer between the eyes is humane.
What about raptors and orcas and tigers and lions and bears sharks etc.
Should we do away with them because their killing methods aren't as nice as ours?
Yes, we must kill all the wolves because they are killers and killing is bad. We will teach them a lesson by killing them.
We should be the only killers allowed in the game.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
If nature scares them so then perhaps THEY should relocate, to NYC or Tokoyo, where the natural world have been completely obliterated. Bears and coyotes are native to Colorado... most humans are not.
they can always move to California, "home" of the extinct "Golden Bear" and people who advocate not what we (californians) have done, but what you (idahoans, montanans, wyo. ) should do with their wildlife.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!